Anheuser-Busch Merger

In looking at the suit filed by Anheuser, we can closer examine how Anheuser- Busch was damaged through the actions taken by Mr. Thayer. Anytime that an insider trading scandal takes place, there is always damages and repercussions. The most identifiable damage is that of money and capital. Anheuser-Busch paid nearly $40 million more for the acquisition of Campbell Taggart due to the active trading of Mr. Thayer, and the rest of the insiders. It is easily identifiable, that one damage to Anheuser-Busch was a $40 million dollar excess payment to acquire Campbell Taggart. By exploring and understanding capital markets, we find other monetary damages to Anheuser-Busch. These damages come from the cost of ongoing lawsuits with the SEC as well as with the defendants, Paul Thayer, and the other insiders. Another monetary damage from the effects of the insider trading is the allocation of management resources during the legal battles and

“The beer industry in the United States generates $75 Billion in annual sales.” (Abelli, 4)

     In this paper I will be talking about the U.S. beer industry and in short an overview of the brewing industry worldwide. I will talk about the barriers to entry, economies of scale, government intervention, pricing, current market trends, product differentiation, and imports. The focus being mainly on the U.S. brewing industry oligopoly. The U.S. brewing industry has three major players: Anheuser-Busch, SAB Miller, and Coors/Molson. Anheuser-Busch is currently the largest brewer in the world, producing over 100 million barrels a year. Anheuser-Busch currently owns over 50% of the market in the United States, with Miller trailing behind at 20% and Coors at about 11% with the rest of the market occupied by imports and craft breweries. When analyzing any industry, how easy it is for newcomers to enter the market is a great importance. If there are high barriers to entry

Such cross border deals have provided significant benefits to the brewing giants. This has given them ownership of local brands propelling them into dominant market positions around the world as global brands sell at significantly higher prices and the margins are much better as compared to the local beers.

A documentary film made in 2009, Beer wars features and describes the American beer industry distinguishing between the large and small breweries. The large breweries feature some main corporate companies like Coors Brewing Company, Anheuser-Busch, and Miller Brewing Company whereas the small breweries include craft beer producers like Moonshot 69, Stone Brewing Company, Dogfish Head Brewery, Yuengling, and others. The documentary shows how the beer market is controlled through advertising and lobbying, which is harmful for the competition in the market. There is a reason why the small companies are falling behind and the large corporates are controlling the market, which in turn makes it essentially oligopoly economy.

Back in 2008, “InBev and Anheuser-Busch merged, creating a 25% global market share in the beer industry” (AB InBev); because of all of this both companies have greatly benefitted from this merger. As of right now it looks as if AB InBev is “looking to merge with SABMiller” (AB-inbev.com) and if this deal were to go through, then AB InBev is looking at a growth of both marketing and manufacturing in these developing

So-called Major domestics producers, especially Anheuser Bush, MMBC’s main competitor, are focused on economies of scale in production and advertisement and spend heavily to maintain their own sales level. They dominate the market with 42% of market share in the East Central Region (Case study - Exhibit 3)

Beer has a long history. In 2000 B.C.E., Sumerians had prepared eight different beer types, ranging from “strong,” “red brown,” and “good dark” (Mauk, 2013). Breweries have created their own recipes, brewed their own beers—some with alcohol, some without. Over the past few years, craft beer gained steady market share away from the national and international breweries (Murray & O 'Neill, 2012). Separating one beer from the next is the product itself, and what the product has to offer. Competition is ferocious due to more informed, sophisticated consumers, as well as globalization and the spread of technology (Murray & O 'Neill, 2012).

The situation can even explode for Export Brands International, as large beers conglomerates with tremendous power, are targeting the same segment and are creating similar beers. We have the real example of Anheuser-Busch new Bud Light Lime which was selling extremely well in the United States attacking Corona position and following the traces of the

In the summer of 2008, InBev NV, a Belgian-based brewing company formed from the merger of InterBrew and AmBev, offered a bid of $46.6 billion to acquire Anheuser-Busch Co to create the world’s largest brewing company at $65 a share. The initial offer was subsequently declined in part because the company felt the offer undervalued the company greatly. InBev later increased their offer to $70 a share and in Mid-July, Anheuser-Busch accepted the offer making the total cost of the deal $54.8 billion dollars. The issue then becomes whether the offer of $70 is justifiable to InBev’s shareholders. The merger brings about two different management styles. The culture at InBev focused on extreme cost-cutting measures and profitable incentive-based compensation programs. However, Anheuser-Busch’s culture differed in that they prided itself on philanthropy, diversity, and community involvement. In addition, this company possessed many luxurious offices and corporate fleet of aircrafts. Furthermore, they invested heavily in advertising, derived most of their profits in the United States, and possessed a lackluster international expansion plan. Issues the financial managers face will be differing business philosophies in regards to marketing (“Grow/Defend/Maintain/Cash” matrix approach vs the large marketing budget of Anheuser-Busch), culture (cost cutting measures vs company perks), and the future of the twelve

As the world’s largest brewer, AB Inbev has the ability to compete in new and foreign markets as a strong threat. Due to their enormous capital and expansion-based strategy, they can enter any market as a challenger and shutdown competition to become the leading brewer in this market. As an aggregated note we can also see this in domestic or already dominated markets because due to economics of scale they can achieve differentiated products at a low cost.

However, a fairly recent development has worked to change the culture at the company. In 2008 Anheuser Bush was purchased by a Belgium company, InBev. InBev is one of the largest alcoholic manufactures and distributors in the world and operates in over one hundred thirty different countries. Furthermore, the purchase significantly increased the size and scope of the parent company's operations. The company is so large that in order to complete the deal, the regulators in the United States required that InBev quit importing certain brands of beers under different labels to the U.S. market so that InBev would meet anti-trust regulations.

The right international strategy for Grolsch going forward is a transnational strategy, though there are strong elements pushing this toward a global strategy. In reviewing strategy within the beer industry, either generally or through frameworks (see exhibits), it appears the optimal path currently involves both multi-domestic elements and global

Beer Company 2 is a brewer of “seasonal and year-round beers with smaller production volume and higher prices” that “outsources most of its brewing activity” (pg. 120). It is financially conservative, and has undergone a “major cost-savings initiative to counterbalance the recent surge in packaging and freight costs” (pg. 120).

Source: Loizos Heracleous (2001)When Local Beat Global: The Chinese Beer Industry. Business Strategy Review, 2001, Volume 12 Issue 3, pp 37-45. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8616.00182/pdf.