Merger madness rarely pays off, so why do firms still make these deals?

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

or more pertinently the loss to your stock balance?

well, if the merger would have been good for people then I suppose you are right

IronWolf

I'm quite glad it likely wont happen. I don't think less pharma companies is in any way a good thing.

I do think AZN shareholders have been shafted by the board who don't want to lose their jobs though.

GeorgeHowell

IronWolf wrote: »

I'm quite glad it likely wont happen. I don't think less pharma companies is in any way a good thing.

I do think AZN shareholders have been shafted by the board who don't want to lose their jobs though.

Some of the respected fund management companies have said that there is better value in AZN remaining independent. It's not clear cut that shareholders are getting shafted. The short-term killing merchants may feel that way, but their interests should never override that of the national interest, jobs, and the long term benefit of shareholders.

wotsthat

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Some of the respected fund management companies have said that there is better value in AZN remaining independent. It's not clear cut that shareholders are getting shafted. The short-term killing merchants may feel that way, but their interests should never override that of the national interest, jobs, and the long term benefit of shareholders.

There's currently a c£13 gap between current share price and offer.

Difficult to see that return being realised in dividends and price growth anytime soon without a sale.

Don't know why you think you've got a say in who I buy and sell my shareholding too - sounds a bit lefty.

IronWolf

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Some of the respected fund management companies have said that there is better value in AZN remaining independent. It's not clear cut that shareholders are getting shafted. The short-term killing merchants may feel that way, but their interests should never override that of the national interest, jobs, and the long term benefit of shareholders.

But the market as a whole doesn't agree with them, and I have to wonder as Pfizer also wanted AZN for the tax benefits so surely they would offer more than fair value.

It was only a few years ago the AZN was hated by the market, everyone said its pipeline was rubbish and it had a dividend yield of about 8%. Funny how things change so quick

GeorgeHowell

wotsthat wrote: »

There's currently a c£13 gap between current share price and offer.

Difficult to see that return being realised in dividends and price growth anytime soon without a sale.

Don't know why you think you've got a say in who I buy and sell my shareholding too - sounds a bit lefty.

£13 in the febrile atmosphere of a takeover saga means little regarding long term value.

I don't want a say, but the government should represent the national interest.

If not believing in unhampered, law of the jungle, dog eat dog, every man for himself, survival of the fittest, eat what you kill, never give a sucker an even break market capitalism, regardless of wider consequences makes me a bit of a lefty, then I suppose I'd have to put my hand up to it -- though I've never thought of it like that before.

GeorgeHowell

IronWolf wrote: »

But the market as a whole doesn't agree with them,

That's because the market does contain so many quick killing merchants.

CLAPTON

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

£13 in the febrile atmosphere of a takeover saga means little regarding long term value.

I don't want a say, but the government should represent the national interest.

If not believing in unhampered, law of the jungle, dog eat dog, every man for himself, survival of the fittest, eat what you kill, never give a sucker an even break market capitalism, regardless of wider consequences makes me a bit of a lefty, then I suppose I'd have to put my hand up to it -- though I've never thought of it like that before.

why ever do you think the government is representing the national interest?
what analysis have they produced that says we will as a nation be better or worse off.

certainly, electorally, there is a backlash against the evil US company (with an English CEO) and in favour of an UK company with a foreigner as a CEO.

At other times of course such companies are seen as money grabbing devious corrupt parasites but that was last week.

wotsthat

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

£13 in the febrile atmosphere of a takeover saga means little regarding long term value..

As a long term owner of AstraZeneca it came as a bit of a shock to me that the board believe £55 is undervalued when they've spent 5 years struggling to convince the market that they're worth £30.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If not believing in unhampered, law of the jungle, dog eat dog, every man for himself, survival of the fittest, eat what you kill, never give a sucker an even break market capitalism, regardless of wider consequences makes me a bit of a lefty, then I suppose I'd have to put my hand up to it -- though I've never thought of it like that before.

Which is of course a slightly frenzied definition of a lefty.

No-one told me when I bought in that I had to consider the national interest. It's something those without any skin in the game dream up to give themselves influence without stumping up any cash.

ruggedtoast

There was a piece in the Guardian, that I cant be bothered to look for now, which came out a few weeks ago. It pointed out that its a pretty broad stretch of the imagination that considers AZ to be a national champion when half of it is Swedish and fewer than 1/6 of its workforce is in the UK, and it is basically a pale shadow of the pharmaceuticals business we had before.

Danone are a designated French national champion and their champion shares are nationally trading at half a euro.

If I owned shares that I could have got £55 for and now they are only worth £40 I would be pretty annoyed. As sad as it is to lose yet another British company to an American one, I cant see the point of floating companies on the stock exchange and then not letting those shares be traded.

It might well be that we need some kind of sovereign wealth fund so that all these take overs arent all one way for once, but all this jingoism over a company I am betting that 95% of people had never heard of before is silly.

Vodafone are going to be take over by AT & T before too long and that will be the end of British owned cellular communications. All these giant skills gaps are appearing and something needs to be done to reverse the trend somewhere but I'm not sure that fiddling about in the markets is the way to do it.

Either the state should have an interest in these companies which is clearly stated at the outset or it shouldnt.