We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Merger madness rarely pays off, so why do firms still make these deals?
Comments
-
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.
I said that the government should represent the national interest, and if it does so I'm happy with that. It's up to the government, not to me, to do the analysis of whether national interest is best served by intervening. The track record of companies buying those in other countries is not so pristine that we can discount concerns about asset-stripping, job cutting etc as a matter of course.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
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.
Then you should not have been so naive. We have a mixed economy with a significant degree of government intervention, like it or not.
As far as I am concerned if the interests of medical research, jobs, and maintaining a major presence in a vital industry are best served by government intervention then that is far more important than the prevention of some market players from realising a nice little earner.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Then you should not have been so naive. We have a mixed economy with a significant degree of government intervention, like it or not.
As far as I am concerned if the interests of medical research, jobs, and maintaining a major presence in a vital industry are best served by government intervention then that is far more important than the prevention of some market players from realising a nice little earner.
that would be so, even if the price to be paid is that UK investors will be extremely reluctant ever to fund a new UK parma companies.
although you may despise the stock market, it brings new money to both start up companies and those wishing to expand. The quid pro quo is that the owners are allowed to sell (and maybe ) make a profit from their investment.
better that 30 new parma companies arise from the ashes than we make a short sighted gain for electoral purposes that undermines the future of UK.0 -
that would be so, even if the price to be paid is that UK investors will be extremely reluctant ever to fund a new UK parma companies.
although you may despise the stock market, it brings new money to both start up companies and those wishing to expand. The quid pro quo is that the owners are allowed to sell (and maybe ) make a profit from their investment.
better that 30 new parma companies arise from the ashes than we make a short sighted gain for electoral purposes that undermines the future of UK.
Very sweeping assumptions there. Firstly I don't despise the stock market at all. I just believe that there are sometimes considerations more important than people making gains from share price appreciation and takeovers.
Secondly I don't accept that it would call a halt on investors in pharma companies. A lot of investors play the long game and look for long term value, and are not preoccupied with the lure of the opportunist windfall of an over-priced takeover bid.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »As far as I am concerned if the interests of medical research, jobs, and maintaining a major presence in a vital industry are best served by government intervention then that is far more important than the prevention of some market players from realising a nice little earner.
Maybe you've been swayed by the showboating politicians who were so concerned about this situation that they've spent the past years making it easier rather than harder for takeovers to take place.
They're a bunch of hypocrites and why you think they are best placed to arbitrate on the national importance of a drugs company is beyond me.0 -
Maybe you've been swayed by the showboating politicians who were so concerned about this situation that they've spent the past years making it easier rather than harder for takeovers to take place.
They're a bunch of hypocrites and why you think they are best placed to arbitrate on the national importance of a drugs company is beyond me.
There is a lot of showboating and hypocrisy among politicians for sure. But they are what we have, and there is no other group that I would trust any more to make those kinds of judgments on our behalf. Least of all the people who stand to make a killing on the stock market depending on which way it goes. And a laissez-faire approach would be effectively leaving it in the control of those self-interested short-termists, so is not acceptable either.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Very sweeping assumptions there. Firstly I don't despise the stock market at all. I just believe that there are sometimes considerations more important than people making gains from share price appreciation and takeovers.
Secondly I don't accept that it would call a halt on investors in pharma companies. A lot of investors play the long game and look for long term value, and are not preoccupied with the lure of the opportunist windfall of an over-priced takeover bid.
there is no information that the take over has any specific 'national interest' element.
the great strength of doing business in the UK is that the rule of law prevails rather than rule by politicians.
you may well believe that politicians are best placed to micro manage UK business but their track record is poor.
if the Uk government wants to direct a specific UK industry then they should buy a sufficient number of shares to influence them directly.0 -
there is no information that the take over has any specific 'national interest' element.
the great strength of doing business in the UK is that the rule of law prevails rather than rule by politicians.
you may well believe that politicians are best placed to micro manage UK business but their track record is poor.
if the Uk government wants to direct a specific UK industry then they should buy a sufficient number of shares to influence them directly.
If there is no national interest element then presumably HMG will conclude that. I don't have a problem with them carrying out the investigation.
In a parliamentary democracy politicians ultimately are the rule of law. Where they abrogate that responsibility to unaccountable individuals -- ie over human rights issues -- we see the disastrous consequences.
I don't see judging issues of national interest as micro-management. That's just hype by those who don't want to lose out over it.
To say that the government has to buy shares in companies before they can have any influence over them is like saying that it has to buy out a share of our homes before it can make us conform to planning rules and decisions.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
well, if the merger would have been good for people then I suppose you are right
Thats not a bad point, Im not sure on the worth exactly. But if pfizer were paying 1 tn and the majority of shareholders were UK then yes it should be sold.
At some point they would be paying too much and the company's operations could reform to some extent in the UK again anyway if it were moved.
Some of what occurs in a take over, will occur anyway. Its often they hope to profit from transition and their skill in moving the company forward.
IF they are correct in their actions then the market will at some point force these actions anyway. A uk company cant just ignore what must happen
price and worth are not the same. The price falls every time they pay a dividend but there is no loss.now they are only worth £40 I would be pretty annoyed
They didnt really lose from no takeover unless, pfizer were overpaying and we should let them buy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards