Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#21

Post by mason240 »

maxerickson wrote: post #18
mholmes680 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to create seeds that can only be controlled by your own pesticides and/or medications could be interesting. and scary. Politics aside, can that be an antitrust issue? [edit: also, is this another "quiet" inversion also? US loses another business for tax purposes?]

I would think that you would look at in in terms of the (for example) corn market rather than in terms of the Agglomerated Monster corn market. So the Agglomerated Monster corn would just be a product in the corn market, not a monopoly in the Agglomerated Monster corn market.

I googled "Agglomerated Monster corn" and came up with nothing. Is it a scare term for GMO?

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#22

Post by maxerickson »

mason240 wrote: post #21
maxerickson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that you would look at in in terms of the (for example) corn market rather than in terms of the Agglomerated Monster corn market. So the Agglomerated Monster corn would just be a product in the corn market, not a monopoly in the Agglomerated Monster corn market.

I googled "Agglomerated Monster corn" and came up with nothing. Is it a scare term for GMO?

It's just a made up name with a bit of a sardonic tone to it.

But imagine how fun it would be if they spun out the new entity and named it "Agglomerated Monster Agricultural Products".

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#23

Post by JoeAltmaier »

pearjuice wrote: post #20

>Bayer has been involved in controversies regarding some of its drug products; its statin drug Baycol (cerivastatin) was discontinued in 2001 after 52 people died from renal failure, and Trasylol (aprotinin), used to control bleeding during major surgery, was withdrawn from the markets worldwide when reports of increased mortality emerged; it was later re-introduced in Europe but not in the US.[0] Can't wait to see w…

Of course there are controversies. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We have half the folks crying "Hurry up approval of life-saving drugs! Stop stalling! Too much paperwork!" and the other half "Condemn the heartless drug company that rushed in a drug that killed (some) people! No blood for profit!"

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#24

Post by akvadrako »

jMyles wrote: post #15

The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price. IMO, the IP legal s…

Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields?

The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.

The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#25

Post by wcchandler »

one of my concerns regarding this is the likely increase in patenting of genetic plant material, but specifically for the plants that are used in medicine. This will especially be problematic when it comes to medicinal cannabis. Monsanto will engineer a "perfect strain" then make considerable profits off it. That's concerning because it's about to shift the drug war and I'm not sure where it will go.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#26

Post by a_bonobo »

maxerickson wrote: post #17
chollida1 wrote: post #12

Keep in mind that in today's global environment whenever a merger is proposed it has to go through alot of government scrutiny. Not just in the US, but also with the EU and China. See the Haliburton/Baker Hughes merger that was blown up by the US government. From a merger arbitrage perspective this has been a very interesting deal. This is the 4th proposal Bayer has made for Monsanto and with an all cash offer this m…

The article says The tie-up, which will give the new company control of more than 25% of the world's supply of seeds and pesticides, comes amid a wave of mergers in the agriculture sector. I'm skeptical that there is any particular public benefit to allowing the merger, but it seems a bit exaggerated to talk about the new entity owning the market.

Bayer CropScience is very small, just 2% of the global market, so them merging with Monsanto isn't really a massive game changer, which runs 23% [1]. I don't think it's going to shake up the market very much, could be that they even lose market share when the merged company consolidates its offerings. For example, Bayer's Liberty Link cotton is used when the local pests have become resistant to Monsanto's Glyphosate/Bt cotton, at some point Glyphosate/Bt sales will go down.

In other news, Syngenta (9% of seed market) was recently acquired by ChemChina but that deal is waiting for European authorities.

[1] Biased source: www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#27

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

skrause wrote: post #10
afandian wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).

In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.

any chance this could help the perception of GMOs in Germany then?

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#28

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

The faz says that in other news ChemChina is buying Syngenta - these are two big companies; Are there any hidden reasons why agriculture tech companies are so interested in mergers these days?

Hmm.. here [1] it says that "three straight years of declining prices for major crops have pressured profits and forced companies to scale back staff and research."; Does that explain the pressure for mergers in this area?

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemchina-details-changes-to-str...

and that is supposedly because a glut in corn and soybeans is driving prices down;

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/High-corn-yield-hurts-...

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#29

Post by esrauch »

skrause wrote: post #10
afandian wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the PR angle for Monsanto and Bayer in Germany? In the UK, Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is 'the big evil German company' (of course we have own own).

In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.

This actually matches what seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. There's a lot of hate for Monsanto (extending all the way to conspiracy theories) but I don't hear Bayer especially called out as evil (at least compared with some others like Pfizer or Nestlé)

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#30

Post by TillE »

WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #27
skrause wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany Monsanto is 'the big evil American company' and Bayer is just a big company.

any chance this could help the perception of GMOs in Germany then?

No. GMOs are more or less banned throughout Europe for legitimate ecological concerns, with plenty of grassroots opposition in Germany. The fact that it's a field dominated by one of the more evil companies in the world is secondary.
Post reply on HN