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

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#31

Post by rayiner »

drcross wrote: post #7

How can the competition authority allow this to happen?

It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple buys Netflix), in comparison, doesn't raise the same concerns of immediate and direct reduction in competition.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#32

Post by bazzert »

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?

>> legitimate ecological concerns please explain, seems to me to be mostly about green politics.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#33

Post by mtgx »

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 newly combined company will own the agricultural space, with a seeds and chemicals integrated vertical that would impress Apple.

Is that supposed to sound like a good thing?

I can only imagine the power they will wield in future treaty negotiations against the existence of generic seeds on the market.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#34

Post by _delirium »

rayiner wrote: post #31
drcross wrote: post #7

How can the competition authority allow this to happen?

It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suspect the merger will be approved. First, the general assumption among most competition authorities these days is that companies should be free to merge unless doing so would raise serious antitrust concerns. The focus of antitrust theory is on companies that compete directly with each other (e.g. Microsoft versus Google compete directly in search). Vertical integration (e.g. Apple b…

In cases where vertical integration raises concerns, antitrust regulators seem to have also gotten more comfortable with attaching merger conditions rather than blocking the merger entirely. For example telecom mergers that produce vertical integration routinely are approved with conditions regarding third-party infrastructure access. The first big deal I can remember with such a condition was the AOL-Time Warner merger, which was approved on condition that Time Warner offer third-party ISPs wholesale access to its cable network.

Now that there are several big regulators involved (the EU, US, and China, mainly), that kind of thing could still scuttle deals, though, if the set of conditions becomes too big and conflicting. I'm pretty sure I recently ran across one such deal, that was approved but with conditions that investors balked at, effectively killing it, but googling isn't turning it up.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#36

Post by pinaceae »

pygy_ wrote: post #14
cryoshon wrote: post #2

This won't have negative consequences for the public at all. /s

Zyklon B to buy Agent Orange... Such a nice fit.

a bit more complicated - IG Farben also produced multiple Nobel Prices in Medicine, represented the merged version of pretty much the complete German chemical industry.

AGFA, Bayer, BASF, Sanofi all trace back to IG Farben.

Not unlikely that you personally are alive because of their contributions to medicine. Unlike say Coca Cola or McDonalds. But yes, at the same time IG Farben used slave labor in WW2, experimented on humans and had a subsidiary produce Zyklon B.

History is complicated.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#37

Post by pinaceae »

dfeart3453465uf wrote: post #35

Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time! Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.

are we for the legalization of drugs today or against?

Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#38

Post by allendoerfer »

pinaceae wrote: post #37
dfeart3453465uf wrote: post #35

Could be interesting? Selling Glyphosate and 'roundup-ready' GMO crops is their main line of business in the United States for a long time! Monsanto is already a evil evil organisation -- and now they have the inventors of Heroin at the helm.

are we for the legalization of drugs today or against? Heroin, basically a form of Morphine, has legit medical uses. Just like LSD and other fairly simple, potent molecules. Banning any R&D outright on them was a huge setback for medicine.

> are we for the legalization of drugs today or against?

Nobody in their right mind wants to legalize heroin.

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#39

Post by WilliamDhalgren »

TillE wrote: post #30
WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

to be more precise, they can be sold but then need to be labeled. Prob used in animal feedstock, but not attractive to market for human use in that form. I presume animal feed's still a significant market, but unsure if there's significant GMO market penetration there.

Only one GMO (a bt corn I think) could be planted in the EU, and used mostly in Spain, though there's some hope the new rules will enable pro-GMO countries to plant many more in the future (approval process was generally stuck in the Council because enough countries opposed GMOs; now they can just ban them on their own territory w/o preventing pro-GMO countries from using it, and avoiding a conflict is politically attractive).

I personally see it as an ecological gain, due to productivity and so landuse improvements, something europe has basically stagnated at since these bans.

Sad to hear not much chance of improvements in the political sphere on that front..

Re: Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

#40

Post by pc86 »

wcchandler wrote: post #25

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.

I mean if a company (Monsanto or anyone else) actually does develop a perfect strain for medical use they certainly deserve the profit, don't they? I'm no fan of Monsanto but it doesn't mean that they're not entitled to the things any other company is entitled to in a capitalist society.

I could certainly see how the drug war could change following this in both good and bad ways, though I'm not sure they're connected enough that it should impact a potential merger?

Post reply on HN