Beer Industry Analysis

Beer industry news and analysis shows thatcan set a precedent for whether Brazil seeks to
Anheuser-Busch and InBev have merged to promotepromote internal competition or allow the formation
increased growth. In so doing, according to the InBevof large local companies that can withstand foreign
press release, they have created the global leader incompanies seeking to gain increased exposure to
the beer industry, as well as one of the world's topBrazilian markets.
five consumer product companies. The sameKatz analysis shows that other segments of the
document also describes the merger as serving theBrazilian economy have seen corporations from the
best interests of all parties involved, both businessesUnited States and Europe rise dramatically in their
and consumers. Part of the new company'smarkets and readily absorb small local companies.
explanation of that claim speaks to one of theNaturally, there is a strong impulse for similar such
above-discussed motivations for mergers andacquisitions in the beer industry. These infusions of
acquisitions: gaining access to new local markets. Theforeign capital are positive in one sense, but cripple
company press release is careful to point out thatthe possibility of strong local owned competitors, not
there had been "limited geographic overlap" betweento mention multinationals. If retention of local
the two companies as separate entities. Given theownership is considered desirable, consolidation of this
particular details of the Anheuser-InBev merger, thissort is the only definite way to accomplish it. As with
may, in fact, have been an asset in avoiding thebeer, so with the economy generally.
government interference that has been identified asKatz's use of analysis makes this latter point clear,
the major obstacle to M&A. If the press releasebut he does not address the way in which the
is to be trusted, all Anheuser-Busch breweries are topromotion of mergers within the beer industry, or
remain open in the United States, where forty perother individual industry, with this manner of
cent of the revenue of the new, integrated companymotivation, can affect the same end in other,
is expected to be generated. There is, therefore, nosupporting industries. Locally owned consumer-goods
perceived threat to any segments of the U.S.industries can support locally owned raw-materials
economy, and concordantly no political resistanceindustries, particularly if government influence on the
within that locality.matter extends to providing added incentives for
More broadly, the merger significantly expands themutual support of local industries. Consolidation in the
geographic diversity of each of the companiesbeer industry within an economically developing
individually, making it an industry leader in the top fivelocality can lead also to consolidation of supporting
world markets. In China, the presence of eachindustries in the same locality as they compete for a
company complements the other, with InBev stronglarger market share of the dependent industry.
in the southeast of the country and Anheuser-BuschThe key point in all this is that, counter-intuitively,
in the northeast. As one company, then, they maygovernment involvement in M&A, under certain
be in a position to somewhat circumvent would-becircumstances, can contribute positively to
resistance to foreign brands in the Chinese marketconsolidation moves, from the perspective of the
generally. Also, the ten markets where InBev is thegiven companies. This is, however, unlikely, to say
local leader in the beer industry are markets wherethe least, in highly developed nation, where multiple
Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser brand is weak.companies already maintain a strong local and
In light of the strongly positive financial expectationsinternational presence. In developing situations,
for the merger, both generally and in particularhowever, as in Brazil, there is a definite motivation
markets, it seems very unlikely that there should befor foregoing anti-trust regulations. Katz indicates,
any negative impacts on supporting industries, to saythough, that the reality is that there may be positive
the very least. And that is to say nothing of theor negative consequences of so doing for a given
banking and credit industries that are involved directlylocality. While it may impede foreign competitors, a
in the merger, as opposed to in day-to-daystrong union of local companies could conceivably
operations. An analysis of the forty-five billion dollarspresent a markedly attractive buyout option for
in debt that have financed the transaction, thoseeven stronger competitors, and thus defeat the very
several financial institutions stand to gain substantiallypurpose of permitting the merger in the first place.
on the large investments they have made in theAnd where one set of consequences is positive and
merger. In that respect, such investments constituteanother negative for a given locality, the opposite
additional illustrations of the affect of M&Aoften applies to foreign competitors. But while
within the beer industry on related industries and thegovernment motivations may drastically differ based
economy more generally, one of the key conceptson applicable socio-economic circumstances, the role
of this study.and direct consequences of mergers in fundamentally
Of added significance to the study at hand is thethe same in all similar cases.
commentary of InBev CEO Carlos Brito, who isTo both extend the discussion of Brazil and to return
quoted at some length in the company press release.to the case of InBev and Anheuser-Busch, it was
He says, in part: "Together, Anheuser-Busch andindeed the case that the merger of Brazilian
InBev will be able to accomplish much more thanbreweries drew attention from still larger North
each can on its own. We have been successfulAmerican companies, when Interbrew sought to
business partners for quite some time, and this is themerge with AmBev, forming InBev, which became
natural next step for us in an increasingly competitivethe second largest brewer in the world. At the time,
global environment." This seems to strongly imply aDamien Reece reports, Anheuser-Busch was also
sort of near-inevitability of the current merger, forexpected to make an offer. The rapidity of these
several reasons. Firstly, if the individual companiesdevelopments and the numerous layers of them
simply cannot accomplish what the combinedshould do well to demonstrate the dynamic nature of
company can, that suggests that the eventualthe global beer industry in recent years. But Reece
merger is the endpoint of the individual developmentcontinues in the report that Anheuser-Busch, at the
of the original companies, and that they cannot betime of the AmBev-Interbrew merger, was taking "a
further streamlined or expanded through internalhighly conservative approach to mergers, especially
improvements. This merger, then, presumably resultsoutside its domestic boundaries." Speculation only
not only from the culmination of thoseabout the merger between the two players then
developments, but also the exhausting of possibilitiesclearly expressing interest, however, was sufficient
for collaboration of separate entities. Then, perhapsto drive up stocks of each of the other large
that is so only due to present circumstances, butbrewers by two to three percent, reflecting the
Brito seems to suggest that those currentincreasing market share and profit margins that come
circumstances are ones of increased globalwith consolidation just in the industry itself.
competition, and a greater necessity of high marketThe reasons for and consequences of
share and so forth for companies that wouldAnheuser-Busch's resistance to mergers at the time
continue to increase profit margins and gain inostensibly warrants some speculation. Considering the
success.above implications of Carlos Brito's comments about
Peter Swinburn succinctly describes a definitethe most recent merger, there is some cause to
element of the current circumstances of the globalbelieve that Anheuser-Busch was then aware of
beer industry, saying that "Consolidation started 10being at a point in its development that was
years ago and probably has 10 more to go before itfundamentally inwardly-focused, and that the
winds down." He then proceeds to a higher level ofcompany was decidedly seeking to maximize the
detail, identifying ten top brewers, as of 2004/2005market share of its own independent company and
who were vying for dominance, and projecting thatincreasing its sales, efficiency, and profits within its
as the deals become more large and complex,own market before broadly considering the option of
antitrust issues will get in the way. Swinburn alsomergers. On this supposition, it was fine management
names the top ten global markets, pointing to Chinaon the part of the Anheuser-Busch company, in that
as the largest, followed by the United States,it fully recognized the ideal circumstances of an
Germany, Brazil, Russia, Japan, the United Kingdom,effective and fully warranted merger of large
Mexico, South Africa, and Spain. Knowing that Chinacompanies. That assessment is presumably supported
ranks first, and that it presents very high profitby the reality of where Anheuser-Busch stands at
margins for international companies, makes thepresent, in the midst of merging with another
information about that locality with respect to thestrongly leading company in the industry, which has
InBev/Anheuser-Bush that much more significant.already benefited from a reasonably long series of
However, Swinburn was, of course, not discussingmergers, while not dramatically over taking the more
the industry in terms of that merger but that of hislone-wolf company. On the other hand, perhaps
company, Coors, with Molson.Anheuser-Busch ought to be subject to some
About that particular topic, and the subject ofcriticism, if it can be said that it has not entered
consolidation in the beer industry as a whole,negotiation over the current merger in the strongest
Swinburn seems rather less optimistic than those atposition, and that that is the fault of its prior
the helm of the InBev-Anhueser merger. He does,resistance to undertaking mergers pro-actively.
however, recognize a geographic advantage in hisThat is not to suggest that there are no negative
company's merger, in that it secures forty-twoconsequences of mergers of such type, the avoiding
percent of the Canadian market. But this was aof which is laudable. That is always the case, though
necessary gain, in his estimation, because Coors hadthe business implications of harm affected on local
held a quite small share of the United States market.communities and the like are not frequently significant
That in mind, Swinburn emphasizes that steps mustto financial or other business considerations. Fred O.
be taken to give the merged companies a greaterWilliams speculates about some of the potential
global presence. It stands to reason, however, thanconsequences for the local Buffalo, NY area, and for
some of the obstacles to optimism in his case maythe nation more broadly, both being accustomed to
be these loose ends of development. In that Coorsthe independent, U.S.-based Anheuser-Busch. He is
has not improved the efficiency of its brewery orcautiously optimistic that the newly integrated
found ways to reduce high distribution costs, it maycompany will not change much in the U.S., noting that
be argued that the company had not reached thethey plan to keep all current breweries up and
endpoint of lone development that would haverunning. He does, however, levy some concerns that
M&A the best course toward increasedthe more specific locality's headquarters could be
profitability. Of course, as Swinburn does indicate, theunder threat from the transition, along with not only
access to Molson breweries provided by the mergerits handful of jobs, but also the marketing and
helps to counteract these problems, but still it can besponsorship within the region that had consistently
said that they must ultimately be addressed on theirgrown out of that central corporate presence. The
own terms, to truly maximize the company'sbroader concern, however, is the potential for an
competitiveness.across-the-board increase in beer prices, as
And Swinburn makes it clear that being highlycompetition decreases with consolidation. In almost
competitive and distinctly global is of the utmostthe same breath, though, Williams repeats the
importance to players in the beer industry. He statescompanies' claims that the geographic separation
that the overall market for the product is virtuallybetween the two companies will strongly mitigate
stagnant, but that there are dramatic shifts withinconcerns about the significance of such a change for
the industry, according to competition betweenconsumers.
particular companies and growth within new localElsewhere, though, there are consequences that are
markets. It is in that environment that it is so crucialless speculative. The Cuban market, Vito Echevarria,
first to grow a company's efficiency and profitabilitypoints out, is a legal issue for the merger between
through all reasonable internal measures, and then tothe European In-Bev and Anheuser-Busch, with its
further expand exposure to and engagement withheadquarters in America, which has strong trade
various markets through external growth, as byrestrictions on Cuba. Therefore, "a merged business
mergers and acquisitions, or else through horizontalbased in the U.S. would be legally unable to manage
integration, taking up a share of the market for otherits holdings in Cuba." InBev is expected to cease
consumer goods.operations in Cuba to avoid those issues, and it notes
In any event, government reaction to fundamentalthat Cuba counts for less than half of one percent of
business practices or their particular examples isoverall volume. This does not translate to similar
central to their basic success or failure. Specific suchfigures from Cuba's perspective, though, in which
reactions and their consequences will beInBev employs 570 full-time workers and forty-four
case-by-case, and many have several potentialpercent of the market share of beer sales. This has
motivations. Ian Katz writes of the case of theobvious consequences for the sensitive Cuban
Brazilian merger between Brahma and Antarctica,economy. Less obviously, InBev's retreat from Cuba
forming AmBev that the consequences ofwill leave a vacuum, which might be filled by another
government treatment of such mergers extend wellforeign, and non-U.S. based company, or by a
beyond the Brazilian beer industry, and again beyondconsolidated local company. In any event, this is a
issues of supporting industries, touching uponrare instance in which consolidation may lead directly
concerns for the very economic future of theto a weakening of consolidation elsewhere, and
country. As he puts it, decisions about the brewingbroader global restructuring may follow.
industry, where consolidation is so prominent an issue,