Will Anheuser Busch merge with or take over InBev by the end of 2008?

What if InBev buys Anheuser Busch? I mean like takes over, buys out. That isn't "merge with" or Anheuser Busch buys InBev.

My interpretation is that any agreement they make where as ones assets become associated with another's in the eyes of the media; this would be considered a merger.

OK, if they end up "under one roof" it counts as a merger. That works for me.

They won't do it soon:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/anheuser-busch-formally-rejects-inbev-offer/story.aspx?guid=%7BD798170C-97CE-48F8-A78B-EF7CFD2A841C%7D&dist=msr_9

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/worldbusiness/12beer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

wanna bet?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sat-anheuser-busch-inbev-jul12,0,4255578.story

might be sooner than expected

When one company PAYS $50 billion to another, in the business world that is usually considered a 'Buy' not a merger. InBev is being reported by Rueters as having
"Bought" Anheuser-Busch. It's also reported that Mexico brewer would have some say in who the new "owner" of Anheuser would be....emphasis on 'owner'. After weeks
of hostile negotiations and law suites against each other you surely can't believe that this is a mutual 'love affair' amongst 'equals' ie "Merger"...that's not
how big business works.

if you read the question it should be settled as no or voided. "will bush merge or take over." as dragon says there was no merger, and bush wasn't pursuing inBev..inBev was pursing bush. i have no money in the market. just my thoughts. goodluck betters.

looks like andrew is gonna have a spitzer on his hands. inBev bought-took over bush. the question ask's the opposite. mork made a comment and andrew didn't say yes or no..this could get interesting :O)

I think now is a good time to remind everyone what the rule that is being used so generically as the "spitzer" rule. Here is what is listed in the rule 2.3.1 - Unless specified otherwise, a question asking when a public figure will resign will be settled on the date the figure announces their intention to resign rather than the date the resignation becomes effective (the Spitzer clause)
Questions that arise out of other disputes do not fit into this clause. I don't want the term "spitzer" being misinterpreted to every situation that is difficult to settle.
The rules that apply to this category are as follows:
2.3.4 Business Category
* For questions with regards takeovers an "offer" is defined as public or private offer to buy the target company. Offers of assistance do not count.
* Unless otherwise specified, questions asking whether company X will be acquired (or merge with company Y) by date Z will be settled on completion of the deal, not on announcement.
I have included a link to a news article that might give other clarification: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-flzinbev0712sbjul12,0,306008.story

FYI

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaAH9kw73Dr4&refer=home

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080714073054.69kagmoo&show_article=1&catnum=0

The question was badly worded. With regards the wording of this question, see comments 1 to 3 at to what constitutes a positive outcome to this market. Therefore the outcome should be 'yes'.

The question is quite clear actually..."Will Anheuser Busch merge with or take over InBev by the end of 2008?" There were only 2 responses made available to us...
"YES" or "NO". Anheuser Busch did NOT "merge" AND Anheuser did NOT "take over" InBev. The only answer to either of those 2 situations is 'NO'. The question did
NOT ask if InBev would buy Anheuser (Yes or No). Break the question up if you like.." Will Anheuser Busch merge...." answer NO. "Will Anheuser take over InBev".
.. Answer NO.

I agree question was badly worded...


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-07-14-anheuser-inbev-next_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

It's only badly worded if one is looking for a particular answer. The question is quite clear: Will Anheuser Busch merge with or take over InBev by the end of 2008?...So far, no. AB hasn't merged with Inbev. However, AB may take over Inbev before the year is out. Though doubtful. This market should not settle, yet.

P.S....I have no dogs in this fight. Only concerned with Hubdub's quality of settlements.

I agree with Erik, although it would've been better to restrict the question to one type of transaction.

Thanks for your concerns.

@erik..good point that it could remain open till end of 08. have a nice day.

The question should remain open til end of 2008, as all the players have yet to agree to InBev taking over AB.

Keeping the question open until I can find or be provided with information that definitely settles this question (regardless of how poorly or well it may have been posed)

why are InBev questions in limbo...should be unsuspended...these questions are just sitting..at least unsuspend them

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376cead4-69c7-11dd-83e8-0000779fd18c.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376cead4-69c7-11dd-83e8-0000779fd18c.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20080816.CLSA003&show_article=1&catnum=3

"Predictions on this question are temporarily suspended" ...please define "temorarily".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26157365/

OK...time to revisit this monstrosity....there really hasn't been any change in the last few weeks...the takeover/merger/purchase still has not been officially completed...to reopen the market would allow wagers to be made on a done deal, which wouldn't be fair...to keep it suspended ties up $H which also doesn't seem right....

In my opinion at this time it should be a NO settlement as InBev is in the process of becoming the owners of BUD . . . not BUD taking over InBev...this is not a merger as such

BUT, the deal has not been completed yet....and there's the snag

What? The meaning when it was first written was merger or takeover. My bets were made 15 weeks ago based on the idea 1. it'd be finished before I was wearing a colostomy bag 2. Merger meant "merger" which is the wording of the question, and would be vehmently argued for and against by both parties merger and aquisition over a ... dare I say it.. yes I will.. a BUD. My point is that whatever the wording, I took it to mean a merger, and that was I wagered $5000 on it. So please keep it open, or whatever, but the two companies are clearly MERGING into one. Let's not argue about that. Shall we look up merge and do a pretentious cut and paste? I have no argument with you Mr Bear, just that merger is merger and that is the word I took to mean (whatever the crap wording) would be the outcome of the market.

BTW this question was made before before category editors and super users decided to take over the Hubdub world. I do not have an issue though with you Mr Bear, a fair and reasonable mammal if I ever bumped into one in a camp ground or a forest while having a leak. However, I bet you $10,000 "Andrew" won't be contributing another question because of ridiculous, piss poor obsessing over the semantics of questions.

It is NOT a merger if the current stock-holders of AB receive money or stock in lieu of 'control'. Based on most press observations, this transaction is truly a 'buy-out' of existing shares for an agreed-upon price.
The management team at InBev takes control, and the Bud-board goes away. That is a takeover, not a merger.

For a more simple example.

I own an old buick. You want it. You purchase it from me for an agreed-upon price, and the title is transferred legally. Is this a merger? or is it a 'buy-out'?

jmho.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-EU-Belgium-InBev-Anheuser-Busch.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

FYI

Maybe we'll have an answer this Friday then.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-us-anheuserbusch.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168656

sold

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_bi_ge/anheuser_busch_shareholders;_ylt=AsX1JJNoxvsI.ntCax2xiaas0NUE

settlement sometime this century?

The deal, reached in July, is expected to close by the end of the year. It is subject to regulatory approval in the U.S., Britain and China.

china could throw a wrench in the deal. DISCLAIMER: i have no money on this.

We're still looking at this . . . looks like we'll have approval, BUT the Justice Department is requiring InBev to sell off its interest in LaBlatt's beer....how long will that take?

We all KNOW the merger is going to take place....but now perhaps the question is...WILL IT BE DONE BY THE END OF 2008? And that was part of the original question, not just whether or not it would happen, but would it happen by a certain date. Plus, the merger needs additional approval from Britain and China, and that hasn't come yet.

Perhaps we should reopen this and see if it can be settled, with full approval of the Justice Department by the end of 2008? And not worry about Chinese and British approval....ideas?

Concern is when we can settle...?
Can it be settled now with the current conditioned approval of the Justice Dept.
Do we have to wait for the sale of LaBlatt to settle?
Do we need the approval of China or Britain to settle?

Check this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_bi_ge/inbev_anheuser_busch;_ylt=AgHLuNqGmhBCcT1NMe6Be6es0NUE

I'll have to excuse myself from any further recommendations here as I have wagers on this question, and Labatt Breweries is also Canadian. I could be biased....lol.

i say for the admin's peace of mind and HD in general settle as yes. in the future these merger question's need a warning on them. goodluck all.

oops...I know I said I wouldn't comment again, but dieseldog...is that what you meant to say (ie yes), kinda goes opposite to what your first comment was here originally...just wondered what changed your mind...lol

latest news on this
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-inbev-anheuser-busch-111807,0,6231866.story

OK...looks like the deal has been approved....Anheuser Busch is now Anheuser Busch Inbev....

The newly-named company announced this morning that the European brewing giant InBev has completed the $52 billion buyout of American brewing giant Anheuser-Busch, and is revealing its new name.

Effective today, InBev has changed its name to Anheuser-Busch InBev to reflect the heritage and traditions of Anheuser-Busch. Starting November 20, 2008, the company will trade under the new ticker symbol ABI on the Euronext Brussels stock exchange. Anheuser-Busch has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch InBev and will retain its current headquarters in St. Louis, Mo.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-inbev-anheuser-busch-111807,0,6231866.story


Now...still the question!!! The two companies are now one...but, Inbev has bought Anheuser-Busch...not merged...although, it looks like AB will still have some say in how business is conducted, they are not equal partners in this...

One last time....yeas or nays?

dragon - your correct i think the question be settled as no or voided. i only said settle as yes because this has been in limbo for to long. it's been alot longer than 7 days since this has been suspended. the question is worded in a way that imho no, void, or open it back up to wager on till the end of 2008 is the right thing to do. i'll admitt settleing as yes is not being consistent on my part...kudos for pointing that out.

Comment 14 is all I can say on the matter. :-)