Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Robert

Cadbury's is a worldwide business
It has a turnover in excess of 5 billion
20% of that is in the UK
The rest is somewhere else
It has manufacturing capability in many places
It sells brands we don't even see here in 60 countries across the world
It acquired brands and plants all over the world
Not everyone can buy a Flake or a Wispa or even wants too
In any given market there's distribution, sales and marketing, back office functions..
Presumably, Kraft has the same.
To be honest, the cost of doing business in the UK ain't cheap either
Perhaps you might like to check out business rates and employers NI

So, although I too wouldn't like to see Cadbury's taken over, its not as simple as you imply

It worries me that our best companies are constantly being bought out by the American giants. The whole ethos of the Cadbury company was born out of its Quaker origins and was one of nurturing and caring for its employees and encouraging them to be proud of their company.

Technology takeovers over of engineering companies have been largely detrimental to the UK. Companies have been taken over either to buy their order books or to remove competition, in most cases the UK companies taken over are a shadow of their former selves within a couple of years of the takeover. The profitable work has been taken back to the states and having asset stripped the prime contracts the companies are sold on or closed.

The US government is now considering dumping the Rolls Royce engine on JSF in favour of the Pratt and Witney engine - I believe we intend to replace our Sea Harriers with JSF - it will be a national disgrace if we do not stand our ground and insist our planes have British engines.

Worse still we are losing whole technology skill sets as our industry is being picked apart - sadly we have a labour government with no appreciation of industry, preferring its unhealthy obsession with the financial sector.

You suggested : "A policy of British factories owned by British companies might yield a bit more tax for the Exchequer". So it might - such a policy might even be popular with sections of the electorate - but I don't think the Gauleiters in the EU would approve.

This is what happens in recession. It's all about destruction of capital.

Smaller companies (like Cadbury's) take a stock market battering as they appear to costly to run in a dwindling sales environment.

They are relauctant to make wholesale cuts to jobs - especially as it would really hit the local area (Bournville).

Someone like Kraft comes along to take advantage of this weakness - and I suspect in this case will succeed.

When the new management takes over they can make the job cuts under the guise of 'ridding duplication' and keep the most profitable parts.

This would all be acceptable if you were talking about equipment or raw materials - but it's people who will find themselves dumped on the rubbish heap - this has a negative effect on the Economy.

If you look at all the takeovers this recession they have shortly been followed by redundancies.

I'm not really fussed about Cadbury's specifically, but I am concerned for the area of Birmingham which has already taken a hammering from Rover, Jaguar and LDV vans - on top of the standard redundancies.

Birmingham is undergoing economic collapse at the moment, but because it's not London - nobody has bothered to report it.

Let us not forget though that Cadbury, although being a multinational sprouted from the ideals of the Quaker movement and, like British Airways and M&S before it, would suffer badly if it forgot it's core market and ideals. The confectionary of Rowntree Mackintosh, immensely popular before the 90s has never been as popular since it was subsumed by Nestle with the exception of the kit-kat.

Cadbury has little to gain and much to lose by such a big takeover

Unfortunately there is a price for everything and everyone and only the diehard woudl choose to hang on regardless save selling out.

With underlying performance so awful this year a lot of fundmanagers need a huge profit in their portfolios to compensate for terrible overal performance.

Very rarely do mergers or takeovrs work in anyones interests save of course the matchmaking bankers and lawyers. Yet the sublime belief that value can be realised is still sold as the primary benefit.

If big is now deemed understandably not to be beautiful why should big get bigger? Who wants or needs a still larger confectionary manufacturer and should the possibly merged company have so much control over so much distribution.

I think it's ridiculous Kraft are tryng this on but the odds are now Cadbury's is 'in play' the inevitable end is only a matter of time unless competition authorities look closely at this which to date no one has suggested. Lets keep Cadbury's British!!

This erosion of British ownership of our major companies is down to two things: directors' share-based payment meaning that they usually stand to gain an enormous amount of money from any buy-out, and the low appetite for risk of the shareholders of our companies, meaning they'd rather take the money and run.

You'll notice that neither of these motives is good for the UK economy as a whole, and especially not for the employees of those companies.

If this happens it is reasonable to suggest that it will not be much different to the Nestle takeover of Rowntrees. Another source of jobs for people without degrees will slowly be whittled away.They make their promises to the workforce, and then gradually forget what they promised.

"In the end, of course, if someone comes along and offers to buy a company for way more than that company will be priced on the market for years, then you would be crazy to turn that down."

Why? Because making money in the short term, no matter the long term consequences, is intelligent?

So why do you knock the bankers for doing exactly the same thing?

People are crazy to take into account factors other than just making a huge whopping fast profit and damn the consequences?

I am mortified that Kraft may take over Cadbury. I do not eat Kraft products as a matter of principle as they are owned by a tobacco company. To have to give up all those lovely Cadbury items, too...

Surely the strategic sense is that Cadbury is all but locked out of the US market...

"The economic reasons for insisting that a plant based here has to be managed from a UK domicile are not overwhelming."

Given that in 07 /08 the cadbury management shifted 700 uk jobs (1/r3d of production) to Poland, cynics saying to bake a quick windfall from selling the Keynsham plant, opened a new chewing gum factory in the special economic zone of Walbrzych and had a business plan to loose 7,500 jobs in better off countries to expand in Turkey and Romania as well as Poland i would say that the reasons having UK domiciled management is underwhelming to the workforce, local suppliers and local areas.

As a general point i suspect the low value of the pound quite a few of our remaining great British corporate names may be lost.

One simple point that has not been made so far, including by Robert, is that US domicled companies with large US market share tend to cut overseas operations (e.g. UK) first when "rationalising" or "gaining the synergies of the merger". The last place to feel cuts / change is the home operations.

This is just human nature. The executive team (and their spouses) have to live with consequences of cuts in their home operations (day to day, at the school gate, at the golf/yachting/tennis club). They don't have to with the overseas operations, whatever the business logic.

For all those unfamiliar with mergers.
As Robert points out some companies are worth more under the umbrella of another, usually larger company.
The reason is synergies. Sales synergies from distribution in new regions and cost synergies from purchasing 2x as much cocoa or moving expensive production from Bourneville to wherever Kraft make their chocolate.

So Kraft can pay more for Cadbury than Cadbury would ever be worth on its own. Shareholders should take the deal, unless they don't like money, in which case they shouldn't be buying equities.
As for the Kraft stock as part of the deal - you can avoid the "mutable value" of that by shorting whatever number of shares you are likely to receive when the deal finalises. That is very easy to do. So the shares are as good as cash. Very poor reason to turn Kraft down.

It's rather nice to see people wanting to keep a great institution British. It seems rather old fashioned these days, but I always feel disappointed when (what I perceive to be) a great British institution is taken over by a foreign company, purely based on the resources that are available to it at the time as well as perceived market values. I'm pretty sure I was a teenager when Rowntrees were taken over by Nestle, and it just didn't make sense to me. Here was a well known, successful British company, then all of a sudden it was taken over and the word "Rowntree" was replaced with "Kit-Kat" on Kit-Kats. At about the same time, Jaguar, Lotus and Aston Martin were all scooped up by Ford or GM. Indeed, some of these companies required change and direction, but it just seemed terrible to me. It's all free trade at the end of the day, but wow.... are we all really such slaves to short term perceptions of value? The EU can, and should, promote fairness, but they cannot stop people acting freely. Cadbury's shareholders have a choice, like the rest of us - I have always thought that buying British makes sense from a national retention of money and resources point of view. Please don't sell!

#4 Writings

Unfortunately very true, i'd actually go further- the Midlands as a whole region is suffering really very badly, not just Birmingham. As the regional epicentre and with a truely (and previously well commented) horrendous property bubble/mess the effects are amplified there.

And now Jaguar's prowl is turning into more of a whimper too..they're on the move with yet another factory. What on earth are all the people supposed to do? Move and become a 'consultant' is my guess, not that I believe in protectionism or manufacturing for manufacturing's sake, does make you wonder though.

The Kraft takeover offers little value other than to Kraft shareholders. This isn't good enough, it never has been, yet our useless politicians just wave the situation away as if it's none of their business.

As has been suggested what is detestable is the loss of jobs at the drop of a proverbial hat and the expectation that the emoployees would have to re-train, which even if they did, could/would take them years. The suddeness of takeovers does not adequately allow for this. On that basis foreign takeovers of British companies should come with a caveat that the foreign party pays to re-train the workers they make redundant and also provide financial support to assist with living costs for 12 months, or offer a sensible pension, perhaps to those over a certain age, e.g 55?

There are statutory rules (laws) covering the provision of redundancy pay. The legal minimum this provides is, typically a vulgar joke because it is so paultry and needs raising, (something like a weeks pay for every year worked. It ought to be a month's pay for every year worked!) Companies no longer pay out anything above the legal minimum, because they don't like explaining to their shareholders why they should! On that basis, it is for the politicians to step in and make it very clear to such shareholders why the minimum must raised! Time for a review at the very least? Politicians love doing that sort of thing anyway, they do it all the time, (as a way of avoiding decisions?)

Takeovers mean less competition. And less competition results in less choice and is generally bad for consumers. Big takeovers like this are always justified on the basis of saved costs by merging. These reductions in cost are usually realised by reductions in headcount. So less competition is bad for consumers and bad for employees. Our Monopolies & Mergers Commission has no backbone.

‘In the end, of course, if someone comes along and offers to buy a company for way more than that company will be priced on the market for years, then you would be crazy to turn that down.’

Robert, once upon a time entrepreneurs who formed companies had a dream, the dream was not about money but establishing a business that’s busy-ness. There IS more to life than wonga!

‘Which is why the chief executive of Cadbury, Todd Stitzer, needs to clear up what he meant when he said at a meeting organised by Bank of America that there is "some strategic sense" in Kraft's offer.’


Presumably the strategic sense lay in Mr Stitzer future bank balance?

2,

'It worries me that our best companies are constantly being bought out by the American giants.'

Yeah, and the best bit is they are being bought by monopoly dollars AND getting away with it!!!

Relax Robert !

Cadbury's and my beloved Bourneville choccy are safe for the moment.

After Kraft's initial overture, there was much informed speculation, that this move would initiate a number of moves from other potential takeover sources.

In the last fortnight - nowt.

Let's enjoy our British choccy while we may. Thus speaks a diabetic !

14 - FastTinyTim

Can you supply us with 3 examples of take-overs that have resulted in long term benefits for the companies customers, employees and shareholders?

16. At 1:13pm on 24 Sep 2009, pawns_or_players

This is a downside to everything being 'London-centric' - as with the previous recession in the 80's the cities outside London were hit hardest because all policies are developed here in London and therefore benefit London first and most.

This crisis is no different, there were loud noises being made about all the financial jobs lost - but there have been many more lost up and down the country overall. With most of hte media based here it's not surprising the national picture is skewed.

I can also guarantee that when the public sector job cuts come they will be mostly regional - all the Whitehall civil servant jobs will be safe.

If I were the rest of the country I would 'invade' and take back the capital!

17. At 1:21pm on 24 Sep 2009, spareusthelies wrote:

"Companies no longer pay out anything above the legal minimum, because they don't like explaining to their shareholders why they should"

....except for executive redundancies - it's clear that when it comes to making your CEO redundant the legal minimum is always justifiable - right Sir Fred?

I am flabberghasted sometimes that the public put up with such blatant inequality. Maybe now more people are experiencing redundancy - things will change.

Sigh, and the most disheartening part of all this is that when the takeover does go through, as it almost inevitably will- is that the press will herald this as a return to the good times, or a sign that the economy is firing on all cylinders again. The banks involved will make millions for arranging a merger that will almost certainly involve a loss of revenue and Britisg jobs...

meninwhitecoats wrote:
"The whole ethos of the Cadbury company was born out of its Quaker origins and was one of nurturing and caring for its employees and encouraging them to be proud of their company."


I think you've been reading far too much advertising from the Cadbury Company.

We used to have a very large Cadbury factory in my area that my mother, step-father and many other family members had worked at for many years.
As soon as Cadbury's found a cheaper place to locate their factory production was moved and most of the local jobs lost.
Most of the products that used to be made in our local factory are now made in foreign factories and then shipped back into Britain as imports.
The factory has since been sub-contracted then asset stripped and it is soon to close for good, even though our local council has given them millions of pounds in direct subsidies in recent years and despite the fact that the factory has been profitable.

The company may well have been founded with very high morals and ideals in mind but for the last twenty or so years they've abandoned all sense of social responsibility and are now little more than just another corporation who care about nothing but profits and certainly do not care about their employees or the wider community.

Personally, I couldn't care less who owns them and I doubt any new owner would treat the remaining British employees any worse than the current owners have in recent years.

This is nothing less than a puff-piece by Robert Peston who'd be better off writing something honest about the horrific way many of Cadbury's long serving employees have been treated in recent years as well as highlighting the way Cadbury’s have off-loaded many employees to a third party employer, only to close down their site a couple of years later and as such denying them the many years of redundancy payments that they were due.

#11

1.6bn turnover in the US

When Robert has finished with his delving into the brown stuff (I mean chocolate) - perhaps he could comment on the new position awarded to Baroness Vadera.

Apparently, now that 252 days have passed since she went on TV to say she could see 'green shoots' that no-one has seen since she has now been moved to represent the Government at the G20.



Is there no end to this neptism and promotion of the inept? Is it any wonder our country is so confused when we're represented by such dullards?

If I make a mistake in my job I don't get a new one provided by my friends. We may think this is harmless - but what integrity and independence do our representatives have when they keep appointing each other positions?

Lord Adair, Mandlesson, Sugar - all unelected appointees who quite frankly would struggle to pass the initiative test at ASDA.

WHY DO THEY GET AWAY WITH SUCH LIES?
WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS INCORRECT STATEMENTS?

We have been let down badly by our politicans, our so called betters (bankers, lords, lord bankers etc) and now our press.

I see you're quoted in this story Robert - well lets have a blog so we can tell you what we really think!

Post 14. your synergies are probable redundancies on a massive scale in a city that has already been decimated by New Labour's mismanagement of the economy.

Already 5 out of the 6 highest unemployment rate parliamentary constituencies in the UK are in Birmingham and todays announcement re the likely closure of the Castle Bromwich Jaguar factory which straddles Erdington and Hodge Hill (home of LDV) which are already in the top three constituencies doesn't make things any better.

Maybe if you get synergised in the future you would feel differently about this.

Have I missed the point? The takeover is paid for with shares not cash, and Cadburys are one of the UK's companies that are not losing money.
Is this the Kraft board going out on a whim to seem better than they are?
Maybe Cadburys should make them a offer. They seem to me better at running a company in these troubled times.

25. At 2:05pm on 24 Sep 2009, eddixon

A very accurate paragraph.

What people cannot accept (because it undermines everything they've believed in until now) is that all profit comes from exploitation of another.

It's either exploitation of the worker (Marx's surplus value theory)

..or exploitation of the perception of scarcity by a buyer (imperfect information)

...or it's historic exploitation which is still being profited from. (e.g. Colonialism)

So the conclusion is that ones liberty (to make profit) under free market principles can only be achieved by removing (or having removed) the liberty of another.

Can anyone suggest a real world (or even made up) situation where profit is gained without the exploitation of others?

....and yet it's so widely accepted as being a 'good thing'.

I asked this very question in a derivatives course once and the ex-university lecturer had no answer other than 'the entrepenuer contributes by bringing together the element of production'

...to which I replied - "so if there were no entrepenuers and no profit to drive people to work (through greed) then we would all sit at home until we starved to death like a lab rat would"

This is why I constantly ask (but never get an answer) - where does the profit come from?

Cadbury should hold out for more cash. kraft is not that well run and there is little chance of a competing bid because of antitrust issues with the other potential bidders.

Post 21 you obviously haven't seen the front page of todays FT and the Chief Exec's comments then.

#26 Secratariat

Fair comment on Cadbury - I was basing my comments on the Cadbury of 20 years ago, it may have passed but it was still a worthy ethos.

I stand by my comments on the technology takeovers - ownership does count and our manufacturing base is being adversely affected by the ongoing takeovers.

The way the Pound is going south any offer in dollars is going to look attractive...

And the thinking behind saving costs in buying coco beans. When I was a lad I was sure that I was told.....
Did not the Cadbury family set up the farms to produce the beans, put wells and infrastructure all in the founding of the company? Is it not true that all Cadbury chocolate could have been labelled Fairtrade from the time the idea was first thought of.
Still I am sure all of this is to impress the Wall Street and no one else.
As a side bet, if it all goes through, 4 UK plants to go in a year. Any takers?

We all love Cadbury's chocolates, all of us (me I think most of all!). Whatever is decided, the main thing is to maintain the standard of quality, using the kinds of ingredients you are used to in Briatin. Americans all too often cut corners on the basics, and their dairy products are notoriously unhealthy.

Keep Cadbury's perfection as a confection, please!

29. Ian_the_chopper & pawns_or_players

....and is it any wonder that there were race riots in the centre of Birmingham a few weeks ago when the EDL decided to come down and cause trouble?

Not reported outside of Birmingham, but I was there and saw what I would term the 'beginning of the backlash'.

Strange that such a big story wasn't reported anywhere else. Why did the EDL pick Birmingham? - well that's because they know the West Midlands has the largest population of unemployed skilled workers in the country I believe.
The consequences of saving the banks and letting other industries going to the wall is evident in the Midlands.

(for reference, the EDL are the 'football hooligan' section of the Nazi party)

Kraft bought the Terry's Chocolate Makers company in York in 1993 (makers of the Chocolate Orange, Terry's All Gold and York Fruits). The factory was a landmark building built in 1926 and a large local employer. The company was founded in 1823.

Kraft closed it in 2005 and moved production to Poland. It is now empty and it's future use is uncertain.

American corporate business will manufacture wherever it is cheapest to do so. They have no interest whatsoever in the sentimental attachments that we have to our oldest businesses.

Its sad that business today is seen in purely financial terms. Cadburys was so much more than that, it was one of those companies that brought a human face to employment which really improved the living standards of whole communities. So much of that has been lost. We've lost the cultural value of people caring for each other, be it in a family, community or business context. We've replaced it with anonomous and expensive government responsibility which never responds to need in such a personal manner. Its down to global competetive pressures, but its a great pity we're losing the will to lead the world instead of following it. Slash pensions and outsource because other countries don't have these labour costs instead of expecting other nations to work towards some paternalism. The social cost of this movement will haunt the west in years to come.

The other sad point is that another good company will be lost to British investors - chocolate is a good defensive pension play. A leading stock market needs plenty of solid, well known, home grown companies if we are to attract inward investment.

I have a sneaky feeling that in a few years time the chocolate won't taste as good either.

35. At 3:56pm on 24 Sep 2009, hughesz wrote:

"The way the Pound is going south any offer in dollars is going to look attractive..."

If it goes far enough there won't be any redundancies as the Cadbury workers in the UK will be cheaper than the slave / cheap labour in China or India!

Unfortunately US protectionism would ensure that was never the case.

There is nothing quite so pathetic as a board of directors manipulating their share price in order to prevent a takeover for fear of losing their privileges. What a good board would do is seek to bid up the value of the business so that the shareholders either get a good price from the sale of the business or the performance of the business is improved by the current management so that the shareholders do not want to sell up at all.

The problem is that British management by and large is pretty poor being more interested in protecting their own backsides than improving the efficiency of their businesses. The competence of British management generally in both public and private sectors is one of the key factors behind our current economic and social predicament.

Cadbury is one of our better companies; there is little strategic need for it to become part of a large conglomerate which will cherry-pick the best brands, sell off the surplus assets and probably close a load of factories both here and elsewhere. Is this what we want? Does this take us any closer to a better world? I doubt it but it won't 'arf massage a lot of egos; won't it? Also loadsamoney for those nice socially useful M&A people in the City.

What this country needs is more manufacturing industry; more successful companies like Cadbury, not fewer. We cannot live by financial services and media alone. A knowledge economy is all very well as a concept to keep the trousers of the middle class polished but we also need muck and brass to keep all the people employed in value-added activity.

Doing it all cheaper in India, China and elsewhere is not a solution: it just creates a whole lot more problems; like where is the next meal coming from?

Please do not forget that when Kraft acquired Terry's of York, another British chocolate institution, they closed the factory in York and took the production to Europe. Kraft wants Cadbury and cannot afford to buy them so what does that tell us about their intentions. Cadbury is a worldwide brand - it does not need a US company to improve on something that is working successfully.

#28 WOTW

Its a disgrace, really, I agree, unelected ex investment banker, just about says it all

And Peston talking about what Brown thinks will be his legacy..

Oh so it isn't no more boom and bust or prudence... no its international in its focus

OH PUHLEESE

An what, quite is Madam Green Shoots being paid for this new role over and above whatever she gets as a lady and does it involve a pension perhaps?

and Madam Greenshoots pops up in this so-called news attempting to disguise marketing of upcoming TV program

And in the absence of any other bogeyman this week, I see swineflu has reared its ugly head again

Nationalistic sentiments over who owns what, don't belong in today's interconnected commercial world. Brand strength is everything.

Its far too late to turn the clock back, not a lot left to sell.
Even Britain's utilities are now owned by other countries.

There simply isn't enough short term thinking going on. I can't believe that we haven't cashed in everything we've got already. You can't fail to see the logic, it's a multinational world, global markets, economies of scale and all that so it's much better if we simply don't even try to compete. Bow down and accept that the UK is rapidly becoming a third world country.

#47 moorlandwoman

"Nationalistic sentiments over who owns what, don't belong in today's interconnected commercial world."

I guess that depends on the industry - but when American corporations are swallowing up good British engineering companies because they are a threat - ownership definitely matters.

10 years ago most of my customers were British/European today all bar one is American owned.

I am more than a little underwhelmed by Robert’s statement:
"The economic reasons for insisting that a plant based here has to be managed from a UK domicile are not overwhelming."
Having lived abroad I am amazed that the export of industrial influence from the UK seems to be hardly an issue. The present generation of professional politicians probably can be excused for their ignorance of wealth generating activities but if Robert is an example of the typical business journalist then it could explain the lack of public debate.

# 31

This is why I constantly ask (but never get an answer) - where does the profit come from?

Simply speaking profit comes from selling something for more than it costs to buy, manufacture and deliver. It allows businesses to grow and mature. Cadburys would not have been able to build factories if they had never made a profit as they would not have been able to raise the capital without a track record. In my experience, it comes not because there is a mismatch of information but more a mismatch of value. If I buy a car then Ford (or I wish Porsche) may make a profit. That does not mean I have ‘overpaid’ it is still likely to be much less than I would have to pay to build my own car even if I had the skill to do so.
So everyone in the transaction could argue that they have been exploited:
I have paid Ford more than it costs them to build a car so maybe I have been exploited but, I am paying Ford for their skill and expertise which I do not have to build cars.
Ford’s workers could argue that they have been exploited because I have paid more for the car then they have been paid to make it. But Ford’s owners – the shareholders- have taken the risk invested in the people and plant and developed the product so they want a return on their investment.
Ford suppliers could make a similar argument that they have been underpaid.
The owners – shareholders – could argue that Ford have undercharged me because actually for me the cost to build a car would be huge. But, they have to put up with competition from Renault, GM etc. So their potential return is limited.
It is possible to argue that businesses that are successful must by definition be ‘bad’. But they have delivered many of the developments of the last 200 years. Drugs to cure disease, technological advances in transport, fuel for cars and houses.
I understand the argument that the balance of power between the customer, supplier and worker is not working as well as it should. But, while I understand the alternative logic of Marxism it has no track record of delivery.

Having had a long relationship with the British chocolate confectionery market (I run www.chocolatereview.co.uk ). I'm surprised this story doesn't have bigger coverage generally and there isn't a greater public outcry (whether ill informed or not).
To be fair to Kraft, Cadbury has proposed job cuts and Kraft claims that these will be saved by any merger - of course (as previously posted) how long these jobs will be safe given Kraft's track record with Terrys remains to be seen.
How Kraft imagines this will be beneficial in the long term though I have no idea. Britain is still Cadburys best market by far (OK so India is doing pretty well so far). It's products make it unlikely to be able to get a bigger section of the European market and America seem quite happy with Hershey (and a small amount of imported Cadburys). All they'd be doing is reducing the British chocolate confectionery market from 4 big players to 3 and running the (quite significant) risk of a massive consumer backlash that could decimate their sales and a (currently) quite profitable business.
Facebookers unite and join Keep Cadbury Independent -

Personally I don't like Cadbo's chocolate. The taste is bland, the mouth feel is powdery and more than a few squares are cloying. Anglophiles (or Xenophobes) who don't want to buy the much better Swiss or Belgian alternatives should check out Hotel Chocolat. Maybe if France and Spain hadn't lost their 2003 EU fight to have UK chocolate marked as 'chocolate substitute' Cardboardbury's products would be more tasty to a wider customer base and the firm would be a less tasty takeover target...

I worked for Rowntree Mackintosh during the Nestle takeover and assett stripping was all that Nestle wre interested in. Look at some of the companies other than RM that Nestle have taken over: Libbys, Carnation, Findus, British Vinegar, Go Cat, Cross and Blackwell to name a few - where are they now? Production is sent abroad as a cost issue as British workers face redundancy. Cadbury, as was Rowntree, are a bastion of British industry. Keep Cadbury British!

51. At 8:40pm on 24 Sep 2009, blogjt

A good effort at defence, however this paragraph is where it falls apart.

"But Ford’s owners – the shareholders- have taken the risk invested in the people and plant and developed the product so they want a return on their investment."

The measurement of risk.

Now if you or I had to raise the money, putting our houses up as collateral, borrowing from friends and family etc. then it would be a large risk.
However when you're already a multi-milionaire the risk is insignigficant. Even if everything goes pear shaped - you'll still come out with your house and your shirt.

Look at the banking situation - did the interest you and I were charged on our lending reflect the risk we've been left with? If they cannot get those sandbox risks right then how does an entrepeneur decide the fair price for his risk?
Have you never watched Dragon's Den? On there you can see the Dragons overplaying the risks involved in order to exploit the inventor further. Because the Dragons have amassed our wealth from previous exploitations they have reduced their risk to a minimum (hence the piles of money).
Although it's only TV - what you see if effectively the way it works.

Tell me, who invented those drugs to cure diseases and technological advances in transport? Was it the entrepeneur - or the inventor / the scientist?

The system of Capitalism merely prevents the discovery of millions of perfectly good inventions because there is no money to be made (or it's perceived to be). How many electric cars never saw the light of day in the 80's because the oil companies bought them up because they didn't want an alternative to fuel.

In the end, the most powerful and successful people will be the greedy and those who are happy to exploit others for their own gain, simply because they are the ones who will amass the most wealth. Is that the society we're after - one driven from the front by greed?

The hard fact is that most lifestyles in this country are benefitting from the exploitation of others (albeit indirectly) and it's very difficult to wean them off.

I like Cadbury British and if making chocolate in Britain is better and no overseas company is prepared to pay a kingdom to do otherwise, all power to our sweets.

However, to keep things British 'As A Rule' does not inspire me with confidence as the industries become more vital. By this, yes, I mean the defence industry. Someone is already suggesting that we put up the Union Jack by declining to use the JSF in favour of existing British Harriers, and presumably a future British weapon. The sad thing is, having seen the SA80 gun, non-functional helicopters lacking software or training, and an inability to generally protect our soldiers: British weapons are too important to be left to Brits!

Wanting to build on Cadbury's British heritage !!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH !!!

The last US company to say that about an iconic British brand was Heinz and they promptly shut the HP factory down and moved production to Holland. I have not eaten either of their products since.

At the current rate of our stupidity in selling off ALL our industry, what will be left to sell ?

More to the point, when all these foreign companies up sticks who will address the mass unemployment that goes with it. I am at a loss to figure out how our nation can boost its wealth when we sell everything off and all the profits of the newly owned foreign companies flow abroad.

A handful of greedy people make a financial killing in the short term while the majority are left with nothing. It's not even like British companies have the brains to purchase foreign companies. How about Cadbury purchases Kraft and closes it down and moves production here.

It stinks !!!!

When times are hard, what gets cut or phased out, the outlying parts of the Company. Jobs are retained in the home Country and or moved to low wage Countries. How many of the huge number of British Companies sold off to the highest bidder still retain a large presence here? particularly in the Manufacturing Area. - the answer - very few. It does matter who owns a business.You don't see the French or Germans allowing control to slip away!