So, Maker's Mark and Knob Creek are Japanese now ... ;)

Analysts suggested it had overpaid, at 20 times operating profit, in the biggest deal in the sector since Pernod bought the owner of Absolut Vodka in 2008.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mark ... -Beam.html

This deal also puts Laphroaig under Suntory control.

[Robin Garr]

This deal also puts Laphroaig under Suntory control.

Yeah, the original post listed the roll call. I don't know if this is exhaustive, but ...

Suntory will gain Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark and Knob Creek Bourbons, Teacher’s and Laphroaig Scotch whiskies, Canadian Club whisky, Courvoisier Cognac, Sauza Tequila, and Pinnacle vodka.

Robin: this is very different than Binghams selling out, or Humana hospitals selling . . .

Suntory owns multiple brands, but their largest (Asian) brands have little if any distribution in the US, while bourbons are already sold throughout Japan and the rest of Asia. By making this purchase, they will increase sales of Beam products in Asia (as other bourbons now have larger market shares there), but really they can utilize the Beam distribution system to start getting their brands into the American market (which remains the world's largest liquor market, especially for prestige branded products if memory is correct).

In other words, for this to work they likely will increase personnel in the US, especially on the distribution side.

In any case, as all but production likely was headquartered in Deerfield IL, the net result for Kentucky is slightly positive if changed at all.

This deal also puts Laphroaig under Suntory control.

Yeah, the original post listed the roll call. I don't know if this is exhaustive, but ...

Suntory will gain Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark and Knob Creek Bourbons, Teacher’s and Laphroaig Scotch whiskies, Canadian Club whisky, Courvoisier Cognac, Sauza Tequila, and Pinnacle vodka.

Add skinny girl wine and RTDs. Calico Jack Rum. Cruzan Rum.

[Robin Garr]

In any case, as all but production likely was headquartered in Deerfield IL, the net result for Kentucky is slightly positive if changed at all.

That's certainly true, Andrew.

As for the rest, I hope you are correct, and I certainly don't view Japanese ownership as being any worse than any other mega-corporate structure. However, going back to the Bingham analogy, I think we're still faced with the "stockholder-fiduciary" dilemma in any multi-national situation. Until such time as we see major social change - which may require the return of the guillotine - we can't count on multinationals to make any decision that's contrary to the bottom line. Family-owned companies can consider long-term consequences and reputational issues, but multinationals really can't.

In any case, as all but production likely was headquartered in Deerfield IL, the net result for Kentucky is slightly positive if changed at all.

That's certainly true, Andrew.

As for the rest, I hope you are correct, and I certainly don't view Japanese ownership as being any worse than any other mega-corporate structure. However, going back to the Bingham analogy, I think we're still faced with the "stockholder-fiduciary" dilemma in any multi-national situation. Until such time as we see major social change - which may require the return of the guillotine - we can't count on multinationals to make any decision that's contrary to the bottom line. Family-owned companies can consider long-term consequences and reputational issues, but multinationals really can't.

While I REALLY don't want to open a new thread here, you are making a bad generalization. For example, most American executives are paid bonuses based on current stock prices (or stock increases). Canadian executives (for example) are paid based on profit trends and future outlook. This makes corporate strategies very different just between these two, with American executives managing to the bottom line and stock price increases, and Canadian executives managing for long-term profitability! Add in the fact that the Japanese government gets involved with long-term strategic goals for Japanese companies, and they are no longer comparable to American companies (may in fact act the same, but cannot predict without an understanding of how the Japanese government looks at the liquor industry and Japan's role in developing it, along with knowledge of how Suntory execs are paid bonuses).

[Robin Garr]

you are making a bad generalization. .

And you explained that with clarity and a positive approach. I appreciate that, Andrew, both for the knowledge and for the graciousness with which you brought it.

Makes me even more cranky about the US approach, though, and its apparent bipartisan approval.

Suntory is a private company. We will never know how its execs are compensated.

The whole thing makes me wonder if this is a "top" in bourbon.

[Robin Garr]

Here is The Bourbon Review's take on the Suntory acquisition:

http://gobourbon.com/beam-and-suntory-n ... 0b05d34580

Especially at the higher end, quality has to be maintained to keep current customers loyal to your product. If you look at the ownership of distilleries in Scotland, you'll find many of them have been gobbled up by larger entities, while keeping a consistency in their product.

...Family-owned companies can consider long-term consequences and reputational issues, but multinationals really can't.

How do you explain the Koch brothers?

[Robin Garr]

How do you explain the Koch brothers?

Outliers? Too rich to fail? Too amoral to be bound by the modest restrictions that most people understand as part of the price of humanity? Something like that ...

(I actually know a Koch brother! Not the evil twins, but another brother who is a major wine geek and broke with the family business years ago. He seems to be a nice guy, although I don't really know him well, I've just drunk with him. )

Another view on the acquisition from the Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/fo ... story.html

I just listened to a podcast by Mark Gillespie called WhiskyCast from last August.

From it I learned that Maker's, after the big watering down controversy, was so concerned that it didn't have enough to prevent stock-outs affecting it's loyal customers that they decided to START shipping product to Australia.

I would have more respect for them if they would be honest about just wanting Mo Money instead of lying to the public. Yep, I used a pretty strong word there, but it is what it is.

not to be argumentative... but you can find online items about the watering down controversy from people who were already drinking MM in Australia.

Including this from Feb 2013

No change to Maker's Mark ABV in Australia: Beam

A reduction of the alcohol-by-volume of Maker's Mark bourbon will not affect the product in Australia, where it is already sold at a lesser ABV of 40 per cent, Beam Australia has confirmed.

Beam Inc this week announced its intention to reduce the ABV of Maker's Mark from 45 per cent to 42 per cent to help address supply shortages.

"The demand is continuing to grow at a pace we've never before experienced," said Chairman Bill Samuels, announcing the decision.

But a Beam Australia spokesman said it's the status quo for the brand in Australia.

"This adjustment does not affect the brand in this market as Maker’s Mark has been sold at 40 per cent ABV in Australia for many years," he said.

"In Australia, Maker's Mark has grown sales at a double-digit rate in recent years off a relatively small base, and we look forward to continuing to grow the brand here."

Samuels this week urged concerned drinkers to reserve their decision on the move until they actually taste the whiskey.

"Every batch at 42 per cent ABV had the same taste profile that we've always had," he said.

"Then, we validated our own tastings with structured consumer research and the Tasting Panel at the distillery, who all agreed: there's no difference in the taste."

http://www.theshout.com.au/2013/02/13/a ... KUCJA.html

that seems pretty conclusive that they weren't starting distribution to Oz.