Edited by author 03-11-2004 10:10 PM
Gosh... that's a remarkably silly question. The answer to which is "Rowntree Mackintosh". Remember them? When the European Single Market was poised to open, they spent fortunes on what they saw was a once-in-a-lifetime oppportunity. A huge NEW market that didn't eat much chocolate... but might possibly be persuaded to. They did market research, they set up focus groups... they discovered that "Have a break, have a Kit-Kat" doesn't work in Germany - but "Don't have a break, have a Kit-Kat instead" worked wonderfully. The more money they spent on market research, the more promising things looked... and the lower their interim profits looked after the expensive research. Nestle staged a "dawn raid" - rang all of Rowntree's major corporate shareholders an an unearthly hour of the morning and offered them a time-limited deal - "Seel us ALL of your shares at a few pence over market price, this deal good until 9.00am" And the fund managers looked at the balance sheets, and said with one voice: "Sell!" Nestles now own Europe's biggest selling brands in almost EVERY kind of confectionary. Lion bars, KitKats, Quality Street - they're ALL Euro-brand leaders, and they're all making fortunes for Nestles. You asked "do shareholders not care about the long(er) term future....?" And I fear the answer is "No". Ownership these days counts for little - funds aren't so much "owned" as "managed". And the remit of the managers is twofold - their own careers, and short-term profit. All else is irrelevant and unmeasured. The wording of your question is kind of ironic: "eating the lion". And the Kit Kat!