bloggingbuyouts

InBev, the Belgian brewer, today hiked its unsolicited bid for Anheuser-Busch Cos. (NYSE: BUD) by a whopping $5 a share, making it all but certain that the King of Beers will sell -- unless members of the board of directors have spent too much time sampling their own product.

The $50 billion offer represents a substantial premium over where Anheuser-Busch has recently traded. InBev clearly wants to avoid the hostile takeover it's threatened. It has vowed to keep its U.S. operations based in the company's hometown of St. Louis. The average drinker of Budweiser probably will not notice a difference in the taste of their favorite brew, which may or may not be a good thing depending on one's beer snobbery.

Shareholders, including Warren Buffett, are ready to head to the exits. The stock, which is up 17% this year, is trading up in pre-market trading. The company has little choice but to take the bid. No other logical buyers exist and I would be surprised if private equity players would be willing to top InBev's offer.

About the only potential losers in this acquisition may be media companies.

Advertising salesmen are probably all holding their breaths wondering whether the new owners of Anheuser-Busch will turn off the money spigot that has made Budweiser one of the most iconic brands in the world. Imagine a weekend baseball game without a Bud commercial? You have to wonder whether InBev will be as enthused to spend big bucks on the Super Bowl as well.

Politicians may lament that Anheuser-Busch is no longer U.S. owned. Then again neither is Miller. BloggingStocks writer Carol Vinzant did an exhaustive piece yesterday listing about two dozen American icons owned abroad.

I guess beer drinkers will have to stick to craft brewers if they want to support U.S. beer makers. That may be short-sighted though. Thanks to free trade, the world has become more global and there is nothing we can do to change it.

According to (subscription required) the Wall Street Journal, a wave of consolidation in the oil industry could be in the cards given high crude prices that show few signs of letting up.

The Journal reports that, "Private-equity firms, for instance, see the promise of profitable investments. State-owned oil companies from booming China and India are more willing to make big outlays for the assets they crave. Oil companies from producing countries are flush with cash and looking to expand. The big international companies are adjusting their portfolios to focus on their most profitable assets and to buy the advanced technology they need to keep an edge amid growing competition. And small and midsize oil concerns are more likely to pair up to survive."

The interest of private equity is a strong indication that the sector is undervalued. Generally, private equity firms aren't interested in speculating on future commodity prices, so they must think the stocks are undervalued based on current fundamentals.

For most investors, betting on individual oil and gas companies is too risky. If you agree with the notion that a wave of consolidation in the industry is likely to drive prices up, you may want to look at the S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production SPDR (AMEX: XOP). With an expense ratio of just 0.35%, it's an inexpensive way to profit from a bull market there.

For the last 24 hours or so, rumors that Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) may be looking to place a bid for Research In Motion, Ltd. (NASDAQ: RIMM) have been floating to the top of the M&A bowl. It's easy to note that rumors about RIM happen every week, but what makes this one so different? Many, many things.

Microsoft's recent attention to making its Windows Mobile platform entrenched into the market for handheld Smartphones continues to indicate how highly the company places mobile technology in its future growth strategy. By now, it's pretty obvious that companies like Motorola, Inc. (NYSE: MOT), Microsoft and Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) all believe that the future of the internet is in the mobile customer's hands. Yes, we'll always have wireless-enabled laptop computers, but for those growing masses who want the office in their pocket, small Smartphones and like devices are just now beginning to see widespread popularity. It will blossom into a huge market from here.

Unless the price is just too high, Microsoft's acquisition of the best-known name in mobile computing would allow it to gain a very loyal customer base almost instantly, but the company could not just dump RIM's exclusive software and email "push" capability in favor of its own. Both RIM and Microsoft now have systems to automatically push received email to customers in the mobile field in real-time. They are direct competitors.

By buying its largest competitor in this space, Microsoft would own the market for Smartphone-based applications and push email, ahead of European-based Symbian. Microsoft's only problem: RIM's market cap is nearly $47 billion. But with rumors fueling Google's entry into the wireless space in full force soon, Microsoft may again be forced to act in the endless arm wrestling with the internet search giant.

One of the dirty little secrets of Wall Street has been that mergers and acquisitions destroy value for the shareholders of the acquiring company the vast majority of the time. Companies overestimate synergies, overpay for companies, and then have the dreaded "integration problems."

But according to Bain Capital management consultant David Harding, there may be a solution to that problem: He has found that by retaining key employees at acquired companies, and giving them the leeway to manage as they had when their companies were independent.

This isn't a surprising finding. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) is one of the few successful conglomerates out there. It has added value through acquisitions by always retaining top-level management, and given the incentives to run the business as though it were the only source of income for their families for the next 100 years.

It's funny to see private equity big shots announcing their "findings" about acquisition strategies, even though it's already been common sense to people like Warren Buffett for decades. After all, wouldn't it make sense to keep on the management of a successful company?