China to officially buyout Amer: Salomon, Atomic, and Armada

Honestly?

I doubt it changes much for the companies.

Perhaps a new factory in China here or there for some models for all companies, more exposure to the Chinese market (remember Winter Olympics are in Beijing), and perhaps some IP being stolen (jokes).

No way Atomic moves away from their Austrian heritage. I think Salomon skis are pressed at the same factory as the Atomics as well.


TBH, I really think its about exposure to the Chinese market. With top skiing athletes in both the genders being on Atomic skis, the exposure is going to potentially be huge. I'm not sure what the freestyle scene is like for that but I have to imagine same considerations are being made.

**This post was edited on Jan 2nd 2019 at 4:52:31pm

big moves, skiing is spreading like wildfire in china right now. It's the new sport "in" right now

I'm not an Armada whore by any means but I really do like their products. If they keep on making great gear who cares

#capitalismrules

Fuck China I hate shit like this so much.

PeterkrekorianFuck China I hate shit like this so much.

Why? In this case It doesn’t seem like anything will change except Salomon/atomic/armada getting more exposure in the Chinese market.

PeterkrekorianFuck China I hate shit like this so much.

Why? Nothing will change for the end user.

PeterkrekorianFuck China I hate shit like this so much.

Honestly china makes some solid stuff. There is plenty of trash made in America. Supporting local is great but made in America doesn't mean quality and made in china doesn't mean garbage.

marrowsWhy? Nothing will change for the end user.

nothing will likely change for the end user beyond broader access or potentially lower price point in Anta creates some synergistic supply chain leverage across the business.

it's pretty evident that despite being owned by the same holdings company, these brands have operated pretty autonomously... especially Armada. I don't really think that will change all that much. for those that doubt that can happen; i work in finance for a public holdings company that operates in the advanced industrial & minimally invasive surgical spaces. the logic for allowing commonly owned businesses to operate autonomously of each other is to created a diversified portfolio of complimentary (but different) products, create an "ownership mindset" at the business unit level, and cultivate a collaborative and innovative performance based culture across the units. it works, it's a strategy that is employed by some of the most financially successful companies on the planet. while profit is the goal, corporate greed is not always the motive.

BenWhitnothing will likely change for the end user beyond broader access or potentially lower price point in Anta creates some synergistic supply chain leverage across the business.

it's pretty evident that despite being owned by the same holdings company, these brands have operated pretty autonomously... especially Armada. I don't really think that will change all that much. for those that doubt that can happen; i work in finance for a public holdings company that operates in the advanced industrial & minimally invasive surgical spaces. the logic for allowing commonly owned businesses to operate autonomously of each other is to created a diversified portfolio of complimentary (but different) products, create an "ownership mindset" at the business unit level, and cultivate a collaborative and innovative performance based culture across the units. it works, it's a strategy that is employed by some of the most financially successful companies on the planet. while profit is the goal, corporate greed is not always the motive.

What are your thoughts of past takeovers like Oakley and K2, or 4FRNT on a smaller scale? All those scenarios lead to changed company culture, internal ppl quitting, layoffs, athletes being cut, etc. You mention Armada operating autonomously above, but i think many of the athlete/owners lost control in the Amer takeover. That was kinda the whole brand identity. Also, I highly doubt this will lead to lower prices for consumers via some production breakthrough. Worst case, it might actually go in direction of less quality/cheaper goods for the same price as they try to squeeze more profits out of established revenue streams.

artrud23You mention Armada operating autonomously above, but i think many of the athlete/owners lost control in the Amer takeover.

Source on that?

marrowsWhy? Nothing will change for the end user.

Except for your money going abroad instead of supporting local companies and investors, creating more reliance in yet another industry to a country who only has their interests at heart, even further removing the management and interests of the parent company from skiing to profits which no doubt will lead to cost saving measures which will affect North American employees and/or product quality, etc etc etc.

There are a ton of reasons to not want the Chinese to buy up those companies. I would be incredibly surprised if consumers don't notice some major changes within the next decade.

marrowsSource on that?

Powell Movement ep 100 w/ THall

Are they already outsourcing to China?

artrud23Powell Movement ep 100 w/ THall

Cheers

China is also sponsoring an academy of little future olympians at Mt Hood Meadows. They train in both ski and snowboard slopestyle, slalom, banked slalom, moguls.
Kids learned pretty fast too, in 2 weeks most of them are already doing switch 3s and backflips off of Medium sized jumps.

artrud23What are your thoughts of past takeovers like Oakley and K2, or 4FRNT on a smaller scale? All those scenarios lead to changed company culture, internal ppl quitting, layoffs, athletes being cut, etc. You mention Armada operating autonomously above, but i think many of the athlete/owners lost control in the Amer takeover. That was kinda the whole brand identity. Also, I highly doubt this will lead to lower prices for consumers via some production breakthrough. Worst case, it might actually go in direction of less quality/cheaper goods for the same price as they try to squeeze more profits out of established revenue streams.

i can't speak to the nature of Oakley or K2's acquisitions because I'm not all that familiar with them. unfortunately, what happened to those businesses are natural casualties of M&A. in the case of 4FRNT, J-Lev acquired an ownership stake in the company with the sole intent of impacting its strategic position, creative direction, what have you... i don't believe that was the case when AMER bought Armada and now with Anta purchasing AMER. AMER was already has a production relationship with Armada and Armada was financially distressed. What Anta is purchasing is a portfolio of products that are diversified across a broad user base both geographically and stylistically. I have a hard time believing their intent is to micro-manage these relatively small business units in their portfolio.

As far as Armada athletes and owners losing control after the AMER acquisition... those are the terms of sale. the owners could not retain ownership of a poorly levered business, sell out, and then retain an ownership stake. if their brand identity was in being rider owned, that ship sailed when they entered shitty debt covenants. in a choice between ceasing to exist and selling to a larger business, i think they'd choose the latter 10x out of 10.

also - my point about price was not to say that Anta can lead AMER brands to a "production breakthrough"; i didn't say that. i said that Anta, as a sports conglomerate, can create synergies across the AMER brands by leverage their established supply chain. For instance, Anta is in agreement to buy polyester at price $X/unit from ABC company. AMER brands procure it at $X+.50/unit from another supplier. Anta leverages their supply chain to supply polyester for AMER brands at price $X/unit. that's synergy.

BenWhitI have a hard time believing their intent is to micro-manage these relatively small business units in their portfolio.

This x1000. If there wasnt a news article about I doubt people would even realize a difference.

BenWhitI have a hard time believing their intent is to micro-manage these relatively small business units in their portfolio.

GrandThingsThis x1000. If there wasnt a news article about I doubt people would even realize a difference.

Micromanagement is not a worry for takeovers like this and not why people should be upset.

As you say, these companies would be a small portion of their business. This means if a company like Armada starts underperforming there's little incentive to try and save it, it would make more sense for them to just axe it. There's also less intimacy with the company and the product, so cuts to quality and staff are far more likely.

Also the most obvious reason to be against a Chinese takeover is the economics of it. Profits are now going to China instead of Finland. This means lost government revenue in corporate tax and income tax on shareholders. Positive trickle-down effects are now in China, not Finland.


There is no positive to this. Only negatives.

VinnieFAlso the most obvious reason to be against a Chinese takeover is the economics of it. Profits are now going to China instead of Finland. This means lost government revenue in corporate tax and income tax on shareholders. Positive trickle-down effects are now in China, not Finland.


There is no positive to this. Only negatives.

I’m half Finn - were there ski brands existing owned and operated there?

VinnieFMicromanagement is not a worry for takeovers like this and not why people should be upset.

As you say, these companies would be a small portion of their business. This means if a company like Armada starts underperforming there's little incentive to try and save it, it would make more sense for them to just axe it. There's also less intimacy with the company and the product, so cuts to quality and staff are far more likely.

Also the most obvious reason to be against a Chinese takeover is the economics of it. Profits are now going to China instead of Finland. This means lost government revenue in corporate tax and income tax on shareholders. Positive trickle-down effects are now in China, not Finland.


There is no positive to this. Only negatives.

But wouldnt the alternative have been that nobody bought them and Amer would start consolidating and selling them off for parts anyways?

VinnieFMicromanagement is not a worry for takeovers like this and not why people should be upset.

As you say, these companies would be a small portion of their business. This means if a company like Armada starts underperforming there's little incentive to try and save it, it would make more sense for them to just axe it. There's also less intimacy with the company and the product, so cuts to quality and staff are far more likely.

Also the most obvious reason to be against a Chinese takeover is the economics of it. Profits are now going to China instead of Finland. This means lost government revenue in corporate tax and income tax on shareholders. Positive trickle-down effects are now in China, not Finland.


There is no positive to this. Only negatives.

FWIW, Armada was acquired for ~$4.1m USD but had annual net sales of $10mn USD. Amer's 10Q (or whatever they call the quarterly EU filings) said it had no material impact on their FY results.

Despite this, management said it had been one of their best acquisitions.

The reason it was one of their best? Intangible assets. The brand appeal to millennials saw it net double digit growth and profitability become in line with that of other brands. During the acquisition the trademark of Armada was valued at 2.2mn Euros with a 10 year amortization life.That's over half the acquisition value right there. They're not going to get rid of Armada until they find the cost exceeding the value and that means people have to stop buying their skis.

Amer Sports already has one of the biggest ski manufacturing footprints given the size of their portfolio (Atomic, Salomon, Armada). 75% of their skis are manufactured in Bulgaria, the rest are manufactured in Austria. The wood cores from their skis come from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

This means that if they are to switch their manufacturing footprint to China, they'd either need to change their core materials OR transport that wood across Europe and Asia to China.

That's not too cost-efficient. Amer Sports was already able to make Armada profitable thanks to manufacturing simplification. Now, I'm not too sure what this means because it wasn't exactly disclosed in any of the sellside reports or Annual Reports I read but it'd make sense to assume that building a new manufacturing plant/processing manufacturing expertise and processes between plants in EU and China would not be cost effective.

It's clear that you're against this move and I can understand why but to say there are no positives and are only negatives is just wrong.

1. Breaking into China is extremely difficult. The Chinese government often makes it harder for foreign-controlled companies to break into the Chinese market due to the Made in China 2025 policy. However, being owned by a Chinese company or partnered with one often makes it much easier to get around these barriers. This acquisition will remove some of the blocks Amer Sport would have faced moving into the country.

2. Acquiring a new sales force is not cheap nor are they quickly effective especially when moving into a country with little to no exposure to a certain business segment. With this acquisition, Amer Sports will now be able to use the Anta Sports sales team as well as network to get their products into the Chinese market in a faster and more efficient manner than they would have been able to do on their own. FWIW, in 2009 they sold just 11mn Euros worth of product in China, in 2016 it was 100mn. The US market to them is worth over $1bn. The Chinese market is almost certainly larger than the US market for all these goods.

3. With this new market, there will be a need for more products. More products means more manufacturing. More manufacturing means more workers. Now, there is a very good chance that Anta will want Chinese manufacturing facilities, BUT, that does not mean there won't be an increase out of the European facilities. It takes time to build new plants and then ramp up manufacturing. It doesn't happen overnight.

If anything, this acquisition means that Armada is more likely to survive than actually fall apart.

Now let's critique some of your other points:

1. Amer Sport has grown at a slower rate over the past 5 years than Anta Sport. By your logic, Amer Sport would be more likely to cut these smaller parts of their business than Anta. As stated above, this new move brings Amer into a massive market which is hugely beneficial to growth for all of their portfolio companies.

2. Anta has not seen a reduction in employees since 2010-2011. Amer Sports is roughly the same. They've been flat however while Anta has grown.

3. The intimacy argument is just bad. How do you know it didn't change when it was acquired? It's hardly been a year. What makes you think Anta will do that?

4. Anta has no other winter-sports brands like Amer Sports (they do have a JV with Descente JP). They focus on more spring/summer/fall sports, which caters to the lower and middle-income groups. Amer Sports does not with the likes of Enve, Mavic, Arc'teryx, Peak Performance, Suunto, etc. and we all know skiing is certainly not cheap. This almost certainly means that Anta will not look to change their products to fit the lower-class but will now cater to the upper class. There is almost zero incentive for them to try to change these brands to cater to that lower class nor would they cut them outright.


Finally, Amer Sports will be operated independently of Anta, with the current executives from Amer set to continue on.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 10:39:23am

VinnieFMicromanagement is not a worry for takeovers like this and not why people should be upset.

As you say, these companies would be a small portion of their business. This means if a company like Armada starts underperforming there's little incentive to try and save it, it would make more sense for them to just axe it. There's also less intimacy with the company and the product, so cuts to quality and staff are far more likely.

These are inherently opposing and contradictory thoughts. If Anta allows businesses to operate autonomously, how is it then that quality is adversely affected and staff is laid off? you kind of have to pick one, there.

there's two sides to your argument... if standalone brands like Armada being to under perform, Anta has the leverage to lift their performance.

VinnieFAlso the most obvious reason to be against a Chinese takeover is the economics of it. Profits are now going to China instead of Finland. This means lost government revenue in corporate tax and income tax on shareholders. Positive trickle-down effects are now in China, not Finland.


There is no positive to this. Only negatives.

i don't think you fully understand the economics of a deal like this.

BenWhitThese are inherently opposing and contradictory thoughts. If Anta allows businesses to operate autonomously, how is it then that quality is adversely affected and staff is laid off? you kind of have to pick one, there.

there's two sides to your argument... if standalone brands like Armada being to under perform, Anta has the leverage to lift their performance.



i don't think you fully understand the economics of a deal like this.

I guess I didn't explain properly. If a brand like Armada is underperforming and it only makes up a tiny fraction of Anta, what incentives would there be for Anta to prop it up and not just give it the axe? Since it's so far removed from a company like Armada, if Armada is underperforming would they not have no choice but to cut costs (quality + staff) to meet expectations of Anta?


Explain to me the economics of this, oh wise one. Does a parent company not receive profit from their subsidiaries that then gets distributed to their shareholders? Does the parent company not pay tax on its revenue in the country where it's registered? Do shareholders not spend money in the countries where they live? So exactly how is this not transferring wealth from Finland to China?

VinnieFI guess I didn't explain properly. If a brand like Armada is underperforming and it only makes up a tiny fraction of Anta, what incentives would there be for Anta to prop it up and not just give it the axe? Since it's so far removed from a company like Armada, if Armada is underperforming would they not have no choice but to cut costs (quality + staff) to meet expectations of Anta?


Explain to me the economics of this, oh wise one. Does a parent company not receive profit from their subsidiaries that then gets distributed to their shareholders? Does the parent company not pay tax on its revenue in the country where it's registered? Do shareholders not spend money in the countries where they live? So exactly how is this not transferring wealth from Finland to China?

Look at my post above to see what that first assumption is likely wrong based off who Anta is, the difference in growth between the two companies, Armadas intangible assets, and a whole host of other things.

And with regards to shareholders:

Well....Most shareholders of Anta aren't "in" China. Anta's are held in the following areas: 64% BVI, 14% US, 8% Canada, 4% Luxembourg.

That's likely because over 71% of all Anta shares are held by a Holding Company, and the following 20% are held by investment advisers.

Amer's shareholders are distributed as following: 44% in Finland, 16% US, 16% Luxembourg, 6% France, etc

57% are held by an investment adviser, 12% by insurance company, 9% by pension fund, and 9% held by a corporation.

If I had to guess, most shareholders for both companies have insulated themselves or been insulated by their investment holders to paying high taxes on these holdings.

But you're still missing the economic side of manufacturing in Europe, European VAT from EU sales, etc.

Your argument frankly isn't too grounded with the reality of the situation. It may make sense if EVERYTHING was moving from EU to China, but it's not.

.MASSHOLE.FWIW, Armada was acquired for ~$4.1m USD but had annual net sales of $10mn USD. Amer's 10Q (or whatever they call the quarterly EU filings) said it had no material impact on their FY results.

Despite this, management said it had been one of their best acquisitions.

The reason it was one of their best? Intangible assets. The brand appeal to millennials saw it net double digit growth and profitability become in line with that of other brands. During the acquisition the trademark of Armada was valued at 2.2mn Euros with a 10 year amortization life.That's over half the acquisition value right there. They're not going to get rid of Armada until they find the cost exceeding the value and that means people have to stop buying their skis.

Amer Sports already has one of the biggest ski manufacturing footprints given the size of their portfolio (Atomic, Salomon, Armada). 75% of their skis are manufactured in Bulgaria, the rest are manufactured in Austria. The wood cores from their skis come from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

This means that if they are to switch their manufacturing footprint to China, they'd either need to change their core materials OR transport that wood across Europe and Asia to China.

That's not too cost-efficient. Amer Sports was already able to make Armada profitable thanks to manufacturing simplification. Now, I'm not too sure what this means because it wasn't exactly disclosed in any of the sellside reports or Annual Reports I read but it'd make sense to assume that building a new manufacturing plant/processing manufacturing expertise and processes between plants in EU and China would not be cost effective.

It's clear that you're against this move and I can understand why but to say there are no positives and are only negatives is just wrong.

1. Breaking into China is extremely difficult. The Chinese government often makes it harder for foreign-controlled companies to break into the Chinese market due to the Made in China 2025 policy. However, being owned by a Chinese company or partnered with one often makes it much easier to get around these barriers. This acquisition will remove some of the blocks Amer Sport would have faced moving into the country.

2. Acquiring a new sales force is not cheap nor are they quickly effective especially when moving into a country with little to no exposure to a certain business segment. With this acquisition, Amer Sports will now be able to use the Anta Sports sales team as well as network to get their products into the Chinese market in a faster and more efficient manner than they would have been able to do on their own. FWIW, in 2009 they sold just 11mn Euros worth of product in China, in 2016 it was 100mn. The US market to them is worth over $1bn. The Chinese market is almost certainly larger than the US market for all these goods.

3. With this new market, there will be a need for more products. More products means more manufacturing. More manufacturing means more workers. Now, there is a very good chance that Anta will want Chinese manufacturing facilities, BUT, that does not mean there won't be an increase out of the European facilities. It takes time to build new plants and then ramp up manufacturing. It doesn't happen overnight.

If anything, this acquisition means that Armada is more likely to survive than actually fall apart.

Now let's critique some of your other points:

1. Amer Sport has grown at a slower rate over the past 5 years than Anta Sport. By your logic, Amer Sport would be more likely to cut these smaller parts of their business than Anta. As stated above, this new move brings Amer into a massive market which is hugely beneficial to growth for all of their portfolio companies.

2. Anta has not seen a reduction in employees since 2010-2011. Amer Sports is roughly the same. They've been flat however while Anta has grown.

3. The intimacy argument is just bad. How do you know it didn't change when it was acquired? It's hardly been a year. What makes you think Anta will do that?

4. Anta has no other winter-sports brands like Amer Sports (they do have a JV with Descente JP). They focus on more spring/summer/fall sports, which caters to the lower and middle-income groups. Amer Sports does not with the likes of Enve, Mavic, Arc'teryx, Peak Performance, Suunto, etc. and we all know skiing is certainly not cheap. This almost certainly means that Anta will not look to change their products to fit the lower-class but will now cater to the upper class. There is almost zero incentive for them to try to change these brands to cater to that lower class nor would they cut them outright.


Finally, Amer Sports will be operated independently of Anta, with the current executives from Amer set to continue on.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 10:39:23am

That's all fine and dandy. Sure, so companies like Armada are at no risk of falling apart or having lower quality products (although let's wait 10 years and see). This still doesn't change the fact of what I see as the largest negative which is wealth from these brands is now funnelling towards China.

.MASSHOLE.Look at my post above to see what that first assumption is likely wrong based off who Anta is, the difference in growth between the two companies, Armadas intangible assets, and a whole host of other things.

And with regards to shareholders:

Well....Most shareholders of Anta aren't "in" China. Anta's are held in the following areas: 64% BVI, 14% US, 8% Canada, 4% Luxembourg.

That's likely because over 71% of all Anta shares are held by a Holding Company, and the following 20% are held by investment advisers.

Amer's shareholders are distributed as following: 44% in Finland, 16% US, 16% Luxembourg, 6% France, etc

57% are held by an investment adviser, 12% by insurance company, 9% by pension fund, and 9% held by a corporation.

If I had to guess, most shareholders for both companies have insulated themselves or been insulated by their investment holders to paying high taxes on these holdings.

But you're still missing the economic side of manufacturing in Europe, European VAT from EU sales, etc.

Your argument frankly isn't too grounded with the reality of the situation. It may make sense if EVERYTHING was moving from EU to China, but it's not.

2/3rds BVI... This does nothing to say it's not Chinese. It certainly isn't islanders investing in the company.

VinnieF2/3rds BVI... This does nothing to say it's not Chinese. It certainly isn't islanders investing in the company.

Of course. But it could also be a number of things.

I'm looking at a Bloomberg screen right now of geographic ownership, ownership type, etc. of both companies and it's impossible to tell where individual holders are from.

The majority of holdings are institutional, for both companies. A good investment (or institutional) firm is going to insulate their clients from paying high taxes due to capital gains. I know Neuberger Berman, before the end of each tax year, often manages their clients money in such a fashion that their capital gains are next to 0 for the year while in actuality they're a lot higher. You can assume almost all other companies will do something similar.

You're also missing a lot of the economic upside that can come from this. I'm not going to list it all again, but you're missing both the manufacturing upside (more goods produced, more inputs bought, more workers needed, etc.) and the sales upside (taxes on imports and exports, larger sales force potential, etc).

There is almost certainly going to be upside in Europe. To think otherwise is just foolish and naive.

It frankly goes against common sense at this point. You need to do more research before you critique sales like this.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 11:32:21am

VinnieFI guess I didn't explain properly. If a brand like Armada is underperforming and it only makes up a tiny fraction of Anta, what incentives would there be for Anta to prop it up and not just give it the axe? Since it's so far removed from a company like Armada, if Armada is underperforming would they not have no choice but to cut costs (quality + staff) to meet expectations of Anta?


Explain to me the economics of this, oh wise one. Does a parent company not receive profit from their subsidiaries that then gets distributed to their shareholders? Does the parent company not pay tax on its revenue in the country where it's registered? Do shareholders not spend money in the countries where they live? So exactly how is this not transferring wealth from Finland to China?

the costs of dissolution of a business unit are potentially higher than the costs of synergistic leverage to support further growth... not to mention, it's generally not great business practice to eliminate a revenue stream entirely for the simple fact that a business is "under performing." Anta is buying AMER to expand their reach... this acquisition is a globalization play, not a margin expansion play. there is no advantage to eliminating a foreign revenue stream for the simple fact that the business is subjectively "under-performing."

please explain to me how the only choice is cut costs and how cutting costs in inherently sacrificial of quality... that does not compute. quality can potentially be adversely affected by cost cutting exercises, but that's largely and unknown and you are overstating the potential of that. if a business is under performing but is producing high quality goods, it likely has deeper problems to which the answer may very well be cutting staff (which i'm not fully understanding why you are positioning that as an absolutely bad thing).

I think another user explained to you the economics of the situation fairly well, but i'll add that each legal entity files a tax return in the locality that it is incorporated in. Anta is purchasing a controlling share in AMER sports, not necessarily purchasing all of AMER assets and operations. they will still remain legal entities separate of each other.

maybe this deal is "bad" for Finland, but to lay the blanket statement that there are no positives of this transaction is myopic.

.MASSHOLE.Of course. But it could also be a number of things.

I'm looking at a Bloomberg screen right now of geographic ownership, ownership type, etc. of both companies and it's impossible to tell where individual holders are from.

The majority of holdings are institutional, for both companies. A good investment (or institutional) firm is going to insulate their clients from paying high taxes due to capital gains. I know Neuberger Berman, before the end of each tax year, often manages their clients money in such a fashion that their capital gains are next to 0 for the year while in actuality they're a lot higher. You can assume almost all other companies will do something similar.

You're also missing a lot of the economic upside that can come from this. I'm not going to list it all again, but you're missing both the manufacturing upside (more goods produced, more inputs bought, more workers needed, etc.) and the sales upside (taxes on imports and exports, larger sales force potential, etc).

There is almost certainly going to be upside in Europe. To think otherwise is just foolish and naive.

It frankly goes against common sense at this point. You need to do more research before you critique sales like this.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 11:32:21am

If they're expanding into China, why would they increase manufacturing in Europe? Would they not use factories in China and use Chinese labour and materials for product destined for Chinese markets?

I guess I just don't see globalization as a good thing. I would far rather buy my skis from a company that is entirely owned and operated on at least the same continent as me. I'd also rather my money not go towards filthy rich investors who take advantage of tax loopholes (see 2/3rds of their investors.. no other reason to invest though the BVIs) to become even more filthy rich (I'm sure some economist would love to tell me how this is actually benefiting me).

VinnieFIf they're expanding into China, why would they increase manufacturing in Europe? Would they not use factories in China and use Chinese labour and materials for product destined for Chinese markets?

I guess I just don't see globalization as a good thing. I would far rather buy my skis from a company that is entirely owned and operated on at least the same continent as me. I'd also rather my money not go towards filthy rich investors who take advantage of tax loopholes (see 2/3rds of their investors.. no other reason to invest though the BVIs) to become even more filthy rich (I'm sure some economist would love to tell me how this is actually benefiting me).

Because CapEx is expensive as is transporting materials used in Atomic skis. I've addressed that in my first post.

Almost everything you've asked I've addressed.

You're welcome to do that but those companies, at least the majority, don't survive. You don't need to look far to figure that out.

If you don't like globalization then I feel bad for you. I can almost guarantee you are using some product, almost religiously, that is made because of globalization. There are downsides to it, but the upsides far outweigh it.

You realize some of these companies actually manage money for pensions and retirement funds...right?

Anyways, it's clear you have an axe to grind against globalization. It is misinformed but I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to show you the benefits of it.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 11:49:07am

.MASSHOLE.I'm looking at a Bloomberg screen right now of geographic ownership, ownership type, etc. of both companies and it's impossible to tell where individual holders are from.

off-topic but what do you do for work?

.MASSHOLE.Because CapEx is expensive as is transporting materials used in Atomic skis. I've addressed that in my first post.

Almost everything you've asked I've addressed.

You're welcome to do that but those companies, at least the majority, don't survive. You don't need to look far to figure that out.

If you don't like globalization then I feel bad for you. I can almost guarantee you are using some product, almost religiously, that is made because of globalization. There are downsides to it, but the upsides far outweigh it.

You realize some of these companies actually manage money for pensions and retirement funds...right?

Anyways, it's clear you have an axe to grind against globalization. It is misinformed but I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to show you the benefits of it.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 11:49:07am

There is no winning an argument of whether globalization is good or bad. It only comes down to whether you think success revolves around money, and it's clear where you stand on that.

VinnieFThere is no winning an argument of whether globalization is good or bad. It only comes down to whether you think success revolves around money, and it's clear where you stand on that.

Look at global poverty levels and how they've changed.

Then come back to me and tell me if you think that's a bad thing.

That's almost if not entirely due to globalization.

Globalization, when used incorrectly, is not great. There are definitely losers. But there are always winners.

But there doesn't have to be losers if the government sets policies in place to protect displaced workers.


When there is almost unanimous consent among all economists about a subject that generally means its correct. And almost every economists believe the good of globalization outweighs the bad. That includes Chicagoans, Austrians, Kenyesians, New Keynesians, Marxians, MMIs, Neoclassical, Classical, Institutional, Monetarists, etc.

Where they differ is how to approach those who are displaced by it.

**This post was edited on Jan 4th 2019 at 12:01:06pm