Link : http://bit.ly/1gRAVEm
Demaré Michel, chairman of Syngenta, Monsanto replica advances. He said he was "irritated" by the repeated offers of the American giant on its competitor Basel
He was not in Basel. Thursday Demaré Michel, president of the Board of Directors of Syngenta, was not at the headquarters of the pesticide giant for the publication of interim results (see box). By phone, however, he agreed to discuss the proposal with Time Monsanto. In April, the American specialist GM has proposed a 45 billion dollar (449 francs per share) to merge with Syngenta, which has so far refused.
Time: The results published Thursday by Syngenta are better than what was expected analysts. Will these figures reinforce your position on Monsanto?
Demaré Michel: Yes, it's a very powerful message. This will increase our credibility with shareholders. At constant exchange rates, sales rose 3% in a difficult environment, it shows that the fundamentals are there and that only, we are doing very well.
- Pierre Landolt, a former member of your board, recently said in these columns that the history between Monsanto and Syngenta resembled goat Seguin; Syngenta will resist all night, but to eat in the morning ...
- No, absolutely not. And I have great respect for Pierre but I'm willing to bet a bottle with him wrong. I think Monsanto comes at a fairly opportunistic time. Clearly they have some doubts about their future and think it will take them a chemical basis for crop protection to develop. So they attack the industry leader. But we are not the kind of assets to be bought at a discount. And we are not for sale! In their proposal, three elements are unacceptable: the risks associated with competition authorities, sharing the fruits of unfair synergy to Syngenta's shareholders and the offer price. You interviewed Hugh Grant [the boss of Monsanto], but two questions remained unanswered: how does it feel to get from selling our seeds business and how he thinks earn tax reversal that it intends to achieve. If he had given you an honest answer on these points, you would have understood that Monsanto wants to buy Syngenta at a ridiculous price. But he was extremely discreet. For three weeks, he speaks, he speaks, he speaks but nothing new comes. Except two things: the tone becomes less and less friendly and unfounded insinuations are growing ...
- You published confidential letters sent by the boss Monsanto yourself talk of a bid "grossly inadequate", a "simplistic" approach "totally irresponsible" ... It is not very friendly either ...
- There's nothing personal. The Board is unanimous behind this approach. Understand: This is the third time that Monsanto comes knocking at our door. If you have a beautiful house and someone wants to buy it at a price that does not reflect its value, the first time you say no nicely, thank you. The second time, too. But the third time, you do not even offer a cup of coffee. It is there. If the dream of Hugh Grant is to acquire the company as he says, he must pay the price. Moreover, he continues to call it a merger. But this is a hostile takeover bid [unfriendly takeover]. And, yes, there is some irritation because it's been four years that they are in our back without serious offer. it's a waste of time. Hugh Grant sends communiqués saying "they say no, but I think no means yes", well he is mistaken. No no means.
- Hugh Grant replied that he could improve his offer if you gave it access to your records ...
- But there are so many areas where we have a duopoly between Monsanto and Syngenta - for example in research on maize. Are we going to show them all new products that we are currently developing? This is unacceptable to come up with such a proposal.
- In one of your letters, you say that, in the case of a merger, Monsanto's reputation would prejudice that of Syngenta. How would you describe the image of Monsanto?
- This is the least popular company in the industry - which is itself not popular. Monsanto is aggressive in its communication, accentuating his problem. Their behavior in recent weeks only reinforces this impression. With the new company, they propose to solve this by changing name. But society is as a person. Tomorrow you might call you instead of Pierre Valere, you will always have the same DNA, the same manners, the same education, the same attitude ... The cultural difference between our two companies is huge and would pose obvious problems in terms of integration.
- In these columns two weeks ago, Hugh Grant explained how your shareholders showed themselves enthusiastic about this offer. This will he worry?
- Three weeks ago, I also spoke with our holding. It is a manipulation of information that our shareholders support the Monsanto approach. We must distinguish two categories. On one side there are those who own only shares of Syngenta, who are very interested in our explanations and want to understand our individual strategy - that we will do more in the weeks to come as our director, Mike Mack, and our director Financial, John Ramsay, will go on a roadshow in Europe and the United States to meet about it. On the other side, there are those which refers Hugh Grant, who own shares of Syngenta and Monsanto shares and want to see an agreement into place.
- Hugh Grant also said: "Michel Demaré is concerned about the reaction of the authorities, but if you increase the price, he would come in. It's fun! "What do you say to that?
- Again, this is a very interesting way to handle the truth. With a higher price but ignoring the other problems, it would be too dangerous. We would engage in the dismantling of our society.