canu - how can you call KO a "possible" controlling minority shareholder. first of all there is no such thing as a "controlling" minority shareholder. there are monority shareholder who have enough ownership to kick up dust but the truth is that until one has a significant position (usually 10% or more for a large public company) you're just a knat on the elephant's butt. look at what happened to icahn at time warner.
now back to ko/cce. if you don't believe that ko has the power, take a listen to john brock's statements when cce announced its year end earnings. his tone was very different from when he started, most notably around going out of the ko system to get non-carbs to fill the portfolio. now, all of a sudden, he is confortable with staying in the system. when someone controls 36% of your ownership, controls the majority of your board and you get 99% of you feedstocks from them, tell me what are you to do.
again, i agree with your sentiment, but you really need to wake up. show me any investor, activist, hedge fund, private equity, that wants to go against ko. read the book canu, understand the history here, get a clear view on how and why cce was formed. maybe then you will put all of this into perspective and move on.
Your analogy is imperfect. Icahn, peltz and other activist investors have interests aligned with other shareholders. I fear you confuse an apathetic majority shareholding with a possible controlling minority shareholder. Don't agree? Well, it didn't work at CC-Amatil earlier this century! The majority shareholders got their way with the "controlling" KO. Get active and you will find this to be so at CCE. Stay apathetic, blaming others, and you deserve what is served you.
canu - what you fail to understand is that, with 36% ownership and 7 of the 13 board seats (when you count those held by CCE and Suntrust), KO IS the majority and controlling shareholder. just look how the likes of icahn, peltz and other activist investors can control companies with only owning 5% of their shares. although i agree with you sentiment, you need to face reality.
So when does CCE start negotiating syrup pricing, and proper marketing budgets for a brand in decline,in earnest with KO? This are the key costs to control.
When does CCE say to KO that losing people because of a lack of innovation and success at KO is unacceptable?
Last year, FEMSA made a public stink about KO trying to dip into its pockets. CCE was quiet.
I guess the question is, does CCE management work for all the shareholders are just a subset? Do they work for the majority of shareholders or the minority?
In a more stable business culture, risk taking would be a natural part of the advancement of the organization. Some projects would succeed, some would not. Those that do not add real value to the organization would be revised or discarded efficiently with little or no real threat to individuals, as risk taking is encouraged and failure is part of a learning process.
In a dysfunctional business culture, rational behaviors go out the window and all that matters is survival. Projects are not evaluated on right or wrong, better or worse, or economic value, decision making and evolution are based on allegiances to propping up personal power. In a dysfunctional culture, self corrections are never generated from a lower level of authority, only from above.
you are spot on. there a larger issue/bigger agenda here. i just have not been able to connect the dots yet. cce making these demonstrative (and seemingly destructive changes), ko buying bottling assets around the globe, senior ko executives with years of bottling expereince (isdell, kent and finan). maybe canu is right, ko will let his puppy sink to the low teens or single digits and then snap it up. time will tell.