3 ms·

But countries can, and do, overrule "global" corporates on a regular basis. For example the USA blocks M&A activity relating to Chinese companies taking over s

But countries can, and do, overrule "global" corporates on a regular basis. For example the USA blocks M&A activity relating to Chinese companies taking over strategic US companies. Will those US companies simply relocate to China to get round this, I doubt it. There is realistically a balance to be had between enabling global commerce and protecting national interests. At the moment the EU seems keen to move that balance more in the direction of their regional interests, no doubt partially related to the current trend for more national interest based policies from the US

jacobush 8y ago
That's because China just isn't good enough for these corporations. If it were, they'd go there faster than you could say "quarterly report".
- adventured 8y ago
  That used to be true. The US switched to taking an aggressive captivity approach to its strategically important corporations. That changed when Pfizer tried to flee to Ireland in an inversion due to high corporate tax rates.[1] Apple, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Walmart, Pfizer, Amazon, Amgen, Merck, Facebook, Qualcomm, AT&T, Verizon, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, Visa, GM, Ford, Disney, Comcast, Procter & Gamble, etc. If any of those companies attempted to leave the US as their corporate domicile (whether to Canada, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, or China), they would likely be blocked by the Treasury. They'll change whatever rules are necessary to maximize the pain. There are a few exceptions to allowing companies to leave. Germany for example, via Bayer, was allowed to buy Monsanto - which is a strategically important corporation - because they're an ally and it's expected that when the US wants to buy an EU company there will be reciprocity (eg the failed NXP Semiconductor acquisition). Smaller companies may slip under the acquisition restrictions for countries not named China (or Russia). For example AMD would be allowed to be acquired by a tech company from Canada or Britain. Celgene or Regeneron would be allowed to be purchased by Takeda Pharma. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-allergan-call-off-160-billion-merger-after-us-moves-to-block-inversions/2016/04/06/4fd55446-fc11-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-aller...

jacobush 8y ago

That's because China just isn't good enough for these corporations. If it were, they'd go there faster than you could say "quarterly report".

adventured 8y ago
That used to be true. The US switched to taking an aggressive captivity approach to its strategically important corporations. That changed when Pfizer tried to flee to Ireland in an inversion due to high corporate tax rates.[1] Apple, Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Google, Walmart, Pfizer, Amazon, Amgen, Merck, Facebook, Qualcomm, AT&T, Verizon, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Exxon, Chevron, Berkshire Hathaway, Visa, GM, Ford, Disney, Comcast, Procter & Gamble, etc. If any of those companies attempted to leave the US as their corporate domicile (whether to Canada, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, or China), they would likely be blocked by the Treasury. They'll change whatever rules are necessary to maximize the pain. There are a few exceptions to allowing companies to leave. Germany for example, via Bayer, was allowed to buy Monsanto - which is a strategically important corporation - because they're an ally and it's expected that when the US wants to buy an EU company there will be reciprocity (eg the failed NXP Semiconductor acquisition). Smaller companies may slip under the acquisition restrictions for countries not named China (or Russia). For example AMD would be allowed to be acquired by a tech company from Canada or Britain. Celgene or Regeneron would be allowed to be purchased by Takeda Pharma. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-allergan-call-off-160-billion-merger-after-us-moves-to-block-inversions/2016/04/06/4fd55446-fc11-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-aller...