Ms. M.W. sent this very intriguing article along, and it contains a number of things that should be brought to the attention of the readership here:
Now, here's what caught my attention in this article:
"Approximately $8 billion in debt securities are affecting a popular investor’s service decision about one of biotech’s biggest. Investing credit rating company Moody’s has affirmed that Monsanto’s new rating is being downgraded from ‘neutral’ to ‘negative’ following Syngenta’s announcement that it has refused Monsanto’s unsolicited bid of CHF449 per Syngenta share in a combination of cash and stock.
"Monsanto’s offer would have valued another biotech bully at a mere US$20 billion paid in cash. For investors in Monsanto, Moody’s calls their aggressive attempt at takeover a “heightened event risk” due to their more aggressive financial policy.
"Indeed – Monsanto’s financial policy seems to match their aggressive actions elsewhere – from bullying federal judges to trying to orchestrate a trade monopoly through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
And then there's this trenchant observation:
"However, Moody’s doesn’t seem to take into account the fact that consumers and farmers are more increasingly refusing GM products – whether it’s the glyphosate that Monsanto sells via Round Up or the Round Up Ready crops they push on farmers throughout the world.
"There have been increasing farmer uprisings against Monsanto, and the demand for organic is booming so much that the US is now importing more organic food than they are growing."
And then finally, this:
"It doesn’t mention that Monsanto’s research pipeline is all paid for and that the company has an entire department dedicated to discounting any scientific research which paints them in an unfavorable light. This is obviously not a sustainable way to do business, since even the World Health Organization has called glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’ and organizations everywhere are now demanding a ban on glyphosate.
"We can only hope that the Monsanto/Syngenta merger does not happen. It would result in a bloated agricultural chemical giant capable of dominating the seed market at almost three times the rate of its nearest competitor."