PinkDalek wrote:TUK020 wrote:TATE Brexit proof?
Hmmmm, interesting.
I suppose it takes a lot of sugar to make industrial amounts of fudge......
Psst - Tate no longer refines sugar and no longer holds the rights to the Tate & Lyle brand (or something along those lines), despite their corporate website being https://www.tateandlyle.com
Ah! I see now, I've been reviewing some of our current holdings....i.e.....to make sure we actually know exactly what they do, and have happened upon the Tate (& Lyle) wiki.
The divesting of the sugar refining part is mentioned here:
Disposal of sugar refining business
In July 2010 the company announced the sale of its sugar refining business, including rights to use the Tate & Lyle brand name and Lyle's Golden Syrup, to American Sugar Refining for £211 million.[15] The sale included the Plaistow Wharf and Silvertown plants.[15]
So why (in general), do firms do this, i.e. divest? Presumably Tate thought they'd be more profitable if they got rid, and someone else (ASR) thought they'd be more profitable with the divested chunk. What gives? How can both parties effectively prosper from the transaction?
Curious,
Matt