This to my understanding was never a joint venture or alliance, I thought an alliance is made up of two independent companies coming together to form a new strategic unit. That is not the case here.

Even if we consider it to be an alliance for argument purposes, then Lafarge must have negotiated very well such that other venture owners have been given a raw part of the deal.

A strategic alliance would not be done by entering together with a competitor on the same line of business are you are operating and in the same location. Such an alliance brings no added value if one was to enter into such a deal.

It sounds as though you are misunderstanding the whole concept of alliances.

A clear case of an alliance is Shell/BP in Kenya. Two companies coming together to form a new unit in a new geographic location for sake of risks and costs.

Another example is Siemens and Nokia, which both made a joint venture Nokia Siemens Networks. Each company contributed their Network portfolios.

Where are the two companies that have come together in what you are calling an alliance?

I can only see Bamburi investing into another company. This should even be described that Portland is Bamburi's subsidiary. In fact it is if we consider ownership structure.

Competing on the same products but at different customer segments makes it even worse. This ensures that Portland never enters Bamburi's businesses which is actually possible since its an issue of quality and processes.

I know alliances can take various forms, but I still hold the opinion that this Portland - Lafarge issue is not at all an alliance not even near. You can quote me on that one.

On the other hand you can explain what kind of alliance it is if you happen to know more, I dont mind learning something new.

Nope, Not at all !

Lafarge owns Bamburi but does NOT own Portland.

"Bamburi Cement Limited is a subsidiary of Lafarge, the world leader in building materials...."


Why would the newspaper report such a flimsy statement from the MD without taking him to task. The MD says...“Lafarge is not Bamburi. As Bamburi Cement, we only own 12.5 per cent of Portland and have no influence at the firm’s AGM. We also do not appoint directors at the firm,” said Mr Hussein Mansi.

If you try to go to Bamburi's website www.bamburicement.com you are redirected to Lafarge.co.ke and there is a clear statement in english to the effect..."Bamburi Cement Limited is a subsidiary of Lafarge, the world leader in building materials...."

I wouldn't be surprised if this will turn out to be one of the biggest board room scandals this decade.

I will not be easily duped on this one, something is utterly wrong here...

Yawa....I thot i said the % matter...A company becomes a subsidiary of another once it gains a majority of over 50% as such Bamburi becomes a subsidiary of lafarge. As for portland, its stake ni 41% but that guarantees them a seats on the board. I think i agree with Bamburi MD...let them talk to lafarge.