Business: Drug, Disincorporated

(4 of 4)

ahead. For most Drug Inc. products are specialties and in such a time those in charge of each specialty want to be able to act quickly without interference. The prospective split up will not however restore the status quo ante, for things have changed during the depression. The comparative value of the companies that went into Drug Inc. can be roughly measured by the number of Drug Inc. shares issued to acquire them. The percentage of the costs of dissolution to be borne by each company is a guide to the management's opinion of present value: Percentage of Costs Estimated* Original of 1932 Percentage Demerging Earnings Sterling Products. 41% 49% 10,000,000 United Drug. . . . 34% 20% 2,575,000 D Vick Chemical. . . 13% 17% 2,900,000 Bristol-Myers . . . 7% 11% 2,200,000 Life Savers. ... 850,000

To Mr. Diebold, the tall, mild president of Drug Inc.. and his alter ego aggressive Vice President W. E. Weiss, the dissolution of the holding company means but a partial reduction of responsibility. This team will continue managing the same Sterling Products which they put into the merger five years ago. Only Mr. Liggett, of United Drug, and particularly George M. Gales, who heads its unfortunate Liggett Drug chain, can be said to leave the merger somewhat sadder than they entered it — because United Drug alone has had a serious setback. On the other hand United Drug may conceivably make the biggest progress of any ex-member of Drug Inc., for it has followed depression down to the bottom. The millstone of real estate leases which bore down its Liggett Stores has been lifted by bankruptcy. Ergo, the happy wedding of five years is succeeded by a happy divorce.

*Estimated by Dow Jones—no separate reports published since the companies joined Drug Inc. D=Deficit.