DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[peder]

I do think Disney will divest some assets; the analyst notes about overall CAGR improving by ditching all the "old world" / physical infrastructure / low- or even declining-growth assets is a good point. However, once you start ditching old assets, you probably need to think about new acquisitions, because you don't want to suddenly be right-sized to be acquired yourself.

Disney's stock performance has been dreadful. It's getting to the point where $3t-valuation $AAPL (or other megacap companies) could make a dilutive, all-stock offer for $DIS and it would be like a drop in the bucket. And if someone does make a move on Disney, you can bet they would ditch these underperforming assets anyway.

 

[wabbott]

I do think Disney will divest some assets; the analyst notes about overall CAGR improving by ditching all the "old world" / physical infrastructure / low- or even declining-growth assets is a good point. However, once you start ditching old assets, you probably need to think about new acquisitions, because you don't want to suddenly be right-sized to be acquired yourself.

Disney's stock performance has been dreadful. It's getting to the point where $3t-valuation $AAPL (or other megacap companies) could make a dilutive, all-stock offer for $DIS and it would be like a drop in the bucket. And if someone does make a move on Disney, you can bet they would ditch these underperforming assets anyway.

Came within an inch of happening in 1984 and again in 2004. Maybe that's what will have to happen again to convince Iger and the board that things have to change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ney-bid/132b806b-0581-4eaa-893a-f8c2db37f596/

Steinberg Launches Disney Bid
By Mark Potts
June 9, 1984

Financier Saul Steinberg and a group of partners yesterday launched a $1.4 billion offer for 49 percent of Walt Disney Productions.

A source close to the Steinberg group said it plans eventually to buy all of the famed movie studio and amusement park company, which began with Mickey Mouse and celebrated Donald Duck's 50th birthday yesterday. Such a takeover could cost as much as $3.1 billion.

Included in the group's plans is an option to sell Disney's motion picture operations--including its gold mine of classic films--for $447.5 million to one member of the investor group, financier Kirk Kerkorian, the majority owner of MGM/UA Entertainment Co., another film industry giant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4239739

Comcast makes hostile bid for Disney

Feb. 11, 2004, 12:26 PM UTC / Source: The Associated Press

Cable television giant Comcast Corp. made a surprise bid for The Walt Disney Co. Tuesday that would create the world’s biggest media conglomerate and likely spell an end to the 20-year career of Disney chief Michael Eisner.

Comcast, which said Eisner had rejected the idea of private talks, stunned the media world with its announcement early Wednesday. It was made just before Disney started two days of meetings with analysts at its flagship Walt Disney World theme park and hours before Disney was set to announce strong first quarter earnings.

The bid was initially valued at $54 billion, but investors bid up the price of Disney stock beyond the Comcast offer — a signal that Comcast would have to sweeten its bid to be successful.

 

[RivShore]

ABC, in my opinion, has been nothing but heartaches ever since. It has diverted huge amounts of management time and resources away from the creative process and the money machine - parks and experiences.

But your only looking at one side of the equation - what about the boatloads of free cash flow it has thrown off in the last 3 decades?

 

[RivShore]

I don't see a scenario on planet Earth that Iger sells ESPN. ESPN is TWDC ticket to gambling, specifically sports betting. I get that TWDC could always try to purchase a current company that runs sports gambling. I'm not confident TWDC will go down that road with ESPN already in hand.

One thing I'm very confident about is that once TWDC gets a taste of that sweet, sweet gambling dough, ESPN will be not only a core brand but also perhaps the most important division.

They will somehow keep gambling at arms length from TWDC, maybe thru some kind of combination with another company.

Disney will never let it go completely because they (rightly) see live sports as the only streamer (or linear) network that is a must have for a large core group of subscribers.

 

[wabbott]

But your only looking at one side of the equation - what about the boatloads of free cash flow it has thrown off in the last 3 decades?

And look where we are now. The stock price is about the same it was seven (7) years ago (summer, 2016), while the S&P 500 has more than doubled. All that money churn hasn't translated into earnings, or return on investment.

 

[clarker99]

Here's the trend however. This is the Q2 earnings report. Advertising doesn't show any prospect of improving anytime soon, it appears.

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2023/05/q2-fy23-earnings.pdf

"Linear Networks revenues for the quarter decreased 7% to $6.6 billion, and operating income decreased 35% to $1.8 billion. The following table provides further detail of Linear Networks results."

It has been 2 Quarters. It may become a trend but reality is that it is still very profitable.

 

[HokieRaven5]

It has been 2 Quarters. It may become a trend but reality is that it is still very profitable.

Just off that Quarter Linear Markets were 27.5%, Domestic Parks 27.2%.

DPEP gets a nice boost from Consumer Products, where DMED is hindered by the Studios and the technology costs associated with all Streaming Platforms (D+, Hulu, ESPN+)

 

[wabbott]

Just to get this out on the thread, here's the NY Times article from when the deal was done. Have things changed in the way information (the written word, the spoken word, moving pictures, still pictures, etc) is distributed since? I'll say they have.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/01/...uire-abc-19-billion-deal-build-giant-for.html
THE MEDIA BUSINESS: THE MERGER; WALT DISNEY TO ACQUIRE ABC IN $19 BILLION DEAL TO BUILD A GIANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT
By Geraldine Fabrikant
Aug. 1, 1995

In the second-largest corporate takeover ever, the Walt Disney Company moved yesterday to create the world's most powerful media and entertainment company, announcing that it would acquire Capital Cities/ ABC Inc. for $19 billion.

The combined company would bring together the most profitable television network and its ESPN cable service with Disney's Hollywood film and television studios, the Disney Channel, its theme parks and its repository of well-known cartoon characters and the merchandise sales they generate.

"These are the two premier family entertainment companies," Michael D. Eisner, the chairman and chief executive of Disney, told a news conference in New York.

The deal, which had already been approved by the boards of both companies when it was announced yesterday morning, was a stunning surprise. In contrast to the much-discussed offer that the Westinghouse Electric Corporation is known to be preparing for CBS Inc., not a word had leaked out about a deal that would create the most powerful entertainment company in the world. Westinghouse is expected to announce its offer today.

Driving the Disney deal is the belief at both companies that they will grow more quickly together than on their own. By acquiring Capital Cities, Disney will become the first media company with a major presence in four distribution systems: filmed entertainment, cable television, broadcasting and telephone wires, through its joint venture with three regional phone companies.

Yet the deal is not good news for everyone. Rival television producers may find that they have fewer outlets for their programs, other entertainment companies may find themselves outmuscled as they seek consumers' attention, and some consumer advocates expressed concern about whether the concentration of ownership might dilute the public's choices of programming.

Without making direct reference to the merger, President Clinton expressed concerns yesterday about the growing concentration of media ownership and said he might veto legislation to deregulate the nation's communications industries.

What Disney brings to ABC, a company that has usually bought its television programs from outsiders, is a highly creative culture committed to developing and distributing original and innovative programs. That should make the ABC network a more formidable rival to its counterparts and to the cable programming services that continue to erode the networks' share of audience.

"Taking nothing away from the senior management at the other networks, this will be the only one where the senior executive is trained true in the creative process," said Barry Diller, the former head of QVC Inc. and the man credited with creating the Fox network.

 

[RivShore]

And look where we are now. The stock price is about the same it was seven (7) years ago (summer, 2016), while the S&P 500 has more than doubled. All that money churn hasn't translated into earnings, or return on investment.

There's a million ways to look at it and no one way tells the whole story.

The TV division has unquestionably delivered earnings over the last 30 years but the current stock price is a function of an industry in upheaval. Wall Street has picked the streaming winner (for today anyway) and it is Netflix, all others will be and have been punished until proven otherwise. We have seen this all before with the music transition to digital and it probably happened with the transition from radio and movies to TV.

In this environment, all the rest of Disney gets overshadowed by the linear and streaming issues. What is the answer? Jetison all the entertainment businesses and be left with a travel business? That would be ripe for takeover and gutting. There's just no easy answers which is why our friend Bob feels the need to stick around, i guess.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Is Iger positioning Disney for a sale to Apple in the coming years? They certainly have the capital to do this, and want to be major player in entertainment going forward. This would let Iger go out on top, with a massive golden parachute to boot.

 

[wabbott]

Is Iger positioning Disney for a sale to Apple in the coming years? They certainly have the capital to do this, and want to be major player in entertainment going forward. This would let Iger go out on top, with a massive golden parachute to boot.

The worst possible outcome of all. It wouldn't be Disney any more. DIS simply HAS to stay an independent company, or all the dreams and memories would be scattered to the four winds for all time.

 

[OKW Lover]

Just an interesting footnote to the whole ABC thing - Iger came into the Disney company as part of their acquisition of Capital City/ABC back in the 90's.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

I think people are jumping the gun on this sale thing anyway. He didn't say he would sell, just that the units and business model have a lot of problems. This certianly could mean a sale, but it could also mean a massive restructuring or strategic shift. He is clearly aware of the challenes faced by the linear model though. Personally, I still think that ABC is a valuable brand, but it may be time to do something radical with it.

Maybe bring more ABC shows and Etc. to Disney+?

 

[RivShore]

Just an interesting footnote to the whole ABC thing - Iger came into the Disney company as part of their acquisition of Capital City/ABC back in the 90's.

That would be something - personally jettison the part of the company that brought him on board.

And did you hear David say in the interview that Iger has been with the company (ABC/Disney) for half its hundred year existence? That would be longer than Walt or Roy, no?

 

[Disney Bobby]

Bob Iger told CNBC “The last thing I want is for the company to be drawn into any culture wars,”

That right there, people, is called gaslighting. Or maybe he was just referring to China. He is the root cause of a lot that is wrong with Disney today. He dove into the culture wars head first. Poor leader that should have never been allowed at the helm of an iconic American company like Disney.

 

[wabbott]

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/hollywood-strikes-broadcast-media-big-155103612.html

Hollywood strikes: Broadcast media is in 'big, big trouble', analyst says
Brad Smith
Fri, July 14, 2023 at 5:51 PM GMT+2

Hollywood actors and writers are both on strike for the first time in over 60 years. Michael Pachter, Wedbush Managing Director, Equity Research, tells Yahoo Finance Live how broadcast media is in "big, big trouble," but streamers won't be "hit as bad" due to international production and being able to purchase streaming rights to existing content.

Video Transcript

BRAD SMITH: The fight in Hollywood heating up as actors and writers come together on the picket line for the first time in over 60 years. So how will this impact studios and streamers? Joining us now, we've got Michael Pachter, Wedbush Managing Director of Equity Research.

And we still have our own very own Ale Canal here. Michael, Thanks for joining us this morning for the conversation. So from your perspective, does this change the calculus about how you evaluate these companies that are still in the business of creating content to try and drive even more subscriptions?

MICHAEL PACHTER: Yeah, it makes me question the judgment of their managements. And I actually agree with Brianne Drescher. I think the studios are just completely wrong on this one. I'm not suggesting that they cave but I'm suggesting that they compromise.
And they just haven't even begun discussions with the writers. The actors, obviously, just went on strike. So, yeah, content is their lifeblood. They're being really foolish about this. And you know, Ale pointed out that the biggest impact is on scheduled series, commercial broadcast. And in particular, daily television. So soap operas and late night.
Those guys are going to have to stop production like now. So that's a real problem. And then, it's going to become a huge problem in September when the new season for broadcast television starts. The streamers aren't hit as bad.

And in fairness, Netflix is like profitable. They're the only profitable streamer. So they can afford to kind of hang out and do nothing. They can shift production overseas. They're making 25 Korean language television shows as we speak. And they can pay up for catalog some more Seinfeld.
And their viewers aren't going to really notice because there's something like 15,000 different titles on Netflix. So you'll always find something to watch there. But broadcast is in big, big trouble. And really, questions the judgment of the managements.

ALEXANDRA CANAL: So Michael, given that point, do you think Netflix is best positioned to weather both of these strikes when you look at all of the media and cable and entertainment companies right now?

MICHAEL PACHTER: Yeah, by far. The movie-- first, it's the commercial broadcast guys that are hit. Second, it's the movie studios. Because, you're right, that it's not going to hit anybody until 2024. But if you have no summer films for 2024. If you let this thing drag out two or three more months, they're screwed. And theaters are screwed.

So the movie studios have to get to the table. Fortunately for them, Netflix sucks at making movies. I mean, they haven't made a good one yet. And the handful that they've made that a lot of people have watched, kind of keep you busy for another two hours. But they don't really care.

And they've been pi$$ing money away on film because they don't have theatrical. So they lose the biggest revenue piece of the pie. They don't have DVD sales. So they-- and they're really de-emphasizing studio films anyway and they're focused more on television. And what they've really discovered is foreign language TV plays well in the US and elsewhere.

So Spanish language plays globally. You're seeing a slew of Scandinavian shows showing up in the US that are dubbed. They're just-- I saw a Turkish show the other day. And I didn't even know you know Turkey made spy thrillers, but it looked very much like a US show.

So Korean TV works. They're going to be absolutely fine. And they're the problem. They're the problem. The studios fed them and made them successful. And now the studios are suffering because they're trying to compete and they can't afford to compete. Netflix would love this to drag on for five more years. So they're the wrong guys to look at to be the first to cave, they will not be the first.

ALEXANDRA CANAL: Michael, I was really struck yesterday by Bob Iger comments in an interview that it's not realistic what the actors and writers are asking for, which I found sort of unusually adversarial. And I just wonder, I've seen a lot of vilifying too of he and some of the other CEOs, who are taking home very hefty paychecks, right?

The relationship between the studios and the actors and writers. Is there a chance of permanent damage there and does it even matter? I mean, do they even have a choice but to work with each other?

MICHAEL PACHTER: Yes, yes, permanent damage. And, no, it doesn't matter. I mean, it's a great headline. Iger made 65 million bucks. That's like 25% of the cost of "Guardians of the Galaxy." So who cares.

I mean, it's a lot of money for an individual but that 65 million wouldn't be spread very far among the Actors Guild or the Writers Guild. So what matters more is your attitude. And Iger is as big a part of the problem as anybody because he decided to chase streaming. And before he chased it, he supported it.

So he used to license Disney content. They pulled their movies off the stars and gave them to Netflix. He's one of the biggest reasons Netflix has succeeded. I think the biggest culprit was probably Les Moonves, who's not employed anymore.

But these guys were so quick to reward shareholders by licensing content immediately to Netflix as soon as the season ended, that they propped up Netflix and they made Netflix into this big threat. Then, they all stupidly decided to follow Netflix.

What they should have done is pulled their content from Netflix and kept it off of streaming for three years and not allowed us to become accustomed to an inexpensive way to view a mass quantity of high quality content. They blew it. And he's the biggest-- second biggest behind Moonves, biggest culprit.

So for him to say it's not realistic. Look at sports. Sports has figured this out they pay out 50% of overall revenue to the athletes. And somehow that works. And what happened? Yeah, the price of a ticket to a football game went from 25 bucks to $200 or more. But, we got more television.

We have now Monday night, Thursday night, Sunday night football. We used to only have one. So more football on TV because they have to pay the athletes more. You'll get better distribution of television or film to televised content if they pay the actors more and you'll get better content.

I think Iger, who's only a few years older than me, is a Luddite. He doesn't get the tech. He's afraid of it. He's emulating it poorly. And I think he's just completely wrong.

BRAD SMITH: Now if we could just do something about my forced exposure to watching the Giants or New York sports versus watching my Philadelphia Eagles in this territory and market.

 

[DeeBee3]

Bob Iger told CNBC “The last thing I want is for the company to be drawn into any culture wars,”

That right there, people, is called gaslighting. Or maybe he was just referring to China. He is the root cause of a lot that is wrong with Disney today. He dove into the culture wars head first. Poor leader that should have never been allowed at the helm of an iconic American company like Disney.

After the news of the live action Snow White, he must be straight out lying. The company keeps making terrible decisions. They don't create much new content and then they try to put a new spin on a classic, but it's ridiculous. The article I read about the plans for the new movie just baffled me.

First Disney said the photos were fake, then they backtracked and said they weren't official. So, the Dwarves are now magical creatures and most of them are standard height. I don't know but I'm just sensitive about this because it was Walt's 1st fully animated film and it was a princess I grew up loving.

It just confuses things that no one is confused about.

 

[fatmanatee]

They don't create much new content

This keeps coming up so I’m just gonna note that Disney and Pixar have released nine animated movies since 2020 and eight of them are original stories.

 

[DeeBee3]

This keeps coming up so I’m just gonna note that Disney and Pixar have released nine animated movies since 2020 and eight of them are original stories.

I understand, but most have caused some controversy and not done terribly well at the box office. As a business model maybe they just want attention. It just seems that they say they are not trying to cause a stir, but everything they put out causes a stir.

Not bringing this up for argument or politics - purely in a business strategy way.

 

[fatmanatee]

I understand, but most have caused some controversy and not done terribly well at the box office. As a business model maybe they just want attention. It just seems that they say they are not trying to cause a stir, but everything they put out causes a stir.

Not bringing this up for argument or politics - purely in a business strategy way.

This is an entirely different argument than “they don’t create much new content” though.