DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[Jwaire]

Eisner, faults and all, was also a creative. If we could find a clone of him, circa 1984, it would be a blessing.

And a richy rich like Tim Cook to purchase about 20% of DIS and support him like the Bass Bros did Eisner and Wells.

Did Laureen Powell Jobs sell all of her DIS stock yet?

 

[wabbott]

And a richy rich like Tim Cook to purchase about 20% of DIS and support him like the Bass Bros did Eisner and Wells.

Did Laureen Powell Jobs sell all of her DIS stock yet?

https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/a-peek-inside-laurene-powell-jobs-13-5-billion-fortune/

 

[Jwaire]

https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/a-peek-inside-laurene-powell-jobs-13-5-billion-fortune/

"These shares were worth about $10 billion. She sold off most of her Walt Disney shares, reducing her net worth by a huge $7 billion, leaving her Apple shares, and despite this, she still owns about a 4% stake in Walt Disney which earns her $120 million yearly."

She got out in time.

 

[irlandaise]

"These shares were worth about $10 billion. She sold off most of her Walt Disney shares, reducing her net worth by a huge $7 billion, leaving her Apple shares, and despite this, she still owns about a 4% stake in Walt Disney which earns her $120 million yearly."

She got out in time.

That article doesn't make sense. Why would her net worth have decreased by $7B when she sold those Disney shares? She just would have converted $7B in equity shares to $7B in cash. The value of her trust wouldn't have diminished.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Eisner, faults and all, was also a creative. If we could find a clone of him, circa 1984, it would be a blessing.

Don't forget to bring Frank Wells back from the dead, even if the only method we could find is with necromancy!

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Come'on Elon...just blow some more billions on another company and set sail!

No way he should buy Disney! He's too tech savvy. Hasn't he ruined Twitter/X enough already?

 

[wabbott]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...stors-sue-disney-streaming-losses-1235577249/

Investors Sue Disney Over Alleged Chapek Era “Cost-Shifting Scheme” to Hide Streaming Losses

The suit takes aim at former CEO Bob Chapek's lofty subscriber growth and profitability targets for Disney+. The entertainment giant faces a host of litigation dealing with efforts to boost subscriptions for its streaming service.

By Winston Cho
August 29, 2023 11:37am PDT

As Disney stock hovers at its lowest levels in nearly a decade, the company was hit with another lawsuit alleging it misled investors about the success of Disney+ by concealing the true costs of operating the platform.

Disney is being accused of lying about the extent of its losses to hit lofty subscriber growth targets and claiming that the streaming service was on track to achieve profitability by the end of 2024. Investors detail a scheme to “inappropriately shift costs” by debuting content created for Disney+ on legacy platforms to move marketing and production costs.

The complaint filed on Aug. 23 in California federal court is at least the third taking issue with the company’s efforts to boost subscriptions for its streaming platform. It faces an identical investor suit over an alleged “cost-shifting scheme” in its streaming division and claims that it obstructed a deal between TSG Entertainment Finance and 20th Century Studios, which Disney owns, to “prop up” Disney+ and inflate its stock price.

The suit claims that company executives hid the expense and difficulty of maintaining subscriber growth as it suffered “staggering costs” to create content. In an effort to hide losses, the complaint claims, former chief executive Bob Chapek, his lieutenant Kareem Daniel and former CFO Christine McCarthy aired The Mysterious Benedict Society and Doogie Kameāloha, M.D. — which were supposed to be Disney+ originals — on the Disney Channel to make the streaming service appear more successful than it actually was.

Investors take issue with statements from the executives touting gains. For example, in December 2020 Chapek said, “Disney+ has exceeded our wildest expectations with 86.8 million subscribers as of December 2” and that the “success” of the platform has “bolstered our confidence in our continued acceleration towards a DTC-first business model.” He repeatedly stated that it would be profitable by the end of 2024. This forecast represented an “astounding three-fold increase from prior estimates without any degradation in expected profitability for the segment,” the suit says.

After acknowledging that subscriber growth had slowed in 2021, Disney reported last year that it missed analyst estimates by wide margins on revenue, sales and earnings. In Q4 2022, the company’s direct-to-consumer arm, which includes Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu and Hotstar, reported an operating loss of $1.47 billion — up from a $630 million loss in the same quarter the year prior. Disney’s stock plummeted by more than 13 percent at the time.

“The Company also reported a decline in its average revenue per Disney+ subscriber, as more customers subscribed through a discounted bundle with the Company’s other services,” the complaint states. “Notably, the bundled offering made up about 40% of domestic subscribers, confirming that Disney was relying on short-term promotional efforts to boost subscriber growth while impairing the platform’s long-term profitability.”

The suit also details Disney’s pivot to prioritizing streaming amid the pandemic. While the company’s theme parks, resorts and cruise lines were forced to close as movie theaters shuttered, subscriptions to Disney+ rapidly took off, according to the complaint. When the service launched in November 2019 before Chapek took over, Disney set an initial target of 60 million to 90 million subscribers by the end of 2024. But after Chapek assumed leadership, Disney+ experienced higher growth than originally anticipated, gaining over 50 million subscribers in its first five months and nearly 74 million subscribers in its first year.

Against this backdrop, Chapek decided to “go all in” on the platform, announcing a major reorganization of the company’s media and entertainment operations. Distribution and commercialization activities were centralized into the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution (DMED) arm, which essentially became responsible for the monetization of all content globally, the suit says.

Investors say that the reorganization represented a “dramatic departure from Disney’s historical reporting structure and was hugely controversial within the Company because it took power away from creative content-focused executives and centralized it in a new reporting group” led by Daniel. Prior to this, Disney was organized into four reporting segments comprised of media networks, parks, studio entertainment and direct-to-consumer.

“With this new structure, Chapek removed budgetary and distribution control from the heads of Disney’s content groups (much to their dismay) and placed control in the hands of DMED’s new Chairman, defendant Daniel, who reported directly to his long-time mentor Chapek,” states the complaint, which notes that the duo “exerted near complete control over the Company’s strategic decisions around content.”

After Bob Iger, who was also named in the complaint, returned to lead the company, he made clear that an important component of restoring Disney’s success would be to return power back to creative executives, including distribution decisions. The suit points to the statement as evidence that Chapek’s comments on his reorganization were meant to mislead investors.

Disney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.scribd.com/document/667927483/Stourbridge-Investments-v-Disney#fullscreen&from_embed

 

[Elijah Abrams]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...stors-sue-disney-streaming-losses-1235577249/

Investors Sue Disney Over Alleged Chapek Era “Cost-Shifting Scheme” to Hide Streaming Losses

The suit takes aim at former CEO Bob Chapek's lofty subscriber growth and profitability targets for Disney+. The entertainment giant faces a host of litigation dealing with efforts to boost subscriptions for its streaming service.

By Winston Cho
August 29, 2023 11:37am PDT

As Disney stock hovers at its lowest levels in nearly a decade, the company was hit with another lawsuit alleging it misled investors about the success of Disney+ by concealing the true costs of operating the platform.

Disney is being accused of lying about the extent of its losses to hit lofty subscriber growth targets and claiming that the streaming service was on track to achieve profitability by the end of 2024. Investors detail a scheme to “inappropriately shift costs” by debuting content created for Disney+ on legacy platforms to move marketing and production costs.

The complaint filed on Aug. 23 in California federal court is at least the third taking issue with the company’s efforts to boost subscriptions for its streaming platform. It faces an identical investor suit over an alleged “cost-shifting scheme” in its streaming division and claims that it obstructed a deal between TSG Entertainment Finance and 20th Century Studios, which Disney owns, to “prop up” Disney+ and inflate its stock price.

The suit claims that company executives hid the expense and difficulty of maintaining subscriber growth as it suffered “staggering costs” to create content. In an effort to hide losses, the complaint claims, former chief executive Bob Chapek, his lieutenant Kareem Daniel and former CFO Christine McCarthy aired The Mysterious Benedict Society and Doogie Kameāloha, M.D. — which were supposed to be Disney+ originals — on the Disney Channel to make the streaming service appear more successful than it actually was.

Investors take issue with statements from the executives touting gains. For example, in December 2020 Chapek said, “Disney+ has exceeded our wildest expectations with 86.8 million subscribers as of December 2” and that the “success” of the platform has “bolstered our confidence in our continued acceleration towards a DTC-first business model.” He repeatedly stated that it would be profitable by the end of 2024. This forecast represented an “astounding three-fold increase from prior estimates without any degradation in expected profitability for the segment,” the suit says.

After acknowledging that subscriber growth had slowed in 2021, Disney reported last year that it missed analyst estimates by wide margins on revenue, sales and earnings. In Q4 2022, the company’s direct-to-consumer arm, which includes Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu and Hotstar, reported an operating loss of $1.47 billion — up from a $630 million loss in the same quarter the year prior. Disney’s stock plummeted by more than 13 percent at the time.

“The Company also reported a decline in its average revenue per Disney+ subscriber, as more customers subscribed through a discounted bundle with the Company’s other services,” the complaint states. “Notably, the bundled offering made up about 40% of domestic subscribers, confirming that Disney was relying on short-term promotional efforts to boost subscriber growth while impairing the platform’s long-term profitability.”

The suit also details Disney’s pivot to prioritizing streaming amid the pandemic. While the company’s theme parks, resorts and cruise lines were forced to close as movie theaters shuttered, subscriptions to Disney+ rapidly took off, according to the complaint. When the service launched in November 2019 before Chapek took over, Disney set an initial target of 60 million to 90 million subscribers by the end of 2024. But after Chapek assumed leadership, Disney+ experienced higher growth than originally anticipated, gaining over 50 million subscribers in its first five months and nearly 74 million subscribers in its first year.

Against this backdrop, Chapek decided to “go all in” on the platform, announcing a major reorganization of the company’s media and entertainment operations. Distribution and commercialization activities were centralized into the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution (DMED) arm, which essentially became responsible for the monetization of all content globally, the suit says.

Investors say that the reorganization represented a “dramatic departure from Disney’s historical reporting structure and was hugely controversial within the Company because it took power away from creative content-focused executives and centralized it in a new reporting group” led by Daniel. Prior to this, Disney was organized into four reporting segments comprised of media networks, parks, studio entertainment and direct-to-consumer.

“With this new structure, Chapek removed budgetary and distribution control from the heads of Disney’s content groups (much to their dismay) and placed control in the hands of DMED’s new Chairman, defendant Daniel, who reported directly to his long-time mentor Chapek,” states the complaint, which notes that the duo “exerted near complete control over the Company’s strategic decisions around content.”

After Bob Iger, who was also named in the complaint, returned to lead the company, he made clear that an important component of restoring Disney’s success would be to return power back to creative executives, including distribution decisions. The suit points to the statement as evidence that Chapek’s comments on his reorganization were meant to mislead investors.

Disney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.scribd.com/document/667927483/Stourbridge-Investments-v-Disney#fullscreen&from_embed

Another punch in the gut for Iger.

 

[Jwaire]

Another punch in the gut for Iger.

We knew this was coming when all the leaks came out about McCarthy disagreeing with Chapek's cost shifting strategy.

 

[wabbott]

We knew this was coming when all the leaks came out about McCarthy disagreeing with Chapek's cost shifting strategy.

To me, it was fascinating that Iger greased the skids under McCarthy rather quickly. Did he see her as a potential threat to his job?

 

[Jwaire]

To me, it was fascinating that Iger greased the skids under McCarthy rather quickly. Did he see her as a potential threat to his job?

No-one wants a CFO that backstabbed the previous CEO. She knew she wouldn't survive anyway, but I do think they had a serious disagreement about additional cost cutting and the current cost shifting strategy.

 

[wabbott]

No-one wants a CFO that backstabbed the previous CEO. She knew she wouldn't survive anyway, but I do think they had a serious disagreement about additional cost cutting and the current cost shifting strategy.

This is a serious question and not meant to be a gotcha.

When does whistle-blowing become backstabbing? How many of us in our working careers have had to look inside ourselves and decide to complain, or not, to higher ups about what our boss did or didn't do? How far does loyalty go? Poor decision making? Theft of company funds? Sexual harassment? Murder?

Allegedly, what McCarthy did exposed Chapek as someone who compromised accurate accounting principles in an attempt to conceal a poor executive decision.

IMHO, she should have been lauded instead of fired.

 

[Jwaire]

Allegedly, what McCarthy did exposed Chapek as someone who compromised accurate accounting principles in an attempt to conceal a poor executive decision.

IMHO, she should have been lauded instead of fired.

Oh, I agree. We don't know if she was really fired, quite possible she just didn't support Iger's "turn around" plans and stepped aside.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bob-iger-bob-chapek-disney-coup-11671236928

She's a very interesting person—despite her glib comments on how happy guests were with Genie+ and the parks and the waistlines comment.

I didn't understand Wallstreet's respect of her until I read her bio:

https://www.smith.edu/news/christine-mccarthy-77-disney-cfo

She's a two-time cancer survivor and pretty much worked her way up from the bottom.

"A pivotal moment for McCarthy came in March 2020, when COVID hit. Disney shuttered its parks, cruise ships, theaters, and other live operations. “It was like the faucets of all of our businesses turned off, except for a couple,” she recalls. She and her team swiftly secured $20 billion in the bond markets to ensure the company’s operations were fully funded and free from liquidity issues."

Too bad it was squandered. They're back at square one facing a looming acquisition payment.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

They're back at square one facing a looming acquisition payment.

Which one? The rest of Hulu? The Fox purchase?

 

[RivShore]

Oh, I agree. We don't know if she was really fired, quite possible she just didn't support Iger's "turn around" plans and stepped aside.

I know it's basically impossible to not have drama in a Disney C-Suite change but could it be that she quietly decided that it was just a good time to retire? She was well into her 60's, had a sick spouse at home, and could go out on the "ethical" high of having saving the company from Bob 2.0. Maybe??

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

While possible, I would say when you put a dagger in your bosses back……the next boss cannot ever trust you.

She may have indeed retired, but I feel pretty certain she was greatly encouraged to do so.

May not be what most want to hear, but that is how corporate America works. I have been in the corporate world for 27 years, it’s cutthroat at the top levels.

 

[Jwaire]

I know it's basically impossible to not have drama in a Disney C-Suite change but could it be that she quietly decided that it was just a good time to retire? She was well into her 60's, had a sick spouse at home, and could go out on the "ethical" high of having saving the company from Bob 2.0. Maybe??

Nah, these people don’t give up control that easily. We’ll find out in Disney War 2.0.

Which one? The rest of Hulu? The Fox purchase?

Estimates show them owing around $10 billion to Comcast for the mandated Hulu buyout next year.

They only have ~$11 billion in cash on hand. So, that’s a problem.

More debt or they have to sell something.

 

[wabbott]

I know it's basically impossible to not have drama in a Disney C-Suite change but could it be that she quietly decided that it was just a good time to retire? She was well into her 60's, had a sick spouse at home, and could go out on the "ethical" high of having saving the company from Bob 2.0. Maybe??

Maybe. But you do have to make note of the timing of it all, and whether Iger wanted to send a message to all the rest of the troops.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Estimates show them owing around $10 billion to Comcast for the mandated Hulu buyout next year.

They only have ~$11 billion in cash on hand. So, that’s a problem.

More debt or they have to sell something.

They only had about $4B in cash on hand when they initiated the Fox acquisition and had about $10B when it was finalized.

 

[RivShore]

While possible, I would say when you put a dagger in your bosses back……the next boss cannot ever trust you.

Usually true but this one was different in that the new boss was the same as the old boss - she took down the pretender to the throne and personally reinstated the displaced king. Would the king not be grateful rather than vengeful? Somehow I have turned this into an episode of Game of Thrones! LOL

Nah, these people don’t give up control that easily. We’ll find out in Disney War 2.0.

Can't wait for that! How long before the first books start coming out?

Maybe. But you do have to make note of the timing of it all, and whether Iger wanted to send a message to all the rest of the troops.

Probably more likely or maybe it's a bit of both - she was ready to retire and if they could also make it look like a message, synergies!!