Disney extends CEO Bob Iger to 2018

[lockedoutlogic]

16...??

Rteetz, color me impressed.

Keep it up - the ability to debate and present your facts in an articulate way will get you very far in this world.

There's a bright world and a bright future ahead.

And an engineering degree never hurts.......

I agree...

You do a great job, kid...

But we gotta get you out on the market and gets you some fun though, huh?

 

[DaveyV]

ha ha ha ha, your comparing disney stock to the dow and s&p. Now which stock do you think is more affordable for the average retiree who is getting nothing out of their savings due to artificially low interest rates? Disney 2005 = $28.44 disney 2014 = $87.39 dow 2005 = $10,255.47 dow 2014 = $16,566.30 s&p 2005 = $1,189.21 s&p 2014 = $1,933.67 berkshire 2005 = $87,500.35 berkshire 2014 = $208,325.27 hmmmmmmmmmmm disney is like a penny stock compared to these. So of course the percentages for disney are way higher. Do you notice the huge upward trend in all of these stocks? Take a look at concur technologies they were a penny stock trading at .31 cents. Now they are trading at $109 dollars a share. Do the math, they blow disney away. Reason being its easier to have higher percentages when you start so low. Now lets take a look at the price of disney stock just before qe 1 in december 2008. Ouch $23 dollars a share. Not so hot, that is actually lower then when eisner left. Hold on here, now the government and the fed are pumping in billions every month to the banks to buy stocks. Wow look, by 2014 its now $87 dollars, its a miracle. My point is this, stock has not gone up due to its performance in the free market. Its been brought up artificially by the government through quantitative easing, low interest rates, and inflation. Its just a way to make the economy look stronger then what it is. I would love to see how disney stock would perform if interest rates went up and qe was cut.

i

 

[DaveyV]

ha ha ha ha, your comparing disney stock to the dow and s&p. Now which stock do you think is more affordable for the average retiree who is getting nothing out of their savings due to artificially low interest rates? Disney 2005 = $28.44 disney 2014 = $87.39 dow 2005 = $10,255.47 dow 2014 = $16,566.30 s&p 2005 = $1,189.21 s&p 2014 = $1,933.67 berkshire 2005 = $87,500.35 berkshire 2014 = $208,325.27 hmmmmmmmmmmm disney is like a penny stock compared to these. So of course the percentages for disney are way higher. Do you notice the huge upward trend in all of these stocks? Take a look at concur technologies they were a penny stock trading at .31 cents. Now they are trading at $109 dollars a share. Do the math, they blow disney away. Reason being its easier to have higher percentages when you start so low. Now lets take a look at the price of disney stock just before qe 1 in december 2008. Ouch $23 dollars a share. Not so hot, that is actually lower then when eisner left. Hold on here, now the government and the fed are pumping in billions every month to the banks to buy stocks. Wow look, by 2014 its now $87 dollars, its a miracle. My point is this, stock has not gone up due to its performance in the free market. Its been brought up artificially by the government through quantitative easing, low interest rates, and inflation. Its just a way to make the economy look stronger then what it is. I would love to see how disney stock would perform if interest rates went up and qe was cut.

i

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Aren't DVC rooms a win-win for Disney? They can sell them years in advance to DVC members, and at the same time if rooms are available, non-DVC customers can stay in those same rooms.

Doesn't it then make sense to convert some rooms at resorts to DVC?

Even if occupancy rates aren't where Disney wants, they certainly aren't collapsing. Discounts aren't expanding and neither is Free Dining. It seems like resorts have plenty of people.

Collapse? Panic? I think that is exaggeration to the nth degree. And I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Aren't DVC rooms a win-win for Disney? They can sell them years in advance to DVC members, and at the same time if rooms are available, non-DVC customers can stay in those same rooms.

Doesn't it then make sense to convert some rooms at resorts to DVC?

Even if occupancy rates aren't where Disney wants, they certainly aren't collapsing. Discounts aren't expanding and neither is Free Dining. It seems like resorts have plenty of people.

Collapse? Panic? I think that is exaggeration to the nth degree. And I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate.

Woah...

Where's this one directed too?

I don't that well to the "foghorn leghorn" approach...

If it is directed my way... I'm merely stating DVC conversion does not indicate a strengthening of the property...
On the contrary it is more pointing to a more exclusive club setting where the seller - Disney - is insulated from the normal "power of the purse" that the buyer should be able to wield.

If you weren't talking to me...sorry...and my comment still stands.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read

Let me guess - democrat, poor and stupid?

My 3rd grade son could understand finances better than this

And to the second dumbest thing I've ever read...

You missed the premise...though not princeton issue economic theory...he has a point.

The artificial holding of interest rates at near zero and injection of capital by regulators is a potential economic powderkeg...and the "booming" stock market would look vastly different without it.

A mere 2% rise in interest rate could collapse the economic system - hypothetically- like...all of it. That's the problem with taking leverage debt to the end of the map. Nobody knows for sure what it might really mean when a problem strikes.
Or good old fashion rampant inflation...which cripples economic systems absolutely.

I'm not an economist...but I read the ones that have their heads at the top part of their anatomy and generally understand a decent amount of what they say.

And since you brought meaningless political terms and abstract monikers into it - if you think there's merit to supply side economics and your etrade account is actually worth what your Dell tells you it is...you might have missed the boat and fallen off the dock, sister.

 

[rteetz]

Aren't DVC rooms a win-win for Disney? They can sell them years in advance to DVC members, and at the same time if rooms are available, non-DVC customers can stay in those same rooms. Doesn't it then make sense to convert some rooms at resorts to DVC? Even if occupancy rates aren't where Disney wants, they certainly aren't collapsing. Discounts aren't expanding and neither is Free Dining. It seems like resorts have plenty of people. Collapse? Panic? I think that is exaggeration to the nth degree. And I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate.

Based on what I know DVC brings in more short term gains than long term. DVC does lock people in for 50 years but of course they always have the option to sell it if they want. The rumor I have heard from several sources is that the first resort to convert existing rooms to DVC will be WL (after the Poly of course). I've also heard they would be converting club level rooms so if they do that there is no more club level option for people. One thing disney doesn't like is how people rent away points because essentially you are getting a very good deal. They would love to stop it but they won't. I don't have any numbers but just thinking about it it seems disney would make a lot more money off of regular rooms than DVC rooms because they are prepaid for. So with that being said I would think disney would much rather have regular resort rooms than DVC rooms because it puts more money in their pocket which is the end goal. And the only reason DVC is continually built is because it sells like hot cakes. I'm really intrigued to see what those bungalows at the poly will cost per night Tikiman says upwards of $1000 a night which is crazy, you can go to the actual bora bora for less than $1500 a night.

 

[mcd2745]

Aren't DVC rooms a win-win for Disney? They can sell them years in advance to DVC members, and at the same time if rooms are available, non-DVC customers can stay in those same rooms.

Doesn't it then make sense to convert some rooms at resorts to DVC?

Even if occupancy rates aren't where Disney wants, they certainly aren't collapsing. Discounts aren't expanding and neither is Free Dining. It seems like resorts have plenty of people.

Collapse? Panic? I think that is exaggeration to the nth degree. And I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate.

I think DVC is pretty much a win-win for Disney...right now. I just wonder about the void they will have 15 years or so from now - the period after they will have squeezed every last possible drop of blood from that stone and before they can start re-selling the original contracts that will expire.

Not only will they have nothing to sell DVC-wise, you have to wonder if parks spending won't take a big hit also. DVC rooms will then be a much higher percentage of the total number of rooms than today - let alone 5 to 10 years ago. I don't have any actaul figures to back it up, but I believe per guest spending in the parks is probably less for DVC folks than "regular" guests - possibly by a lot. We go to WDW for a week and we're in the parks every day. I'll bet DVCers are less likely to be in the parks every day - especially the longer they have their contracts. You could also factor in how many more DVCers eat meals in their rooms/villas compared to regular guests, and they could really see per guest spending take a dive.

 

[rteetz]

I think DVC is pretty much a win-win for Disney...right now. I just wonder about the void they will have 15 years or so from now - the period after they will have squeezed every last possible drop of blood from that stone and before they can start re-selling the original contracts that will expire. Not only will they have nothing to sell DVC-wise, you have to wonder if parks spending won't take a big hit also. DVC rooms will then be a much higher percentage of the total number of rooms than today - let alone 5 to 10 years ago. I don't have any actaul figures to back it up, but I believe per guest spending in the parks is probably less for DVC folks than "regular" guests - possibly by a lot. We go to WDW for a week and we're in the parks every day. I'll bet DVCers are less likely to be in the parks every day - especially the longer they have their contracts. You could also factor in how many more DVCers eat meals in their rooms/villas compared to regular guests, and they could really see per guest spending take a dive.

I agree DVC are most likely your disney veterans they don't spend as much in the parks or in restaurants as the regular/first time guest. Disney would much rather have their hotels packers with the first time or regular guest because they normally spend more but they still make money off of DVC. The more DVC added has the potential to hurt disney in the long run but for right now will help them in the short term.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree DVC are most likely your disney veterans they don't spend as much in the parks or in restaurants as the regular/first time guest. Disney would much rather have their hotels packers with the first time or regular guest because they normally spend more but they still make money off of DVC. The more DVC added has the potential to hurt disney in the long run but for right now will help them in the short term.

I think the proper way to phrase it is that DVC member have the potential to not spend in the areas that are REALLY valuable to Disney...

And that's the touristy shops, bibbidis, some of the hard ticket or package things like fantasmic...

DVCers obviously indulge in other areas...I'm an eater and a tommy bahama esque sipper in wdw...and I have far more potential to leave the property...
But I do still spend.

For me...and this could be the dangers in more DVC...they are turning me off on alot of things/not providing much incentive to spend more.

I'm starting to get more joy in lowering my bills... And when I was a "young adult" I used to get joy in not caring about the cost and doing as much as I felt like.

But I might be a tad harsh

 

[rteetz]

I think the proper way to phrase it is that DVC member have the potential to not spend in the areas that are REALLY valuable to Disney... And that's the touristy shops, bibbidis, some of the hard ticket or package things like fantasmic... DVCers obviously indulge in other areas...I'm an eater and a tommy bahama esque sipper in wdw...and I have far more potential to leave the property... But I do still spend. For me...and this could be the dangers in more DVC...they are turning me off on alot of things/not providing much incentive to spend more. I'm starting to get more joy in lowering my bills... And when I was a "young adult" I used to get joy in not caring about the cost and doing as much as I felt like. But I might be a tad harsh

I agree and don't think you're harsh

 

[larry_poppins]

I also do not think you are harsh. On my next visit to WDW I am actually splitting the stay and spending 3 nights at Universal. I have never slept at Uni before and I am a DVC member.

Larry