Is Chapek a Comcast Plant for Acquisition?

[k5xs]

They do know it taking a hit especially with Genie+. They have 2 big reasons they aren't changing it yet. One being due to all the advanced sales of Genie+. They aren't interested in refunding them. The other reason is they like the amount of revenue Genie+ brings in. The only they do know is its not working as never expected this many people to buy it.

All of that tells me 2 things. It's never going to be free or included as packages again and it may eventually become limited.

I had never considered that. Smart observation, thanks.

 

[AvidDisReader]

All I know is that if Dis Stock dips below 90 a share, I am buying. The short term will probably not be good with a recession coming. But on the back end of the recession, Disney + should be in the black. That was always what Iger was counting on being the future top revenue stream in the company.

 

[Dcgc28]

I would say that this is a Disney fan site. People on here will continue to go. Others not interested enough won't and you won't even know.
People constantly point at how crowded the parks are as evidence that people are still packing in. None of us outside of Disney management know what park capacity is and I highly suspect it's a moving number. Maybe it "feels" crowded due to lack of staffing, limited people eater attractions and limits on big ride capacity like a single elevator on ToT and one track running on Space Mountain. Do I know for sure? Nope, but I don't think anyone else on these boards do either. Overcrowding might just be a perception, but perception is reality.

Until it’s reflected in the quarterly earnings reports that the parks are doing worse the rest is basically inconsequential.

If the capacity is 75% of its old number but they’re bringing in record breaking dollars Disney is probably going to continue down the path they’re going down.

 

[New Mouse]

The stock price is affected by many factors including the overall economic environment. Very little impact is gained from individuals making a decision to cut back on a park visit. Especially true when the parks remain crowded.

Literally a stock price is someone spending or not spending money to buy disney.

 

[Sweettears]

Literally a stock price is someone spending or not spending money to buy disney.

Stock yes. Product no

 

[RamblinWreck]

People focus too much on where stock prices are compared to their peak. Disney, like the other major players in streaming, were part of a major speculative bubble that has popped.

Yes, the stock is down big from where it was. But it was also up BIG from where it was, and it never should have been that high to begin with.

 

[RamblinWreck]

Literally a stock price is someone spending or not spending money to buy disney.

Not really

I mean, that’s what it should be. But that’s not really how it works in practice.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I would have expected them to either fire him or elevate another person to take over part of the job, reducing his impact.

Why would they do that? That would be a terrible move on their part. They bought Chapek for a lot of money to do their dirty work, and he is. If they disgraced and fired him, they’d have to bring in someone else at great expense to do their dirty work and fire a second person With a second parachute.

far more effective to stand behind him as long as he’s doing what they want, tell him to avoid public feuds with politicians as much as possible, then when he’s done implementing what they want, THEN you hand him his parachute and fire him.

doing so right now would be expensive and silly.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

Not really

I mean, that’s what it should be. But that’s not really how it works in practice.

I admit… you stumped me. It’s literally my choice to buy or sell the stock at the price it is. me and all the other investors. That’s pretty much the definition of the stock market. I dont understand how the stock price can arguably be different than the price one party (the seller) has agreed to sell a piece of the company to another party (the buyer) who has agreed to buy it for? Except of course options.

tell me how it’s not that ”in practice”?

 

[RamblinWreck]

I admit… you stumped me. It’s literally my choice to buy or sell the stock at the price it is. me and all the other investors. That’s pretty much the definition of the stock market. I dont understand how the stock price can arguably be different than the price one party (the seller) has agreed to sell a piece of the company to another party (the buyer) who has agreed to buy it for? Except of course options.

tell me how it’s not that ”in practice”?

The vast majority of stocks are not bought by individual investors.

Most people who own Disney stock don’t even know they own it.

You had a small handful of people in charge of a ton of money continuing to bet bigger and bigger into all of these streaming services for no discernible reason other than “that’s what everyone else is doing” and now they’re all crashing back to reality.

Anyway. All the resulting volatility as a result of these highly speculative investment strategies results in a pretty wild ride, which biased people read way too much into. It arguably levels out in the long run, but when things go way up and way down, people tend to assign those swings to whatever pet bias they have.

If I said Disney stock has basically been flat for the past 5 years, that doesn’t tell quite the same story as “they’re down 50%!”

 

[Sweettears]

I admit… you stumped me. It’s literally my choice to buy or sell the stock at the price it is. me and all the other investors. That’s pretty much the definition of the stock market. I dont understand how the stock price can arguably be different than the price one party (the seller) has agreed to sell a piece of the company to another party (the buyer) who has agreed to buy it for? Except of course options.

tell me how it’s not that ”in practice”?

Every stock has a bid and asking price which aren’t the same. That’s how a market works.

 

[MillauFr]

I think it is more likely that Amazon takes over Disney. Not Comcast.

 

[Sweettears]

I think it is more likely that Amazon takes over Disney. Not Comcast.

I don’t think that either will happen. Comcast comes up the most in speculation because they are in the entertainment sector. Amazon has only recently entered that market but on a relatively smaller scale. Amazon to me is a company that is too focused on branching out instead of staying focused on what made them successful. In my mind that is a recipe for failure. It’s difficult to accomplish.

 

[MillauFr]

I don’t think that either will happen. Comcast comes up the most in speculation because they are in the entertainment sector. Amazon has only recently entered that market but on a relatively smaller scale. Amazon to me is a company that is too focused on branching out instead of staying focused on what made them successful. In my mind that is a recipe for failure. It’s difficult to accomplish.

Branching out is how Amazon did become successful. I guarantee you that the company would not be worth a trillion dollars today if all they did was selling books. Selling of products isn't really profitable at all. All of the value is in their logistics systems and Amazon Web Services.

 

[AvidDisReader]

Comcast is swimming in debt, I cannot see how they could take on Disney who has a debt issue themselves.

 

[wabbott]

For some perspective and history, Comcast actually DID make a hostile bid for Disney in 2004.

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

Comcast makes hostile bid for Disney

In a surprise move, cable TV giant Comcast Corp. proposed early Wednesday to buy Walt Disney Co., the iconic media and entertainment powerhouse that owns the ABC and ESPN television networks, movie studios and theme parks, for stock valued at about $54 billion.


Comcast released a letter Wednesday sent to Disney CEO Michael Eisner, left, indicating that he had personally rejected Comcast CEO Brian Roberts’ offer to enter into merger discussions earlier this week.

Feb. 11, 2004, 6:26 AM CST / Source: The Associated Press

 

[Sweettears]

Branching out is how Amazon did become successful. I guarantee you that the company would not be worth a trillion dollars today if all they did was selling books. Selling of products isn't really profitable at all. All of the value is in their logistics systems and Amazon Web Services.

A little narrow about defining what Amazon is about. They basically are the dominate player in online commerce which when combined with their logistics and distribution strategies made them what they are.

I fail to see how that translates to the entertainment industry. Just because they are a large company with much capital doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be successful at whatever they choose.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I still think if anyone were to buy Disney, it would be Apple. They have the money, they have a failing streaming service in need of IP, and they have the management know how. But, I doubt they will. They have had a few chances over the years and haven’t jumped.

I think Disney has gotten too big for Comcast to swallow. Or really any media company, I just don’t see Amazon or Google trying to branch that way.

 

[MillauFr]

A little narrow about defining what Amazon is about. They basically are the dominate player in online commerce which when combined with their logistics and distribution strategies made them what they are.

I fail to see how that translates to the entertainment industry. Just because they are a large company with much capital doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be successful at whatever they choose.

Maybe not. At least if Amazon took over Disney the IT systems would improve and you would never have to call a live person on a phone ever again.

 

[Sweettears]

Maybe not. At least if Amazon took over Disney the IT systems would improve and you would never have to call a live person on a phone ever again.

Kind of hard not to see an improvement when you’re starting at the bottom.