And thus the plot thickens!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-seaworld-ipo-idUSBRE8BD1CJ20121214
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-seaworld-ipo-idUSBRE8BD1CJ20121214
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
SEA Looking To File For IPO.
- Thread starter ScoutN
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. Merlin Entertainments was set to have an IPO a few years ago, but it ultimately did not happen.
From items I have heard this fits hand in hand. SEA certainly has the ability to make this a wild success. The fact that they are looking for a large amount of additional dollars in this seems to make it more optimistic of the outcome. If this goes smooth it could certainly up the face quality of these parks in a very large manner. SEA relying on the parks to make their money would require them to put the money back into them correct? Which is the opposite of DIS.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Don't like this a bit... being a public company puts so much more strain and magnifying glasses on the company and how they operate.
You do this for one reason alone.. to raise capital. It's a necessary evil when you want/need an influx of cash.
Ideally - you'd say they shouldn't need this influx. So what's the motivation? In the fans eyes.. to fuel expansion? But at what cost of burden of being public?
Not a fan...
You do this for one reason alone.. to raise capital. It's a necessary evil when you want/need an influx of cash.
Ideally - you'd say they shouldn't need this influx. So what's the motivation? In the fans eyes.. to fuel expansion? But at what cost of burden of being public?
Not a fan...
This was my feeling as well. Getting an IPO gets you cash, but puts far too many cooks in the kitchen. I often wonder how much different Disney would be if one or even a small group of people got to make the decisions without the worry of how Wall Street would view their choices.
I would agree if it weren't such a small company looking for it with only one true division. The politics of a smaller company would certainly be easier to deal with than a large one.
You are still subject to the scrutiny of an entity that cares about only short term profits. That, IMHO, is the problem with so many publicly owned companies. Investing in long term goals becomes secondary to maintaining a quarterly 3% net profit growth rate.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The Blackstone Group is itself already a publicly traded entity and this was likely their plan all along. This is what they do, buy up companies and then sell them or make them public.
Everything above is correct. You go public because you want capital and getting it in the public markets is often the cheapest way to raise it. Private equity and other sources of large amounts of equity capital typically want some kind of say in decision-making. Debt providers want restrictions on risks because they don't benefit much from home runs but could get hurt by too many strike-outs. The public, however, generally requires no restrictions or specific decision-making powers. That's why it's so attractive.
Also true, however, is that the publicly-quoted stock price is a powerful motivator and easily visible target and so, while there is certainly no requirement to do so, many executives are lured by that measuring stick and manage to it. So something they believe is a good idea might not happen if they think the market will react negatively. It doesn't have to devolve into short-term stock-price watching, but it often does. After all, the public shareholders want to make money, and they make money only from dividends or increases in the stock price. While some are long-term players, others aren't. And the shareholders own the company, so if enough of them put pressure on management to "raise the stock price", that's what management does. Plus, many public companies compensate management in stock (or stock options). Shareholders like it, in general, because it means management cares about the things shareholders care about, but it makes the "manage the stock price" lure even more shiny. And many bite.
That can be good, but it's often bad as well. Why? Lots of reasons. The markets tend to reward consistency, and punish wild swings that risk-taking can produce. The markets also reward predictability -- stock prices perform better if the results come out just as the company said they would. Again, that tends to put a damper on risk-taking.
I could go on, but I won't. The theme park business, as a stand-alone, has not been a great public company prospect. Markets tend to want growth, but it's hard to grow a theme park business quickly, consistently, or without taking on inordinate risk.
That doesn't mean it'll fail, and I might very well invest in it, but I don't take it as a good sign (or a bad one) that SEA is going public.
Also true, however, is that the publicly-quoted stock price is a powerful motivator and easily visible target and so, while there is certainly no requirement to do so, many executives are lured by that measuring stick and manage to it. So something they believe is a good idea might not happen if they think the market will react negatively. It doesn't have to devolve into short-term stock-price watching, but it often does. After all, the public shareholders want to make money, and they make money only from dividends or increases in the stock price. While some are long-term players, others aren't. And the shareholders own the company, so if enough of them put pressure on management to "raise the stock price", that's what management does. Plus, many public companies compensate management in stock (or stock options). Shareholders like it, in general, because it means management cares about the things shareholders care about, but it makes the "manage the stock price" lure even more shiny. And many bite.
That can be good, but it's often bad as well. Why? Lots of reasons. The markets tend to reward consistency, and punish wild swings that risk-taking can produce. The markets also reward predictability -- stock prices perform better if the results come out just as the company said they would. Again, that tends to put a damper on risk-taking.
I could go on, but I won't. The theme park business, as a stand-alone, has not been a great public company prospect. Markets tend to want growth, but it's hard to grow a theme park business quickly, consistently, or without taking on inordinate risk.
That doesn't mean it'll fail, and I might very well invest in it, but I don't take it as a good sign (or a bad one) that SEA is going public.
Genie of the Lamp
Well-Known Member
Saw this today and figured I'd put it here:
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/seaworld/SeaWorld_profits_up_300_percent.htm
SeaWorld Profits were up 300% in 2012 which occured after they filed for IPO. Every category went up, so good news for SeaWorld and with Antartica opening soon, look out.
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/seaworld/SeaWorld_profits_up_300_percent.htm
SeaWorld Profits were up 300% in 2012 which occured after they filed for IPO. Every category went up, so good news for SeaWorld and with Antartica opening soon, look out.