Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
What you are outlining, though, is not an argument for investing in the parks or even really an argument against making as much money out of them while they can.Yes.
None of that matters. We invest on future performance.
This company is poorly positioned to deal with an economic downturn.
What’s the plan for parks ? Lower the cost of the AP and flood the parks with locals ?
Locals won’t be paying the insane room rates, ever increasing food costs or high LL costs.
This is just one segment of the business.
When your business plan is ever increasing prices with reduced quality of product you will eventually pay the price. It’s not sustainable.
If there is an economic downturn, demand won't magically appear because attractions are in tip-top shape and they have invested in a whole bunch of new attractions. They would have to lower the prices and try to attract people at lower income levels than before, whatever the case.
What you're outlining is more what I understand Steve Jobs' pitch was to Iger about selling the parks and just collecting royalties: they are too vulnerable to downturns and other freak events that leave you with giant, expensive-to-maintain facilities that are harder to adapt to changing conditions than other businesses.
This is why I smack my head when people here dance around and whoop and holler every time the share price goes down or attendance falls or stagnates: the endless growth philosophy is the problem.
Last edited: