A Spirited Perfect Ten

[FigmentJedi]

With all the hype about Disneyland's 60th and the upcoming WoC tribute to Walt Disney, I took particular interest that the owners of Micage have bought the the house in Chicago where Walt Disney was born in and they are seeking donations. I'm divided on them asking fans for help. The house is nothing like it was in 1901 and the Walt Disney Family Museum has never had interest in it.

If the property was so important, why has the Disney Family never tried to buy it or get it landmarked every time the house has been up for sale? It seems weird to me as the place has little connection to Walt and has changed so much over the years. Even if they can refurbish it or make it look like 1901, no one knows what was actually IN the house or how it looked in every room when Walt was born there. @marni1971 @WDW1974 @Lee @ParentsOf4 any thoughts on this?

Because the house has changed a lot since it was built that it had that working against the certification and it was too expensive for previous owners to restore to 1901 conditions and the owners before this restoration project just rented out rooms there. Not to mention there was a Chicago official dead set against honoring Walt DIsney because he believed the "He was an anti-semite" story.

Lot more info on the BIrthplace before restoration project started here

http://www.yesterland.com/waltchicago.html

 

[asianway]

Story on Channel 6 today ... delay in Downtown Disney road construction, now won't finish until mid-2017.

Shy of building a double deck highway, there's no reason on earth that's warranted. Cash flow problems at RCID?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

With all the hype about Disneyland's 60th and the upcoming WoC tribute to Walt Disney, I took particular interest that the owners of Micage have bought the the house in Chicago where Walt Disney was born in and they are seeking donations. I'm divided on them asking fans for help. The house is nothing like it was in 1901 and the Walt Disney Family Museum has never had interest in it.

If the property was so important, why has the Disney Family never tried to buy it or get it landmarked every time the house has been up for sale? It seems weird to me as the place has little connection to Walt and has changed so much over the years. Even if they can refurbish it or make it look like 1901, no one knows what was actually IN the house or how it looked in every room when Walt was born there. @marni1971 @WDW1974 @Lee @ParentsOf4 any thoughts on this?

Many famous people are born in a house and never grow up there. Wouldn't more of Walt's history be tied to Marceline and California?

Because the house has changed a lot since it was built that it had that working against the certification and it was too expensive for previous owners to restore to 1901 conditions and the owners before this restoration project just rented out rooms there. Not to mention there was a Chicago official dead set against honoring Walt DIsney because he believed the "He was an anti-semite" story.

Lot more info on the BIrthplace before restoration project started here

http://www.yesterland.com/waltchicago.html

In my view they already tried and failed (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1697478835/the-walt-disney-birthplace-preservation-project) to raise money from fans for this project and they just need to stop. While it's totally admirable that someone would want to do this, I would encourage folks to look at how Dina and Brent and their "Executive Director" Dusty Sage have gone about this project. Take a look at this quote from their kickstarter page regarding post renovation plans:

Our most pressing goal is to save and restore the home and earn it Landmark status. Immediately after completing the landmark designation and restoration, it will remain a private residence. We are still formulating the specifics of our longer-term plans.

Our dream is to turn the property into something really special: an experience that uses media projections, soundscapes, and other immersive technology to allow guests to step back in time and be right there with young Walt, Roy and the whole Disney family.

But we can’t move forward with those bigger plans unless we can get through this first, most important phase.

Why so cagey? If it's going to become a museum, then why won't you outright state it as such?

The second big issue here is who, in the legal sense, owns the property and is in charge of raised funds. While Dina and Brent purchased the home, they have created a corporation called WDB Restorations LLC to collect donations, pay contractors/consultants, etc. If this "historic landmark" is going to become a museum, why not establish a non-profit organization which owns the home, collects donations, and wouldn't have to pay corporate income and property taxes?

This may be going out on a lark, but are Dina and Brent raising funds for their second home that occasionally gives tours to the public so it can be called a museum? I raise this question because they are manipulating a narrative, that the world, TWDC included, is abandoning Walt and destorting his legacy, I as a fan, as well as many others, are sympathetic to and are using it to raise funds. If they truly want to raise half a million dollars to create a permanent museum for Walt's birthplace, they need to have better answers than "we need to save Walt's old house and give us your money".

 

[asianway]

In my view they already tried and failed (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1697478835/the-walt-disney-birthplace-preservation-project) to raise money from fans for this project and they just need to stop. While it's totally admirable that someone would want to do this, I would encourage folks to look at how Dina and Brent and their "Executive Director" Dusty Sage have gone about this project. Take a look at this quote from their kickstarter page regarding post renovation plans:

Why so cagey? If it's going to become a museum, then why won't you outright state it as such?

The

Has the WDFM supported the project? Sounds like red flags to me, but buyer beware applies to any kickstarter

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Has the WDFM supported the project? Sounds like red flags to me, but buyer beware applies to any kickstarter

No they have not. Note that Roy Patrick's support is in word only, not in $$$.

 

[GoofGoof]

@GoofGoof

Perhaps I'm not making my point clear, No Iger will not do anything stupid, But his buyback program is what is maintaining the current high stock price, A new CEO and Board would need to dial that program back IF they reinvest in the company which would immediately create pressure as EPS numbers would no longer have the advantage of a constantly diminishing number of shares.

With a relatively small cash reserve, A new board is going to have to raise cash for investment somehow and I don't see any scenarios where the stock price does not take a dive due to reduced 'profitability' now the company will be JUST as productive as it was before, Its that the profitability will not have the artificial boost of having around 110,000 millon shares repurchased each year.

I don't see a scenario where the 'Street does not punish TWDC for reinvesting in the business is all.

I hear what you are saying and your point is clear. Where we disagree is the dramatic impact of reducing share buybacks. First, they will not buy back as many shares as last year even in 2015. This is from the Year End Earnings Call at 9/30:

I am not going to make you happy with my answer, because I'm really not going to give you any

guidance into what the level of buyback would be. But I will remind you of this: We said that

over the long run, we look towards about 20% of the cash generated by the company being

returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks. We have been very much on

track with that. You know what the numbers have looked like over the last three years that

have been in that range between $3 billion and this year $6.5 billion on an annual basis.

You saw that we opportunistically -- given what happened in the marketplace -- we

opportunistically took a big buyback -- so far this fiscal quarter. I would not look to that number

for guidance on what the whole year would look like in terms of the pace.

But obviously, we meet with our Board on this subject. That meeting is coming up. And we have

not -- we have neither made a decision as to what the level will be yet, nor am I inclined to

announce that. But as I said, part of our fundamental philosophy has been to use that vehicle

on an opportunistic basis to return capital to the shareholders.

They are already planning on cutting back stock buybacks to more normal levels. We may get an update tomorrow on the Q1 call.

I also think that the impact of share buybacks on EPS is not as much as you think. During the 5 years from 2010 to 2014 TWDC's net income increased from $3.963B to $7.501B. This is roughly an 18% annualized increase in earnings. During that same time Diluted EPS increased from 2.03 to 4.26 or roughly a 22% annualized increase. If no shares were sold or repurchased during this period then EPS growth would have dropped from 22% to 18% per year. The point is that the bulk of the EPS growth is driven by actual increases in net income not stock buybacks. For anyone playing along at home these numbers are all on page 25 of the 2014 10K I can't say for sure how much the stock price would drop if they just stopped buying shares back, but I don't think it would be as dramatic as you think.

If actual earnings suffer that's a different story. A major economic downturn impacting the parks or some big movie flops could hurt the stock price a lot. For the next 3 years before the weatherman moves on the company is planning to release 21 tentpole movies as opposed to the 13 they had the previous 3 years and those include some very likely hits like 3 Star Wars movies, multiple Marvel releases (Avaengers, Guardians 2, others) and some likely successful Pixar projects including sequels Finding Dory and Toy Story 4. All signs point towards a pretty nice 3 year run for Iger and Co. They could not buy a single share back over the next 3 years and if the economy stays good and the hit movies come through the stock won't miss a beat.

To your point on the Street punishing the company on reinvestment, I'm not sure thats totally true either. They do like the stock buybacks and increasing dividend, but the reaction to the DCA 2.0 project was pretty positive from analysts and nobody seems interested in questioning the magic band boondoggle. I would say as long as the earnings is solid and the hits keep coming analysts are not opposed to seeing theme park reinvestment.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Cesar R M]

I didn't watch it or the halftime and commercials, nor have I ever seen a full football game in my 26 years of life (as an American male). I was asleep during the entire thing (long day prior). Nor would I have watched even if I was awake. Heck I don't even know what teams were playing. Sure I could google it and see who played and who won, but then again I don't give a **** (though it's inevitable i'll see it eventually when I read anything news related).

I'll readily admit i'm the exception here, with regards to live televised sports anyways. The only real "sport" I have a moderate interest in are a select few events in the Olympics (very acrobatic events in particular such as gymnastics and ice skating). Least of my interest in sports being "football" though (the ridiculously misnamed sport that has almost nothing to do with feet and balls, stealing the title of the sport that actually warrants being named football).

HAND-EGG !

 

[Cesar R M]

Story on Channel 6 today ... delay in Downtown Disney road construction, now won't finish until mid-2017.

Did they found Walt's missing frozen head in the soil? or Maybe Jimmy Hoffa's body?

 

[WDWFigment]

From the looks of it, it's Spiderman without the scoop vehicles.

If you were to reduce it to its core, I think that's an apt description.

The problem lies in the differences in execution between the two. Obviously, guests experiencing both attractions know that they are looking at screens, but the difference (I think) in Spider-Man is that, while the action is happening, those screens don't pull you out of the experience--you're not actively thinking about the fact that you're looking at a screen because of the way they are blended into the attraction, and the edges of the screens are largely hidden from view. In Ratatouille, there are several points where little to no effort was made to blend the screens into the environments, so rather than feeling like you're racing through a kitchen, you feel like you're sitting in place, watching a 3D video of a race through a kitchen.

It's still a solid attraction, and the area (which is really well done as a whole) is a huge step in the right direction for that park. I was just expecting more of a 'flagship' experience on par with Hunny Hunt or Mystic Manor, and it falls well short of both.

 

[WDWFigment]

I can see being bored by camping in random woods somewhere, but visiting places like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon are a different story. There is definitely nothing boring about watching a grizzly bear stroll along 50 yards from your car, or turning a corner to see big horn sheep laying on the side of the road. Not to mention getting to see things like geysers, canyons and waterfalls.

Exactly. In my experience, the core National Parks (not National Historic Monuments, National Forests, etc.--there are only 59 National Parks) each have at least one distinct draw, defining feature, or unique characteristic that really makes them captivating. It's not even close to the same as going to a local campground or state park where you might have forests and a few trails. Much like a theme park, you could say the National Parks have their own "attractions" that are worth doing/seeing.

I understand they aren't everyone's cup of tea; neither are theme parks. So too like theme parks, I think some people who dismiss N'tl Parks out of hand are doing so without open minds. I'm still not saying everyone would love them if they just opened up to the idea, but if someone truly thinks they are just about trees and camping, that *might* be the case.

 

[Nemo14]

Exactly. In my experience, the core National Parks (not National Historic Monuments, National Forests, etc.--there are only 59 National Parks) each have at least one distinct draw, defining feature, or unique characteristic that really makes them captivating. It's not even close to the same as going to a local campground or state park where you might have forests and a few trails. Much like a theme park, you could say the National Parks have their own "attractions" that are worth doing/seeing.

I understand they aren't everyone's cup of tea; neither are theme parks. So too like theme parks, I think some people who dismiss N'tl Parks out of hand are doing so without open minds. I'm still not saying everyone would love them if they just opened up to the idea, but if someone truly thinks they are just about trees and camping, that *might* be the case.

The same could be said for some state parks too. We were at Blue Springs State Park the other day to see where the manatees hang out in the winter. They had counted 401 of them that morning. Here's just a few of the ones we saw:

 

[asianway]

No they have not. Note that Roy Patrick's support is in word only, not in $$$.

Oh the sellout. Nice.

Sounds like Flip this house: Lifestyler edition

 

[bcalltimandanna]

Exactly. In my experience, the core National Parks (not National Historic Monuments, National Forests, etc.--there are only 59 National Parks) each have at least one distinct draw, defining feature, or unique characteristic that really makes them captivating. It's not even close to the same as going to a local campground or state park where you might have forests and a few trails. Much like a theme park, you could say the National Parks have their own "attractions" that are worth doing/seeing.

I understand they aren't everyone's cup of tea; neither are theme parks. So too like theme parks, I think some people who dismiss N'tl Parks out of hand are doing so without open minds. I'm still not saying everyone would love them if they just opened up to the idea, but if someone truly thinks they are just about trees and camping, that *might* be the case.

I have to agree with you on the National Parks. Last November I went to California. Let's just say Cars Land was amazing, but Joshua Tree was infinitely more breathtaking

 

[Nemo14]

When I lived in Flagstaff, I did a lot of exploring the National Parks of the Southwest. Each one is amazing!

 

[WDWFigment]

The same could be said for some state parks too. We were at Blue Springs State Park the other day to see where the manatees hang out in the winter. They had counted 401 of them that morning. Here's just a few of the ones we saw:

I'm really envious of that! When I was really young, on our annual trips to Florida my grandparents would take us out looking for manatees (not sure where now), and we only ever saw a couple. I became obsessed with them, getting books about manatees, drawing manatees, etc. I've still never seen a large group of them like that--I should probably try to visit that park or Warm Mineral Springs in the winter sometime. Anyway, sorry for the random story, but it's really awesome that you were able to see so many!

 

[Nemo14]

I'm really envious of that! When I was really young, on our annual trips to Florida my grandparents would take us out looking for manatees (not sure where now), and we only ever saw a couple. I became obsessed with them, getting books about manatees, drawing manatees, etc. I've still never seen a large group of them like that--I should probably try to visit that park or Warm Mineral Springs in the winter sometime. Anyway, sorry for the random story, but it's really awesome that you were able to see so many!

Even saw a mom with a little baby... It's a great place - a bit crowded on weekends, but during the week it's great!

 

[Mike S]

Since the subject has come up I'll say that one stop on my upcoming trip west will be Red Rock Canyon. We were originally going to go to the Grand Canyon but decided it was too far of a drive.

 

[Nemo14]

Where are you driving from?

 

[WDWFigment]

Since the subject has come up I'll say that one stop on my upcoming trip west will be Red Rock Canyon. We were originally going to go to the Grand Canyon but decided it was too far of a drive.

Based on your signature, I'm assuming you're coming from Anaheim, in which case I'd recommend checking out Yosemite. It's a slightly longer drive, but it's one of the most breathtaking places you'll ever see. If you do stick with Red Rock Canyon, maybe make a side trip to Joshua Tree on the way out there...

 

[Mike S]

Where are you driving from?

Based on your signature, I'm assuming you're coming from Anaheim, in which case I'd recommend checking out Yosemite. It's a slightly longer drive, but it's one of the most breathtaking places you'll ever see. If you do stick with Red Rock Canyon, maybe make a side trip to Joshua Tree on the way out there...

The trip will start in LA, then Anaheim, then Las Vegas. We're driving to Red Rock from Vegas. I hope to go to Yosemite on a future trip to California.