A Spirited Perfect Ten

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
The Pixar movies, Marvel movies, Star Wars and Tomorrowland are already reflected in the current stock price (see semi-strong form market efficiency). If they do "as well as expected," they'll have literally zero impact on the stock in the future because those expectations about the future have already been taken into consideration by the market. Their only impact, therefore, will be if they over- or under-perform expectations.
Generally correct. Although the market does tend to "charge" for uncertainty. Therefore, if the films do "as expected", the stock price should modestly increase due to the removal of the uncertainty. However, that increase would likely be smaller than the impact of anything else going on that day.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Generally correct. Although the market does tend to "charge" for uncertainty. Therefore, if the films do "as expected", the stock price should modestly increase due to the removal of the uncertainty. However, that increase would likely be smaller than the impact of anything else going on that day.
So does anyone want to guess how much Age of Ultron will gross worldwide?
My guess: $1.7-2.2 Billion
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Look for certain channels to have two levels of pricing, annual and monthly with monthly being much more expensive than the annual option too. For example, ESPN knows college football is huge therefore charges $30/mo during football season but $200 per year or $16.67/mo nearly dropping the price in half.

The big boys want this because they will make more money, its the entry level channels that are fighting it to the end.

And, everyone seems to be forgetting your content carrier wants their piece too. You have to get the content to your home and if you think your internet connection is capable of carrying three or four HD channels you will be shocked. Without managed video transmission through the network bandwidth demands will quickly strip supply and result in really poor quality. Most ISPs over-subscribe your connection by 20-1 or more for higher speed connections, with video they might be able to squeeze 5-1 resulting in a much more expensive internet connection price too.

Most internet connections in the US cannot carry even 1 full HD stream and carriers like ATT are trying to downgrade even that. I've got GPON with a 1 GB symmetric link but my CIR for internet is 300Mb/s, I can burst the remainder If I'm not doing IPTV so up to 700 Mb/S downlink is reserved for voice/IPTV.

What I can see happening is a 'BASIC' package and a BASIC PLUS package which will have ESPN and similar channels, I think the days of Disney being able to 'force' it's content to every subscriber are more or less dead along with Viacom although Viacom has pursued a strategy of low cost channels so they are more likely to wind up in the new 'basic' package.

I envision the the BASIC package as being local channels, news, weather and regional networks and a smattering of 'cheap' channels not to mention shopping and religious channels which are effectively free to the carriers, The basic PLUS will be something like today's basic package.
 

tribbleorlfl

Well-Known Member
Well, I subscribe to MLB's At-Bat package to watch all out-of-market losses...errr....games for several years now. I dig it.

The issue with it in Florida was that somehow I was in the "Miami" market when clearly, NOWHERE near the cesspool.
I had the same problem for years, but for the opposite reason. I actually wanted to get the Fish games but couldn't because Central Florida was "claimed" by the Marlins (as well as Rays and Braves) as a home market, yet Brighthouse refused for years to add FSN (and Sports Channel FL before that). As such, I couldn't watch the Marlins on @Bat or Cable package sub.

MLB's territorial rights are superior archaic and contrary to the realities of today's media.
 

tribbleorlfl

Well-Known Member
You can COOK with it - makes a nice flash and leaves the flavor behind, I like making steak au povre because I can flare the pan for my guests (one uses cognac).
Classicaly, yes. However, a grizzled French chef in culinary school taught me to use Brandy, since "you cook with Brandy and drink Cognac." Honestly, Brandy gives a deeper, more complex flavor.
 

Lord_Vader

Join me, together we can rule the galaxy.
Most internet connections in the US cannot carry even 1 full HD stream and carriers like ATT are trying to downgrade even that. I've got GPON with a 1 GB symmetric link but my CIR for internet is 300Mb/s, I can burst the remainder If I'm not doing IPTV so up to 700 Mb/S downlink is reserved for voice/IPTV.

What I can see happening is a 'BASIC' package and a BASIC PLUS package which will have ESPN and similar channels, I think the days of Disney being able to 'force' it's content to every subscriber are more or less dead along with Viacom although Viacom has pursued a strategy of low cost channels so they are more likely to wind up in the new 'basic' package.

I envision the the BASIC package as being local channels, news, weather and regional networks and a smattering of 'cheap' channels not to mention shopping and religious channels which are effectively free to the carriers, The basic PLUS will be something like today's basic package.

GPON is a shared link too, depending on the ratio 1:16 (or 1:32) you may be sharing a 2.4Gb downstream channel with 16 or 32 total users. The move to ActiveEthernet is happening but slowly because of the expense on the CPE & central office or cabinet side. Most telcos oversubscribe 6:1 on the downlink in the aggregation box too, making your real bandwidth allocation even lower.

And you are correct, most high-speed internet connections don't come close to being able to carry even a highly compressed 1080p video stream at 2.5Mbps rate. A simple encoded 1080p video stream accounts for roughly 10Mbps meaning a high use DirecTV household like mine could easily use 60Mbps in video throughput with live viewing and DVRs during high-use prime time.

With the FCCs latest revision to the broadband definition carriers are pushing to increase connection rates as fast as they can but will take many years without a massive, truly massive infusion of public funds. Video over IP is very expensive to transmit, high quality video is downright insane when you look at real volume of traffic in aggregate.

Your vision for BASIC packages harkens back to the 80s when basic cable was 16 or 20 channels of content. Right now there are three 24hr news networks (I guess CNBC is still a channel?!? :hilarious:.) Years ago Disney Channel was a premium in my market, Storer/Comcast charged $5/mo for it.
 

senor_jorge

Barbara Eden+? Bring it!!
GPON is a shared link too, depending on the ratio 1:16 (or 1:32) you may be sharing a 2.4Gb downstream channel with 16 or 32 total users. The move to ActiveEthernet is happening but slowly because of the expense on the CPE & central office or cabinet side. Most telcos oversubscribe 6:1 on the downlink in the aggregation box too, making your real bandwidth allocation even lower.

And you are correct, most high-speed internet connections don't come close to being able to carry even a highly compressed 1080p video stream at 2.5Mbps rate. A simple encoded 1080p video stream accounts for roughly 10Mbps meaning a high use DirecTV household like mine could easily use 60Mbps in video throughput with live viewing and DVRs during high-use prime time.

With the FCCs latest revision to the broadband definition carriers are pushing to increase connection rates as fast as they can but will take many years without a massive, truly massive infusion of public funds. Video over IP is very expensive to transmit, high quality video is downright insane when you look at real volume of traffic in aggregate.

Your vision for BASIC packages harkens back to the 80s when basic cable was 16 or 20 channels of content. Right now there are three 24hr news networks (I guess CNBC is still a channel?!? :hilarious:.) Years ago Disney Channel was a premium in my market, Storer/Comcast charged $5/mo for it.

So each stream will be preceded by the sound of a 28.8 modem syncing up, followed by a lot of sporadic buffering and artifacts?:arghh:
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
No chance Dis stock has anything to worry about for the rest of 2015. Downgrading it by anyone is absolutely foolish.

It is funny how perception filters how you take those articles. I read it and felt it was just as much a puff piece as the others and the downgrade is protective of Disney, not harmful. Apple and Tesla have both taken protective measures to deflate their stock prices when they started to get too unnaturally hot.

If the current consensus opinion is that DIS can do no wrong, then it is in the company's best interest to correct that. Otherwise unrealistic expectations get attached that will be more hurtful later.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
It is funny how perception filters how you take those articles. I read it and felt it was just as much a puff piece as the others and the downgrade is protective of Disney, not harmful. Apple and Tesla have both taken protective measures to deflate their stock prices when they started to get too unnaturally hot.

If the current consensus opinion is that DIS can do no wrong, then it is in the company's best interest to correct that. Otherwise unrealistic expectations get attached that will be more hurtful later.
I thought it had already been established that DIS has no time in their busy schedules to contemplate what might happen later. Today is the only concern. Well, they do think ahead as to what their bonus's will be if they hold down on necessary and unnecessary expenses between now and then. They have intense focus on that.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom