Bob Iger Bans Top Analyst and His Firm

[AEfx]

If you read the article it has nothing to do with a junket to Shanghai, Disney is refusing to provide him with financial information

So this guy (who has a speckled reputation if you even take a cursory look) is the ONLY person in the world that can properly cover Disney?

They aren't hiding information, they simply aren't going to bend over backwards for this guy. And if you read it, it does come across as rather cry baby because they aren't inviting him to events - which let's be real, no information is really going to come from, anyway.

Disney has no obligation to to support this person in their job. Sorry Darth Iger fans, you guys are going to have to try harder to create a scandal. People don't need trips to Shanghai to be able to analyze financial data.

 

[Disney Analyst]

So this guy (who has a speckled reputation if you even take a cursory look) is the ONLY person in the world that can properly cover Disney?

They aren't hiding information, they simply aren't going to bend over backwards for this guy. And if you read it, it does come across as rather cry baby because they aren't inviting him to events - which let's be real, no information is really going to come from, anyway.

Disney has no obligation to to support this person in their job. Sorry Darth Iger fans, you guys are going to have to try harder to create a scandal. People don't need trips to Shanghai to be able to analyze financial data.

I'm with you on this one.

 

[ford91exploder]

I read the article and noted this line was in the article I read.

Since that conversation with Singer, Disney has snubbed the analyst, refusing to respond to his phone call requests, stopped answering emails, and refused to invite him to management sponsored events like the ABC Upfront and this weekend’s opening of Shanghai Disneyland.

Singer I doubt would have attended the event it's not his style he's more of a 'numbers' guy and generally skips the gladhanding but now that he's gone public on Disney's behavior he has no reason to hold back

 

[doctornick]

I find it funny how these kinds of discussions always seem to immediately lead to complete hyperbole over the impending death of Disney and how Bob Iger is the Devil incarnate who is destroying the company. I'm actually thankful that WDW1974 replied putting this stuff in some better context.

In reading the original cited article, Greenfield doesn't come off well at all himself. To me, there is probably two sides to the story and Greenfield's complaints are tempered by possible legit criticism of him by Disney. It's interesting that the cited article starts off referring to Greenfield as controversial. Did a quick scan of his name and came up with this article that suggests that a lot of media companies have a beef with Greenfield.

I don't know if Disney is behaving unethically here -- they may very well be. Or maybe their treatment of Greenfield is typical of industry standards. Posting these kinds of isolated articles on here tend to make TWDC seem like some sort of unique organization when it comes to squashing out any dissenters in the press when I suspect these kinds of actions are just par for the course for media conglomerates.

There's probably a bigger picture issue (one that has been brought up here to be fair) regarding the role of the media and financial analysts and their relationship with Wall Street and the companies that are discussed. But how much of that discussion is unique to Disney versus could be just as applicable to Comcast or Fox or Time-Warner, at al?

 

[ford91exploder]

So this guy (who has a speckled reputation if you even take a cursory look) is the ONLY person in the world that can properly cover Disney?

They aren't hiding information, they simply aren't going to bend over backwards for this guy. And if you read it, it does come across as rather cry baby because they aren't inviting him to events - which let's be real, no information is really going to come from, anyway.

Disney has no obligation to to support this person in their job. Sorry Darth Iger fans, you guys are going to have to try harder to create a scandal. People don't need trips to Shanghai to be able to analyze financial data.

Actually they DO, He's an ANALYST not a reporter, If you want to be a public company analysts are part of the price of being a public company. Don't want to deal with them well take your company private. Analysts are part of the currently inadequate system of checks and balances on the equities market.

 

[ford91exploder]

I find it funny how these kinds of discussions always seem to immediately lead to complete hyperbole over the impending death of Disney and how Bob Iger is the Devil incarnate who is destroying the company. I'm actually thankful that WDW1974 replied putting this stuff in some better context.

In reading the original cited article, Greenfield doesn't come off well at all himself. To me, there is probably two sides to the story and Greenfield's complaints are tempered by possible legit criticism of him by Disney. It's interesting that the cited article starts off referring to Greenfield as controversial. Did a quick scan of his name and came up with this article that suggests that a lot of media companies have a beef with Greenfield.

I don't know if Disney is behaving unethically here -- they may very well be. Or maybe their treatment of Greenfield is typical of industry standards. Posting these kinds of isolated articles on here tend to make TWDC seem like some sort of unique organization when it comes to squashing out any dissenters in the press when I suspect these kinds of actions are just par for the course actions for media conglomerates.

There's probably a bigger picture issue (one that has been brought up here to be fair) regarding the role of the media and financial analysts and their relationship with Wall Street and the companies that are discussed. But How much of that discussion is unique to Disney versus could be just as application to Comcast or Fox or Time-Warner, at al?

Media companies in the US I think are overvalued generally because of the changing nature of the viewership model its not longer I can collect 100 bucks from every household in the region I cover.

 

[wdwhoneymooner]

As a financial analyst, I've experienced this sort of behavior/response from a company's executive. You name it: CFOs, COOs, CEOs.....My job is to provide financial status and forecasting generated by the data I have access to. If I'm not provided with all the information I need to perform my job, then my reports have no basis for factual integrity. As for anyone who believes that all analysts are nothing but "yes men", you couldn't be more wrong. Our reputation within the financial industry is of great importance. I won't sign off on any report that I believe is not thorough or is incomplete. I've left jobs due to CFOs wanting me to "reconsider my position" when it pertains to my findings. Many of my colleagues have done the same. My bullheadedness has provided me with consistent work and a good number of companies who have asked for my availability.

 

[monothingie]

No, I think Iger wants to be God. Really.

But he wants what every American CEO wants: to be able to control the narrative surrounding him and his company 100%. It's OK to want that. It's totally another to do unethical things to achieve those goals.

You forgot the part about owning a part of a NFL team.

 

[No Name]

Being banned is different than being uninvited to a special event. I like that you're bringing attention to it though. Because it's wrong.

Banning him would be undeniably wrong, since the guy did not break a park rule or exhibit any poor behavior that disturbed the experience for other guests. Visiting the park is something anyone needs to be allowed to do, regardless of personal grudges.

Not inviting him... I still think it's extremely immoral and completely babyish, and one of the many reasons that Bob Iger needs to be fired. But since it's an inviting thing, if Bob doesn't like him, it's his choice. It's a bad one. It could be a costly one, and I sure hope it is. Bob is unneccesarily ticking off people and it will backfire.

I hope this reporter writer dude has the balls to go after Bob and make him look bad. If enough people make him look bad, that will be the fall of Iger. I just hope he doesn't take the company down with him.

The Soviet Union didn't last. Nixon didn't last. History proves that Bob's babyish tactics won't end well for him.

 

[PhotoDave219]

IF this is the case, and I say if because well, three sides to every story, perhaps the company felt that this analyst was not playing fair with their reports? As a sports fan I see it all the time between teams and certain members of the media. If you're a company and you feel someone is purposefully hurting your company, why would you help them do that?

As an honest question, is there a legal obligation to allow members of any company or media into your meetings or any legal obligations to respond to their inquiries?

Not that I agree with the whole sour grapes approach, but it is rather common.

edit - nevermind. Gonna take my leave.

If you wanna talk Sports & Journalism, I'm all for it.

Suffice to say, I'm no cheerleader when it comes to a team I'm covering. I work for my outlet and play it professionally but respectfully.

Alas sports journalism is now filled with fans who are in awe of the players.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Allot of people rag on big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, big whatever. But big media is just as culpable when it comes to driving a narrative.

I agree to a point. Media corporations are generally interested in raitings and return on investment. Sadly very fewer and fewer are interested in public service.

 

[djkidkaz]

I just enjoy going to Typhoon Lagoon because they have a fun lazy river and now I'm expected to write the federal government and put a stop to Iger? Some of the stuff on these boards is so ridiculous or the assumption of how much people care about anything else going on at Disney that doesn't relate to Walt Disney World parks and new attractions.

 

[WDW1974]

Ok, so I lied about it being my last post. No one is ranting about how great a value Chef Mickey's is, even before the price increase. Most are saying that they go because their kids want to go, so they suck up the cost.

Of course you did because some people just can't help themselves.

As far as the other. Please. Analysts do nothing more than try to manipulate stocks for the purpose of making the financial institutions that they either work for or represent, the most money they possibly can in the shortest amount of time. They couldn't care one whit about the long term health of ANY publicly traded company. I don't believe ANY analyst should be allowed any kind of "insider" information. I don't care how highly respected he may be either.

No, that isn't what they do, but I'm not going back and forth ad nauseum. They report on the fundamentals of a company, so investors can make wise choices as to short and long term health of said company. They generally follow an industry, not one company. Greenfield's specialty is media companies. As to ''insider'' information, I'm not sure what you are speaking about. Getting information/facts from a company and having access to best do said job isn't my definition of ''insider information".

ALL of them, just like yourself here, make claims based on nothing more than you wanting to rile everyone up (such as the 50% buffet price increase thread) and analysts do the same every single day. Doesn't matter that you reported it as only a rumor, look at all the responses you received since everything you say here is pretty much treated as fact. You have been right on with so many things, that even the slightest "rumor" from you is treated like the second coming. Financial analysts do the same thing. They make "predictions" based on their "expert" knowledge, and all of a sudden, a companies stock goes down 5 points. The people the analyst were working for make a killing on shorting the stock, and then all of a sudden, the rumor isn't true, and things go back to normal until the next report. Rinse and repeat.

Are you saying I could be a big time analyst?!?! Because knowing what Rich Greenfield and others are worth, I'll take that. It beats dealing with people who simply can't grasp basic concepts or understand things that aren't part of their daily worlds. And I am sorry (no, I am not but have been told it's the polite thing to say) that you have such a problem with me reporting things that upset you. Clearly, you are upset not over Disney screwing Guests further with massive food and beverage increases, but that I had the nerve to stir the pot here regarding it. Tough pooh to you!

At least you realize that I am right almost all the time here, which is why people read me (even those who hate my 'style' ... whatever that is) and respect my opinions.

As to Greenfield and Iger (you know, the subjects of the thread ... not moi), if Greenfield is right most of the time (and he is) then why wouldn't any smart investor listen to him? That's due diligence. He feels that DIS is too high and has structural weaknesses (as do I). You listen to him. You look at his history. And you make a call.

Some of us in the real world don't look at things through Pixie Dust lenses.

 

[WDW1974]

Greenfield was able to ask a question on earnings "every few years" by his own claim. So it's not as if he led the conference calls and he's still able to rate the stock every quarter, regardless of being a call participant. I'm not saying this is merely sour grapes, but I also can't claim TWDC is manipulating the market by not inviting him to the opening in Shanghai.

Let's not miss the point, which is that DIS is refusing to cooperate with anyone who won't spin their PR messages (they in essence want everyone to be Lou Mongello or Jim Hill or Ricky Brigante or name your favorite lifestyler). And they have ratcheted up the censoring/bullying from a HuffPo blogger to a LA Times reporter to now ... one of the top Wall Street analysts.

DIS is absolutely attempting to manipulate the market by having every analyst march in lockstep with Zenia's PR. THAT is a problem. I don't think Rich is whining because he can't afford to check out SDL on his own. It's that he's being singled out because he's been critical. That is his job and his right ... much like the blogger ... much like the reporter.

 

[WDW1974]

Allot of people rag on big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, big whatever. But big media is just as culpable when it comes to driving a narrative.

Absolutely. I don't think there is much difference at all between them now.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I think what this comes down to is a pattern of behavior: Any Dissent simply won't be tolerated.

The questions on Shanghai are 100% valid and should be asked by the shareholders.

The questions on ESPN are 100% valid and should be asked by the shareholders.

Most of the corporate issues we come up with - governance, transparency, wages, stock buybacks, Capital Investments, and CEO succession simply to name a few - are completely valid.

To turn a deaf ear and freeze out those that disagree? Rather disturbing when it's a public company.

 

[WDW1974]

So this guy (who has a speckled reputation if you even take a cursory look) is the ONLY person in the world that can properly cover Disney?

They aren't hiding information, they simply aren't going to bend over backwards for this guy. And if you read it, it does come across as rather cry baby because they aren't inviting him to events - which let's be real, no information is really going to come from, anyway.

Disney has no obligation to to support this person in their job. Sorry Darth Iger fans, you guys are going to have to try harder to create a scandal. People don't need trips to Shanghai to be able to analyze financial data.

No. They aren't going to cooperate with him by providing him the same information and access opportunities that they provide to ALL analysts. The difference: Rich isn't puking forth how great ''Darth Iger" is and how great the fundamentals are for DIS. It's not bending over backward for everyone. It is providing all the same cooperation, not basing it on how well ''you play ball with us."

As to Shanghai, if every analyst is invited but one, then there's a problem. Because ''Darth Iger" is presenting the product to all of these guys/gals and showcasing it and what the company expects from it and why. Greenfield needs that information to do his job.

 

[WDW1974]

I find it funny how these kinds of discussions always seem to immediately lead to complete hyperbole over the impending death of Disney and how Bob Iger is the Devil incarnate who is destroying the company. I'm actually thankful that WDW1974 replied putting this stuff in some better context.

I believe that. So do many people I know -- from former WDI greats to animators to current execs to people in the business who have consulted for Disney. The hyperbole is necessary because many people don't understand the topics, the concepts or why they're much more important than when RoL will debut or what fanbois believe Finding Dory will open to.

In reading the original cited article, Greenfield doesn't come off well at all himself. To me, there is probably two sides to the story and Greenfield's complaints are tempered by possible legit criticism of him by Disney. It's interesting that the cited article starts off referring to Greenfield as controversial. Did a quick scan of his name and came up with this article that suggests that a lot of media companies have a beef with Greenfield.

And the writer of that story has a dubious reputation as well. Hell, that story could have been well precipitated by Greenfield trying to get attention for himself and his situation and Disney turning the tables. ... But does he have a rep? Absolutely, because he is willing to be controversial. Who else downgraded Disney just before The Force Awakens debuted? All on solid reasoning I might add. There are likely multiple companies (I can think of three off-hand right now) that would like it if he retired to spend more time with his family.

Frankly, those are the Wall Street voices I want to listen to. I don't need to hear the CNBC talking heads drone on about how great Iger is and the amazing new Star Wars film or Captain America film or Zootopia film or resort in Shanghai.

I don't know if Disney is behaving unethically here -- they may very well be. Or maybe their treatment of Greenfield is typical of industry standards. Posting these kinds of isolated articles on here tend to make TWDC seem like some sort of unique organization when it comes to squashing out any dissenters in the press when I suspect these kinds of actions are just par for the course for media conglomerates.

There's probably a bigger picture issue (one that has been brought up here to be fair) regarding the role of the media and financial analysts and their relationship with Wall Street and the companies that are discussed. But how much of that discussion is unique to Disney versus could be just as applicable to Comcast or Fox or Time-Warner, at al?

I do know. Companies love to attempt to influence coverage. That can't surprise you or anyone. I can tell you that I have never seen a media company flat out refuse to cooperate with an analyst because he hurt the feelings of the CEO. So, no, not at all par for the course.

 

[WDW1974]

Actually they DO, He's an ANALYST not a reporter, If you want to be a public company analysts are part of the price of being a public company. Don't want to deal with them well take your company private. Analysts are part of the currently inadequate system of checks and balances on the equities market.

Yup. That's why I suggested that this might border on illegal behavior. He is being punished because he isn't playing up the stock. That -- to me -- sure sounds like bullying/undue influence in order to have a 'buy' on the stock, which would influence market value of a huge publicly traded corporation. Illegal? No idea ... Kosher? Not at all.

 

[WDW1974]

As a financial analyst, I've experienced this sort of behavior/response from a company's executive. You name it: CFOs, COOs, CEOs.....My job is to provide financial status and forecasting generated by the data I have access to. If I'm not provided with all the information I need to perform my job, then my reports have no basis for factual integrity. As for anyone who believes that all analysts are nothing but "yes men", you couldn't be more wrong. Our reputation within the financial industry is of great importance. I won't sign off on any report that I believe is not thorough or is incomplete. I've left jobs due to CFOs wanting me to "reconsider my position" when it pertains to my findings. Many of my colleagues have done the same. My bullheadedness has provided me with consistent work and a good number of companies who have asked for my availability.

Thanks for adding a unique and important first-hand perspective.