Bob Iger Bans Top Analyst and His Firm

[flynnibus]

On the first part fair enough though you need a large cluebat to drive the point home through the clouds of pixie dust, I'm in the tech industry and one simply does NOT deny coverage to analysts who don't like your story unless you have something to hide as the analysts who cover tech generally love you one day and hate you the next and love you again next week and it's considered at least in my industry a giant red flag if you 'ban' an investment analyst

Now that being said it does not alter my opinion that wall st operates like a casino these days.

Playing favorites and just tolerating others is standard fair...

Analysts are not independent guardians... They are usually out to scoop and gain insight for their clients- that's it. No moral high ground, no 'duty', just trying to get a leg up on the market.

Then you have the ones who are whores themselves, who try to sell their product or sell 'analysis' or market reports back to the companies themselves. Make sure you ask for funded a report right at the start...

As to disclosing information to analysts... Refer to fair disclosure, selective disclosure, and regulation FD. Basically, the company is responsible for sharing info with the public equally, with the exception of confidentiality arrangements, where the party can't disclosure it either.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

White knights or canaries they are not. They are generating research... That's it. This idea of they are checks and balances is crap

 

[flynnibus]

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?

Funny...the very first hyperlink in the story you linked is a story about how controversial he is... In part due to inaccurate predictions

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/money/wolff-snarls-btig-analyst/397159

 

[rushtest4echo]

Some people here have no idea how often analysts are "dis invited" from seeing a company's books after they make ominous predictions (true or not). It's standard... No different from the access that a politician grants to the media. Stay in their good graces and you'll have access. Do the opposite, and don't expect to be welcomed and given that access. It corrupt, it's evil, but it's just typical business and right in line with how Walt would have done things.

Walt nearly bankrupted the company several times
Walt created Retlaw in order to skim money and charge licencing fees from the larger Walt Disney Co which he was in the process of taking public
Walt took advantage of foreign tax breaks
Walt blacklisted reporters who criticized his work
Walt went through years of "union busting" when the rest of the industry was already unionized
Walt hated dealing with other industry standard practices, so he created his own contracts that were ridicously bad for his talent
Walt considered "overtime" a foreign concept incompatible with his tight schedules that needed to stay on buget/on time
Walt was willing to absolutely destroy the reputation of people who didn't agree with his methods
Walt set up shell corporations to gain advantageous land deals
Walt created a municipality to suppress the "democratic" actions of the locals who wanted a say in how their city and region was being developed
Walt's theme park and movie projects were constantly over budget and late
Walt had plenty of "stinker" attractions and movies that he oversaw

It's just how business is done...

I don't like plenty of Iger's decisions, but to vilify him over this standard business practice is absurd. Par for the course for the conspiracy theorist OP though I guess.

 

[flynnibus]

Rich Greenfield had predicted the Friday before that Disney stock would fall to $90/share.

Disney stock closed at $88.85 on February 10, 2016.

I guess Iger doesn't like it when an analyst gets it right.

He also predicted TFA wouldn't be enough to offset ESPN's losses.. he was wrong.
He set a target price of $90. Disney has been at or below that price for exactly 1 day since he sent out that report. The 6m average is 98, and the average since that dip is actually 99.1 - which is actually closer to the high Disney was on when Greenfield made his report.. than it is to Greenfield's target price.

Greenfield has been beating the drum over ESPN for close to a year now and playing the doom game of how its going to drag the whole company down beyond 2016. He's leading that charge, so obviously he's not going to be Bob's #1 love..

 

[flynnibus]

A company doesn't have to provide any info to any group until an official announcement is made along with reports made to shareholders along with any required documentations to government agencies for the process(es) to move along. Once that happens, then analysts have a clearer vision of what's going to happen. It's akin to a doctor providing a diagnosis and care plan without performing a full and thorough screening of the patient.

Can you please reiterate for our viewers that the analysts are not getting all the insider dirt, and how disclosures are REGULATED. They seem to think this is all about 'giving secrets to Joe, but not to Bill'. Sans a locked down confidential disclosure, you are dealing with public information they must disclose to everyone..

 

[Matt_Black]

Some people here have no idea how often analysts are "dis invited" from seeing a company's books after they make ominous predictions (true or not). It's standard... No different from the access that a politician grants to the media. Stay in their good graces and you'll have access. Do the opposite, and don't expect to be welcomed and given that access. It corrupt, it's evil, but it's just typical business and right in line with how Walt would have done things.

Walt nearly bankrupted the company several times
Walt created Retlaw in order to skim money and charge licencing fees from the larger Walt Disney Co which he was in the process of taking public
Walt took advantage of foreign tax breaks
Walt blacklisted reporters who criticized his work
Walt went through years of "union busting" when the rest of the industry was already unionized
Walt hated dealing with other industry standard practices, so he created his own contracts that were ridicously bad for his talent
Walt considered "overtime" a foreign concept incompatible with his tight schedules that needed to stay on buget/on time
Walt was willing to absolutely destroy the reputation of people who didn't agree with his methods
Walt set up shell corporations to gain advantageous land deals
Walt created a municipality to suppress the "democratic" actions of the locals who wanted a say in how their city and region was being developed
Walt's theme park and movie projects were constantly over budget and late
Walt had plenty of "stinker" attractions and movies that he oversaw

It's just how business is done...

I don't like plenty of Iger's decisions, but to vilify him over this standard business practice is absurd. Par for the course for the conspiracy theorist OP though I guess.

The difference is Walt cultivated a public persona that we loved, so we generally forgive him. Bob... doesn't really have what I would call oodles of charm.

 

[No Name]

I think Bob's been hanging out with the Chinese goverment for a little too long now. He's learning from their style of conducting business.

 

[thehowiet]

Some people here have no idea how often analysts are "dis invited" from seeing a company's books after they make ominous predictions (true or not). It's standard... No different from the access that a politician grants to the media. Stay in their good graces and you'll have access. Do the opposite, and don't expect to be welcomed and given that access. It corrupt, it's evil, but it's just typical business and right in line with how Walt would have done things.

Walt nearly bankrupted the company several times
Walt created Retlaw in order to skim money and charge licencing fees from the larger Walt Disney Co which he was in the process of taking public
Walt took advantage of foreign tax breaks
Walt blacklisted reporters who criticized his work
Walt went through years of "union busting" when the rest of the industry was already unionized
Walt hated dealing with other industry standard practices, so he created his own contracts that were ridicously bad for his talent
Walt considered "overtime" a foreign concept incompatible with his tight schedules that needed to stay on buget/on time
Walt was willing to absolutely destroy the reputation of people who didn't agree with his methods
Walt set up shell corporations to gain advantageous land deals
Walt created a municipality to suppress the "democratic" actions of the locals who wanted a say in how their city and region was being developed
Walt's theme park and movie projects were constantly over budget and late
Walt had plenty of "stinker" attractions and movies that he oversaw

It's just how business is done...

I don't like plenty of Iger's decisions, but to vilify him over this standard business practice is absurd. Par for the course for the conspiracy theorist OP though I guess.

There is a larger part of the picture that you appear to be missing. Walt definitely wasn't a saint, but he was consistent in delivering a certain level of service and experience, and not squeezing out every cent from every guest. Of course it was a business, it always has been...but the business model was much different, and much more balanced. If you think that Iger's business model and practices are the same as Walt's, that's fine, but I disagree completely.

I think the larger lesson here is that consumers are more willing to deal with some of the business nonsense you highlighted above as long as you're still putting out an incredible product and providing your customers value. It's about being a customer-centric business and putting them first with the goal that that model will provide the profit and success you need to continue to exist. I see this all the time in the world I work. Businesses constantly focus on back of house operations/processes and retrofitting their customer experience to fit that instead of the other way around. Guess what inevitably ends up happening when you put your source of profit second?

 

[Filby61]

There is a larger part of the picture that you appear to be missing. Walt definitely wasn't a saint, but he was consistent in delivering a certain level of service and experience, and not squeezing out every cent from every guest. Of course it was a business, it always has been...but the business model was much different, and much more balanced. If you think that Iger's business model and practices are the same as Walt's, that's fine, but I disagree completely.

Well said. Other differences (among many) in the business models of the respective Disney Companies are that Walt fostered a team of creatives who constantly raised the bar on theme park innovation; Bob promotes financiers and consumer product gurus who use the parks as marketing malls. Walt played to the audience and respected the customer; Bob plays to Wall Street and uses the customer as a faceless cash cow. Walt invented; Bob copies.

 

[skyphotographer]

Because there is major news. If you don't like for God's sake what's wrong with you? Are you addicted to me? This site has hundreds and hundreds of active threads. Go to them and post about what interests you.

Attention? Does it bother you that people actually read and respond and talk about what I post? It sure seems to bother many people here. Maybe it would be better if you didn't have these threads and you could just talk about the latest upcharge events or blather about attractions that will open next decade.

The head of the WDC continuing his bizarre and troubling behavior of recent is newsworthy ... and newsworthy where people will see it and read it. No one forces you to do so.

And take your conspiracy BS and shove it up your blank. I am not using that term. I am stating FACTS. People can draw their own conclusions.

I think many here just want to kill the messenger.

 

[flynnibus]

Rich Greenfield had predicted the Friday before that Disney stock would fall to $90/share.

As a follow-up, I finally did get around to reading his note.. he calls the 90 price a 1yr target. So we'll have to see.. his real doom is predicted for FY17 and 18... calling for OpIncome to be flat in 2017

But he was also bearish on Domestic Theme Parks in FY16... Disney has beat that.
He also calls for the Studios to go down in FY17 and 18.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Can you please reiterate for our views that the analysts are not getting all the insider dirt, and how disclosures are REGULATED. They seem to think this is all about 'giving secrets to Joe, but not to Bill'. Sans a locked down confidential disclosure, you are dealing with public information they must disclose to everyone..

So if i follow correctly, since its a public company, Disney is supposed to maintain equal disclosures to all analyst companies?

 

[flynnibus]

So if i follow correctly, since its a public company, Disney is supposed to maintain equal disclosures to all analyst companies?

equal information - not equal access/treatment. Not only with analysts, but with the PUBLIC. They aren't to release non-public info to analysts before it is public (hence why the earnings releases go out right before the earnings calls ).

Regulation FD provides that when an issuer discloses material nonpublic information to certain individuals or entities—generally, securities market professionals, such as stock analysts, or holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information—the issuer must make public disclosure of that information. In this way, Regulation FD aims to promote the full and fair disclosure.

https://www.sec.gov/answers/regfd.htm

I've been saying it, but I guess it's going over people's heads... selectively releasing info to some analysts but not to others as people infer (like the attendance/TEA threads) is the basis for insider trading, which is why it's not allowed! Disney can't disclose material stuff to some people for their consumption and not disclose it to the public because then the public does not have fair access to the same information and hence would be at a disadvantage in the market.

 

[wdwhoneymooner]

Can you please reiterate for our views that the analysts are not getting all the insider dirt, and how disclosures are REGULATED. They seem to think this is all about 'giving secrets to Joe, but not to Bill'. Sans a locked down confidential disclosure, you are dealing with public information they must disclose to everyone..

Sure thing: As a public company, all official disclosures are indeed regulated and available to anyone who wishes to have access to them, analyst or not; shareholder or not; interested parties or not. Greenfield is not unlike any one else who has some form of interest in a company: he wants to know early and often. But companies like Disney have no obligation to confirm nor deny any speculative movements they have planned. Perhaps Greenfield had someone on the inside who had loose lips or thought he can pry info from someone. He may call, email, message by carrier pigeon all he wants, but a company simply doesn't have to communicate with anyone and simply use the required channel of official disclosures via their designated communications team. This is what Greenfield seems so upset about. Disney is simply not behaving unethically nor illegally. Fully allowed.

But as stated elsewhere, Iger was upset that the timing of Greenfield's report coincided with Disney's opening of the newest Star Wars film. I don't know if Greenfield had malice or not with his timing, but he didn't do anything illegal either (I think.....). Kinda like the unwritten rule that no female guest should upstage the bride at a wedding. Just no. Is Iger's response immature? To some, sure. But certainly not out of bounds.

 

[ford91exploder]

As a follow-up, I finally did get around to reading his note.. he calls the 90 price a 1yr target. So we'll have to see.. his real doom is predicted for FY17 and 18... calling for OpIncome to be flat in 2017

But he was also bearish on Domestic Theme Parks in FY16... Disney has beat that.
He also calls for the Studios to go down in FY17 and 18.

Disney only achieved those results through massive customer facing quality and service cuts. And already attendance is dropping what happens when the macroeconomic enviroment changes for the worse hmmm... The answer will not be pretty is all I can say

 

[flynnibus]

Sure thing: As a public company, all official disclosures are indeed regulated and available to anyone who wishes to have access to them, analyst or not; shareholder or not; interested parties or not.

But also that they can't simply tell analysts whatever they want.. because if its material info, and they don't in turn promptly disclose it for all.. they will get in trouble with the SEC.

Its why the analysts are always handled by trained teams and employees are generally instructed NOT to talk to analysts at all.. because of the risk of being played into releasing info they shouldn't

Certainly every industry has their leaks, and analysts have all their tricks, like talking to channel partners, suppliers, etc.. but people here seem unaware that the company can't just let secrets out that materially impact the business and futures to their buddies and who they like.

 

[Hakunamatata]

But also that they can't simply tell analysts whatever they want.. because if its material info, and they don't in turn promptly disclose it for all.. they will get in trouble with the SEC.

Its why the analysts are always handled by trained teams and employees are generally instructed NOT to talk to analysts at all.. because of the risk of being played into releasing info they shouldn't

Certainly every industry has their leaks, and analysts have all their tricks, like talking to channel partners, suppliers, etc.. but people here seem unaware that the company can't just let secrets out that materially impact the business and futures to their buddies and who they like.

So basically everyone gets the same info at the same time, invited to a special event or not.

 

[flynnibus]

So basically everyone gets the same info at the same time, invited to a special event or not.

in a very simplified way... yes

Analysts want to ask questions and engage in dialog to try to extract MORE insight from the company and people... so they can try to influence what is disclosed... but they aren't going to get a 'scoop' on non-released material information. That only comes from them getting info from outside the company, or getting people to leak more details then they should. It's why analysts will tour the trade show floor at industry events and strike up conversations with people they KNOW are not the media team... trying to extract whatever bits they can.

and lets not forget a lot can be taken from how people handle themselves. Its pretty telling when you can see the person feel uneasy delivering the corporate line.. vs passionately believing it.

 

[Hakunamatata]

in a very simplified way... yes

Analysts want to ask questions and engage in dialog to try to extract MORE insight from the company and people... so they can try to influence what is disclosed... but they aren't going to get a 'scoop' on non-released material information. That only comes from them getting info from outside the company, or getting people to leak more details then they should. It's why analysts will tour the trade show floor at industry events and strike up conversations with people they KNOW are not the media team... trying to extract whatever bits they can.

Thanks for the factual info.


So basically someone that Disney would try to influence with free stuff isn't getting free stuff. Should there not be rejoicing going on considering all the standard complaining about the social media *expletive* getting free stuff?