Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Magic Feather]

So we're not talking about how annual passes just got payment cancelled for the time being?

Two options: no/waived payments w/ original expiration date intact or delayed payments (once parks reopen) with extended date. Extended date automatically is given to people that paid in full.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I encourage you to read further. Fannie May, Freddie Mac, FHA- these all have something in common, and it’s why they have the option right now. They do not hold all of the mortgages in this country.

The conversation was tenant and landlord and now some landlords will be facing double mortgages if own a rental, and tenants can’t afford to pay, which then ends in eviction later on.
Whether those 2 mortgages are paid this month, next month, in 3 months, or in 12 months with Freddie... it’s still 2 mortgage payments for the month/s.
The math doesn’t change, only the due date.

I hope that explains it for you.

Landlords are in the same boat that anyone else who loses income during the lockdown. The lack of rental income hurts, but, if they have mortgages on those properties there is likely relief for them, just like for anyone else who has a mortgage, and a loss of income.

And the math does indeed change in some way. If you're paying a mortgage without income coming in, your total finances (mathy word for how much money you have) declines. That might cause you to have no money left at all and you miss your mortgage and you lose your house. That's really bad consequences. And that's math.

If you can move those mortgage payments to some other time in which you do have income, then you can cover the payments. You don't miss mortgage payments and you keep your house. A very different end result, mathematically.

If you just want to focus on total mortgage paid and ignore the consequences of when you have to pay and when you can defer payment and the devastation that can cause your complete financial situation, you can. It would be terribly myopic to do so, though.

 

[TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives]

So Disney decided to raise cash via debt offerings and had their executives cut their salaries, and yet they're still furloughing non-essential employees?

How on Earth are they going to survive come summer? They wouldn't be furloughing employees if they don't think they'll lose ~$50-80 billion last quarter and this quarter combined.

And how can this not end with Disney selling off a lot of their assets? It's clear this is not going to be some short-term or near-term pain for the company. It'll be decades-long.

They only grossed $70 billion in FY2019. So I don't think they expect to 'lose' $50-80 billion in two quarters.

Also, we have to look at their revenues + expenses to truly understand what they're losing.

 

[Slpy3270]

They only grossed $70 billion in FY2019. So I don't think they expect to 'lose' $50-80 billion in two quarters.

Also, we have to look at their revenues + expenses to truly understand what they're losing.

Judging by their recent actions, we can't dismiss the possibility that they'll ask for a bailout if they really think they may not make it through the year.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Ill bring it up again. I don't know if "Disney" as we know it survives this. Its looking ever increasingly like beyond just our normal everyday lives, some of the entities we've become accustomed to over the years will look very different once were out of this. And this was something I kept saying would never be totally affected.

It's up to the shareholders whether they would vote for a merger or takeover of Disney, but I would think that overall this is solid company with a lot of assets including theme parks and a huge library of classic films.

Maybe it will come down to debt though. If they have too much debt then the bondholders call the shots, right? They could insist on liquidation I suppose. Probably the things that fans on here love the most would stay together - films and theme parks - whereas things that people could care less about like ESPN and ABC might be sold off.

 

[note2001]

So Disney decided to raise cash via debt offerings and had their executives cut their salaries, and yet they're still furloughing non-essential employees?

How on Earth are they going to survive come summer? They wouldn't be furloughing employees if they don't think they'll lose ~$50-80 billion last quarter and this quarter combined.

And how can this not end with Disney selling off a lot of their assets? It's clear this is not going to be some short-term or near-term pain for the company. It'll be decades-long.

First in line to say Disney needs to sell off the Simpsons. Question is, would anyone be buying?

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

First in line to say Disney needs to sell off the Simpsons. Question is, would anyone be buying?

I'm hoping Uni wants to sell the Marvel Theme Park rights. I think there'd be a buyer.

 

[DisneyCane]

I'm an attorney. No, the churches likely wouldn't win.

Think of fire codes that limit the number of people in a building. Those fire codes apply regardless of why people might assemble in a building, whether it's for what's widely regarded as highly protected speech (e.g. religious services, political party meetings, etc.) or assemblies that don't have the same type of First Amendment scrutiny (e.g. a concert or sporting event). As long as a fire code is neutral in its application (meaning that it's not *specifically* applying rules to religious institutions that are somehow more discriminatory than any other type of group), then that's going to pass constitutional muster because the government has a compelling interest in the protecting the safety of its citizens that overrides any First Amendment argument for that particular situation. As a result, a religious institution can't argue that the government is infringing upon its freedom to assemble because a fire code restricts the number of people in a church building to 100 people even though 200 people might want to attend a service.

In essence, the orders limiting the number of people gathering in one place that you're seeing across the country are the equivalent of a national fire code. As long as those orders are neutral in their application and not somehow more stringent toward religious groups, they're likely to be held up as constitutional. (To be sure, I certainly believe there will be groups that will attempt to sue on constitutional grounds just on principle, but I doubt they'd get past the motion for summary judgment stage for the reasons that I've stated above.)

Except that you are changing the established lawful use guidelines. The church already satisfied all of the fire and safety codes that were established as reasonable regulations for the public safety. When the church was built, they built it to meet all regulations and were issued a CO for said use.

It is on the same basis that, if I owned a movie theatre, I believe that I could successfully sue the entity that has forced me to close and demand that I be justly compensated. I was operating a lawful business and my business model was based upon compliance with the laws and regulations in place at the time I opened the business. Forcing me to shut down my business is the same concept as eminent domain.

If a local government has a fire code that allows 1 person per 5 square feet and gives me a CO under that regulation, they can't decide five years later to change the code to 1 person per 10 square feet and require me to comply.

 

[21stamps]

Landlords are in the same boat that anyone else who loses income during the lockdown. The lack of rental income hurts, but, if they have mortgages on those properties there is likely relief for them, just like for anyone else who has a mortgage, and a loss of income.

You’re misunderstanding the conversation. The landlord in this scenario has a home they live in, and a home they rent out. They are “just like anyone else...”
I know people look at deferments as something more than what they are, but they’re simply pushing a payment off, that’s it. It doesn’t make money go away, and when that money is due, many people won’t have financially recovered from what’s going right now. I don’t know what all lenders will do. I do know that millions of Americans do not have loans with Fannie or Freddie, though you keep quoting what those loans are doing.. don’t let the 20% in the linked article mislead you into thinking that’s a tiny number, there’s many other mortgages.

 

[Slpy3270]

It's up to the shareholders whether they would vote for a merger or takeover of Disney, but I would think that overall this is solid company with a lot of assets including theme parks and a huge library of classic films.

Maybe it will come down to debt though. If they have too much debt then the bondholders call the shots, right? They could insist on liquidation I suppose. Probably the things that fans on here love the most would stay together - films and theme parks - whereas things that people could care less about like ESPN and ABC might be sold off.

Those two nets generate more in profits than the film studios each year so....

Plus, debt isn't an issue yet.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Send link to the Governor of Georgia. He needs someone to explain what the word asymptomatic -- which he has been reading in his briefings for two months -- actually means.

Maybe he was thinking of the time his kitchen garburator got clogged?

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

If I go way back in this thread, and back to the subject of WDW itself, and why it might close, the core of the Disney commitment purpose is "We create happiness."

We might even consider that the whole tourism industry of Florida, which makes up a large chunk of state revenue, depends on the same motto, more or less.

Now think about the images we have seen of Florida beachgoers in recent weeks. The college students boldly saying they were not going to let the party stop. Across much of the country, or at least for a significant chunk of the public, those images ran the opposite of the usual image WDW has so carefully crafted. Even the last week WDW was open, the late night hosts had a field day mocking the idea of going to WDW during the pandemic. Images of the last night WDW was open, didn't help either.

Those images damaged the Florida brand in the eyes of many Americans, and those images will stay in people's minds for some time. Florida is supposed to be the place to go for healthy sunshine.

Other states with tourism, like Idaho and Louisiana, are now experiencing a similar branding problem. People now mentally connect these locations to Covid-19.

Opening too early is just going to compound the mental association and mental perception.

FL also has may senior residents. FL needs their seniors to survive, because it would be very bad for every sector of the state if FL's seniors are passing away in record numbers.

I suspect the financial impact of that could potentially last a number of years.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except that you are changing the established lawful use guidelines. The church already satisfied all of the fire and safety codes that were established as reasonable regulations for the public safety. When the church was built, they built it to meet all regulations and were issued a CO for said use.

It is on the same basis that, if I owned a movie theatre, I believe that I could successfully sue the entity that has forced me to close and demand that I be justly compensated. I was operating a lawful business and my business model was based upon compliance with the laws and regulations in place at the time I opened the business. Forcing me to shut down my business is the same concept as eminent domain.

If a local government has a fire code that allows 1 person per 5 square feet and gives me a CO under that regulation, they can't decide five years later to change the code to 1 person per 10 square feet and require me to comply.

Codes can be changed and require changes to existing facilities.

 

[DisneyCane]

forgive me quoting this exact post...as I think you more clearly expressed your point in other posts, but the courts have ruled multiple times that freedoms can be suspended during a war. READ: Schenck V .United States:

“[w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended telegraph lines, and shut down newspapers. during WWI, we had the Sedition Act of 1918. (people could not criticize the war, or demand an early end, etc.) READ: Debs v. United States

As far as pandemics are concerned, READ Jacobson V. Massachusetts, for a start. Governments have the power to establish laws to control epidemic disease. Elected representatives have the power to enact health laws to protect the common good.

My legal argument in this case is, 1) the President has not declared martial law which would give him some of these powers and 2) the measures are not reasonable in the sense that they are treating the entire population as being infected vs. enacting laws to keep the infected from spreading the disease.

They can set up quarantine camps for people who test positive and that would be perfectly legal. In my somewhat informed opinion, I don't think they can forbid me from being within 6 feet of my neighbor when neither of us has tested positive or have any symptoms. I also strongly believe that to force businesses to close and/or drastically change their operation the governmental entity which made those orders must compensate the business for the lost revenue as they would have to compensate you if they wanted to seize your property via eminent domain to build a road.

 

[Lilofan]

Except for union members it appears.

One Union leaders tells us they are meeting with Disney tomorrow morning

They find out tomorrow at 9:00 am

Union hourly members at WDW and DLR know their fate tomorrow.

 

[celluloid]

This should tell everoyne how not likely June 1st is looking right now. So many things that are unpredictable that it is no one's fault and many departments under a big umberella, but if the Walt Disney Travel Company (the DRC) can book for June 1st but the guest facing leadership are being furloughed starting April 19nth, much less than two months away before everything would need to be scheduleed and ready. That tells you what you would need to know about that June free dining and how it is to get some deposits and money into Disney's bank.

 

[DisneyCane]

Codes can be changed and require changes to existing facilities.

Not if it is the same owner/renter. I have experience with this from years ago when I did have ownership in a small movie theatre chain. There was a location in Rhode Island that had operated since the 1980s under a different operator. Their lease expired and we signed a new lease. The fire marshal required us to upgrade the fire suppression to the current code and also restricted us from popping popcorn with customers in the building due to the new code (the modifications would have been too expensive to be worth it). We had to comply with the new code because we applied for a new CO. The prior operator was allowed to operate under the code in place when they opened in the 1980s.

 

[CastAStone]

How on Earth are they going to survive come summer? They wouldn't be furloughing employees if they don't think they'll lose ~$50-80 billion last quarter and this quarter combined.

They don’t have $50 billion in annual expenses. Try again.

They’re going to lose maybe $3-6 billion a quarter. Read the 10-K or don’t participate in financial discussions.

 

[21stamps]

My legal argument in this case is, 1) the President has not declared martial law which would give him some of these powers and 2) the measures are not reasonable in the sense that they are treating the entire population as being infected vs. enacting laws to keep the infected from spreading the disease.

They can set up quarantine camps for people who test positive and that would be perfectly legal. In my somewhat informed opinion, I don't think they can forbid me from being within 6 feet of my neighbor when neither of us has tested positive or have any symptoms. I also strongly believe that to force businesses to close and/or drastically change their operation the governmental entity which made those orders must compensate the business for the lost revenue as they would have to compensate you if they wanted to seize your property via eminent domain to build a road.

I agree with most of your posts, but I think here the savior for the govt would be that we are currently in a national emergency. It has been declared. This affords them more powers than when not in a state of emergency

 

[Slpy3270]

They don’t have $50 billion in annual expenses. Try again.

They’re going to lose maybe $3-6 billion a quarter. Read the 10-K or don’t participate in financial discussions.

Then why is it that everyone here and in the media are speaking the impact on Disney in apocalyptic terms? It's not like they're insane or paranoid.