Could Disney face another hostile takeover attempt?

[mharrington]

Both of which are currently under very intense scrutiny by Congress for antitrust concerns. And depending on November may or may not intensify next year. So no I highly doubt either would make a play for Disney, or even get passed regulatory review, at this point.

Again no one at this point has deep enough pockets and would make it passed regulatory review.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple did admit to trying to buy Disney at least once (and probably more than once):

Apple wanted a service that could beat Netflix, a person familiar with the company’s plan said. After a 2015 effort to persuade Walt Disney Co. and others to join a streaming-TV service faltered, Apple’s executives debated alternatives, including acquiring Walt Disney Co. or Netflix, and building its own studio, people familiar with the discussions said.

 

[MisterPenguin]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple did admit to trying to buy Disney at least once (and probably more than once):

Apple wanted a service that could beat Netflix, a person familiar with the company’s plan said. After a 2015 effort to persuade Walt Disney Co. and others to join a streaming-TV service faltered, Apple’s executives debated alternatives, including acquiring Walt Disney Co. or Netflix, and building its own studio, people familiar with the discussions said.

By your own quote, Apple didn't *try to buy* Disney. Only talked about it internally in order to make their streamer successful.

 

[Disney Irish]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple did admit to trying to buy Disney at least once (and probably more than once):

Apple wanted a service that could beat Netflix, a person familiar with the company’s plan said. After a 2015 effort to persuade Walt Disney Co. and others to join a streaming-TV service faltered, Apple’s executives debated alternatives, including acquiring Walt Disney Co. or Netflix, and building its own studio, people familiar with the discussions said.

That was 5 years ago, not today. Today is a different landscape than 5 years ago, and they didn't actually attempt it. Apple is under HUGE scrutiny by Congress over antitrust concerns, something which would likely prevent any real attempt at Apple buying Disney. Also I'm sure just like any large company Apple kicked around MANY ideas on acquisitions, doesn't mean any of them got any further than a fleeting discussion.

It makes a salacious headline especially for fans, but its does nothing more than to drive clicks to a news outlets website and creates swings for stock prices for a couple days.

 

[mharrington]

By your own quote, Apple didn't *try to buy* Disney. Only talked about it internally in order to make their streamer successful.

The point is, they were attracted to it and were not silent on the matter.

That was 5 years ago, not today. Today is a different landscape than 5 years ago, and they didn't actually attempt it. Apple is under HUGE scrutiny by Congress over antitrust concerns, something which would likely prevent any real attempt at Apple buying Disney. Also I'm sure just like any large company Apple kicked around MANY ideas on acquisitions, doesn't mean any of them got any further than a fleeting discussion.

It makes a salacious headline especially for fans, but its does nothing more than to drive clicks to a news outlets website and creates swings for stock prices for a couple days.

Again, that didn't mean they just simply looked the other way.

 

[Disney Irish]

The point is, they were attracted to it and were not silent on the matter.

Plain and simple, Apple didn't make an attempt to buy Disney. It just didn't happen. I'm sure over the years MANY companies seriously looked at buying Disney, but none actually pulled the trigger and put in a bid. Other than the well know ones you've gleefully brought up many times. Point is that just because there was some discussion at Apple about buying Disney, you don't know how serious of a discussion it was nor do you know how far they got into the process. You're trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.

Also the past is the past, just because Apple or any other company had a discussion about buying Disney 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 years ago doesn't mean it has any bearing on today. Stop bringing up what happened in the past. This isn't 1984. This isn't 2015. This isn't any other time period in Disney history. This is 2020. And only things that happen in 2020 matter in 2020.

Again, that didn't mean they just simply looked the other way.

Not sure what this means.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The point is, they were attracted to it and were not silent on the matter.

That wasn’t the point. Apple looked at how to get into streaming. The point is they weighed buying their way in versus building their way into the market. That is it.

 

[mharrington]

At this point everything is out of Disney's hands in relation to Disneyland reopening. So there is nothing anyone can do but to be patient.

But can they even afford to keep Disneyland closed for six months to a year? I have heard a rumor that it could be that long. I don't think they can keep it closed this long without the risk of it shutting down for good. Even if they do reopen it, would they treat it like a brand-new park that has never been open before?

 

[Lilofan]

But can they even afford to keep Disneyland closed for six months to a year? I have heard a rumor that it could be that long. I don't think they can keep it closed this long without the risk of it shutting down for good. Even if they do reopen it, would they treat it like a brand-new park that has never been open before?

I can't imagine what the impacted cast at DCL are going through just by surviving on unemployment since the weekly stimulus checks ended last week.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But can they even afford to keep Disneyland closed for six months to a year? I have heard a rumor that it could be that long. I don't think they can keep it closed this long without the risk of it shutting down for good. Even if they do reopen it, would they treat it like a brand-new park that has never been open before?

Heard from who? Again, you can’t just take everything as true. Anyone who says they know when the park will open is lying. At this point it is an unknown.

They’re not going to pretend that Disneyland is somehow entirely new.

 

[mharrington]

I can't imagine what the impacted cast at DCL are going through just by surviving on unemployment since the weekly stimulus checks ended last week.

I don't know about the cruise lines, but I don't think the stimulus checks situation is going to really influence what happens in Sacramento, particularly if Congress were to extend it again.

Heard from who? Again, you can’t just take everything as true. Anyone who says they know when the park will open is lying. At this point it is an unknown.

They’re not going to pretend that Disneyland is somehow entirely new.

The source is anonymous. They never really said when they knew it was opening, only that the closure could extend up to a year, as the entertainment industry would likely be dead last to open in California and elsewhere.

As for pretending that it's new, they would have to do something since this closure is unprecedented.

 

[Magic Crush Drop]

But I just can't wrap my head around the concept of Disneyland being closed into next year or even longer. It has never been closed this long before. And that can't be good for them either.

Try to handle it. Disney isn't in control of the virus. Just chill dude.

 

[The Mom]

Please do not turn this into yet another Covid thread. Thank you.

 

[mharrington]

The bottom line is that, according to @pheneix, the company is apparently on the verge of bankruptcy. The WDW parks are open again, but he fears it's unsustainable. He fears that Orlando is on the verge of going the way of Detroit and becoming a ghost town.

 

[mharrington]

And let's not forget that at the next annual quarterly report meeting on August 4th, given what's been happening, it's not going to be pretty, I can tell.

 

[Lilofan]

And let's not forget that at the next annual quarterly report meeting on August 4th, given what's been happening, it's not going to be pretty, I can tell.

If Iger can find a way to be a positive spin on 8/4 and convince Wall Street that the company will turn around, restructure, sell off assets etc, then that could be a little light that investors and Wall Street could see that he is trying move the company forward in these difficult circumstances. When one taps into cash reserves that's a very bad sign.

 

[Disney Irish]

The bottom line is that, according to @pheneix, the company is apparently on the verge of bankruptcy. The WDW parks are open again, but he fears it's unsustainable. He fears that Orlando is on the verge of going the way of Detroit and becoming a ghost town.

First bankruptcy doesn't mean the end of the company. Second even if are on the verge of going bankrupt (which I don't believe) there are many things they can do, but again doesn't mean the end of the company. Who knows this could make the company a lot stronger in the long run. Also I think you're confusing what some posters said. I believe the Detroit comment was from someone else.

 

[mharrington]

If Iger can find a way to be a positive spin on 8/4 and convince Wall Street that the company will turn around, restructure, sell off assets etc, then that could be a little light that investors and Wall Street could see that he is trying move the company forward in these difficult circumstances. When one taps into cash reserves that's a very bad sign.

That's apparently what's going to happen, that cash reserves will be tapped. At least, that seems to be the consensus on the board here, as far as I know (which is not a lot, I'll admit). Iger may not be able to put a positive spin on the situation (which would be disingenuous anyway).

 

[mharrington]

First bankruptcy doesn't mean the end of the company. Second even if are on the verge of going bankrupt (which I don't believe) there are many things they can do, but again doesn't mean the end of the company. Who knows this could make the company a lot stronger in the long run. Also I think you're confusing what some posters said. I believe the Detroit comment was from someone else.

But in the short run, it's going to be very painful. And it doesn't really matter who mentioned the Detroit comment. The point is, I have a feeling the upcoming quarterly meeting will be quite dramatic. As I also have said, I'm not sure how Bob Iger can spin this for Wall Street without coming across as disingenuous. I could be mistaken, but I don't think Wall Street cares about the long term.

 

[Disney Irish]

But in the short run, it's going to be very painful. And it doesn't really matter who mentioned the Detroit comment. The point is, I have a feeling the upcoming quarterly meeting will be quite dramatic. As I also have said, I'm not sure how Bob Iger can spin this for Wall Street without coming across as disingenuous. I could be mistaken, but I don't think Wall Street cares about the long term.

This is the first quarter to show the impact of the closures, of course its going to be painful. But its also the first quarter to show the reopening of the various Parks. So while it'll be painful, it won't be as painful as could have been if all the Parks remained closed.

Wall Street looks at two things (in my opinion), short term is the company hitting its goals, and long term is the company going to continue to hit those goals, ie is the company healthy. In the short term yes Disney is not likely to hit its goals. But in the long term Disney is going to continue to be fine because it was healthy compared to its peers prior to the pandemic. So its going to be how Chapek and Iger provides guidance on the long term health of the company that will either cause Wall Street to panic or ease their fears. So I'm cautious optimistic on things long term for Disney.

As for the comments, it does matter because you're trying to provide evidence from a poster on why Disney is doomed. Bankruptcy aside, as I did find one post they mention it, the poster you mentioned was really talking about layoffs, which is and has been expected, Iger even stated as much back in March or April. And in my opinion layoffs are needed, especially in middle management, as Disney is very bloated in terms of management. Even to the point of keeping around inefficient or inept management. This means larger payrolls and pensions, all of which means the company can shed that dead weight. As Iger said, they can come out of this "leaner and more efficient".

 

[mharrington]

This is the first quarter to show the impact of the closures, of course its going to be painful. But its also the first quarter to show the reopening of the various Parks. So while it'll be painful, it won't be as painful as could have been if all the Parks remained closed.

But some of the parks are still closed.

Wall Street looks at two things (in my opinion), short term is the company hitting its goals, and long term is the company going to continue to hit those goals, ie is the company healthy. In the short term yes Disney is not likely to hit its goals. But in the long term Disney is going to continue to be fine because it was healthy compared to its peers prior to the pandemic. So its going to be how Chapek and Iger provides guidance on the long term health of the company that will either cause Wall Street to panic or ease their fears. So I'm cautious optimistic on things long term for Disney.

Won't Wall Street be upset at Disney for not hitting the goals? There's also the chance the two Bobs could mess up and panic Wall Street, even if that wasn't the intention.

As for the comments, it does matter because you're trying to provide evidence from a poster on why Disney is doomed. Bankruptcy aside, as I did find one post they mention it, the poster you mentioned was really talking about layoffs, which is and has been expected, Iger even stated as much back in March or April. And in my opinion layoffs are needed, especially in middle management, as Disney is very bloated in terms of management. Even to the point of keeping around inefficient or inept management. This means larger payrolls and pensions, all of which means the company can shed that dead weight. As Iger said, they can come out of this "leaner and more efficient".

Why then are so many people making Iger out to be the villain, trying to secure his own legacy at the expense of the company?