Disney Posts Mixed Earnings $1.58/share on Rev of $14.24B

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Out of 31 analysts, 17 have an outperform/buy rating on the stock, 12 holds, and 2 sells.

BTIG is a nothing firm and Richard Greenfield is a long time Disney bear and overall loser. He's bullish on Twitter, a company with the most incompetent management around.

Disney is not going to "lose $2b/yr" unless they are replacing it on the other side. $2b/yr is over 20% of their profit. Not going to happen and your bearishness has just gone overboard with your 2019 prediction.

Disney is facing the cord cutting issue head on and has some of the strongest content if not the best in the industry. They will get through this and will open up other revenue streams in the process. This was inevitable and instead of being victims, they are making bold decisions. Disney isn't going "Revenue Negative" on media networks anytime soon. Their bad quarter just showed only a 1% y/y decline in revenues for media networks.

I mean, short the stock if you're so sure it's doom and gloom. There are worse companies out there to be this bearish about...wow.

I'm a permabear, went into gold when NK started the nuclear sabre rattling, because i knew the street would panic like a bunch of lemmings. Nice profit in gold....

Shorting stocks unless you are playing with other peoples money is a good way to lose your shirt.

As to BTIG, They are very good at predicting failures.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I'm confused.
  1. You claim WDW has been offering huge discounts to get people to visit
  2. P&R revenues are up
  3. P&R segment income is up
  4. Operating expenses are up
  5. Attendance was up but not a major driver
So how exactly was attendance only up slightly, revenue per person should be down due to these deep discounts but somehow both revenue and profits are up sharply. Well maybe at least profit are up due to these famous cost cuts we are always hearing about...no wait...operating expense is also up. Hmmm seems like something doesn't add up here.

You hook them with one discount... then fleece them while they are in your sphere of influence.

Offering 20-30% discounts is easy when you just raise prices 10-15% annually without blinking :)
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
I hate living life by subscription. Subscription for this,.subscription for that. It all adds up.

Between Netflix and Amazon, I have all the entertainment I need for the time available to me.
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'm a permabear, went into gold when NK started the nuclear sabre rattling, because i knew the street would panic like a bunch of lemmings. Nice profit in gold....

Shorting stocks unless you are playing with other peoples money is a good way to lose your shirt.

As to BTIG, They are very good at predicting failures.
Timing the market is impossible.

Far more capital is lost trying to avoid the collapse than the collapse itself. Market drops, buy more. Every bear in history has been wrong.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Timing the market is impossible.

Far more capital is lost trying to avoid the collapse than the collapse itself. Market drops, buy more. Every bear in history has been wrong.

The US stock market is a rigged game designed to fleece the individual investor and it has been since the end of Glass-Stegal. Its why im a permabear. As in no matter how bad the stock market gets for the individual investor it can only get worse.

Commodities are where I prefer to be
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The US stock market is a rigged game designed to fleece the individual investor and it has been since the end of Glass-Stegal. Its why im a permabear. As in no matter how bad the stock market gets for the individual investor it can only get worse.

Commodities are where I prefer to be
It's the only game in town and all the money you lost not being in it to this point just proves your flawed thinking. Stocks have and will continue to outperform any asset class, period. Not sure why you prefer being wrong, but more power to you.
 

PuertoRekinSam

Well-Known Member
Now if Disney wants me to buy this package they need to entice me with a DisneyParks sub channel. Let me access the live blog broadcast of shows and fireworks... but more importantly include old park movies like Magic Journeys, Symbiosis, Captain EO, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, The Lottery... and if we want to “get crazy” allow those with VR equipment to watch old circle vision movies!

(Maybe they would buy some of Martin’s attraction films for broadcast, ha ha)
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Now if Disney wants me to buy this package they need to entice me with a DisneyParks sub channel. Let me access the live blog broadcast of shows and fireworks... but more importantly include old park movies like Magic Journeys, Symbiosis, Captain EO, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, The Lottery... and if we want to “get crazy” allow those with VR equipment to watch old circle vision movies!

(Maybe they would buy some of Martin’s attraction films for broadcast, ha ha)
Those are NOT FOR SALE.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
It's the only game in town and all the money you lost not being in it to this point just proves your flawed thinking. Stocks have and will continue to outperform any asset class, period. Not sure why you prefer being wrong, but more power to you.

Being raised by grandparents who lived through the depression, and watching my wife's grandparents retirement funds being completely wiped out in 2008 in the last crash has taught me all i need to know about stocks.

Just a way to lose money unless you are a big bank Where gains are privatized and losses are borne by the taxpayer
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Being raised by grandparents who lived through the depression, and watching my wife's grandparents retirement funds being completely wiped out in 2008 in the last crash has taught me all i need to know about stocks.

Just a way to lose money unless you are a big bank Where gains are privatized and losses are borne by the taxpayer
All 2008 should have taught you is that you should be buying when others are fearful. Selling in 2008 was the biggest mistake you could have made. If you just held (or bought more) you'd be up 4X.

You couldn't be more wrong.
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
I think the one big thing most people are missing is an independent streaming service could drastically effect Disney Movie Club, home video sales, and Disney Movies anywhere which would hurt media/revenue even more meaning the pricing for the streaming most likely would not be a great price point.

Disney Channel is trending downwards on both cable and online with negative ratings.

ESPN is not a good value when people already get NBCSports and Fox Sports Network, all those additional sports subscriptions, and recently Twitter all now have the ability to stream games. Unless ESPN gets UFC, I don't think it would do so great.

As for movies, I don't think even think Marvel/Lucasfilm content would really help unless they start doing exclusive streaming service only.
 

seabreezept813

Well-Known Member
The streaming debate interests me because we canceled cable a year ago. We honestly don't miss it, except during football season. And I've wondered for some time when a sports streaming network would appear.
Disney is different. We've watched several of the new Disney movies on Netflix, but we buy the movies we like on DVD or get them at the library. So we wouldn't need a Disney streamer. For someone like my mom, she watched movies she would never have gone out of her way like the new Jungle Book on Netflix because they were conveniently there. I just don't think that most people will buy the movies and streaming network. If Disney combined and offered classics, ABC, and sports I think it would be much more successful.
 

Christian Fronckowiak

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Whether or not this streaming service has Marvel and Star Wars (which I know even Disney itself isn't sure of yet) will go a long way in deciding if this service succeeds or fails TBH. On the one hand...if this streaming service has a wider variety of Disney/Pixar movies than Netflix currently does (which I'm sure it will) then that alone may make it desirable. Usually Netflix would only have a handful of Disney films at a time, so if you were in the mood for a specific Disney movie...you were just out of luck. If this streaming service offers most (or all) of Disney's animated filmography...that's a big deal IMO, especially when Disney is still leaning on the irritating "vault" DVD release system.

Add the Star Wars and MCU movies to the mix, and you have yourself a pretty solid starting point for a streaming service. But it seems like that would also make for a lot of confusing overlap...Does Disney also own the Clone Wars series, and would that also be pulled from Netflix and added to their new streaming service? And obviously Disney owns the MCU properties, but the Netflix MCU properties are Netflix originals...no matter how many MCU films they pull from Netflix, Jessica Jones, Daredevil and others will remain at Netflix.

Disney should BUY NETFLIX. That way they have the exclusive Marvel shows :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Netflix the distributor of the Netflix Marvel series? Doesn't either Marvel Studios or Marvel Television produce the shows? In that case, Disney could acquire the distribution rights either when the series end their run, or when they begin running the new service. This doesn't sound like Sony owning the film rights to Spider-Man, etc.
Again, please correct me if this is inaccurate.
 

njDizFan

Well-Known Member
All 2008 should have taught you is that you should be buying when others are fearful. Selling in 2008 was the biggest mistake you could have made. If you just held (or bought more) you'd be up 4X.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Data for this Date Range
Dec. 31, 2017 11.59%
Dec. 31, 2016 11.96%
Dec. 31, 2015 1.38%
Dec. 31, 2014 13.69%
Dec. 31, 2013 32.39%
Dec. 31, 2012 16.00%
Dec. 31, 2011 2.11%
Dec. 31, 2010 15.06%
Dec. 31, 2009 26.46%
Dec. 31, 2008 -37.00%
Dec. 31, 2007 5.49%
Dec. 31, 2006 15.79%
Dec. 31, 2005 4.91%
Dec. 31, 2004 10.88%
Dec. 31, 2003 28.68%

Dec. 31, 2002 -22.10%
Dec. 31, 2001 -11.89%
Dec. 31, 2000 -9.10%
Dec. 31, 1999 21.04%
Dec. 31, 1998 28.58%
Dec. 31, 1997 33.36%
Dec. 31, 1996 22.96%
Dec. 31, 1995 37.58%
Dec. 31, 1994 1.32%
Dec. 31, 1993 10.08%
Dec. 31, 1992 7.62%
Dec. 31, 1991 30.47%
Dec. 31, 1990 -3.10%
Dec. 31, 1989 31.69%
Dec. 31, 1988 16.61%

A simple S & P number shows it is up 337% over these 30 years which includes 2 recessions. Basically doubling your money every 10 years. Precious metals are so incredibly inconsistent I would only buy them as a very short hold. Long term you will loose your shirt. Looking at their performance is like looking at my heartbeat. Going to disagree with you this time Ford. This bull run for the past 10 years may be an anomaly but you have certainly lost out if you haven't jumped on the tailwind.
 

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
For Disney to go to zero all that's necessary is Media Networks to go revenue negative which based on current loss rates will be somewhere in 2019-2020, Disney has such huge contractual obligations for sports rights which are not supported by the current market. ESPN has always been supported by 80 million households who DO NOT WATCH their product.

WHEN NOT IF Media Networks go revenue negative Disney will need to fund ESPN with literally billions to pay for the poor package of sports rights they have vastly overpaid for.

The real market for ESPN is about 20-30 million households, Various market studies show that with todays costs the monthly fee would be about 37-39 bucks. Unfortunately those households are only willing to pay a maximum of 8 bucks. (I've sourced this a bunch of times before search is your friend)

On FBN's Varney and Co the discussion was that Disney needs to SELL ESPN because they feel it's dragging Disney down. unfortunately they also noted that no one is interested in buying it because of the deteriorating fundamentals. One suggestion is to spin off ESPN into it's own company and to let it sink or swim.

Without that Disney's only option is bankruptcy so the rights packages can be re-negotiated to a more realistic figure and that's going to have huge knock on effects in the NBA and NFL.

If ESPN becomes revenue negative (and ends up looking like it will start accelerating to the downside) I can't seeing it being spun off. No investment bank would dare underwrite it. And if it somehow managed to get an IPO under those conditions I suspect that the folks at 345 Park Avenue would suspect the whole thing is an attempt to financially engineer a way out of fully holding up their end on a binding contract...

But I strongly suspect that if $DIS get's low enough it will find a buyer. Someone out there will think they have the fix for ESPN, or want's the IP and/or the real estate, and would be happy to pick it up at firesale prices. Private equity wouldn't care about quarterly fluctuations since they don't have to report. As I've said, the biggest risk to this 'landing' happening is a macro event that takes out these potential buyers as well...

Though I wonder if the cocktail of high rights fees and much, much lower user income ends up changing the division to one that has to live with Kroger level margins - not remotely good news, but not an existential threat either...

But while I've been focusing on keeping up on my real life investments, I'm thinking more and more about the macro. And this is where we get back to the parks. Who is going to go to the parks in 5-10 years? They seem so focused on the high earner. How many of their guests are in fact, people with lower incomes and higher leverage? Or those who work in a cyclical industry? And never mind how much they try to charge... what about ancillary costs of travel? How much will it cost to fly?
 

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4097341-disney-leaves-netflix-big-mistake

Great article, that kind of dovetails with a couple of posters in this thread....

Before streaming happened, a common subject was whether a la carte channels would happen via legislation.

But this is a different animal then a la carte cable.

Right now at Boma there is a 'bundle' price for all the food, soft drinks, etc. you can eat (if you choose to upcharge for a special coffee or an adult beverage there's that option - much like a cable customer can upgrade their bundle w/ HBO). But it doesn't matter if you enjoy all the flavorable options or just stick to the kiddie table and eat mac & cheese or chicken fingers, you pay the same price for each adult.

What looks like is coming down the pike isn't like eating a la carte at a restaurant.

Imagine going to Yachtsman. The host or hostess shows you to your table. You then pay the host or hostess for use of the table.
Then a waiter asks if you would like to start with a drink. You do, then you then pay the waiter for that drink.
Then a *different* waiter comes and asks if you want an appetizer. You say yes, then you pay the waiter for that.
Then yet another waiter comes to your table wanting to take your 'steak & starch' order. And yes, you pay for that.
And right behind yet another waiter asks if you would like to add a lobster tail or some creamed spinach on the side, who needs to be paid.
And a desert waiter who needs to be paid.
And an after dinner coffee waiter that needs to be paid.

How many 'apps' is a customer going to want on their screen? And how many charges are they going to be willing to pay? For simplicities sake, the customer may raise the standards of what they want to deal with, so what they choose to subscribe to better have a LOT of content that they want...
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4097341-disney-leaves-netflix-big-mistake

Great article, that kind of dovetails with a couple of posters in this thread....

Before streaming happened, a common subject was whether a la carte channels would happen via legislation.

But this is a different animal then a la carte cable.

Right now at Boma there is a 'bundle' price for all the food, soft drinks, etc. you can eat (if you choose to upcharge for a special coffee or an adult beverage there's that option - much like a cable customer can upgrade their bundle w/ HBO). But it doesn't matter if you enjoy all the flavorable options or just stick to the kiddie table and eat mac & cheese or chicken fingers, you pay the same price for each adult.

What looks like is coming down the pike isn't like eating a la carte at a restaurant.

Imagine going to Yachtsman. The host or hostess shows you to your table. You then pay the host or hostess for use of the table.
Then a waiter asks if you would like to start with a drink. You do, then you then pay the waiter for that drink.
Then a *different* waiter comes and asks if you want an appetizer. You say yes, then you pay the waiter for that.
Then yet another waiter comes to your table wanting to take your 'steak & starch' order. And yes, you pay for that.
And right behind yet another waiter asks if you would like to add a lobster tail or some creamed spinach on the side, who needs to be paid.
And a desert waiter who needs to be paid.
And an after dinner coffee waiter that needs to be paid.

How many 'apps' is a customer going to want on their screen? And how many charges are they going to be willing to pay? For simplicities sake, the customer may raise the standards of what they want to deal with, so what they choose to subscribe to better have a LOT of content that they want...

This is one reason Hulu is successful they have a lot of content including very old content and the price is reasonable you can add the movie channels like HBO etc,

Disney OTOH is under the misapprehension that their content is compelling, with the exception of college ball it aint.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom