Disney Vs Comcast

Stripes

Premium Member
of the movies you've listed only Deadpool has made them money.
So now we’re just making stuff up. 👍
Skeleton Crew and Andor generate no real revenue because they are just used to try and get subscribers for Disney+... and Disney+ has done so poorly that Disney is trying to bundle it with Hulu and everything else they can think of because it can't keep subscribers.
Disney will merge Disney+ with Hulu soon. The bundle will be the only option and you won’t be able to purchase the services individually. Bob Iger and Hugh Johnston have confirmed this. And, as you can see in the data below, that combination is quite competitive in the marketplace in terms of customer retention. It’s basically tied with Netflix.
IMG_0169.jpeg
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
So you are saying that in 2017 they had fantastic management?

What about 2021, when Disney’s stock price was at an all-time high (up 330% over 10 years), and their free cash flow was a fraction of what it is now.

All of these measurements are divorced from whether the company has good management. These are small snapshots in time and they tell you nothing about the company’s management.

Over the past 5 years the company navigated a pandemic that, due to circumstances beyond their control, had an outsized effect on their business compared to their competitors and the rapid collapse of their entire industry’s business model due to significant changes in consumer preferences. Do you place no value on these headwinds whatsoever?

If you are so confident that Disney is poorly managed, am I to assume that you are shorting the stock?

My goodness. A movie flopped 😱

That never happens!
/s

When a company produces a movie that flops, you immediately rush to the conclusion that they have horrible management? What about vice versa?

Inside Out 2, Deadpool and Wolverine, Lilo and Stitch. Fantastic management, right?



Yes, Disney had much better overall management 10 years ago and before. Iger was a lot better for one. Remember, Iger wasn't horrible and I've commended him for that. He became horrible as Disney got more and more political, the parks were ignored, prices increases, ridiculous movies, poor Disney+ rollout, and the push for smartphone driven experiences at Parks.

The management performance DOES follow the stock and eps.

This is Disney. You don't get to make 3 hits and 3 failures. You need 5 hits and maybe 1 "OK" movie. Not flops. You're allowed a flop every 3 or 4 years or yeah, the management is bad. Plus, they are flopping on EASY wins. They screw stuff up and delete value. They alienate entire bases of customers, namely families in many cases. It's idiotic. Disney has such a built in advantage from their trusted and valuable brand that there is no excuse for struggling to make hits. They had hit after hit after hit before. Now it's a mixed bag.

They completely screwed up Disney+. Wrong pricing, wrong content, way overspent, lost money way too long, stopped growth, etc etc etc. They paid too much of all kinds of content, pro sports and in India to start.

So yeah, now you're getting it.

And no, I don't short any stocks because I'm not an idiot. Disney is more likely to go sideways, which it has for 10 years while the market is up almost 200%. I'll just do that.

And no, they don't get pandemic excuses for 6 years. They recently had their first good quarter since prior to 2020. Ridiculous.

BTW: The "pop" in the stock in 2021 was short-lived and was ENTIRELY based on the Disney+ elation and hopes of NFLX. Investors gave them less than a year and it was clear they didn't have what it took to do the NFLX model. Accordingly, that pop QUICKLY vanished and the average stock price over 10 years is much closer to the norm than that 10 months of hope. I have 10 years of data on my side. They've been horribly managed for 10 years and the stock follows that. A leader should never perform this poorly and it's simply poor management that causes this. Disney is not and should never be considered a struggling stock, but here we are.
 
Last edited:

Stripes

Premium Member
Yes, Disney had much better overall management 10 years ago and before. Iger was a lot better for one. Remember, Iger wasn't horrible and I've commended him for that. He became horrible as Disney got more and more political, the parks were ignored, prices increases, ridiculous movies, poor Disney+ rollout, and they are started the push for smartphone driven experiences at Parks.

The management performance DOES follow the stock and eps.

So yeah, now you're getting it.
There are so many false assumptions you are making here.
Disney got more and more political
Disney has always adapted and responded to cultural shifts in order to remain relevant. A company has to walk a tight rope between brand legacy and modern social expectations from customers and employees.

As the political and cultural winds have shifted significantly lately, you’ve seen many companies recently, including Disney, refrain from bringing attention to certain culturally/politically sensitive topics. Of course, Iger himself said “Disney’s mission is to entertain, not promote messages.”
the parks were ignored
The parks are doing incredibly well financially. Far, far better than Universal, which has seen 8 straight quarters of attendance declines in their domestic parks.

$30 billion in domestic park capex between 2024-2033 is not “ignoring” the parks business.
prices increases
In an era of high inflation and significant travel demand. Much of the “price increase” has come from Lightning Lane, which is an optional purchase catered to those willing and able to sacrifice money for extra time.

Lightning Lane also significantly improves the ROI on new attractions, which is why we are getting so much investment in new experiences.
ridiculous movies
There have always been films that are “ridiculous.” Some of them do well, others do not. This is the nature of the film industry. Again, it doesn’t help that the company massively increased their volume of content to feed the launch of the streaming service (again, a necessary decision) which inevitably resulted in a decrease in quality.
This is Disney. You don't get to make 3 hits and 3 failures. You need 5 hits and maybe 1 "OK" movie. Not flops. You're allowed a flop every 3 or 4 years or yeah, the management is bad.
This is revisionist history and absolutely absurd.
poor Disney+ rollout
I beg to differ. A profitability pivot was necessary, but the Disney+ rollout achieved the distinction of the fastest any streaming service has reached 100 million subscribers. Looking back, I wouldn’t have changed much at all about the rollout. I certainly wouldn’t call it “poor.”

And, of course, due to Disney’s strategy of going for massive subscriber scale first (which is critical for a streaming service) they have turned a $4 billion loss per year into a $1 billion profit in a very short amount of time. Many investors were uncomfortable with the excessive spending, but it was 100% necessary.
started the push for smartphone driven experiences at Parks.
You mean booking Lightning Lanes on your phone as opposed to walking half way across the park to the FastPass Distribution kiosk to see about the possibility of nabbing a FastPass?

Or Mobile Order so I don’t have to wait in line when I already know what I want?
The management performance DOES follow the stock and eps.
Not in the short-term. There’s been significant macroeconomic headwinds that have disproportionately affected the company. Have you noticed?
Disney is more likely to go sideways
We’ll see about that 😀
 
Last edited:

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
There are so many false assumptions you are making here.

Disney has always adapted and responded to cultural shifts in order to remain relevant. A company has to walk a tight rope between brand legacy and modern social expectations from customers and employees.

As the political and cultural winds have shifted significantly lately, you’ve seen many companies recently, including Disney, refrain from bringing attention to certain culturally/politically sensitive topics. Of course, Iger himself said “Disney’s mission is to entertain, not promote messages.”

The parks are doing incredibly well financially. Far, far better than Universal, which has seen 8 straight quarters of attendance declines in their domestic parks.

$30 billion in domestic park capex between 2024-2033 is not “ignoring” the parks business.

In an era of high inflation and significant travel demand. Much of the “price increase” has come from Lightning Lane, which is an optional purchase catered to those willing and able to sacrifice money for extra time.

Lightning Lane also significantly improves the ROI on new attractions, which is why we are getting so much investment in new experiences.

There have always been films that are “ridiculous.” Some of them do well, others do not. This is the nature of the film industry. Again, it doesn’t help that the company massively increased their volume of content to feed the launch of the streaming service (again, a necessary decision) which inevitably resulted in a decrease in quality.

This is revisionist history and absolutely absurd.

I beg to differ. A profitability pivot was necessary, but the Disney+ rollout achieved the distinction of the fastest any streaming service has reached 100 million subscribers. Looking back, I wouldn’t have changed much at all about the rollout. I certainly wouldn’t call it “poor.”

And, of course, due to Disney’s strategy of going for massive subscriber scale first (which is critical for a streaming service) they have turned a $4 billion loss per year into a $1 billion profit in a very short amount of time. Many investors were uncomfortable with the excessive spending, but it was 100% necessary.

You mean booking Lightning Lanes on your phone as opposed to walking half way across the park to the FastPass Distribution kiosk to see about the possibility of nabbing a FastPass?

Or Mobile Order so I don’t have to wait in line when I already know what I want?

Not in the short-term. There’s been significant macroeconomic headwinds that have disproportionately affected the company. Have you noticed?

We’ll see about that 😀
Only everyone disagrees with you, but other than that, solid analysis.

Dude, the stock says everything. You're coping bc you're fanboying or you're long the stock. It's trash for a reason. When the facts change, I'll change. As of now, everything is managed poorly or the stock would be up. It really is that simple.
 

Stripes

Premium Member
Only everyone disagrees with you, but other than that, solid analysis.
I don’t put faith in anyone else’s opinion, and neither should you, but I wouldn’t say I’m alone.

IMG_0170.jpeg


It's trash for a reason.
I agree that the stock’s 10 year performance is poor. We just disagree as to why that is the case.
When the facts change, I'll change. As of now, everything is managed poorly or the stock would be up.
When making investment decisions, you wait until the stock is up before you invest?
 
Last edited:

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
The dividend yield for Disney was crap before the pandemic so stop trying to pretend that is the grand excuse for their poor performance. Disney has been floundering and making poor decisions for decades. I'm not a big fan of Comcast either, but the numbers simply don't lie... you would have been far better off putting money in Comcast than in Disney.

lol, I do love a good Uni v Dis bru-ha-ha.

Dividends are irrelevant. You spat out the returns for Comcast (2%) and Disney (0.5%) in that post acquisition window on page one. Though I got a good chuckle about making the numbers 4 digits to seem like there was the precipitous gap. Those numbers are… the same… on a 6 year interval. They are both bad. They both reflect the downturn in the media industry. But they both… are good… compared to their other peers.

Comcast doesn’t have a debt problem per se. It has a massive dividend problem. Dividends are what legacy utilities that see very little growth opportunity engage in. Paying out their value to shareholders instead of revinesting the cash in the company. The company is literally a Frankenstein monster or a legacy utility business that everyone kinda hates and a great creative business they bought.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Someone needs to ask Comcast about their financial analysis. They believed Hulu was worth $44.5 billion. Comcast has a market cap of $133 billion. Can anyone actually believe that Comcast is only worth 3 times the value of Hulu? The interesting figure if given the third patry's analysis that Hulu was worth just over the 27.5 valuation, Hulu alone is worth 20.6% of Comcast. I think either Comcast is undervalued or Hulu isn't even worth the 27.5 billion floor price Disney agreed to in 2019. But Comcast has horrible financial management.
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
I don’t put faith in anyone else’s opinion, and neither should you, but I wouldn’t say I’m alone.

View attachment 863862


I agree that the stock’s 10 year performance is poor. We just disagree as to why that is the case.

When making investment decisions, you wait until the stock is up before you invest?
Results. Again, stock says you're wrong. Who cares what analysts think. Analysts are analysts because they can't pick stocks. Everyone on Wallstreet knows that.

Sometimes. Lots of cases you wait for stocks to start increasing before buying or you end up owning stocks like Disney 10 years ago. You can't pick stocks though. Let's not act like you or really almost anyone else have some inside track. I made money by pure discipline and fundamentals. My performance is all that matters.
 
Last edited:

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Someone needs to ask Comcast about their financial analysis. They believed Hulu was worth $44.5 billion. Comcast has a market cap of $133 billion. Can anyone actually believe that Comcast is only worth 3 times the value of Hulu? The interesting figure if given the third patry's analysis that Hulu was worth just over the 27.5 valuation, Hulu alone is worth 20.6% of Comcast. I think either Comcast is undervalued or Hulu isn't even worth the 27.5 billion floor price Disney agreed to in 2019. But Comcast has horrible financial management.
Ask yourself why Disney is worth less than half of NFLX with similar earnings. All earnings aren't the same.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
lol, I do love a good Uni v Dis bru-ha-ha.

Dividends are irrelevant. You spat out the returns for Comcast (2%) and Disney (0.5%) in that post acquisition window on page one. Though I got a good chuckle about making the numbers 4 digits to seem like there was the precipitous gap. Those numbers are… the same… on a 6 year interval. They are both bad. They both reflect the downturn in the media industry. But they both… are good… compared to their other peers.

Comcast doesn’t have a debt problem per se. It has a massive dividend problem. Dividends are what legacy utilities that see very little growth opportunity engage in. Paying out their value to shareholders instead of revinesting the cash in the company. The company is literally a Frankenstein monster or a legacy utility business that everyone kinda hates and a great creative business they bought.
Dividend are relevant, if they weren't Disney wouldn't have made such a big deal about bringing them back. I would much rather have money returned to me to invest as I see fit than have a company squander it on god knows what, or simply sit on the money the way Apple has for years by offering ridiculously small dividends while they just horde cash.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Dividend are relevant, if they weren't Disney wouldn't have made such a big deal about bringing them back. I would much rather have money returned to me to invest as I see fit than have a company squander it on god knows what, or simply sit on the money the way Apple has for years by offering ridiculously small dividends while they just horde cash.

Dividends are irrelevant in terms of value. They decrease a companies cash to distribute them to shareholders, thereby decreasing stock price. It’s a parlor trick. Though there is a fleet of dividend based investors that believe in them thoroughly.

Hence Comcast and Dis actual returns are nearly identical.

A broad based index would be the way to actually see more stable better returns than betting on the media companies. Either of them.
 

Stripes

Premium Member
Results. Again, stock says you're wrong. Who cares what analysts think. Analysts are analysts because they can't pick stocks. Everyone on Wallstreet knows that.

Sometimes. Lots of cases you wait for stocks to start increasing before buying or you end up owning stocks like Disney 10 years ago. You can't pick stocks though. Let's not act like you or really almost anyone else have some inside track. I made money by pure discipline and fundamentals. My performance is all that matters.
Well, I initiated a position in DIS 2 months ago at an average cost of $84/share. Since then, the position has gained about 42%, while the S&P has gained a fraction of that…
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The decision to own a stock or not is the future not the past. Comcast and WBD are slitting their companies while Disney isn't. The question is if owning Disney is better than Comcast's 2 companies or not. Personally as a person who used to use cable internet and now use 5G I feel better being a cord cutter. I also get Netflix for free with my cell phone service and the Disney Blundle and Paramount Plus for free because of my Amex card. I am going to switch to the Disney and full ESPN on the full for 9.99 a month, 29.99 minus the 20.00 a month credit from Amex. Why would anyone pay more than 30.00 a month for high-speed internet or tv. Therefore most of Comcast is worth a fraction of what the current market cap is. Yes. I believe Comcast's theme park business is growing faster than Disney's but not nearly worth what Disney's are yet and Disney has the cruise ships too. So is Universal's combined studios worth more than Disney's? No. Is NBC and all the cable networks worth more than ABC's? No but only because of ESPN. NBC and their cable networks are worth more than Disney's minus ESPN. Now if I could choose between owning Disney's parks or Universal I would rather own Universal because while smaller in current value they are growing faster. But that is the only area Comcast is actually winning.

As far as streaming goes, Netflix has been the winner by far. Disney can't catch them alone with Disney+ Hulu and ESPN+, however with the Full ESPN, Disney+ and Hulu they will not only catch them but be the winner. Then there is the Fubo and Hulu Live streaming services. They should be the second live tv provider behind YouTube. They should be able to pass Comcast in numbers is about 4 years.

What should Comcast do? Comcast should buy WB after the WBD split. Then merge Peacock into HBO Max or whatever the new name is.
 

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
Well, I initiated a position in DIS 2 months ago at an average cost of $84/share. Since then, the position has gained about 42%, while the S&P has gained a fraction of that…
How much did you buy?

S&P is up like 22%, but Disney had a good 2 months, yes.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Dividends are irrelevant in terms of value. They decrease a companies cash to distribute them to shareholders, thereby decreasing stock price. It’s a parlor trick. Though there is a fleet of dividend based investors that believe in them thoroughly.

Hence Comcast and Dis actual returns are nearly identical.

A broad based index would be the way to actually see more stable better returns than betting on the media companies. Either of them.
You don't seem to understand what value is. If a company gives me some of the cash they have, that's value. I can't reinvest it by buy more of the stock in that company or invest it in anything else.. at the end of the day I have more money to work with when I get dividends than when a company does an Apple and just hold on to the cash as if there is some grand plan that requires them to hold the money and very often do absolutely nothing with it. The reality is comcast has done better than Disney during the period the OP brought up. Drop the same cash in both at the start time of the OP and you would be much happier as a comcast holder than a disney shareholder. The math doesn't lie.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
You don't seem to understand what value is. If a company gives me some of the cash they have, that's value. I can't reinvest it by buy more of the stock in that company or invest it in anything else.. at the end of the day I have more money to work with when I get dividends than when a company does an Apple and just hold on to the cash as if there is some grand plan that requires them to hold the money and very often do absolutely nothing with it. The reality is comcast has done better than Disney during the period the OP brought up. Drop the same cash in both at the start time of the OP and you would be much happier as a comcast holder than a disney shareholder. The math doesn't lie.

Value is derived from stock appreciation and dividends. The latter reduces the former. That’s what makes it irrelevant, or neutral if you prefer that term. If you want to rebalance your portfolio, you also have the choice of selling some of your increased valued holdings and reinvesting them. It’s a parlor trick.

Apple is an odd example to keep bringing up. Their value return has historically been enormous compared to Comcast or Disney. I’m actually not on either side of this argument. The returns have essentially been the same for both companies and anyone arguing otherwise are showing their bias.

 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Since this post was made, Disney has now outperformed Comcast for six year returns. Which is why I’m basically still calling the return the same. A few percentage points on either side do not matter on such a long timeframe.

Most of this will come down to overall directionality in the next 5 year window. As two legacy media peers, both companies were top performers in a very bad legacy media market.

Comcast is far more exposed to its utility platform and Disney to parks and streaming as a forward looking percentage of what makes up each companies respective revenues.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
940.40
Since this post was made, Disney has now outperformed Comcast for six year returns. Which is why I’m basically still calling the return the same. A few percentage points on either side do not matter on such a long timeframe.

Most of this will come down to overall directionality in the next 5 year window. As two legacy media peers, both companies were top performers in a very bad legacy media market.

Comcast is far more exposed to its utility platform and Disney to parks and streaming as a forward looking percentage of what makes up each companies respective revenues.
My original post was what was the better deal Fox minus Sky or just Sky. I think both deals were bad deals. An interesting part of the deal is that Disney paid about 9 billion to Comcast for 1/3 of Hulu while Comcast paid about 19 billion to Disney for 40% of Sky. So which company would you rather own, Sky or Hulu? Personally given the Sky losses and 8 billion write down? I would rather have Hulu.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
My original post was what was the better deal Fox minus Sky or just Sky. I think both deals were bad deals. An interesting part of the deal is that Disney paid about 9 billion to Comcast for 1/3 of Hulu while Comcast paid about 19 billion to Disney for 40% of Sky. So which company would you rather own, Sky or Hulu? Personally given the Sky losses and 8 billion write down? I would rather have Hulu.

I agree. Disney generally came out ahead in the transaction. Hulu I think is a more essential piece of the pie than anticipated. Neither company had a general entertainment prestige label to work with, though they could have created one. The clear stinker of the transaction was Sky.

It was a great deal at the price point originally planned. Disney would be struggling in the long term streaming landscape without Hulu; I think Americans will understand it fully once you have the completed integrated product how much more full featured the content pipeline is with both in synergy.

Brian Robert’s in his peeing match basically ensured the real winner was Murdoch and he was a clear loser. Disney somewhere in the middle.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Value is derived from stock appreciation and dividends. The latter reduces the former. That’s what makes it irrelevant, or neutral if you prefer that term. If you want to rebalance your portfolio, you also have the choice of selling some of your increased valued holdings and reinvesting them. It’s a parlor trick.

Apple is an odd example to keep bringing up. Their value return has historically been enormous compared to Comcast or Disney. I’m actually not on either side of this argument. The returns have essentially been the same for both companies and anyone arguing otherwise are showing their bias.


That guy.. I just can't.

Share value is not tied to dividends - correct - but everything else he tries to jump through hoops on.. oh my. A dividend doesn't directly reduce the share value because the share value is not a function of the company's assets.. it's a function of market behavior.

That guy makes his whole video on the premise of 'don't pick stocks based on dividends'.. and then spins all kinds of warped stuff using that credible statement. Making statements like "unless you don't believe in mathmathics" doesn't actually justify his approach to determining value. His entire justification uses non-human factors, yet the market is driven largely by... humans.

No wonder that video has such poor thumbs up for how many views it has..
 

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

Back
Top Bottom