Hope and some Iger

[Oberon81]

Okay so I'm posting this in the news and rumors section because I sense some hope with the state of things in WDW. It's not an immediate "lets throw everything at WDW" hope, but it's hope that things will begin to move. After reading several of threads and opinions I decided to seek out information from published sources. The links are below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090730-726611.html
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB124898957022595065.html

Now- before I get some flak for quoting Iger let me say that one thing seems promising as long as it's done properly.

"Given the relative stability that we're seeing in the environment, and the capital markets, we're likely to be back in the market for our shares in the relative near future," he said.

The other article mentions:

"There was other good news. On the earnings call, management also said it expected to buy back stock "in the relatively near future" after it had suspended buybacks last year. Management is not expecting the economy to roar back, but did express optimism."

What does this mean? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if Disney is able to buy back shares it would allow some constraints to be released. It all matters on what shares are bought back. I doubt, but could be wrong, that they are not talking about individuals but rather mentioning large shareholders who could be "hampering" decisions.

This could be good news for WDW in the long run. I feel that it's important to post articles like these so everyone can see that management is aware of harsh realities and that they have hope for the future.

On another hand- if the higher ups feel they can buy back shares in the "near future" that could mean there are projects that will move forward sooner rather than later.

But that's just my two cents, take it how you wish.

 

[wserratore1963]

Okay so I'm posting this in the news and rumors section because I sense some hope with the state of things in WDW. It's not an immediate "lets throw everything at WDW" hope, but it's hope that things will begin to move. After reading several of threads and opinions I decided to seek out information from published sources. The links are below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090730-726611.html
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB124898957022595065.html

Now- before I get some flak for quoting Iger let me say that one thing seems promising as long as it's done properly.

"Given the relative stability that we're seeing in the environment, and the capital markets, we're likely to be back in the market for our shares in the relative near future," he said.

The other article mentions:

"There was other good news. On the earnings call, management also said it expected to buy back stock "in the relatively near future" after it had suspended buybacks last year. Management is not expecting the economy to roar back, but did express optimism."

What does this mean? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if Disney is able to buy back shares it would allow some constraints to be released. It all matters on what shares are bought back. I doubt, but could be wrong, that they are not talking about individuals but rather mentioning large shareholders who could be "hampering" decisions.

This could be good news for WDW in the long run. I feel that it's important to post articles like these so everyone can see that management is aware of harsh realities and that they have hope for the future.

On another hand- if the higher ups feel they can buy back shares in the "near future" that could mean there are projects that will move forward sooner rather than later.

But that's just my two cents, take it how you wish.

Thanks for posting this - I hope your assumptions are correct.
I first felt the magic at WDW in feb 72' when I was 9; I still feel 9 everytime i go. To me it can only get better; I think Iger understands Walt's vision.
Let's hope so anyway

 

[Jasonflz]

I really have a trust in Iger so I am hoping this could be good news.

 

[Oberon81]

I hope it's good news too. It makes me wonder about the developments of late and what they might not be mentioning both good and bad. I would assume that they wouldn't raise ticket prices unless they felt the economy was on the up swing.

 

[The Conundrum]

Of course Iger is going to give his own positive spin. It's part of his job and what does this have to do with WDW?

 

[JWG]

Frankly, anytime an organization can control more of its ownership through a leveraged stock purchase the better for those who don't want either:
-more outside influential forces driving decision-making
-a potential takeover bid

I don't think media giant Disney is in danger of a takeover, but this would further limit that unless they were looking for a particular buyer. It does possibly, as the OP states, open up option number 1. If they are able to to buy back shares not on the open market but from a single source, it could remove potential roadblocks to decision making.

Will this filter down to WDW? Doubtful, but you never know.

 

[Walter Yensid]

Of course Iger is going to give his own positive spin. It's part of his job and what does this have to do with WDW?

Conundrum, this one statement actually encapsulates the tone and purpose of all the comments you have made on this site in one sentence.

For someone not even willing to agree that the comments of the CEO about the state of the entire company is important to WDW is beyond ridiculous. Where do you think WDW gets its money AND its approvals for anything?

I am not saying these specific comments lead to developments at WDW, but overall they do. It just shows that your doom-and-gloom is just so far out there that you are not willing to look at anything in a positive light. Why do you waste your time coming on a fansite for a company you obviously could not say anything positive about? No problem with comments to spur change and improvements, but some of yours just have no purpose other than being negative.

To the OP, thanks for the posts. Good articles. I agree with everyone that Iger is a breath of fresh air, but I still think his use of Lassetter on 'lifting' the psyche and morale of the Imagineers, Animation, etc is his greatest move. The Pixar purchase was not bad either...

 

[mansionfan84]

Isn't it more often the case that share buybacks are used as a signaling tool for management to say to the market "our stock is so cheap, even we want to buy it!". Usually it's not designed to shift influence away from a party. I don't think that it's all that common for a targetted buyout of a specific investor/s to be termed as a "Buyback program".

 

[Oberon81]

NP! I enjoy adding to this forum. I'm a long time fan!

Of course Iger is going to give his own positive spin. It's part of his job and what does this have to do with WDW?

It has a lot to do with WDW in many ways. I will agree that on a park level, not much will change that hasn't already been mentioned. However it eludes to a bright light on the horizon and the potential for some more attention in the direction of WDW.

As for "a part of his job", well of course... I would want a leader who is positive. I would want someone to tell me things are going to be okay. But if you read both of the articles there are several facts and figures that support Iger's statement. I'm sure the validity of those figures and what they mean could be discussed.

This is important to know regarding the status of WDW. Don't you want to know what your leaders think? Don't you want to know what they have planned? I'm sure after the D23 announcements more of this will make sense. A company with more control and resources has better allocation skills. The buying of shares means WDW on the whole could get some much needed love before they celebrate another anniversary. But I'm just speculating. :shrug:

 

[Oberon81]

Isn't it more often the case that share buybacks are used as a signaling tool for management to say to the market "our stock is so cheap, even we want to buy it!". Usually it's not designed to shift influence away from a party. I don't think that it's all that common for a targetted buyout of a specific investor/s to be termed as a "Buyback program".

It depends. My father is a sharehold in Disney and wants to hold on to his shares with an iron fist. Disney as a company has a lot to look forward too. They could be using the buy back of shares as a tactic to get rid of some larger shareholders who could be restraining the company. This trickles down to parks because some shareholders, like my family, really only care about the status of the parks. The rest of the company could matter less. Think about what would happen, even though it's HIGHLY unlikely, if Disney bought all of Job's shares...

On the other hand, you are correct. It could just be a ploy to get people to invest more by advertising cheap shares. However, I don't believe Disney stock is at a bargain price.

 

[mansionfan84]

All fair points, but my interpretation was that the OP and a few additional posters were thinking along the lines of eliminating a particular shareholder like Jobs. If that were the case, they might make a tender offer to Jobs or otherwise try to squeeze him out. If that were the case, I doubt that Iger would characterize it as "buying back some shares" as that would be exceptionally coy.

Without any knowledge of the shareholders who are restricting developments, I suppose it's hard for me to offer anything else that would be constructive.

 

[GothMickey]

Conundrum, this one statement actually encapsulates the tone and purpose of all the comments you have made on this site in one sentence.

Why acknowledge him at all? Seriously. You know he was going to find a way to turn this as a negative on WDW. Please stop feeding the trolls.

 

[stitch2008]

All fair points, but my interpretation was that the OP and a few additional posters were thinking along the lines of eliminating a particular shareholder like Jobs. If that were the case, they might make a tender offer to Jobs or otherwise try to squeeze him out. If that were the case, I doubt that Iger would characterize it as "buying back some shares" as that would be exceptionally coy.

Without any knowledge of the shareholders who are restricting developments, I suppose it's hard for me to offer anything else that would be constructive.

Why get rid of Jobs?:shrug:

 

[The Conundrum]

Conundrum, this one statement actually encapsulates the tone and purpose of all the comments you have made on this site in one sentence.

For someone not even willing to agree that the comments of the CEO about the state of the entire company is important to WDW is beyond ridiculous. Where do you think WDW gets its money AND its approvals for anything?

I am not saying these specific comments lead to developments at WDW, but overall they do. It just shows that your doom-and-gloom is just so far out there that you are not willing to look at anything in a positive light. Why do you waste your time coming on a fansite for a company you obviously could not say anything positive about? No problem with comments to spur change and improvements, but some of yours just have no purpose other than being negative.

To the OP, thanks for the posts. Good articles. I agree with everyone that Iger is a breath of fresh air, but I still think his use of Lassetter on 'lifting' the psyche and morale of the Imagineers, Animation, etc is his greatest move. The Pixar purchase was not bad either...

You have no clue what you are saying about me.First of all decisions for what goes into the parks are made by Jay Rasolu and his team at parks & resorts with some input coming for Imagineering consultant John Lasseter. Bob Iger only gets involved in park planning when it comes to dealing with underperforming parks (DCA, Hong Kong) or vague longterm planning.Bob Iger's job is to to oversee the overall flow of the company (which theme parks are only a small fraction of) and to ensure a profit every quarter. He also serves as the face of the company who's job is to promote new products and put a postive spin on topics that could be percieved as negatives to the company.Bob Iger doesn't even get final say. As a matter of fact, he couldn't just greenlight the plans for DCA himself but rather he had to present all the plans to the board of directors (who themselves report to large shareholders like C.A.L.P.E.R.S. and Steve Jobs) and it was the board who greenlit the plans and made the final decision in terms of budget (They decided 1.2 billion was adaquate). Getting back on point the OP made it sound that Bob Iger's postive comments would translate into new attractions for the park when in reality one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Oberon81]

Why get rid of Jobs?:shrug:

well....

"In October 2005, Bob Iger replaced Eisner at Disney, and Iger quickly worked to patch up relations with Jobs and Pixar. On January 24, 2006, Jobs and Iger announced that Disney had agreed to purchase Pixar in an all-stock transaction worth $7.4 billion. Once the deal closed, Jobs became The Walt Disney Company's largest single shareholder with approximately 7% of the company's stock. Jobs's holdings in Disney far exceed those of Eisner, who holds 1.7%, and Disney family member Roy E. Disney, who held about 1% of the company's stock and whose criticisms of Eisner included the soured Pixar relationship and accelerated his ousting. Jobs joined the company's board of directors upon completion of the merger.
Jobs also helps oversee Disney and Pixar's combined animation businesses with a seat on a special six-man steering committee."

It's from Wiki but still mostly correct.

Traditionalist Disney fans see Job's as poison. He doesn't seem to care too much for the fab five and might have a large grip on the so-called "pixarization" of the parks.
See:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/b3970001.htm

No Jobs "could" mean less Pixar. Of course... it's very unlikely for two reasons. 1) Jobs isn't a dictator - I believe and 2) Job's isn't the only one who sees opportunity and goes for it.

The shareholders in question in my theory would include people who own stock, help make decisions, and don't contribute or hamper progress. One of the many reasons I feel WDW hasn't seen much love.

 

[Oberon81]

Getting back on point the OP made it sound that Bob Iger's postive comments would translate into new attractions for the park when in reality one has nothing to do with the other.

When a company has funds to buy back shares, it typically signals growth across the board. The phrase, "you have to spend money to make money comes to mind".

I didn't mean to allude to new attractions if you took it that way. All I meant was I forsee some much needed attention coming to the parks should certain shareholders be bought out. It's a theory.

 

[The Conundrum]

When a company has funds to buy back shares, it typically signals growth across the board. The phrase, "you have to spend money to make money comes to mind".

I didn't mean to allude to new attractions if you took it that way. All I meant was I forsee some much needed attention coming to the parks should certain shareholders be bought out. It's a theory.

reasonable logic. btw, is your name in reference to Mr. Miracles partner?

 

[jt04]

When a company has funds to buy back shares, it typically signals growth across the board. The phrase, "you have to spend money to make money comes to mind".

I didn't mean to allude to new attractions if you took it that way. All I meant was I forsee some much needed attention coming to the parks should certain shareholders be bought out. It's a theory.

Are there really stockholders that don't want expansion in the parks? What are they stupid or something? :shrug:

 

[Duckberg]

The EIGER Sanction

I await EIGER'S word from Burbank on the Mouse's next moves for WDW. I don't plan to sit around fearing the Harry Potter/Universal STRAW MAN threat or the sky is falling @ WDW here at WDW Magic. Duckberg :brick:

 

[MichWolv]

Okay so I'm posting this in the news and rumors section because I sense some hope with the state of things in WDW. It's not an immediate "lets throw everything at WDW" hope, but it's hope that things will begin to move. After reading several of threads and opinions I decided to seek out information from published sources. The links are below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090730-726611.html
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB124898957022595065.html

Now- before I get some flak for quoting Iger let me say that one thing seems promising as long as it's done properly.

"Given the relative stability that we're seeing in the environment, and the capital markets, we're likely to be back in the market for our shares in the relative near future," he said.

The other article mentions:

"There was other good news. On the earnings call, management also said it expected to buy back stock "in the relatively near future" after it had suspended buybacks last year. Management is not expecting the economy to roar back, but did express optimism."

What does this mean? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if Disney is able to buy back shares it would allow some constraints to be released. It all matters on what shares are bought back. I doubt, but could be wrong, that they are not talking about individuals but rather mentioning large shareholders who could be "hampering" decisions.

This could be good news for WDW in the long run. I feel that it's important to post articles like these so everyone can see that management is aware of harsh realities and that they have hope for the future.

On another hand- if the higher ups feel they can buy back shares in the "near future" that could mean there are projects that will move forward sooner rather than later.

But that's just my two cents, take it how you wish.

It is rarely the case that any shareholder of a company the size of Disney and as widely-held as Disney has enough leverage to impact decisions. Disney's history also doesn't include buying out huge shareholders en masse, but instead just picking up shares in the market when the company believe it's stock is a good investment. I suspect that's what we're seeing here.

So, if the company uses its resources to buy shares, it means that managmenet thinks that is a better use of resources than other uses, such as building attractions. That could be because the company projects that even after allocating a lot of resources to building attractions, there is still cash or cheap borrowing capacity left over to buy shares. Or it could mean that management believes the return from building attractions is lower than that the return from buying stock in what is now a depressed market.

It's certainly better that the company thinks it will have cash to spend in the near future than if the company were saying there was a cash crunch coming, but, from this alone, I can't muster up any optimism that it means captial spending on the parks will happen.