Another echo from the original article in Bloomberg.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Is attendance really down at WDW this or…
- Thread starter coachb
- Start date
Hence the rumors of selling some of the assets so the debt can be reduced.
Profits are not at record levels, but per guest spending is. That's what happens when you charge more for tickets, food, beverage, merchandise, etc. How much can you squeeze the orange before there's no more juice? Disney believes there are endless groves of oranges to squeeze.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
True, but that isn't that bad. They have something like 10 billion on hand, they aren't losing money and they have low interest rates on what they do have outstanding. The only real upcoming debt is the share of Hulu coming due soon but that won't add much debt if the use the cash on hand to pay for most of it.
Is that ten billion on hand including the estimated 9 billion they are about to have to write to Comcast?
Dranth
Well-Known Member
The 10 on hand would go towards whatever they end up having to pay comcast at which point the can focus on paying off the rest if they want.
That was my thought. If you have 47 Billion in debt, and en estimated ten billion on hand, but owe an estimated ten billion to another company.
You still have 47 billion in debt.
flynnibus
Premium Member
By your logic you are infinitely rich and poor at the same time... because you are trying to count infinite future obligations as if they were current obligations.
You don't know how any Hulu transaction will be financed, so you can't really claim it's debt... nevermind the nonsense of claiming FUTURE deals as debt today.
Yes, one is infinitely rich and poor at the same time. This is known as opportunity. But that is getting into a discussion on terms and philosophy of business.
What we do know are the facts.
Comcast is owed an estimated 9 billion according to reports. That is all we can go by. The poster here states Disney has an estimated 10 billion on hand.
We also know the company is in 47 billion debt depending on latest report.
What was said is not true?
How would you prefer to frame it?
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
| (USD) | JUL 2023info FISCAL Q3 2023 ENDED 7/1/23. REPORTED ON 8/9/23. | Y/Y CHANGE |
|---|---|---|
| Cash and short-term investments Investments that are relatively liquid and have maturities between 3 months and one year | 11.46B | -11.58% |
| Total assets The total amount of assets owned by a company | 203.78B | -0.14% |
| Total liabilities Sum of the combined debts a company owes | 92.84B | -5.47% |
| Total equity The value of subtracting the total liabilities from the total assets of a company | 110.94B | — |
| Shares outstanding Total number of common shares outstanding as of the latest date disclosed in a financial filing | 1.83B | — |
| Price to book A ratio used to determine if a company’s market value is in line with the value of its assets less liabilities and preferred stock | 1.59 | — |
| Return on assets A financial ratio that shows a company’s profitability compared to its assets | 3.34% | — |
| Return on capital Company’s return above the average cost it pays for its debt and equity capital | 4.30% | — |
Willmark
Well-Known Member
Why did you leave out the next paragraph? Get back to me when your respond back with that.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The company has a future obligation for Hulu. You have a valuation, but you don't know how it will be transacted, so you can't claim it's debt. It's not debt today, it may not even be debt then either.
The point that it's something in the FUTURE and not necessarily something funded with borrowing is why people use the term 'obligation' -- not debt -- because they are different things.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yes. True. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I am questioning, again, whether this is a problem and whether they are as concerned about it as the people on this thread have been.
I suspect, that many here have overinflated the importance of this attendance decline, because they want to believe that Disney is concerned /hurting /distraught /panicked / scared and all sorts of other negative emotions for their own personal vindication. Hence the need to spin this as a problem.
I don't think they care about attendance if the money is still rolling in. Certainly Wall St doesn't.
You can search for past Annual Reports on their site. They break down the numbers for parks and consumer products, separate from media, under DPEP. They posted 28 billon in revenue for FY22, which was a record. Operating Income was also 7.8 Billion, which again was a record.
For the first three quarters of FY 23, Revenue has been 24.8 Billion and Operating Income was 7.3 Billion. They are on the path to exceeding the records from last year in FY23.
For the FY23 numbers I was referencing this document specifically:
Last edited:
LSLS
Well-Known Member
The first 3 quarters do not break down Disney World vs the other parks for revenue. Directly from your linked Q3 report:
Honestly, I don't think it's fair to say attendance may be down at WDW, but revenues is up overall so it's accomplishing the idea of bringing in more money while having less people. We don't know that based on the reports. The reports even say that China attributes a large part to the growth of volume. We either need to know the attendance across all parks compared to revenue, or we need a revenue breakdown of just WDW to get a truer picture.
You are just saying the definition of debt. A financial obligation that is owed.
Splitting hairs on the term debt. If you owe someone something, you are in debt to them.
debt
/det/
noun
something, typically money, that is owed or due.
The payment plan (if the one that the money is owed to decides that fair, it is in their court)does not change the fact that it is a debt.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Fair, though they have had some pretty good quarters DPEP side post Covid considering not all parks have been up and operational this whole time and the cruise ships didn't really get back into full swing until sometime last year.
Yes, but that only works if you charge more and enough people keep going which, in the case of Disney, is what has been happening. That being said, I completely agree that there is a limit to how much they can push this but the question is have they hit it?
What we have been hearing about soft bookings is certainly one indicator that people aren't having it right now but does that translate into any significant loss? Does it even last? Does Disney adjust anything that bring people back in enough numbers to offset any attendance decrease? We just don't know yet.
Personally, I think D23 is where we are going to find out a lot. D+ should finally be in the black, studios should finally be releasing films that were developed under the new structure, and Imagineering will have had time to be restaffed and redirected to projects that make more sense then the junk thrown out there in 2021.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No I am not. You are trying to make broad generalization to defend your point and throwing all accuracy out the window in the attempt to cling onto your statement instead of being open to how your assumptions are wrong.
The company has a PROMISE/CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION to Comcast - they do not have a debt to them.
Debt in this context of financial statements and has a very specific meaning. We do not call the leases the company owes, or their future taxes DEBT even tho they owe people money for those or made promises to pay those. Because debt is not just something they made a promise to pay a bill in the future.
This is also why 'debt' != 'liability'. Debt is a specific kind of liability.. the kind of obligation to a creditor longer than 12 months.
Their obligation for Hulu isn't a payment plan. It's not a debt in their financial statements either. Which is why it's not there on the balance sheet now. As well as the naive hand waving about their cash balance and the Hulu transaction.
Disney isn't going to zero out cash reserves to buy Hulu.
el_super
Well-Known Member
The part where you mentioned that things MIGHT be ok or they might not? I didn't quote it because that sentence didn't add anything of value.
Willmark
Well-Known Member
Sure it did you simply took what I said and only quoted one part. The last paragraph acknowledges that there is the possibility that they make it through unscathed.
On the other hand you bypassed other points to attempt what I’m not quite sure.
el_super
Well-Known Member
How big of a "problem" is there, if only one of your resorts are having issues and apparently those issues are easily overcome by your other operating resorts?