The Spirited 11th Hour ...

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
You guys are something else. Not only do you act like you know more about corporate finance than the collective knowledge of all the Harvard and Wharton MBAs on Wall Street, you also have more inside information about The Walt Disney Company than the entire body of executives and board of directors combined.

Question: Based on your expertise, why aren't you rolling in millions and billions of dollars?

I am NOT professing to be an expert. Rather, I'm deferring to the fact that the actual experts usually know that they're talking about.

There seems to be a growing frustration with Stock Buybacks, with experts beginning to sound the alarm that buybacks are causing companies not to invest in R&D. @ParentsOf4 has raised this issue a few times. I'm actually not judging TWDC on buybacks, I think they have maintained strong investments in R&D, Capital projects and acquistions for future growth. I'm just saying as a concept folks are starting to turn against buybacks as a smart use of capital.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
You guys are something else. Not only do you act like you know more about corporate finance than the collective knowledge of all the Harvard and Wharton MBAs on Wall Street, you also have more inside information about The Walt Disney Company than the entire body of executives and board of directors combined.

Question: Based on your expertise, why aren't you rolling in millions and billions of dollars?

I am NOT professing to be an expert. Rather, I'm deferring to the fact that the actual experts usually know that they're talking about.

uhh... you do realize the difference between different motivations and what is factual or not right?

You're statement is basically like saying Bankers believe loans are the best way to pay for everything... and they are the experts.. so of course we should all be using loans for everything! And clearly they are successful.. so you must be an armchair QB to disagree.

Buybacks serve a purpose... of which it is not a universal belief that it is the right way to spend money or set as your long term business vision.

and I never knew you put so much faith in a random link you found in google. So fascinating..
 

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
Buybacks are something that a company does when it's too cheap not to, and you don't have better uses for the capital.

While the 'sharp pencil boys' may think it's too cheap to not spend the stockholders money on buybacks, yet it seems so expensive that they are selling their OWN shares (last time I did a Form 4 search of the Weatherman, who's job description says he should know more about the value of $DIS shares than anyone else, he was selling, not buying shares).

And just P&R alone has been begging for capital spend for years - meaningful spending to repair infrastructure, pay 21st century wages to it's staff, getting the full value out if it's most valuable IP in park attractions/lands without doing it on the cheap and killing capacity, and so on. The costs to do some of these things would dwarf the amount used to buy back shares of a high P/E low yielding blue chip.
 

alphac2005

Well-Known Member
Eh Wot?, Diversifying???, Long term strength!!!!! All Disney has is P&R, Consumer Products (cheap ones at that) and media production with no distribution other than through competitors in the same space. Stock Buybacks propping up EPS is not building long term strength and it uses P&R and ESPN as ATM's to fund stock buybacks not reinvestment in core businesses.

You certainly are minimizing their assets, to say the least. In the media & production realm, Disney, ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, let alone the offshoots within each division. The "expertitis" on this board from people that have little knowledge of certain areas gets to be so darn off-putting. Good grief, I was in that business long enough to recognize that it makes you an incredibly valuable brand with so many hefty revenue avenues even if not all are firing on all cylinders. Any media company would kill for those assets.

As for consumer products, that's what I've been involved in for nearly two decades and their consumer products division virtually produces nothing and oversees the largest licensing arm in the world. It prints money and they basically don't produce directly (rather indirectly through third party manufacturers as the vast majority of us in the business do) other than some lines of products at the Disney Store, theme parks merchandise, and some video games.

As a sidenote, the tone on the board is really getting extremely combative, downright rude, and obnoxious to a lot of us.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
There seems to be a growing frustration with Stock Buybacks, with experts beginning to sound the alarm that buybacks are causing companies not to invest in R&D. @ParentsOf4 has raised this issue a few times. I'm actually not judging TWDC on buybacks, I think they have maintained strong investments in R&D, Capital projects and acquistions for future growth. I'm just saying as a concept folks are starting to turn against buybacks as a smart use of capital.
Yes, there has been increasing concern about stock buybacks from important figures in the finance world. For example, the head of Blackrock wrote a letter last year, which I had posted on a SPIRITED thread last year, where he notes, "There is nothing inherently wrong with returning capital to shareholders in a measured fashion... It is critical, however, to understand that corporate leaders’ duty of care and loyalty is not to every investor or trader who owns their companies’ shares at any moment in time, but to the company and its long-term owners. Successfully fulfilling that duty requires that corporate leaders engage with a company’s long-term providers of capital; that they resist the pressure of short-term shareholders to extract value from the company if it would compromise value creation for long-term owners; and, most importantly, that they clearly and effectively articulate their strategy for sustainable long-term growth. Corporate leaders and their companies who follow this model can expect our support."
I'm not sure Bob's share buyback strategy would make him a leader in resisting that trend.

Full Text
http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-fink-letter-to-ceos-2015-4
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink tells the world's biggest business leaders to stop worrying about short-term results

The letter by Larry Fink, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BlackRock, was sent to S&P 500 CEOs in the U.S. and to the largest companies in EMEA and APAC that BlackRock invests in on behalf of its clients.

Over the past several years at BlackRock, we have engaged extensively with companies, clients, regulators and others on the importance of taking a long-term approach to creating value. We have done so in response to the acute pressure, growing with every quarter, for companies to meet short-term financial goals at the expense of building long-term value. This pressure originates from a number of sources—the proliferation of activist shareholders seeking immediate returns, the ever-increasing velocity of capital, a media landscape defined by the 24/7 news cycle and a shrinking attention span, and public policy that fails to encourage truly long-term investment.

As I am sure you recognize, the effects of the short-termist phenomenon are troubling both to those seeking to save for long-term goals such as retirement and for our broader economy. In the face of these pressures, more and more corporate leaders have responded with actions that can deliver immediate returns to shareholders, such as buybacks or dividend increases, while underinvesting in innovation, skilled workforces or essential capital expenditures necessary to sustain long-term growth.

In 2014, dividends and buybacks in the U.S. alone totaled more than $900 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s—the highest level on record. With interest rates approaching zero, returning excessive amounts of capital to investors—who will enjoy comparatively meager benefits from it in this environment—sends a discouraging message about a company’s ability to use its resources wisely and develop a coherent plan to create value over the long term.

There is nothing inherently wrong with returning capital to shareholders in a measured fashion, as part of a broader growth strategy—indeed, it can be a vital part of a responsible capital strategy. Nor are the demands of activists necessarily at odds with the interests of other shareholders; some activist investors take a longterm view and have pushed companies and their boards to make productive changes.

It is critical, however, to understand that corporate leaders’ duty of care and loyalty is not to every investor or trader who owns their companies’ shares at any moment in time, but to the company and its long-term owners. Successfully fulfilling that duty requires that corporate leaders engage with a company’s long-term providers of capital; that they resist the pressure of short-term shareholders to extract value from the company if it would compromise value creation for long-term owners; and, most importantly, that they clearly and effectively articulate their strategy for sustainable long-term growth. Corporate leaders and their companies who follow this model can expect our support.

We fully appreciate that the business ecosystem has evolved significantly and presents a daunting challenge for companies working to resist short-term market pressures. But a clear, effective articulation of long-term strategy and goals will help your company explain to shareholders the short-term accommodations that businesses invariably do need to make at times to adapt to a changing environment. Overall, companies’ ability to resist short-term pressures—and attract long-term stakeholders—will rest on their ability to both develop and communicate their plans for future growth.

Companies should not have to fight this battle alone. We believe that government leaders around the world—with a concerted push from both investors and companies—must act to address public policy that fosters long-term behavior. We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior. For tax purposes, the U.S. currently defines a long-term investment as one held for one year. Since when was one year considered a long-term investment? A more effective structure would be to grant long-term treatment only after three years, and then to decrease the tax rate for each year of ownership beyond that, potentially dropping to zero after 10 years. This would create a profound incentive for more long-term holdings and could be designed to be revenue neutral. In short, tax reform that promotes long-term investment will benefit both the companies who rely on capital markets and the hundreds of millions of people saving for retirement.

Asset managers like BlackRock also have an important role to play, which is why we engage actively with companies on the key governance factors that in our experience support long-term, sustainable, financial performance. Chief among these is board leadership—in our view, the board is management’s first line of defense against short-term pressures. Our starting point is to support management, particularly during periods where performance has deviated from the long-term trajectory. But this is more difficult to do where management has not articulated a clear long-term vision, strategic direction and credible metrics against which to assess performance. In such cases, we will take action to ensure that the owners’ interests are effectively served.

To that end, we have revised our proxy voting guidelines this year to make clear our expectations of boards and set out when we may vote against directors, such as instances where we see evidence of board entrenchment or other signs of ineffective governance. But we also believe that engagement by firms such as ours should not be overly concentrated on proxy season or around earnings reports—rather, it should be consistent and sustained, and cover issues broader and deeper than board elections or earnings per share.

Throughout 2015, BlackRock will continue to focus on these issues, because we recognize that although much of the financial and business community is in agreement on the need for a more long-term atmosphere, more concrete steps must be taken to achieve it. We urge you to join us and with your fellow corporate leaders to invest in the future and thereby lay the foundation for stronger, more sustainable, and more stable economic growth.

Yours sincerely,

Laurence D. Fink

Chairman& CEO
 

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
I think $DIS and it's divisions can be boiled down to this:

They basically have 4 divisions: Media/TV, Parks/Resorts, Studio/Films, and Consumer Products.

While there can be cross pollination with some assets adding value to parts of other divisions - basically you still have those 4 divisions, with each division having a definitive rank in importance to the bottom line and the share price.

Media/TV is the biggest. A lot of it is ESPN. A lot of it is not. But at the very least, most of it is at the mercy of what's happening with cable subs and if a sufficient replacement can be found. It's decreasing, projected to decrease more. It's 'lead' in the rankings among divisions is sizeable, and if that lead disappears it will hurt.

Parks & Resorts is up next - which relies first and foremost very heavily on the health of the economy and secondly on the willingness of customers to spend higher and higher amounts to receive less and less in services. It's also been not being given the appropriate investment that it should for years. The margins they are so proud of on their CC's may not be as sustainable as they think.

Films is firmly in 3rd place - even expensive tentpoles from the Mouse can underperform. But the huge quarter films rendered it in 3rd place still by a good distance. There's only so much upside for films. Star Wars is the iWatch to ESPN's iPhone.

Consumer Products is bringing up the rear - the ability to print money can't be overlooked, but it's still a side business. It adds value, but not as much as the other divisions.

If 3 & 4 rake it in, it won't make up for customers who don't want to pay $20 (or even $8) for ESPN programming or customers who start avoiding the parks in droves because they either can't afford it anymore or cease to think what's offered is worth it's cost.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Eh Wot?, Diversifying???, Long term strength!!!!! All Disney has is P&R, Consumer Products (cheap ones at that) and media production with no distribution other than through competitors in the same space. Stock Buybacks propping up EPS is not building long term strength and it uses P&R and ESPN as ATM's to fund stock buybacks not reinvestment in core businesses.
Stock buybacks aren't short-term "props" to EPS. They're permanent. When those shares come out of the market, they're out in perpetuity. The change to the divisor of the EPS model is permanent.
While the stock itself may be retired.. that's not the point. You are so fixated on defending something you're not even reading his rant. The point was about strictly financial moves vs actual company advances or strength.
Stock repurchases return equity to investors. Doing so reduces the company's working capital. As such, buybacks do nothing to help long-term growth of the company. To the contrary, they can damage long-term growth if the company takes out loans to fill the gap. This has become increasingly common in corporate America over the last 10-15 years. In today's corporate world, stock buybacks and dividends consume nearly all profit.

Disney is a prime example of this. In fiscal 2015, Disney realized $8.9B in net income. Over that same period, they repurchased $6.1B shares of stock and paid $3.1B out in dividends. Disney paid out more than they took in.

Any corporate automaton can institute stock buybacks and dividends.

Bob Iger is not being paid tens-of-millions every year to do what any corporate automaton can do. He's being paid to realize effective strategies that produce strong long-term growth. Over his decade as CEO, Disney has realized a compound annual growth rate of 5.1% in revenue, including several high-profile acquisitions. Excluding those acquisitions, Disney's organic growth would be significantly less.

I'd like to see Iger do something to earn his pay, rather than implement a strategy that thousands of other corporate automatons can do and for significantly less compensation.
 

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member


I found this online. Should I take it as fact that bigfoot is real?

bigfoot-ohio-lagrange-nurse.jpg
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Stock repurchases return equity to investors. Doing so reduces the company's working capital. As such, buybacks do nothing to help long-term growth of the company. To the contrary, they can damage long-term growth if the company takes out loans to fill the gap. This has become increasingly common in corporate America over the last 10-15 years. In today's corporate world, stock buybacks and dividends consume nearly all profit.

Disney is a prime example of this. In fiscal 2015, Disney realized $8.9B in net income. Over that same period, they repurchased $6.1B shares of stock and paid $3.1B out in dividends. Disney paid out more than they took in.

Any corporate automaton can institute stock buybacks and dividends.

Bob Iger is not being paid tens-of-millions every year to do what any corporate automaton can do. He's being paid to realize effective strategies that produce strong long-term growth. Over his decade as CEO, Disney has realized a compound annual growth rate of 5.1% in revenue, including several high-profile acquisitions. Excluding those acquisitions, Disney's organic growth would be significantly less.

I'd like to see Iger do something to earn his pay, rather than implement a strategy that thousands of other corporate automatons can do and for significantly less compensation.
You're conflating cash flow with net income, and I know you know better. You're going to mislead the people who don't.

I don't have all of Disney's bond information handy, but I know they issued ten year notes at about 2.5% a few years ago. That's basically free money. When your credit rating is as solid as TWDC, you should increase leverage and decrease equity, exactly the opposite of what @rael ramone suggested. Debt is cheaper than equity for Disney.

As you said yourself, domestic parks capex is growing YOY.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
But that is done with cash that could be used to grow the business, repair infrastructure, reduce leverage, increase the dividend, pay a living wage to CMs.... and not necessarily at the best price when prices could be cheaper... much cheaper... later...

Of course they can always 'get the buyback cash back' by reissueing them back into the market, but the Street will punish any blue chip that dares dilute the shareholders.
Buybacks are funded by success of the past. If performed in an unbalanced manner, excessive buybacks inflate short term stock price at the expense of future competitive advantage.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Buybacks are funded by success of the past. If performed in an unbalanced manner, excessive buybacks inflate short term stock price at the expense of future competitive advantage.

I think Viacom is the current poster child for that. They literally have no leverage now, and either succeed based on their current assets for get gobbled up by one or multiple entities.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Buybacks are funded by success of the past. If performed in an unbalanced manner, excessive buybacks inflate short term stock price at the expense of future competitive advantage.
True in general, but Disney's stock price is deflated, not inflated. Interestingly, the reason for that is ESPN, which is among the least capital-intensive of Disney's businesses. "Righting the ship" at ESPN is unlikely to require a big cash infusion like DCA needed.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
I do want to add, that I agree with Share Buybacks after an acquisition that may have put record numbers of shares out into the market. However, I do not agree with buybacks that occur when your stock is near or at it's lifetime peak to appease financial journalists or wall street analysts who want to trigger artificial price increases.

I think DIS was fair in doing some buybacks after the Lucasfilm purchase, but that should not have continued as the stock was speculated up into the 100's.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
I do want to add, that I agree with Share Buybacks after an acquisition that may have put record numbers of shares out into the market. However, I do not agree with buybacks that occur when your stock is near or at it's lifetime peak to appease financial journalists or wall street analysts who want to trigger artificial price increases.

I think DIS was fair in doing some buybacks after the Lucasfilm purchase, but that should not have continued as the stock was speculated up into the 100's.
Back in the day, I was taught that there generally were 2 good reasons for stock buybacks.

The first concerned fending off hostile takeovers.

The second concerned truly undervalued stocks.

Neither applies to most corporations today, certainly not Disney.

Nowadays, stock repurchases are used to drive up EPS since executive compensation typically is closely tied to EPS, including Bob Iger's.

As @the.dreamfinder notes, even power brokers such as BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink have grown concerned over the level of stock buybacks in recent years:

As I am sure you recognize, the effects of the short-termist phenomenon are troubling both to those seeking to save for long-term goals such as retirement and for our broader economy. In the face of these pressures, more and more corporate leaders have responded with actions that can deliver immediate returns to shareholders, such as buybacks or dividend increases, while underinvesting in innovation, skilled workforces or essential capital expenditures necessary to sustain long-term growth.

In 2014, dividends and buybacks in the U.S. alone totaled more than $900 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s — the highest level on record. With interest rates approaching zero, returning excessive amounts of capital to investors — who will enjoy comparatively meager benefits from it in this environment — sends a discouraging message about a company’s ability to use its resources wisely and develop a coherent plan to create value over the long term.​

Conventional wisdom was "more buybacks = good". That conventional wisdom is changing.
 

MattM

Well-Known Member
Instead, I suggest that the bigger concern is with institutions that have made loans to oil companies, money that was used to invest in oil production. Those largely Wall Street based firms are panicking that those loans will be defaulted on, and are punishing companies like Disney (who might actually perform better with cheap oil) because of that panic.
BINGO.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Back in the day, I was taught that there generally were 2 good reasons for stock buybacks.

The first concerned fending off hostile takeovers.

The second concerned truly undervalued stocks.

Neither applies to most corporations today, certainly not Disney.
Oh I disagree strongly. The market is reacting like a bunch of Chicken Littles in the traditional cable television space. If you think the cable bundle as we know it is dying, then Disney is probably valued appropriately. I don't believe the sky is falling and I do believe that ESPN is uniquely positioned to succeed in whatever the next generation of TV distribution looks like. When Parks and Star Wars are blowing the doors off of all-time records in their respective industries and the entire sector takes a tumble when Bob Iger says something like "some subscriber loss," I think it's safe to say that the market is overreacting to cord-cutting.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
You guys are something else. Not only do you act like you know more about corporate finance than the collective knowledge of all the Harvard and Wharton MBAs on Wall Street, you also have more inside information about The Walt Disney Company than the entire body of executives and board of directors combined.

Question: Based on your expertise, why aren't you rolling in millions and billions of dollars?

I am NOT professing to be an expert. Rather, I'm deferring to the fact that the actual experts usually know that they're talking about.

So finance experts cannot be Disney fans and post here So all Disney fans work at the local 7-11 and live in their parents basement Hm?, I think you would be incorrect in that assumption.
 

michmousefan

Well-Known Member
Finding Dory will do great. It's a classic film that people love. I think you are giving WAAAAY to much credit for Warcraft. I predict ultimate flop category for that one. It looks terrible!
Yep, the Warcraft animation looked awful... all-CGI characters can be done well; see Avatar and I'd also argue John Carter, but this looks terribly unpolished.

<edit> there are better places to be talking about this kind of stuff.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
I do want to add, that I agree with Share Buybacks after an acquisition that may have put record numbers of shares out into the market. However, I do not agree with buybacks that occur when your stock is near or at it's lifetime peak to appease financial journalists or wall street analysts who want to trigger artificial price increases.

I think DIS was fair in doing some buybacks after the Lucasfilm purchase, but that should not have continued as the stock was speculated up into the 100's.

Trouble is as @ParentsOf4 charts have tracked so many times the slashing of CAPEX and the start of huge stock buyback programs started IMMEDIATELY after Iger started. The only things that Iger is good at is purchasing other companies and inflating EPS with share repurchases.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom