News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[flynnibus]

At 22% of the votes cast, that means around 300 Million votes have been cast. Around 1.1 Billion shares remain in contention. Lets be conservative and suppose Peltz has 12% of the vote. That puts Peltz at around 170 Million shares on his side.

Trian has control of ~30 Million shares. That means Peltz has already generated around 140 Million votes apart from the shares that he controls. This is an accomplishment

You know the shares are voted in large blocks... not individually.. and as such vote completition will also be done in large blocks, not uniformly distributed. So conclusions drawn from uniform percentages trying to apply over the whole are just fundamentally broke and wrong from the get go.

 

[pdude81]

I'm not sure why Murdoch would vote against Iger, given how he chose to sell to Disney and ultimately got a lot more than the initial deal. Then on top of that Fox just entered into a sports steaming partnership with Disney in the lead up to this shareholder vote. He didn't have to help pump up the stock.

Honestly Peltz wins here no matter what. His shares are way up from where they were before. If he doesn't get the board seat, he can sell off the shares Trian owns outright and walk away.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

You know the shares are voted in large blocks... not individually.. and as such vote completition will also be done in large blocks, not uniformly distributed. So conclusions drawn from uniform percentages trying to apply over the whole are just fundamentally broke and wrong from the get go.

Where did I suggest otherwise? All I'm trying to figure out is how many more votes Peltz has to get. That's the extent of it. Right now he's closer to reaching the magic number of around ~600 Million than Iger.

I'm well aware this is not a political contest where everyone gets one vote. I even mentioned that the Murdoch family's block of shares is significant in the post. No offense, but I think you read part of the post and ascribed a meaning that wasn't there. No need to get prickly.

Edit: I think I see where the confusion came from. I had a few typos where I put "voters" instead of "votes." That was a mistake on my part. I'll amend the post to make it more clear.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Where did I suggest otherwise? All I'm trying to figure out is how many more votes Peltz has to get. That's the extent of it. Right now he's closer to reaching the magic number of around ~600 Million than Iger.

I'm well aware this is not a political contest where everyone gets one vote. I even mentioned that the Murdoch family's block of shares is significant in the post. No offense, but I think you read part of the post and ascribed a meaning that wasn't there. No need to get prickly.

Edit: I think I see where the confusion came from. I had a few typos where I put "voters" instead of "votes." That was a mistake on my part. I'll amend the post to make it more clear.

So why do you think Rupert Murdoch is likely to side with Peltz?

 

[flynnibus]

Where did I suggest otherwise? All I'm trying to figure out is how many more votes Peltz has to get. That's the extent of it. Right now he's closer to reaching the magic number of around ~600 Million than Iger.

I'm well aware this is not a political contest where everyone gets one vote. I even mentioned that the Murdoch family's block of shares is significant in the post. No offense, but I think you read part of the post and ascribed a meaning that wasn't there. No need to get prickly.

No, you are drawing conclusions on how many votes you think are attributed to Peltz purely by attributing an overall percentage to a vote count that has no proportionality to the overall votes available. Your logic is fundamentally wrong, and your conclusions derived from them are also equally worthless.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

So why do you think Rupert Murdoch is likely to side with Peltz?

I honestly don't know which way Murdoch is going to go. He's the one that is most difficult to guess on which way he will vote.

The fact that Iger and Murdoch came together for the Fox deal seems like Iger should have him in the bag. But there's quote from CNBC a few years back...

"Rupert Murdoch is a good friend of mine."

Murdoch could go either way.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No, you are drawing conclusions on how many votes you think are attributed to Peltz purely by attributing an overall percentage to a vote count that has no proportionality to the overall votes available. Your logic is fundamentally wrong, and your conclusions derived from them are also equally worthless.

I think there seems to be a significant misunderstanding. I will walk you through the logic.

There are 1.8 Billion shares of The Walt Disney Co. outstanding. Of those shares in 2023, ~1.4 Billion are registered shares eligible to vote. The ~1.4 Billion number can be found in the following document:

dis-20230403

Let's go back to the WSJ for a moment:
As of Tuesday, just over 22% of shares had been cast, according to people familiar with the matter, the bulk of them held by individual and other smaller investors.

This is then just simple math.

0.22 x 1.4 Billion = ~300 Million shares cast

So, what in particular are you objecting to?

 

[flynnibus]

0.22 x 1.4 Billion = ~300 Million shares cast

So, what in particular are you objecting to?

You have no idea how many of those votes were cast for which direction or even how they are split. There could have been 10 voting blocks in that... or there could have been 50,000, or XYZ.

Your trying to apply 12% to 300million to estimate how many votes for Peltz so far is fundamentally bad math.
Your conclusion that "That means Peltz has already generated around 140 Million votes apart from the shares that he controls" is absolutely hot air. What makes votes cast so far connected to Peltz at all? Nothing. You're not comparing a rate of collection of votes to prior voting periods... you're again just taking absolute numbers and treating them as if they are uniform. They are not.

Failed math.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

You have no idea how many of those votes were cast for which direction or even how they are split. There could have been 10 voting blocks in that... or there could have been 50,000, or XYZ.

Your trying to apply 12% to 300million to estimate how many votes for Peltz so far is fundamentally bad math.
Your conclusion that "That means Peltz has already generated around 140 Million votes apart from the shares that he controls" is absolutely hot air. What makes votes cast so far connected to Peltz at all? Nothing.

You're now making a narrower and more reasonable critique.

We know that around ~300 Million votes have been cast. We also know that Peltz is ahead. Technically, Iger could have 1 vote and Peltz ~300 Million votes. But I decided to be conservative and pick a 12% of the vote for Peltz, and 10% for Iger split in my estimates. I acknowledge in the post it's an estimate.

"Lets be conservative and suppose Peltz has 12% of the vote."

Your argument seems to be that Peltz could actually have 11.2% of the vote and Iger has 10.8% of the vote. The post was primarily for illustrative purposes. It's an estimate. Technically, Peltz could have 20% of the vote and Iger 2%. I specifically picked the conservative number of 12% of total shares for Peltz and 10% for Iger. It represents a reasonable middle ground.

The number of voting blocks is completely irrelevant. We do know that they are largely small investors, not that it matters to the point I was making.

Any other objections?

 

[Disstevefan1]

We also know that Peltz is ahead.

What? Is this true? Seriously, I thought Iger would cruise to victory!

 

[WoundedDreamer]

What? Is this true? Seriously, I thought Iger would cruise to victory!

It is. From the WSJ:
“So far, a minority of shareholders have voted. As of Tuesday, just over 22% of shares had been cast, according to people familiar with the matter, the bulk of them held by individual and other smaller investors.

Obviously, 78% of the shares are yet to be cast. But so far, Peltz is ahead.

 

[Brian]

It is. From the WSJ:
“So far, a minority of shareholders have voted. As of Tuesday, just over 22% of shares had been cast, according to people familiar with the matter, the bulk of them held by individual and other smaller investors.

Obviously, 78% of the shares are yet to be cast. But so far, Peltz is ahead.

I wouldn't expect anywhere even remotely close to 78% of those shares to be cast. It's all about 'get out the vote' at this point for if Peltz wins or loses.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I wouldn't expect anywhere even remotely close to 78% of the shares to be cast. It's all about 'get out the vote' at this point for if Peltz wins or loses.

This exactly right. Last year, ~17% of registered shareholders didn't vote. I think the turnout will be better, but not dramatically so.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It is. From the WSJ:
“So far, a minority of shareholders have voted. As of Tuesday, just over 22% of shares had been cast, according to people familiar with the matter, the bulk of them held by individual and other smaller investors.

Obviously, 78% of the shares are yet to be cast. But so far, Peltz is ahead.

Oh, I am sure the last day and including the overnight tally, Iger will come out as the winner.

 

[IanDLBZF]

From a recent NYT article...

On and off for almost a year and a half, Trian Partners has waged an intense corporate fight by controlling a $3.5 billion stake in Disney and pushing for two board seats and influence over the company’s strategy. Mr. Peltz’s ammunition is a barrage of criticism of Disney’s management and board: The stock has plunged; costs have spiraled out of control; a string of big-budget film flops has raised questions about the company’s creative engine — problems that Mr. Peltz says he can reverse with his operational skills and strategic insight. While he concedes he has no experience in entertainment, his opinions, he says, are informed by his children and their high-powered friends, including Elon Musk, who has been critical of Disney.

It so appears that the above should send a big red flag to TWDC and its shareholders and exposes Peltz further. It also goes to show that Peltz is denying his past, saying that he is more like Warren Buffett, and not an activist or a raider, which sends a bigger concern than one would expect.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Oh, I am sure the last day and including the overnight tally, Iger will come out as the winner.

Definitely a reasonable take.

 

[flynnibus]

You're now making a narrower and more reasonable critique.

No, I'm just elaborating more because clearly you don't understand the fundamental failures of your logic.

You're taking things completely out of your thin air and then trying to apply numbers to them to make them carry some weight. No, it's still completely baseless estimates and then being applied completely incorrectly to the actual data you do have.

This is the kind of stuff my old physics professor would just draw a dead rat on your paper... fundamental misunderstanding of the material.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No, I'm just elaborating more because clearly you don't understand the fundamental failures of your logic.

You're taking things completely out of your thin air and then trying to apply numbers to them to make them carry some weight. No, it's still completely baseless estimates and then being applied completely incorrectly to the actual data you do have.

This is the kind of stuff my old physics professor would just draw a dead rat on your paper... fundamental misunderstanding of the material.

Let me make sure I am understanding you clearly. You're objecting to the numbers I chose in my estimates 12% vs. 10%.

The error is not mathematical as you previously suggested, but just that you didn't like my estimate.

 

[Stripes]

It seems plausible to me that the votes that have been cast thus far may be votes where ISS dictates how those votes are cast.

In any event, nobody should pay it much attention.

 

[flynnibus]

Let me make sure I am understanding you clearly. You're objecting to the numbers I chose in my estimates 12% vs. 10%.

Literally everything you've come up with besides the idea of how many votes 22% is... is completely baseless and then applied incorrectly to come up with new conclusions.

You can't draw any conclusions from knowing how many raw votes are in... except to estimate how many are still yet to be cast (using historical turnout). You can't draw assumptions on proportions of answers, simply by knowing the number of votes counted . You can't draw (meaningful) assumptions on how many voters, or significant blocks are outstanding. And you certainly can't take WAG on proportions and then project them on a quantized pool with completely different makeup than what your percentage was taken from.

It's like saying 97% of water on earth is salt water... so 9 out of 10 water bottles in my pantry are likely salt water. Total non-sense application of different measurements to different samples.


Or maybe a more relatable example... like a political projecting victory after he's seen the first 10 electoral votes go to them or precinicts. "We got 80% of those votes.. so we're gonna get 80% of the rest too!"... while meanwhile, major blocks yet to be counted can change the overall percentage instantly once counted and the percentage of the existing count means nothing to the uncounted sample... because the two samples are not uniform to each other.