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

[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.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Who would even know how votes have been cast? And those who would know, I’m sure legally cannot say anything, I’m sure it’s a small group.

If results are leaking, probably not hard to figure out who?

 

[WoundedDreamer]

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.

If I were writing for CNBC or filing an SEC report, I would have been more careful. But I just picked a number that would be easy for back of envelope purposes. Again, for illustrative purposes. From the original post:

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

"In our hypothetical..."

I hope that readers on here are not dumb enough to misinterpret this. All the same, your objection is reasonable. Here's an example of how to object to my post without insults and such, that also would have gotten the point across:

While the basic math you're doing is right, I think it's important to reiterate that we don't know the split between the vote. Peltz could have 11.001% of the vote and Iger/the board could have 10.999% of the vote. Or Peltz could have 21.999% and Iger could have 0.001%. The fact of the matter is we don't know.

I just want to emphasize this point so no one gets confused.

Ultimately, there's much more we don't know than what we do know.

 

[Brian]

Who would even know how votes have been cast? And those who would know, I’m sure legally cannot say anything, I’m sure it’s a small group.

If results are leaking, probably not hard to figure out who?

That's exactly what someone with a name like @Disney Analyst would say.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

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.

You're overshooting with this edit. Never did I try to extrapolate out that because Peltz has x amount of votes, that it means he will continue to accumulate them at that rate. You can read that post over again. All I'm trying to do is figure out how many more votes are necessary (within the hypothetical) to reach the magic 600 Million vote number.

 

[Disney Analyst]

That's exactly what someone with a name like @Disney Analyst would say.

My analysis is concluded.

My verdict: “Baloney!”

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Who would even know how votes have been cast? And those who would know, I’m sure legally cannot say anything, I’m sure it’s a small group.

If results are leaking, probably not hard to figure out who?

Disney could have denied the tally's accuracy. It would have been to their benefit. Instead, they practically confirmed them and insulted the individual who leaked them.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Disney could have denied the tally's accuracy. It would have been to their benefit. Instead, they practically confirmed them and insulted the individual who leaked them.

I must have missed their response

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I must have missed their response

Here's the quote from the WSJ in full:

“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.

Among those who have already cast their votes, Peltz leads Disney director Maria Elena Lagomasino, while Rasulo, the other name on the Trian slate, has so far failed to gain much of a foothold with shareholders, these people said. A spokesman for Disney said leaking an early vote count was ‘a highly inappropriate attempt to sway votes.’

 

[EPCOT-O.G.]

Here's the quote from the WSJ in full:

“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.

Among those who have already cast their votes, Peltz leads Disney director Maria Elena Lagomasino, while Rasulo, the other name on the Trian slate, has so far failed to gain much of a foothold with shareholders, these people said. A spokesman for Disney said leaking an early vote count was ‘a highly inappropriate attempt to sway votes.’

Based on what I’m seeing VoteDisney has the same marketing budget (and marketing strategy) as Disney’s Wish.

Looks to be working as effectively too.

 

[Disney Irish]

Here's the quote from the WSJ in full:

“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.

Among those who have already cast their votes, Peltz leads Disney director Maria Elena Lagomasino, while Rasulo, the other name on the Trian slate, has so far failed to gain much of a foothold with shareholders, these people said. A spokesman for Disney said leaking an early vote count was ‘a highly inappropriate attempt to sway votes.’

I think @flynnibus is right, you're trying to extrapolate too much with very little information. You can't even create realistic estimates from this information, which is vague and misleading probably for very intentional reasons. The early vote in any election is no indication of anything. And in this case will be very meaningless once the large institutional investors vote their blocks, I suspect right at the 11th hour.

 

[EPCOT-O.G.]

Neuberger Berman? How many movies has he been in. He’s not even a Disney Legend!

 

[Casper Gutman]

Here's another interesting fact. Disney's retail shareholders seem to lean conservative. I'm basing this on an anti-ESG shareholder proposal that proved remarkably effective last year. Here's what happened...

In 2023, an anti-ESG shareholder made a proposal that Disney should report on political donations over ten thousand dollars. Usually, these types of proposals fail to garner any sort of meaningful support when the board recommends someone vote against them (which Disney did). Other proposals in that year's meeting failed to generate even 100 Million votes.

But this anti-ESG proposal stormed the polls. It got a whopping 400 Million votes last year. Iger was able to decisively defeat the proposal with institutional shareholder power. Iger leveraged the institutions to garner 700 Million votes. This was a battle between the retail investor and the institutional investor. The retail investor was beaten by the institutional ones.

But this year, things are different. Peltz is peeling off institutional investors. Iger needed to keep a unified pool of institutional investors to oppose the retail investors who actually seem more likely to back Peltz than Iger. That's not happening.

I hadn't been aware of this showdown before. Iger could actually be in serious trouble.

Hey Wounded (and the other folks having a celebration because Peltz is “winning”), why would the fact that investors “lean conservative” incline them to “break” for Peltz?

Also, what’s the source for the ESG vote story? I don’t doubt you, but I’d love to read it myself.

 

[Casper Gutman]

View attachment 775443
Neuberger Berman? How many movies has he been in. He’s not even a Disney Legend!

All these groups backing Peltz out of concern over “succession” should tell you just what kind of successor much of Wall Street wants.

Here’s a hint: it’s not the kind that will make Raleigh happy.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I think @flynnibus is right, you're trying to extrapolate too much with very little information. You can't even create realistic estimates from this information, which is vague and misleading probably for very intentional reasons. The early vote in any election is no indication of anything. And in this case will be very meaningless once the large institutional investors vote their blocks, I suspect right at the 11th hour.

I made an hypothetical for illustrative purposes. It was not supposed to be taken as gospel. I did not say that the vote was decided in favor of Peltz. I had a post where I said I thought his chances were 50-50. I did not say that because Peltz is ahead now, that he will stay ahead. That would be absurd. Anyone can reread my original post and find that I did not.

If I actually said and did the things @flynnibus said I did, I would be wrong. But I did not.

Hey Wounded (and the other folks having a celebration because Peltz is “winning”), why would the fact that investors “lean conservative” incline them to “break” for Peltz?

Also, what’s the source for the ESG vote story? I don’t doubt you, but I’d love to read it myself.

For the ESG story, see page 51 one of the following slideshow:

https://www.freshfields.us/49fd4b/globalassets/noindex/documents/freshfields-trends-and-updates-from-the-2023-proxy-season-july-2023.pdf

For voting results, see the one entitled "Shareholder proposal requesting a political expenditures report":

dis-20230403

As to why voters who lean conservative would break with Peltz, you've correctly pointed out that he's been picked up by conservative media as an anti-ESG crusader. That's kind of ridiculous based on the track record, but it's a perception that he's benefiting from among that audience.

 

[JoeCamel]

I made an hypothetical for illustrative purposes. It was not supposed to be taken as gospel. I did not say that the vote was decided in favor of Peltz. I had a post where I said I thought his chances were 50-50. I did not say that because Peltz is ahead now, that he will stay ahead. That would be absurd. Anyone can reread my original post and find that I did not.

If I actually said and did the things @flynnibus said I did, I would be wrong. But I did not.

For the ESG story, see page 51 one of the following slideshow:

https://www.freshfields.us/49fd4b/globalassets/noindex/documents/freshfields-trends-and-updates-from-the-2023-proxy-season-july-2023.pdf

For voting results, see the one entitled "Shareholder proposal requesting a political expenditures report":

dis-20230403

As to why voters who lean conservative would break with Peltz, you've correctly pointed out that he's been picked up by conservative media as an anti-ESG crusader. That's kind of ridiculous based on the track record, but it's a perception that he's benefiting from among that audience.

You did say them then you doubled down on thinking past results fortell future events. Every vote from here on out could go to Iger you have no way of telling.
Own it and move on

 

[Disney Irish]

I made an hypothetical for illustrative purposes. It was not supposed to be taken as gospel. I did not say that the vote was decided in favor of Peltz. I had a post where I said I thought his chances were 50-50. I did not say that because Peltz is ahead now, that he will stay ahead. That would be absurd. Anyone can reread my original post and find that I did not.

If I actually said and did the things @flynnibus said I did, I would be wrong. But I did not.

Trying to extrapolate anything from that little information, even hypothetical, is silly. I could say, "hypothetically" with less than 78% of the vote left, with institutional investors as the largest block of that 78%, that Peltz won't get a single vote moving forward. And that would be just as silly.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

You did say them then you doubled down on thinking past results fortell future events. Every vote from here on out could go to Iger you have no way of telling.
Own it and move on

Please, quote the part where I did that. I will happily eat crow. You will have a victory. I'll take your nonresponse to be that you can't find what you claim I said.

There are roughly 1.4 Billion eligible voting shares of The Walt Disney Company.

Here's a link to the post. Please quote the offending section.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Trying to extrapolate anything from that little information, even hypothetical, is silly. I could say, "hypothetically" with less than 78% of the vote left, with institutional investors as the largest block of that 78%, that Peltz won't get a single vote moving forward. And that would be just as silly.

It's a good thing I didn't do that. Please quote where I did. Same challenge to you as to Joe. Give me my exact words. Prove me wrong. I'm waiting...