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

[WoundedDreamer]

Glancing at the report, it seems the anti-ESG proposal got less or roughly comparable support then similar proposals at other companies in the same time frame. That doesn't seem to support your claims about Disney's retail investors. Perhaps I'm misreading it.

I also don't immediately see evidence that this was a case of retail vs institutional investors.

I'm also curious as to what directed you to this rather esoteric information.

What I've pointed out are Peltz's own words and actions and the words and actions of those most closely associated with him. You continually hand wave this away. You're doing it here, feigning bafflement at how he is perceived despite his comments to the Financial Times last week.

Why is it ridiculous based on his track record? If you want to "punish" Disney, someone with his track record looks like just the sort of person you'd use.

Yeah, but compare how well the proposal performed relative to the other ones on the table. The next biggest proposal for the 2023 Disney shareholder meeting had less than a quarter of the votes. The issue clearly energized the voters.

And institutions are the ones who have emphasized ESG, so it's pretty much institutions vs. the retail voters.

What I've pointed out are Peltz's own words and actions and the words and actions of those most closely associated with him. You continually hand wave this away. You're doing it here, feigning bafflement at how he is perceived despite his comments to the Financial Times last week.

Why is it ridiculous based on his track record? If you want to "punish" Disney, someone with his track record looks like just the sort of person you'd use.

It's more that I just don't believe that he really is "anti-ESG." He's thrown that audience a few bones, but if he were he should start by taking down Trian's own webpage on ESG. It just doesn't track with the available data.

https://trianpartners.com/esg/[/URL

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Its right here in your whole post.....



You are using this "hypothetical illustration" to paint a narrative by saying "This is an accomplishment" from made up numbers that you have no way of knowing are accurate or not.

So, I didn't extrapolate out future events? Correct?

 

[Disney Irish]

So, I didn't extrapolate out future events? Correct?

And that is not what I said. What I said you're extrapolating too much from basically little to no information. All the numbers you've thrown around is all made up by you out of nothing, and so you don't know how much of anything is left that Peltz or even Iger needs or even earned. And so you can't put a qualitative statement on it like "this is an accomplishment"as you don't know that is the case or not. Its a clearly veiled attempt under the guise of "hypothetical" at trying to paint a narrative.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Protip - then don't project forward from nothing. And certainly don't try to make it look substantiated with non-sensical math.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

And that is not what I said. What I said you're extrapolating too much from basically little to no information. All the numbers you've thrown around is all made up by you out of nothing, and so you don't know how much of anything is left that Peltz or even Iger needs or even earned. And so you can't put a qualitative statement on it like "this is an accomplishment"as you don't know that is the case or not. Its a clearly veiled attempt under the guise of "hypothetical" at trying to paint a narrative.

Hmm, maybe I conflated your critique with someone else's. So what you're saying is that you agree with this:

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.

Which in that case, fair enough. If that's the extent of anyone's point, I'm fine with this. What I don't like is someone suggesting I don't understand that the vote percentages can change as the votes are counted. Obviously, different batches of votes will have different voting percentages as the concentration of votes adjusts. That's just obvious.

My bad, sometimes while arguing with a bunch of people I accidentally cross the arguments of one with another. If that's what I did here, my apologies.

Protip - then don't project forward from nothing. And certainly don't try to make it look substantiated with non-sensical math.

I don't take issue with that critique. What I do take issue with is your suggestion that I expect voting rates to remain constant over time. That's where you have no standing whatsoever.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yeah, but compare how well the proposal performed relative to the other ones on the table. The next biggest proposal for the 2023 Disney shareholder meeting had less than a quarter of the votes. The issue clearly energized the voters.

And institutions are the ones who have emphasized ESG, so it's pretty much institutions vs. the retail voters.

PS: It's even worse then I thought. Looking again, this report is about measures urging DISCLOSURES OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, measures it does NOT consider "anti-ESG." The "anti-ESG" issue is strictly secondary and the report applies the label ONLY to the activist Strobhar's charitable disclosure measure, which as you pointed out, received a miniscule number of votes from Disney shareholders. This page is ENTIRELY irrelevant to your argument, which is not supported by any evidence.

You have a habit of doing this - finding one piece of evidence and then either misinterpreting it or making wildly unsupported logical leaps - see your reaction to a CNBC piece about Marvel.

I'd once again like to know what led you to this information.

It's more that I just don't believe that he really is "anti-ESG." He's thrown that audience a few bones, but if he were he should start by taking down Trian's own webpage on ESG. It just doesn't track with the available data.

Trian Partners

Trian is a multi-billion dollar asset management firm founded by Nelson Peltz and Peter May with the goal of generating capital for investors

trianpartners.com

Again, Peltz has recently made a lot of public statements and has an established track record. He is aligned with and is echoing the sentiments of Perlmutter, who has a proven track record of words and actions. You are clinging to one piece of boilerplate rather then address much more relevant and recent information.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't take issue with that critique. What I do take issue with is your suggestion that I expect voting rates to remain constant over time. That's where you have no standing whatsoever.

No, you're just back tracking now.

You made an estimate of how many votes Peltz has gotten so far... out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
then follow it up with trying to project that the number of votes collected so far is somehow an advancement of pace/progress... out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Then.. try to call it an accomplishment for Peltz. What 'accomplishment' are you referring to if not the baseless numbers you have thrown out?

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No, you're just back tracking now.

You made an estimate of how many votes Peltz has gotten so far... out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
then follow it up with trying to project that the number of votes collected so far is somehow an advancement of pace/progress... out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Then.. try to call it an accomplishment for Peltz. What 'accomplishment' are you referring to if not the baseless numbers you have thrown out?

The "accomplishment" is that he's ahead currently. He might be ahead by one vote. He might be ahead by many votes. Whatever the tally, it's an accomplishment that he's ahead at the point. This doesn't mean that things might not change in the future. That's why I followed up that sentence with, "Peltz has a long way to go..."

You're the one that suggested I didn't understand the split in voting could change as the process develops. Which was just untrue.

 

[flynnibus]

The "accomplishment" is that he's ahead currently.

No - you claimed your guesstimate number of votes was the accomplishment.

"That means Peltz has already generated around 140 Million votes apart from the shares that he controls. This is an accomplishment"

You literally made up a number... threw some math on it to make it look credible/significant... Then patted Peltz on the back for your made up stuff.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hmm, maybe I conflated your critique with someone else's. So what you're saying is that you agree with this:

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.

Which in that case, fair enough. If that's the extent of anyone's point, I'm fine with this. What I don't like is someone suggesting I don't understand that the vote percentages can change as the votes are counted. Obviously, different batches of votes will have different voting percentages as the concentration of votes adjusts. That's just obvious.

My bad, sometimes while arguing with a bunch of people I accidentally cross the arguments of one with another. If that's what I did here, my apologies.

I don't take issue with that critique. What I do take issue with is your suggestion that I expect voting rates to remain constant over time. That's where you have no standing whatsoever.

My issue is that I have a problem with the whole "hypothetical" you laid out in the first place. Especially since you are clearly painting a narrative out of the "hypothetical" based on made up numbers.

In my opinion, you would have done a better job had you just let the WSJ article stand on its own without all the extra "hypothetical" color commentary.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No - you claimed your guesstimate number of votes was the accomplishment.

"That means Peltz has already generated around 140 Million votes apart from the shares that he controls. This is an accomplishment"

You literally made up a number... threw some math on it to make it look credible/significant... Then patted Peltz on the back for your made up stuff.

I think now that you've narrowed and altered your argument, I agree. I could have been more specific in that paragraph I was still dealing with a hypothetical. In that case, you win and I agree I should have been more careful. My bad.

But this was original argument:

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.

This argument I still take issue with. You suggested that I thought the voting would be done in a "uniformly distributed" manner, which is just wrong. My post does not suggest any such thing.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Returning to that Freshfields report, the proponent of what you wrongly believed to be an anti-ESG measure was the Educational Foundation of America, a PROGRESSIVE organization. So the voters you presented as supporting an "anti-ESG" measure were in fact supporting the proposal of a group that "envisions a society in which every person has a meaningful voice in an inclusive democracy, with unrestricted access to full reproductive freedom, and lives in creative, thriving communities on a healthy, regenerative planet."

Oops!

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Returning to that Freshfields report, the proponent of what you wrongly believed to be an anti-ESG measure was the Educational Foundation of America, a PROGRESSIVE organization. So the voters you presented as supporting an "anti-ESG" measure were in fact supporting the proposal of a group that "envisions a society in which every person has a meaningful voice in an inclusive democracy, with unrestricted access to full reproductive freedom, and lives in creative, thriving communities on a healthy, regenerative planet."

Oops!

Yes, apparently the report I referenced was flawed misinterpreted. My apologies.

I shall amend my post giving you credit for finding this flaw. That was an error in the report I read. Very odd. Either way, you're exactly right.

Cheers!

Edit: I see. I conflated the political givings with charitable givings. Good catch.

Edit 2: Here is the amended post with the proper credit to Casper. I've left the original post up for context.

Edit: @Casper Gutman pointed out that my interpretation of the events was flawed. This was in fact not an anti-ESG measure. In fact, it was pro-ESG. Thanks for pointing this out, Casper! Here is the original post (italicized) unaltered for context. Again, take this post with a grain of salt.


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.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

…i leave you damn kids alone for a
Few minutes and look what Happens?

I packed my wooden spoon…don’t make me pull this car over

 

[TalkingHead]

Disney Investor Blackwells Capital Sues The Company As Shareholder Vote Nears Close; Media Giant Calls Allegations “Baseless” And “Desperate”

Activist Disney investor Blackwells Capital has sued the company over what it calls a too-cozy relationship with shareholder ValueAct Capital.

deadline.com

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney Investor Blackwells Capital Sues The Company As Shareholder Vote Nears Close; Media Giant Calls Allegations “Baseless” And “Desperate”

Activist Disney investor Blackwells Capital has sued the company over what it calls a too-cozy relationship with shareholder ValueAct Capital.

deadline.com

…that was the interesting blip of the day

 

[BrianLo]

I didn't realize Disney Stock was now over $120 - up up up it keeps going!

It's usually doing exceptionally well when the regulars aren't trying to trot it out to prove a point. My favourite recently was somehow trying to prove a 3-4 week 'flat' stock was a cause for alarm.

 

[Stripes]

I can’t wait till Wednesday.

 

[Slpy3270]

I didn't realize Disney Stock was now over $120 - up up up it keeps going!

If you think the rising stock is gonna benefit Iger and his nominees then you need to brace for the possibility that it collapses should Peltz lose because it doesn't explain why ISS is backing Peltz in spite of the rising stock price. And I doubt investors - for better or worse - are going to give a damn about his comments on Black Panther considering Wakanda Forever grossed nowhere near a billion.

They care only about the money, and their investments in Disney from 10 years ago are flat. Are they really gonna want to stick with the status quo for a few more years as linear TV continues to fall and theatrical likely never returns to pre-Covid levels? (Especially if AMC ends up going bankrupt?) I doubt it.

If Iger believes investors are gonna ignore this and the Chapek fiasco and buy into his vision for the company, I wouldn't be surprised if he quits when investors tell him "No. It's not enough."

It's usually doing exceptionally well when the regulars aren't trying to trot it out to prove a point. My favourite recently was somehow trying to prove a 3-4 week 'flat' stock was a cause for alarm.

If Peltz was really just in it for the money (as he says) and not to further an ego or culture war, there would really be no reason to continue at this juncture. He actually acted fairly rationally the first time, this time not so much.

The problem is that investors have been aching for incremental change and for Iger to go for many, many years and that has been Peltz's central argument in this fight. If that WSJ vote leak yesterday is accurate, that might be enough for him to get through the finish line, consequences and risks be damned.

I don't want Peltz and Rasulo to win but people need to be mentally ready in the event that either one of them does.

Investors are giving up on the idea of Disney growing under Iger and may decide a wholesale change of the board and company might be the path forward. We're seeing this happen in all of Hollywood: WBD and Paramount might not make it next year, Fox has already de facto left Hollywood, and don't be surprised if Roberts decides to cut NBCU loose from Comcast to get that stock to $60. Sony will probably say goodbye to movies and TV once all those content buyers disappear.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's usually doing exceptionally well when the regulars aren't trying to trot it out to prove a point. My favourite recently was somehow trying to prove a 3-4 week 'flat' stock was a cause for alarm.

Why is it going up?