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

[Cliff]

Are you somehow under the impression that this (i.e. increasing profits) isn't applicable to literally every single Disney investor?

If Nelson Peltz had full control over Disney it's much more likely Disney as we know it wouldn't even exist in 5 years than it somehow being better than it is right now.

Ok...so what do you know that Nelson Peltz would do to destroy Disney in 5 years?

It is your belief that Nelson Peltz is on a mission to burn the company to the ground and level the parks with a bulldozer?

If you do believe that, I can tell you that is NOT his goal at all. It's the opposite.

 

[Earlie the Pearlie]

I wasn’t talking about Apple specifically, just a potential buyer.

Your post highlights the potential for selling parts though, Apple may have no interest in the whole company but may be the party willing to buy ESPN, ABC, Fox, etc. Universal or Oriental Land Co probably wouldn’t want the media side but may want just the parks.

A future in which Universal owns Disney’s American parks, OLC owns the international parks, a third party (preferably with a great, great love for EPCOT Center) owned Epcot, and all three were able to license all the rights would be extremely interesting. Someone should start a new thread just to discuss this!

 

[flynnibus]

Nelson Peltz wants Disney to make money

No - nelson peltz wants Nelson Peltz to make money. A very big difference.

 

[Cliff]

No - nelson peltz wants Nelson Peltz to make money. A very big difference.

I own Disney stock and I want Disney to make money too. A dead Disney does not make his stock or my stock go up. A sucessfull Disney does. A sucessfull Disney makes everybody happy. A failing Disney makes nobody happy.

This is not rocket science....but what Disney management is doing today?...is driving the company straight into the ground.

For years now...Disney has had a "Titanic" mentality...."We are so big and strong that not even God can sink us"...and..."thats why we dont worry about icebergs". Well?...we all know how that arrogant story ended.

I fear that Disney has this mentality. They are just not affraid and they sincerely believe their customers will never...ever...leave them for any reason...no matter what Disney does or doesn't do.

Disney's public reputation is very delicate. They don't believe it and that is why they have no fear to screw with it in any way they want.

Disney is hitting ice bergs right now yet they still try to plow right through them. Let's see what happens. Let's see how supprised Disney's captains get when they take on so much water that they start to sink...

 

[flynnibus]

I own Disney stock and I want Disney to make money too. A dead Disney does not make his stock or my stock go up.

You don’t get it… he makes his money and is done. He’s not there for ‘disney to make money’ - he’s there to buy at one price and sell at a higher price. If that means he sells chunks or reshapes the business to get a better selling price that’s what he’d do. He uses his pile of money to make more money - not to save companies.

He bought into disney as an opportunity to make money through manipulation.

He literally is a corporate raider and you’re acting like he’s a savior. He is gozer dude

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Any guesses on what’s the lowest the stock could hit that would trigger the board to do…..something?

Well Iger is a Hollywood “heavyweight”…as Xenia dictated the journal and Hollywood reporter for years…

So he controls his board and his narrative…though not as much as he did.

The Mayer/staggs move is panicking and trying to line up more interference/scapegoats…

So I think it would have to be around $60 to force institutional investors to make the moves.

Low 70s

See above

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No - nelson peltz wants Nelson Peltz to make money. A very big difference.

Hey!
We agree

Peltz was very obvious: put Iger on notice while demanding easy money under the smokescreen of “demanding quality”

He could care less if they take it down…as long as he gets his bucks out of it

 

[WaltsTreasureChest]

Why in the world did Disney buy fox

 

[MisterPenguin]

Nelson Peltz wants Disney to make money and be profitable. There is only ONE way to accomplish that. Happy customers make Disney profitable. "Un-happy" customers will NOT make Disney money or give them profits.

Nelson Peltz demands that Disney do what it takes to make their customers HAPPY so that they consume MORE of Disney's products...which drives sales and makes Disney profitable.

Angry customers are NOT what Nelson Pelts wants...he want's the OPPOSITE of that. He wants HAPPY customers so that investors can make money the way Disney used to do when he became an investor.

Happy customers = Happy investors.
Angry customers = Angry investors.

Peltz made clear what he wants: Stock price to increase so he can sell it off at a profit, and until that happens, dividends. Lots and lots of dividends.

A Peltz-run TWDC would immediately stop investment in the parks (Capital Expense, aka Capex) in order to pay dividends and do stock buy backs.

And the parks would languish.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I own Disney stock and I want Disney to make money too. A dead Disney does not make his stock or my stock go up. A sucessfull Disney does. A sucessfull Disney makes everybody happy. A failing Disney makes nobody happy.

This is not rocket science....but what Disney management is doing today?...is driving the company straight into the ground.

For years now...Disney has had a "Titanic" mentality...."We are so big and strong that not even God can sink us"...and..."thats why we dont worry about icebergs". Well?...we all know how that arrogant story ended.

I fear that Disney has this mentality. They are just not affraid and they sincerely believe their customers will never...ever...leave them for any reason...no matter what Disney does or doesn't do.

Disney's public reputation is very delicate. They don't believe it and that is why they have no fear to screw with it in any way they want.

Disney is hitting ice bergs right now yet they still try to plow right through them. Let's see what happens. Let's see how supprised Disney's captains get when they take on so much water that they start to sink...

I wish this was still how Disney was ran but the reality is they’re primarily worried about the next quarterly report now, long term success is the next guys problem.

Many private companies still worry about the long term but with publicly traded companies like Disney it’s secondary to the short term.

 

[MrPromey]

A future in which Universal owns Disney’s American parks, OLC owns the international parks, a third party (preferably with a great, great love for EPCOT Center) owned Epcot, and all three were able to license all the rights would be extremely interesting. Someone should start a new thread just to discuss this!

Except Comcast could stop being hungry really quickly if they owned their major stateside competition.

That's probably not an outcome any of us would want, either.

 

[Nubs70]

They kinda…indirectly…already had ownership of a Disney park

Would be a the ultimate revenge play.... Buy DIS in full then make Iger watch as they piece up dismember and sell off Igers legacy one piece at a time.

Sounds like something right up MBS's alley.

Edit: fixed for clarity

 

[Tha Realest]

If that means he sells chunks or reshapes the business to get a better selling price that’s what he’d do. He uses his pile of money to make more money - not to save companies.

unlike Iger, who is doing everything he can to sell chunks of Disney’s core business and reshaping the business to get a better selling price to prospective a acquirers, and whose big moves (Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, Fox) entailed using his pile of money to make more money.

 

[pdude81]

I'm still confused at how a sale to Apple makes any sense unless they bought the whole farm. Sure they'd love the content library and control of Disney plus, but how are you going to spin off Parks and Entertainment without having a semi-permanent licensing deal for your IP that already exists in the parks. Then at that point, you leave some other company in control of how good or bad your properties are represented.

Apple doesn't do that. They control the whole ecosystem so each piece fits together, absent the occasional antitrust ruling ;P. I just don't think parks and/or resorts fits very well with the rest of what they do. And for those reasons, Apple [is?] out

 

[flynnibus]

unlike Iger, who is doing everything he can to sell chunks of Disney’s core business and reshaping the business to get a better selling price to prospective a acquirers, and whose big moves (Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, Fox) entailed using his pile of money to make more money.

Iger didn’t use his money to buy a golden gun and hold the board at gunpoiint demanding a payout.

Iger isn’t out to breakup the company for it’s chunks.

Folks like peltz use their money to create leverage to force a movement that results in a windfall for them outside of the company’s actual business model. That is nothing like trying to grow or optimize the business.

 

[Tha Realest]

Iger didn’t use his money to buy a golden gun and hold the board at gunpoiint demanding a payout.

Iger isn’t out to breakup the company for it’s chunks.

Folks like peltz use their money to create leverage to force a movement that results in a windfall for them outside of the company’s actual business model. That is nothing like trying to grow or optimize the business.

You don’t think he’s angling to sell off major assets and doing everything he can to juice the stock price?

Let’s check back in 6-12 months.

Iger and Peltz may have different objectives, but the corporate raider playbook is not too dissimilar to what Iger’s attempting to do now.

 

[MisterPenguin]

You don’t think he’s angling to sell off major assets and doing everything he can to juice the stock price?

Iger already sold off / wrote off European linear TV channels he inherited from the Fox purchase.

He was musing doing the same to ABC as an example of doing more of the same. He clarified later he didn't mean ABC content, which would wind up on D+/Hulu/Star/ESPN+.

But linear stations no longer become a big revenue source in the future as 'cord cutting' continues.

In the current Disney v. Charter dispute, Disney is advertising "Hey, do you have Charter and wanna see ESPN and other Disney channels but they're blacked out? Sign up for the bundle!!"

The death of cable is advancing more and more rapidly.

So... other than the sell off of linear channels/stations... what other "major assets" is Iger looking to sell off?

 

[flynnibus]

You don’t think he’s angling to sell off major assets and doing everything he can to juice the stock price?

I think he would sell off major assets to keep the company focused where it needs to be... to argue you need to hold onto everything simply because you already have it is foolish.

This is nothing like the idea of a corporate raider who breaks up a company because it's more valuable to breakup than it is to operate it.

One is to break up because it no longer makes sense for the business... the other is to breakup because it's going to make us money right now.

Iger and Peltz may have different objectives, but the corporate raider playbook is not too dissimilar to what Iger’s attempting to do now.

Absolutely not - Divesting or pivoting is NOT breaking up a company for liquidation value.

These things are not alike.

 

[Nubs70]

This is how you inform your investors and public on your succession plan.

International Paper Announces CEO Succession Plan

/PRNewswire/ -- International Paper (NYSE: IP) announced today that Chairman and CEO Mark Sutton has requested that the Board of Directors move forward with...

www.prnewswire.com

How is this different than the Bobs?

 

[Eric Graham]

Sorry, but I haven't been following this that closely. Visa is doing very great, what's happening to Disney?