Unsure who to vote for regarding the Walt Disney Co. Board

[Dranth]

I don't want to see Disney burn, I don't have a grudge against Iger. But the Disney company today, and specifically the parks are not what they were 10, 15, 20, years ago. Disney has lost much or most of it's magic and I don't see anyone on the current board who is willing to try to bring it back. Nor do I think that Peltz and company will try to do it either, but, maybe just maybe there are some on the board including Iger who remember what a great company Disney used to be and how the parks provided value to their guests and shareholders and would be willing to do some things they otherwise wouldn't consider without the extra pressure Peltz would provide. Maybe I'm being naïve but again, at this point I'm willing to risk it.

Honest question. What do you think is easier for Disney to recover from? No longer existing as it does and being separated into multiple corporations that are no longer tied together or two more years of Iger who already made all the changes Peltz is calling for?

If you legit think the entire company is going to go up in flames under a few more years of Iger than you should vote for Peltz or the Blackwell group. However, if you think it will just continue a slow decline or even see some improvement you should vote for the current board so the next guy at least gets a full Disney company to work with and course correct.

You can't easily put it back together once you take it apart which is why I think both groups are terrible choices right now.

 

[durangojim]

How does Peltz provide that pressure when he would be pressuring for the opposite?

If you have a majority of the board and the CEO who is diametrically opposed to him perhaps the majority of the board would then come to its senses and start trying to improve things rather than bow to his pressure.

 

[Dranth]

I think TWDC is too big for any one person to be in charge of. The parks, movies, and streaming should be one company. ESPN and ABC should be sold off to die a slow death and be milked for dividends (one last puff of the cigar, as Warren Buffett used to say).

Then how does Comcast do it and why can't Disney work like that?

 

[networkpro]

 

[mikejs78]

Referring back to my original post, I think for several reasons it would be beneficial for Parks to be it's own separate, public company. So yes.

I can see an argument for separate, but not separate and public.

Which is somewhat where we are now

Say what you want about current parks management, but FoP, RotR, Cosmic Rewind, and even MF:SR and Rat are not nearly the level of things you would find at a Six Flags. We are no where near that.

And I don't agree that's the reason why regional operators "don't do heavily themed environments".

Six Flags is hardly a regional operator, they are nation wide. And with a public company, the pressure of "shareholder value" woudl be worse as there would be more scrutiny on the parks business. The only way to get something like what we want with a split would be to spin off the parks division and take it private, but that would require someone with vision and money to execute.

 

[Drdcm]

If you have a majority of the board and the CEO who is diametrically opposed to him perhaps the majority of the board would then come to its senses and start trying to improve things rather than bow to his pressure.

For what it’s worth. This whole vote is the pressure. You don’t need to let Peltz in, the fact that there is a proxy war coming to a vote is likely pressure enough to force some sort of change.

 

[Laketravis]

Say what you want about current parks management, but FoP, RotR, Cosmic Rewind, and even MF:SR and Rat are not nearly the level of things you would find at a Six Flags. We are no where near that.

Oh, I agree - but the remark was about capacity, not the quality of that capacity.

Six Flags is hardly a regional operator, they are nation wide.

I meant in the sense that they have multiple parks that serve distinct geographical regions. They are also in Canada and Mexico. In fact, Six Flags is about to become second only to Disney in worldwide attendance. There is a market for what they provide (as crappy as some would characterize it), and they are serving that market. THAT is why they don't do theme parks, they aren't going to poke the bear. Even changed their name from Six Flags THEME Parks to Six Flags Entertainment.

Regardless, Parks has to change if they want to continue to be the long term leader in THEME parks.

 

[el_super]

..perhaps the majority of the board would then come to its senses ...

Do you think most of their decisions are based solely on thoughts and opinion?

You don't think any of the underlying reasons why, a board may dictate an action, should be considered at all?

Nothing is going to "fix" Disney the way you think it will. Disney has been "saved" at least twice in my lifetime and yet the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[lentesta]

I'm curious if any news outlets have asked our resident Disney expert @lentesta about any of this. I'd be curious to hear his and Jim's opinions.

One day you’re going to hear a story. But not today.

 

[JD80]

One day you’re going to hear a story. But not today.

A documentary coming to Netflix?

 

[lentesta]

A documentary coming to Netflix?

I was hoping for one of those playable 45 RPM records printed on the back of Cap'n Crunch.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Let’s be fair though. Comcast owns Universal but universal work quite independently under Comcast no? I don’t think Comcast use park profits to fund peacock which is dying. Lowes seem to do a great job of being in charge of the Disney hotels.

None of this is correct (well, except Lowe’s is pretty good). Universal is subject to exactly the same business culture and issues as Disney.

The entire entertainment industry is shaking right now. Warners is expected to be bankrupt within two years. Paramount is broke right now. Disney is weathering an unprecedented storm better than some - so some of its”fans” want to kill it.

 

[James Alucobond]

If you have a majority of the board and the CEO who is diametrically opposed to him perhaps the majority of the board would then come to its senses and start trying to improve things rather than bow to his pressure.

They aren’t opposed on the things that should actually matter to anyone who enjoys the offerings of TWDC. Where Iger is bad for customers and guests, Peltz and Rasulo will be as bad or worse. The resistance they offer on the board will not make the customer experience better and may not even deliver much value to the average shareholder if Peltz’s past is prologue. Are people really this desperate to stick it to a person who will likely be retired in less than five years and dead in fifteen?

 

[Laketravis]

I can see an argument for separate, but not separate and public.

It's already a public company by virtue of being a part of a public company, and therefore already subject to the scrutiny of profit seeking leadership striving to satisfy shareholders. Separating it and providing it with it's own leadership won't eliminate cost cutting initiatives or drive for profits (which frankly exist at all companies, public or private) but it should provide the ability to more effectively respond to consumer demand. Meet and exceed consumer demand and the profits will follow. There are plenty of examples of high-end public companies that provide a product or service that consumers rave about and are willing to pay for with no complaint. Disney used to be one.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Then how does Comcast do it and why can't Disney work like that?

This Comcast?

 

[Laketravis]

This Comcast?


View attachment 767137

Yeah, that Comcast:

 

[JD80]

I was hoping for one of those playable 45 RPM records printed on the back of Cap'n Crunch.

This would be my preference:

 

[WoundedDreamer]

The problem is no one wants to buy ABC/ESPN.

Not really. You just spin off the companies. Shareholders would be issued shares in the new ABC/ESPN business proportional with your ownership interest in Disney. The two independent firms would probably be worth 50% more than the current existing valuation. Shareholders would be happy and The Walt Disney Company would be leaner, while ESPN and ABC could take some of Disney's debt load and then pay dividends until it ceases to exist.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's already a public company by virtue of being a part of a public company, and therefore already subject to the scrutiny of profit seeking leadership striving to satisfy shareholders. Separating it and providing it with it's own leadership won't eliminate cost cutting initiatives or drive for profits (which frankly exist at all companies, public or private) but it should provide the ability to more effectively respond to consumer demand. Meet and exceed consumer demand and the profits will follow. There are plenty of examples of high-end public companies that provide a product or service that consumers rave about and are willing to pay for with no complaint. Disney used to be one.

Being distinct and public means more pressure to be able to openly scrutinize more operational details. That’s not good for a business that really needs to be looked at as a whole with a variety of loss leaders that consumer a lot of resources.

 

[Laketravis]

This would be my preference:

Sad story about the 16 year old winner, Scotty Landreth.