This is an interesting/provocative (and not bad provocative!) point. I'm not sure if I totally agree, but it is possible. My hesitation with the idea that Peltz/Trian thinks Disney is resurgent is based on Peltz's incentives. If Peltz thought Disney was about to start rocketing upwards, why do this proxy fight? He could have easily just invested some portion of Trian's holdings into the firm and waited for the stock price to surge. He must believe that there is something structurally wrong with Disney, or else his actions don't really make sense.
I guess you could make the argument that Peltz is driven by ego or maybe loyalty to Perlmutter? I've tended to ascribe Peltz's actions primarily to wanting to make money. Until proven otherwise, I think that's the Occam's razor explanation for Peltz's actions.
And while profitability is in sight for streaming, Disney faces pretty significant structural problems related to linear channels. The sports streaming service, if regulators approve it, could be the ticket out of the decline. But there's a significant risk that regulators shut the partnership down. And if that happens... Ouch. I don't think they're out of the woods yet.
I think it’s a bit of all the above in actuality. At the very base it needed the potential to be resurgent, otherwise Disney would be Paramount.
I personally think Disney is currently resurgent, though when he started this proxy fight under Chapek’s regime it wasn’t so obviously so. There were major structural issues with the way Chapek had remade the content and streaming pipelines. As much as people want to pretend he was a puppet, there were a lot of decisions made under his tenure that I don’t think are strongly congruent with what others (or Iger) would have done. Hence friction in Iger’s departure.
I think there are/were structural problems with Disney circa 2022, though the remediation of those problems and his actual better structural suggestions have been adopted. Whether that was bound to happen without his threat is hard to say. Things have changed from a corporate policy perspective. Elevating the parks to underinvested has literally never been a thing for 30 years now, but the corporate mantra is accepting they have been and accepting they need to be invested more properly into. It’s perhaps nothing more than language, but language can matter.
Largely I think the third pillar is now one of ego. He happily left this alone a year ago. The recovery of Disney was not sufficiently quick enough and he returns with a strange mix of partners who are strictly ego driven. Even if one can entirely set aside Peltz as cold, calculating, in it for the money and shareholders, the sudden fixing to the wagon of Rasulo and Perlmutter completely flies contrary to that. That’s what seem to be largely getting in the way now of his retreat. He’s back a second time, with baggage and that’s his ego on the line.
I still don’t think I would buy what Peltz is peddling in any universe. But he didn’t show up with Kevin Meyer, Tom Staggs, heck +\- Abigail Disney and John Lasseter and I think that’s all that needs to be said about his current motives. It isn’t fully about money, which is why I think the Disney company is going into overdrive to fight it this time.
Not saying I support the return or involvement of a couple of those individuals, but they are somewhat more respected and could be seen as pushing return to the success of the 2010’s era company.
