lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Which subsidiaries are publicly traded?
The Walt Disney Company is already effectively a holding company composed of a tangled web of different corporate entities.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Unsure who to vote for regarding the Walt Disney Co. Board
- Thread starter durangojim
- Start date
The Walt Disney Company is already effectively a holding company composed of a tangled web of different corporate entities.
Well 9 pages into this thread I started and I still don't have an idea of how to vote (not that it matters). My thoughts are this:
If Iger and the board came out with a mea culpa and said something to the effect of "we know we've placed priorities in the wrong place and we're trying to change it but it's going to take a while. Probably past my term as ceo which is why I've chosen X as my successor. Give us a chance and we will make Disney great again (lol)" I'd be much more on board with keeping the status quo. Unfortunately Peltz and Rasulo seem like they might be worse IF they were given power. My thought is that if they were elected, could it be conceivable that it would put enough pressure on Iger and the existing board members to try to go back to what makes Disney, Disney? I'm not sure but in some ways I'd like to find out. I almost feel like that would be ripping the bandaid off. If it's going to fail I'd rather have it be fast, then a slow drawn out painful process. Maybe it's time for Universal to take over, as much as it pains me to say that. I think the Disney that I fell in love with a child and shared with my wife and our own children are close to being gone anyway
If Iger and the board came out with a mea culpa and said something to the effect of "we know we've placed priorities in the wrong place and we're trying to change it but it's going to take a while. Probably past my term as ceo which is why I've chosen X as my successor. Give us a chance and we will make Disney great again (lol)" I'd be much more on board with keeping the status quo. Unfortunately Peltz and Rasulo seem like they might be worse IF they were given power. My thought is that if they were elected, could it be conceivable that it would put enough pressure on Iger and the existing board members to try to go back to what makes Disney, Disney? I'm not sure but in some ways I'd like to find out. I almost feel like that would be ripping the bandaid off. If it's going to fail I'd rather have it be fast, then a slow drawn out painful process. Maybe it's time for Universal to take over, as much as it pains me to say that. I think the Disney that I fell in love with a child and shared with my wife and our own children are close to being gone anyway
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Iger left the company completely at the end of 2021 so:
- Stock price when he left the company: $155
- Stock price the day he came back: $92
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Disney leadership sucks so much, may make sense to take the risk and vote these guys in. If not, you pretty much guarantee the continuation of the same things we and others have been complaining about for how long now? The last two decades? There is no white knight coming to save the day. So more of the same or cause a bit of ruckus?
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
An interesting thing about Peltz is that when Trian has other people serving on boards, they've generally wanted to keep Peltz away from what's going on -- to the extent they've actually moved board meetings to other locations and/or times because Peltz was going to be in the area at the time of the original planned meeting and they were concerned he might show up.
I suppose that can be interpreted in different ways.
I suppose that can be interpreted in different ways.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I think there is a lack of appreciation for the diverse ways that "increasing shareholder value" can be interpreted. The ideal way to increase shareholder value is to look at the long-term health of the company, make strategic bets to grow the company, and run the current company well so that those strategic goals can be met. Long-term growth is the focus in this model.
The second model is profit-taking. The idea of increasing shareholder value is not a long-term play, where you try to grow the company to increase that value; it's "how can I drive up the stock price in the short term so I can make bank on my shares?" Something like that is diametrically opposed to long-term growth and sustainability. So this could involve things like selling Disney Parks to Six Flags, or worse, to an investment bank. It could involve divesting all of Disney's land assets (that's been proposed elsewhere). It could involve shutting down Disney Animation and Pixar.
Smaller things that could happen in a Profit-sharing situation:
Historically, Peltz has one company that one can say he effectively turned around - Snapple - and that was in the late 90s. Every other company he's been involved with he's worked to milk for short-term gains, after promising huge investments, turnarounds, etc. - and every single one was worse off after his tenure than before, both from a company sustainability standpoint and from a shareholder standpoint.
Iger is no saint. But he does want Disney to do well long term, even if his ideas of getting it there are flawed. Peltz just wants to prop up the stock price so he can make $$ for himself and his buddy Ike.
The second model is profit-taking. The idea of increasing shareholder value is not a long-term play, where you try to grow the company to increase that value; it's "how can I drive up the stock price in the short term so I can make bank on my shares?" Something like that is diametrically opposed to long-term growth and sustainability. So this could involve things like selling Disney Parks to Six Flags, or worse, to an investment bank. It could involve divesting all of Disney's land assets (that's been proposed elsewhere). It could involve shutting down Disney Animation and Pixar.
Smaller things that could happen in a Profit-sharing situation:
- Peltz: "What's the ROI on those expensive parades you put on at the Magic Kingdom every day?"
- Disney Exec: "Oh, that's a tradition, and it keeps guests occupied while the lines are long"
- Peltz: But is it making money? Are you charging for it?
- Disney Exec: No....
- Peltz: Shut it down. Or rope off the area and make it a ticketed event.
Historically, Peltz has one company that one can say he effectively turned around - Snapple - and that was in the late 90s. Every other company he's been involved with he's worked to milk for short-term gains, after promising huge investments, turnarounds, etc. - and every single one was worse off after his tenure than before, both from a company sustainability standpoint and from a shareholder standpoint.
Iger is no saint. But he does want Disney to do well long term, even if his ideas of getting it there are flawed. Peltz just wants to prop up the stock price so he can make $$ for himself and his buddy Ike.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Well 9 pages into this thread I started and I still don't have an idea of how to vote (not that it matters). My thoughts are this:
If Iger and the board came out with a mea culpa and said something to the effect of "we know we've placed priorities in the wrong place and we're trying to change it but it's going to take a while. Probably past my term as ceo which is why I've chosen X as my successor. Give us a chance and we will make Disney great again (lol)" I'd be much more on board with keeping the status quo. Unfortunately Peltz and Rasulo seem like they might be worse IF they were given power. My thought is that if they were elected, could it be conceivable that it would put enough pressure on Iger and the existing board members to try to go back to what makes Disney, Disney? I'm not sure but in some ways I'd like to find out. I almost feel like that would be ripping the bandaid off. If it's going to fail I'd rather have it be fast, then a slow drawn out painful process. Maybe it's time for Universal to take over, as much as it pains me to say that. I think the Disney that I fell in love with a child and shared with my wife and our own children are close to being gone anyway
Vote Peltz but if I’m reading between the lines you’re going to do that anyway.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Any solution to Iger cannot be worse than Iger. Peltz/Rasulo are many many many times worse than Iger. Until there's someone who has the potential to be an improvement over Iger, any argument to replace him has no merit whatsoever and should be disregarded.
This, he doesn't actually like the parks. His partnership with Rasulo should be more than enough to disprove that obvious BS.
Fast decline is indeed better than faster decline. Those are the only two options on the table right now. Between two choices that would make something worse, I would rather chose the option that is significantly slower than the other. You can gripe about these being the only two choices we've been given all you want (as can I), but they ARE indeed the only two choices. And I know full well which one I prefer by a country mile.
You do not want to see Disney hit rock bottom, and no we aren't there, not even close. Rock bottom would potentially see the parks closed and torn down, with all segments of the company broken up and sold off to random other people/companies. Perhaps parts of the latter sound appealing to some, but i'd imagine most people would reject that fate for the parks and agree there's a limit to how much they'd want to be split and sold off. There is a non-zero chance of these worse case scenarios happening if Peltz and Rasulo gained a foothold or took control. Unlike Iger, who has at bare minimum some desire to ensure the company and its divisions to function in some capacity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
I see your point - my point is that web needs to be untangled for the benefit (or detriment) of each corporate entity in much the same manner Tesla and Boring and SpaceX and Meta and Alphabet and Facebook and Google and Twitter and (insert more here) are. I think Parks would have the better chance of survival while the others, not so much.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
When do we typically get voting materials btw? This is my first time around.
The best chance to see the company break apart is to continue doing what they’ve been doing. Keep loosing over and over and see what happens.
Something needs to change.
I’m voting for Pelt, etc. Getting back to a place where we care about putting out a profitable product more than ideological messaging is the only hope the company has of making a comeback.
The most ardent Igor supporters I know (probably try for those backing him on this message board as well) are only still on board because they share his political ideology.
Something needs to change.
I’m voting for Pelt, etc. Getting back to a place where we care about putting out a profitable product more than ideological messaging is the only hope the company has of making a comeback.
The most ardent Igor supporters I know (probably try for those backing him on this message board as well) are only still on board because they share his political ideology.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
In reality, the best chance to see the company break apart is to put Peltz on the board.
Peltz doesn't care about putting out a profitable product - he cares about milking the company dry short-term to increase his own share value so he can take a huge profit.
As has been stated, there are *many* Iger critics on this board who recognize that Peltz would be far, far, far worse.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Brian
Well-Known Member
Not trying to pick on you specifically (others have said the same thing)... but Iger is CEO. Peltz is running for a seat on the board.
Peltz would have far less influence than Iger does in his capacity as CEO and a board member. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
Picked up on this on page 2, lol.
If you're signed up through compushare on line I think they're distributed that way. Honestly this is the first time I ever paid attention to the board elections.
Yeah, I guess I am leaning that way. I guess I'm willing to take a chance on something either positive or negative rather than go forward with what I know has been negative due to current leadership. What are the opinions of the two board members that he and Rasulo would be replacing?
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
I get notification of proxy via my brokerage account.