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

[durangojim]

I've followed very slightly the whole Nelson Peltz, etc, board fight going on but am conflicted regarding who to vote for. I love Disney World, have been disappointed by what I see as a decline in innovation and the feeling of them resting on their laurels in the theme park space and confused by the direction they have taken with their entertainment properties. I'm considering voting for Peltz and Rasulo for the board but admit I have fairly limited knowledge of what they actually plan to do to improve things and how they would go about it. I'd appreciate any informed opinions members here could give me both for and against the board members up for a vote. Thanks!

 

[jpeden]

It’s a bad situation either way to be honest. Peltz and Rasulo aren’t going to make things better - they’re just in it to line their pockets.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Can we vote Walt back? I know he's no longer with us and won't be able to attend meetings, but I figured he can't do any worse

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, the guy who so detests the parks he hated having to be in them for even PR events would really make great changes.

 

[bmr1591]

Peltz certainly doesn’t have Disney’s best interests at heart. He simply wants the stock price to go up. If we think there have been cuts now, just wait for him to lower quality for cheaper goods at more expensive prices.

With that said, all that is happening anyway. Two voices on the board won’t be able to make major changes. And quite frankly, do any of us have faith in the current board? I’m not saying Peltz is the answer, but I doubt he could be much worse than the apathetic board we have now.

 

[durangojim]

It’s a bad situation either way to be honest. Peltz and Rasulo aren’t going to make things better - they’re just in it to line their pockets.

Peltz certainly doesn’t have Disney’s best interests at heart. He simply wants the stock price to go up. If we think there have been cuts now, just wait for him to lower quality for cheaper goods at more expensive prices.

With that said, all that is happening anyway. Two voices on the board won’t be able to make major changes. And quite frankly, do any of us have faith in the current board? I’m not saying Peltz is the answer, but I doubt he could be much worse than the apathetic board we have now.

This is what I'm concerned about. I don't want the company destroyed. I just want it improved, back to focus on quality, guest experience, entertaining movies. My only thought is that having Peltz and Rasulo on the board might be enough of a wake up call to get the rest of the board and Iger to realize that they need to adjust course but that they would not have enough power to completely burn down the house and sell if off for parts. I'm very conflicted.

 

[Ayla]

This is what I'm concerned about. I don't want the company destroyed. I just want it improved, back to focus on quality, guest experience, entertaining movies. My only thought is that having Peltz and Rasulo on the board might be enough of a wake up call to get the rest of the board and Iger to realize that they need to adjust course but that they would not have enough power to completely burn down the house and sell if off for parts. I'm very conflicted.

Peltz and Rasulo would destroy the company.

 

[Brian]

Peltz and Rasulo would destroy the company.

How would two members of a 12 person board "destory" the company?

 

[Andrew C]

This is what I'm concerned about. I don't want the company destroyed. I just want it improved, back to focus on quality, guest experience, entertaining movies. My only thought is that having Peltz and Rasulo on the board might be enough of a wake up call to get the rest of the board and Iger to realize that they need to adjust course but that they would not have enough power to completely burn down the house and sell if off for parts. I'm very conflicted.

Yeah. I kinda want them to get in at this point just to shake things up.

 

[LSLS]

Honestly I'm shocked how many people want to consider Peltz and Rasulo. Their plan is literally to do what can make the MOST dividends back. Cut all investments, cut staff, cut maintenance, etc. Basically you are continuing a trend. If you thought Iger #1 was bad, Chapek was worse, and Iger #2 is worse, Peltz/Rasulo would be about 4 more Iger drops all at once. Iger has done a lot of awful things, but I think his ego and legacy trumps a lot of what he does (at least initially). These guys it's STRICTLY money.

 

[jpeden]

Honestly I'm shocked how many people want to consider Peltz and Rasulo. Their plan is literally to do what can make the MOST dividends back. Cut all investments, cut staff, cut maintenance, etc. Basically you are continuing a trend. If you thought Iger #1 was bad, Chapek was worse, and Iger #2 is worse, Peltz/Rasulo would be about 4 more Iger drops all at once. Iger has done a lot of awful things, but I think his ego and legacy trumps a lot of what he does (at least initially). These guys it's STRICTLY money.

Rasulo is 1000% in this just to screw Iger for cutting him out of contention for the CEO position. You will not convince me otherwise and you never want to back a horse that's just playing for spite.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Peltz and Rasulo are exponentially worse than Iger. Iger has overseen a decline in the parks, but they remain world-class resorts. Peltz and Rasulo would go a very long way to killing the parks completely.

A fundamental aspect of human nature, at least in modern America, is an inability to believe that things could get worse. Things at Disney can get MUCH worse. Under Peltz they will.

 

[Andrew C]

Honestly I'm shocked how many people want to consider Peltz and Rasulo. Their plan is literally to do what can make the MOST dividends back. Cut all investments, cut staff, cut maintenance, etc. Basically you are continuing a trend. If you thought Iger #1 was bad, Chapek was worse, and Iger #2 is worse, Peltz/Rasulo would be about 4 more Iger drops all at once. Iger has done a lot of awful things, but I think his ego and legacy trumps a lot of what he does (at least initially). These guys it's STRICTLY money.

First, neither will be CEO; these are board positions. Second, the status quo isn’t working.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that some people want to see something different. Some pressure on existing leadership.

 

[Dranth]

How would two members of a 12 person board "destory" the company?

Why is it that the people that complain the most about Disney and the lack of investment want to vote in people who want to cut investment? How messed up does someone need to be to look at a Rasulo/Peltz nomination and think ANYTHING remotely good can come out of that?

Also, the idea that just because you don't have majority voting power you can't impact operations or affect change is incorrect. It is the foothold needed to begin securing additional board votes. Once on the board, they have a lot more influence over how things proceed and over time they persuade, cajole, or drive off others until they get more and more control. It almost never stops at the initial group and in the meantime, you end up with a much more dysfunctional board, leaks, in fighting, internal cliques that develop, etc.

You are inviting the enemy into your home with the assumption that you will always outnumber them. It is a bad move.

 

[Casper Gutman]

First, neither will be CEO; these are board positions. Second, the status quo isn’t working.

So it shouldn’t be surpassing that some people want to see something different. Some pressure on existing leadership.

Pressure to dramatically cut costs and increase dividends.

Please explain, with specifics, how Peltz and Rasulo would improve anything.

 

[Brian]

Why is it that the people that complain the most about Disney and the lack of investment want to vote in people who want to cut investment? How messed up does someone need to be to look at a Rasulo/Peltz nomination and think ANYTHING remotely good can come out of that?

Also, the idea that just because you don't have majority voting power you can't impact operations or affect change is incorrect. It is the foothold needed to begin securing additional board votes. Once on the board, they have a lot more influence over how things proceed and over time they persuade, cajole, or drive off others until they get more and more control. It almost never stops at the initial group and in the meantime, you end up with a much more dysfunctional board, leaks, in fighting, internal cliques that develop, etc.

You are inviting the enemy into your home with the assumption that you will always outnumber them. It is a bad move.

Peltz has repeatedly spoken of the parks being the "crown jewel" of Disney, and has indicated that he is in favor of the $60bn planned capex, so long as it generates a good ROI. That's a very reasonable prospect for a for-profit company.

 

[Indy_UK]

I don't like Peltz and Rasulo but them being on the board is only going to surely push change? They've got nowhere near enough clout to take over in any way so why not?

 

[mikejs78]

I've followed very slightly the whole Nelson Peltz, etc, board fight going on but am conflicted regarding who to vote for. I love Disney World, have been disappointed by what I see as a decline in innovation and the feeling of them resting on their laurels in the theme park space and confused by the direction they have taken with their entertainment properties. I'm considering voting for Peltz and Rasulo for the board but admit I have fairly limited knowledge of what they actually plan to do to improve things and how they would go about it. I'd appreciate any informed opinions members here could give me both for and against the board members up for a vote. Thanks!

With one notable exception, Peltz has harmed every company he's had a board seat on.

I doubt he could be much worse than the apathetic board we have now.

He absolutely could. He would be devastating for the board.

How would two members of a 12 person board "destory" the company?

Influence - Peltz has a history of strongarming people on the board to get his way; he leaks info, puts pressure on the other board members.

First, neither will be CEO; these are board positions. Second, the status quo isn’t working.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that some people want to see something different. Some pressure on existing leadership.

Peltz has a poor track record with companies. Why would we want him to come in?

Peltz has repeatedly spoken of the parks being the "crown jewel" of Disney, and has indicated that he is in favor of the $60bn planned capex, so long as it generates a good ROI. That's a very reasonable prospect for a for-profit company.

As I said above, that's not his track record- he talks a good game to get the board seat, but then historically he drives companies into the ground.

Besides, he stated no new investment in parks unless a definitive ROI can be shown. That's exactly what we DON'T want, because not every park improvement generates obvious ROI, but the sum total does. That's code for only doing improvmements that will generate immediate revenue, like Genie+, or special-ticket attractions, etc.

Look, Iger is not great, but Peltz would be a disaster. If he gets on the board, it will destroy the company.

 

[mikejs78]

I don't like Peltz and Rasulo but them being on the board is only going to surely push change? They've got nowhere near enough clout to take over in any way so why not?

They will push bad changes. And Peltz has a history of manipulating the media and stock to influence board members to getting his way. He does not have a good track record with the companies he has been on the board of (with one notable exception) so why give him the chance?

 

[mikejs78]

One more point I forgot to make - Peltz is backed by Perlmutter. As a business leader, he is largly responsible for pushing "value engineering" at Disney. He's a penny-pinching cost cutter, through and through, and you can bet that he is going to use his ownership stake to push that agenda with Peltz as a proxy.