So I did some similar math back to 1997 a while ago. Through FY2018, P&R capital spending is something like 99.7% of operating income over those 22 years. Individual years are higher or lower, but the total numbers come out pretty neatly.
Now, straight capex vs. OI is a pretty rough cut, but it's generally enough to show that Disney isn't sitting around on a big pile of cash. They've pretty much reinvested everything they've made. Not necessarily wisely in every case, but it isn't a case of just being cheap as some claim.
Not all capex is equal.
I don't know how you calculated the 99.7%, but I suspect it includes both maintenance and investment capex. These two serve very different purposes. Quoting something I wrote in November 2016:
"Capital Expenditure (capex) is the purchase of an asset that will benefit a company for several years. Capex can be lumped into two broad categories, maintenance and investment (or growth).
Disney replacing an old bus with a new bus can be thought of as maintenance capex. Disney adding a new bus to increase the size of its fleet can be thought of as growth capex.
When Disney buys that bus, its purchase price does not impact profit immediately. Instead, the cost of the purchase is spread out over the number of years it will be used. This is called "depreciation". It's this depreciation that impacts profit.
Let's say that a Disney bus costs $500K and Disney intends to keep that bus for 10 years. That $500K does not reduce profit by $500K the year it is purchased. Instead, that bus affects profit for 10 years by $50K each year in the form of depreciation. (Disney uses the straight-line method to depreciate assets.)
At the end of 10 years, Disney should sell that bus and buy a new one. However, management types looking to save a buck might decide to keep that bus for 11, 12, or even 13 years. Instead of you and I riding a new bus, we are riding an 11, 12, or 13-year old bus.
Without detailed disclosures, a rule-of-thumb is to estimate maintenance capex to be equal to depreciation. Amounts spent below depreciation are (or should be) for maintenance. Amounts spent above depreciation are for growth (or investment).
Investment (or growth) capex can be negative when depreciation is greater than total capex."
The above quote is in response to a question regarding the following chart, which shows that TWDC underinvested in its domestic theme parks from 2002 to 2015:
The full thread discussing this can be found here:
I've frequently posted about TWDC's investment in WDW over the years so am unsure which specific post
@HauntedPirate had in mind, but the below chart puts TWDC's investment in WDW and DLR into historical perspective. It adjusts for inflation and takes into consideration how many theme parks Disney had in operation over the decades:
As many can vouch for, I used to write about this regularly, although I felt little need to after TWDC increased domestic investments beginning in 2016.
Those who are too young to appreciate TWDC's pre-9/11 investment levels are having a chance to experience it for the first time now. Those who are old enough to remember are happy to see a return to the old days.