Originally Posted By WrongWay >>You might want to consider that Eisner is probably no longer concerned with his personal wealth at this point, and that he has other reasons to keep employed. Personally, from the last couple interviews I've watched with him, I get the impression that he is far more interested in using the profits from the parks to build a failing TV empire, then he is in having a sucessful animation and theme park company. He always talks about his fondest work memories being when he worked for TV stations in the early days. He talks about "positive cash flow" from the parks as if "holding guests upside down and shaking out every penny", is a good thing.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> The people in Japan are just more likely to go to theme parks during a recession... << I've just browsed through LP's coverage of DisneySea's Indiana Jones attraction and also have just read a posting (under the topic of rumors about replacing parts of Paradise Pier) from someone saying it would be nice if they could make DCA's Jumpin' Jellyfish ride less "tacky." When I consider the mind-boggling care and craftmanship that went into the new Disney park in Tokyo and consider the unsightly, if not "tacky," portions of DCA -- and then ponder the lengthy recession that Japan has been going through -- I guess the DisCo. figured that unlike the Japanese, Americans were so rich by comparison (from the 1990s in particular) that even something "tacky" could be thrown their way and still turn out to be a success, no matter what.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Anything else you want to know?" Yeah, if you had such a high GPA, why didn't you go to grad school? It's very nice you worked your way through school and was in the army (or whatever). I worked my way through school, too and supported my family at the same time, too. It's nice that you did that, but it's nothing special to me. Glad to hear you think so highly of yourself, though. "Now it must be you that is not reading clearly. It was me, and what I said was that Ford's SALES are only 3% above what they were 5 years ago. I've since double checked, and it is actualy an average of 3% increase in revenue(sales) per year, over the last 5 years." There you go. I didn't recall the exact wording. The point was that I was responding to something else being said, not what you were talking about. "I pointed this out, because you stated the opinion (as if it were fact) that Disney wasn't bought out because of there aquisitions." No, I never said that. I find it hard to believe that you got a 4.0 GPA when you constantly miss the point. "You wouldn't be stating opiniont as if it were fact, would you? A company can have good financials, strong dividends, and be a safe investment, and that will usually keep the stock value up." Opinion? Ok, it's my opinion that Disney, if they did not diversify and grow, would have suffered the same fate as every other corporation in the sector that did not. That is, being gobbled up by a much bigger company. It happened to all of them. You either took other companies over, or you were taken over. Disney is a publically traded company. The rules of the world apply to them like they do everyone else. "I think the problem with Disney in the early 1980s was that many of their projects were flops." The problem in the early 1980s was that they were desperately sticking to formula, like you want them to do now with their theme parks. They sat around and said "What would Walt do" to the point where they were afraid to do anything new and different. Their products were flops because they refused to innovate or try new things, and were mired in an early 1960s mentality, producing product that current audiences simply were not interested in. That was the problem. The problem was that when faced with greenmailers, the company panicked, tried to make themselves a bad target aquisition by lowering the overall value of the company, and cost the corporation millions. I suggest the book "Storming the Magic Kingdom" for a detailed accounting of what actually happened. I think it might be out of print, but you can still find it. One of the thing Eisner was charged with was to insulate it from being a takeover target again. He has done this. "If Disney continues on the current negative slope of profit (well, loss), their stock price will continue to drop, and it will again be a take over target." That might be. Start buying those shares now. Maybe you should also find out why diversification is good for a business. "I think they should sell some off, and get back to what they do best, returning to profitability, raising the stock value, and keeping the company independent." I think they are profitable. They just declared a dividend yesterday, in fact. Twenty-one cents a share. Maybe they borrowed the money to pay that out. "I think the period of aquisitions you mentioned is over." It's never over. Aquisitions have always happened. In the early 1980s, Disney was almost aquired. These things happen, and you have to be constantly on guard against them, that is if you wish to remain independent. It has nothing to do with the internet stock bubble. "People are now more apt to ignore "revenue growth" and return to looking at profit/equity ratio. At this point, Disney's can't be calculated because they have loss, not profit." The P/E ratio for Disney is (as I check right now) 191.55. And, as near as I can tell from this page: <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=dis&d=t" target="_blank">http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=d is&d=t</a> They seem to also be generating a profit. It looks like profits are down from this time last year. Not a big surprise, considering the serious change in the economic conditions right now. Oh well. It's kind of hard to discuss stuff with someone who can't even get the basic facts straight. Here's an article about one of the recent analyst's downgrading of the stock: <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=" target="_blank">http://www.marketwatch.com/new s/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=</a>%7B6049FDD0%2D941F%2D4E81%2DB0F4%2DC1D69CEAF830%7D I will quote in part: Fitch, however, did cite a number of measures Disney was taking to improve its credit profile such as reducing cash outlays, cutting capital expenditures and trimming costs. Disney has cut 4,000 jobs companywide this year. "Fitch views Disney's debt reduction plan as credible, while recognizing that it remains partially contingent on an earnings recovery at key businesses," Fitch's statement said. Two things to note: 1) Cutting costs results in better acceptance on Wall Street. These measures are given a thumbs up by analysts. 2) The company, as well as stock analysts understand that earnings recovery in key businesses are very critical. The downgrades have come as a result of an extreme drop off in tourist business, with WDW losing as much as 25% of its customers. ABC is also having problems right now as well. On the other hand, last year ABC was number one in the ratings (thanks to Regis). "I get the impression that he is far more interested in using the profits from the parks to build a failing TV empire, then he is in having a sucessful animation and theme park company." Perhaps that's because he ISN'T RUNNING an animation and theme park company. Disney is now a media conglomerate that has an animation division (or two) and a theme park division. Of course he's interested in bolstering the poorer performing divisions of the corporation. That is his job. This is what all companies do, and what Disney itself has done historically, for example, bolstering the film division when it was not doing well with revenue from the parks, or building up MAPO for the parks from the profits of the film Mary Poppins. "He always talks about his fondest work memories being when he worked for TV stations in the early days." How AWFUL! How dare he not think exactly like you want him to! How DARE he have pleasant memories of a job he had while younger! Talk about disgrace! "He talks about "positive cash flow" from the parks as if "holding guests upside down and shaking out every penny", is a good thing. " So, you're saying that he should not want a positive cash flow from his parks? Oh well....maybe with your 4.0 GPA, you ought to get yourself an MBA, and find out how things work more. I think discussing this stuff with you is pretty much a dead end at this point. At least try and read up on the subject before beginning to pontificate.
Originally Posted By Jim in Pasadena CA Good stuff jonvn. (although I only skimmed your post) Why. I have learned that the more you dig into the Disney company, and look at numbers and profits and positive cash flow, the more everything about it becomes 'mundane' 'here and now' and has less 'Disney Magic.' It really doesn't cut both ways very well, for me. If you're a person who just likes to be a Disney Consumer (like me), you stay away from the day-to-day inner-workings of the business, the stock prices, the ins-and-outs of what buying Fox Family Worldwide really means in the ultimate scheme of things. That's why I left my job working for The Walt Disney Company 10 years ago. For me, it's more fun to be a Disney Consumer than a Disney Employee working in the mundane, here and now cubicles of the Disney corporate offices.
Originally Posted By woody >>you ought to get yourself an MBA Is that what you have? >>find out how things work more. There's more than one way to interpret the facts.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "For me, it's more fun to be a Disney Consumer than a Disney Employee working in the mundane, here and now cubicles of the Disney corporate offices." Sage advice. I'd also extend that to your experience with the parks. For me, it's more fun not to know where all the backstage tricks are and how they are done. It takes away from the experience. Sometimes, the more you concern yourself with something you enjoy, the less enjoyable it becomes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "There's more than one way to interpret the facts. There's the truth and there's your way." If you're going to make a statement like that, you really should back it up with some examples. How should the facts be interpreted?
Originally Posted By JohnS3 "For me, it's more fun to be a Disney Consumer than a Disney Employee working in the mundane, here and now cubicles of the Disney corporate offices." Hmm - do i sense the beginnings of aDCA dark ride? Cubicle Wars? Honey I shrunk the bottom line? Indiana Jones and the Her and Now? Possibilities abound.
Originally Posted By WrongWay >>"Anything else you want to know?" "Yeah, if you had such a high GPA, why didn't you go to grad school? ... Glad to hear you think so highly of yourself, though." Grad school isn't necessary to be a computer programmer. I took some classes toward a Technology Management Masters degree, thinking I wanted to move into management. After 6 months as a team lead, I decided that I'd stick to writing code. I don't think overly highly of myself, but the way you frequently talk down to me, I thought you may have a fairly low opinion of me. I was just trying to convince you that I'm not totally stupid. >>"I pointed this out, because you stated the opinion (as if it were fact) that Disney wasn't bought out because of their acquisitions." "No, I never said that. I find it hard to believe that you got a 4.0 GPA when you constantly miss the point." Okay, expain how I missed the point: “the situation is that if Disney doesn't continue to diversify and continue to build up and grow, they may then be the subject of a takeover. [delete the annoying talking down to me] Growth is a way to keep this from happening, by making the company one that takes over other places, rather than the reverse.” Please explain the point of the above, if the point wasn’t “Disney wasn't bought out because of their acquisitions." And again, you said it again: “Ok, it's my opinion that Disney, if they did not diversify and grow, would have suffered the same fate as every other corporation in the sector that did not. That is, being gobbled up by a much bigger company. It happened to all of them. You either took other companies over, or you were taken over.” How is this not "Disney wasn't bought out because of their acquisitions." So, how the heck did I miss he point? You believe the acquisitions kept Disney from being eaten. I think they could have avoided being eaten, in a way that didn’t drop their profit from $2 billion gain to $150 million dollar loss. I must need to go get an MBA to figure out how $150 million loss makes the company stronger than $2 billion gain. “The P/E ratio for Disney is (as I check right now) 191.55. And, as near as I can tell from this page: They seem to also be generating a profit.” Then maybe you should look at the official SEC filed Income Statement, which shows the effects of the Internet write off. <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.asp?Symbol=DIS" target="_blank">http://moneycentral.msn.com/in vestor/invsub/results/statemnt.asp?Symbol=DIS</a> “Oh well. It's kind of hard to discuss stuff with someone who can't even get the basic facts straight.” There is something I’ll agree with. “Here's an article about one of the recent analyst's downgrading of the stock:” The link didn’t work, but I’d read the story already anyway. You left out the part about the major problems with Disney is that it is $15 billion in debt. I doubt the majority of that debt came from the $1.5 billion spent on DCA. Hmmmmmm. I wonder how Disney could have gotten so far into debt. Let me think. Oh, now I get it. You burden the company in so much debt, eat all the profits with interest and goodwill depreciation, and then you have so many poison pills that no one can afford to take it over. Oh, why didn’t you just say that. Esiner has to mess the company up so badly that no one would want it, that way it could stay independent. I get it. Well, then I agree he’s done a good job messing up the company. Do I still need that MBA? “Two things to note: 1) Cutting costs results in better acceptance on Wall Street. These measures are given a thumbs up by analysts” Unless, you have already cut service so badly that further cuts start cutting into revenue faster than costs. Oh wait, I guess I’d need an MBA to understand how the company can cut back so far that they chase off all their customers, and thus be more profitable. Gee, all this time I assumed that getting people to spend money by giving them a good product was a good way to make money. Oh wait. If Disney made money, they’d be a take over target. Don’t want that, do we. “ 2) The company, as well as stock analysts understand that earnings recovery in key businesses are very critical. “ Sure, earnings recovery is great, but how does the company get there. Do they continue the process that resulted in profit erosion, or do they go back to what gave them the profit in the first place. I’d suggest going back to what gave the profit. "Disney is now a media conglomerate that has an animation division (or two) and a theme park division." Wow, you finally say what I’ve been saying. Becoming a media conglomerate has resulted in converting $2 billion profit into a net loss. I say, sell off the under performing crap, and return to doing what they do best, animation and parks. Oh wait. Then they’d be profitable again, and a buy out target. Never mind, that would be a bad idea. "Of course he's interested in bolstering the poorer performing divisions of the corporation." No, he is interested in using the profits from the few good divisions, to buy even more unprofitable units. >>"He talks about "positive cash flow" from the parks as if "holding guests upside down and shaking out every penny", is a good thing. " "So, you're saying that he should not want a positive cash flow from his parks? " No, I’m saying he should quit using the profits to buy unprofitable units, and start using more of the funds to reinvest in the parks. This, in my opinion, would result in higher guest satisfaction, increased revenue from satisfied guests, and profits for the company. AND, I don’t need an MBA to know that even at 191, that is a P/E 10 times the historical average. I prefer to look at the official numbers, rather than the restated, when determining the value of a company. It is too easy for companies to hide recurring expenses in those one-time charges. Using ture income, the P/E can't be calculated becuase the company had a net loss.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "If you're a person who just likes to be a Disney Consumer (like me), you stay away from the day-to-day inner-workings of the business, the stock prices, the ins-and-outs of what buying Fox Family Worldwide really means in the ultimate scheme of things." You know, you probably have a good point. I'd probably enjoy they parks more if I didn't know that Disney was raking me over the coals for every penny they can gat, for the purpose of paying interest on the purchase of a mnoney losing network, that will continue to be unprofitable because anything Disney owns that was good and family oriented has already been shown to death on the Disney channel. I'd probably enjoy DCA more if I hadn't already ridden most all those rides (except Soarin') at Six Flags and WDW. I guess I should just save for 5 years, go to Disney, be happy at being taken for every possible penny with no new attractions to experinece, and ignore how all the money they made off me is being wasted on building Eisner his dream job. Or, I could just go along with Jonvn, and agree that a Six Flags like park (DCA) isn't a major devistion of what Disney has been doing all along. Disnay parks aren't really better than Six Flags (at least not after all the cut backs and increased prices). Wow, Thanks Jim. You've really convinced me that I should just ignore Disney, spend my money other places. What do you think of me selling off all my Disney merchandise at the flea market. Hmmm, it is winter. I better go with E-Bay.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "Sage advice. I'd also extend that to your experience with the parks. For me, it's more fun not to know where all the backstage tricks are and how they are done. It takes away from the experience." For me, it is the other way around. If I see a magic trick that I don't know how it was done, I wonder how it was done. If I know how it was done, I can marvel at the art and skill with which it was done. Not knowing how it is done, I determine if it was done well or not. On the other hand, there are tricks that I know how were done, and I think they were really done badly. That certainly goes for the Magic show Six Flags Elitch Gardens put on last month. What a stinker. That show was a far below Six Flags standards as DCA is below Disney standards. I know how Diney has done its magic for me. Far off, exotic, exciting themes; great attractions; doing things in ways no one else does; playing on my emptions; with great service. Knowing how DL does the tricks, lets me see that DCA is a really poorly done bit of non-magic.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Good stuff jonvn. (although I only skimmed your post)" Thanks. I don't blame you for skimming it. "I have learned that the more you dig into the Disney company, and look at numbers and profits and positive cash flow, the more everything about it becomes 'mundane' 'here and now' and has less 'Disney Magic.'" I think this is very very true. It seems that people want Disney to operate like the products they sell. It doesn't work that way. Most of this is either very boring reality, or very harsh reality. There's not pixies running around making things happen. Someone once said that creating magic is very hard work. That's true, it is. A lot of people work very hard on this stuff. Sometimes what they do is good, sometimes it's not. The things that are less than good eventually get fixed up. It's been like this always. Mostly, I want to just appreciate the way things work to see how they do stuff. I like that kind of thing. To see what happened, and to try and figure out why. I think it is more of an educational thing to try and understand the reasoning and motivation behind something rather than always just having a knee-jerk negative reaction. I have my personal feelings on what they should or should not do. But as I've said many times, I don't run the place, I'm not an Imagineer, I don't have any say. Everyone does their best with what they have to work with and since they are not asking me, expecting them to do exactly what I personally want would be rather foolish of me. "If you're going to make a statement like that, you really should back it up with some examples. How should the facts be interpreted?" Woody is about insulting me. That's what he seems to do, in order to make me angry. In this case, he's basically calling me a liar. Just another thing to add to the names he's piled up on me. Perhaps I leaned a little too heavy in post 83. It's just out of sheer frustration. I have to apologize for that, if it is the case. I sometimes get a bit too harsh with my rhetoric and often wish I could go back and tone down things after they have been posted.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "If you're going to make a statement like that, you really should back it up with some examples. How should the facts be interpreted?" The facts should be interprited that DIS shut down its internet venture last year. Depending on how the allocate the losses form that division, they can either show the company made money or lost. The way the SEC requires, the company had a loss for last FY.
Originally Posted By WrongWay "I sometimes get a bit too harsh with my rhetoric and often wish I could go back and tone down things after they have been posted." Now, there is something I can whole heartedly agree with. I to frequently write things that I intend to come off one way, then when I re-read them after posting, I realize that many will infer much more different than I intended to imply. I also find dozens of errors. When I get to thinking, I lose the ability to type and spell. It really is too bad this place doesn't have an edit ability, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By woody >>In this case, he's basically calling me a liar. No, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling your interpretation your own opinion. It wasn't an intentional insult or to make you mad. >>If you're going to make a statement like that, you really should back it up with some examples. How should the facts be interpreted? I was going to respond, but WrongWay took my best arguments. I agree with WrongWay.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "The facts should be interprited that DIS shut down its internet venture last year. Depending on how the allocate the losses form that division, they can either show the company made money or lost. The way the SEC requires, the company had a loss for last FY." Is this the interpretation that Woody was referring to? It seemed much more general. "I'm calling your interpretation your own opinion. It wasn't an intentional insult or to make you mad." Then you could have said something like, "that's your opinion, it's not necessarily the truth." The way you said it, you made it sound like Jon's opinions are always at odds with the truth. If that's not what you meant, then you should apologize for giving that impression.
Originally Posted By woody >>Is this the interpretation that Woody was referring to? See Post 89. WrongWay responded point by point to Jonvn. I'm not going to apologize for a misinterpretation, even if it came from me. Apologies are required for actual insults.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't think overly highly of myself, but the way you frequently talk down to me, I thought you may have a fairly low opinion of me. I was just trying to convince you that I'm not totally stupid." Talk down to you? You're probably hearing frustration because you don't listen to what is being said, and ignore everything that you don't want to hear. I never said you were stupid. "Okay, expain how I missed the point:" OK, here: You said: "stated...as if it were fact...that Disney wasn't bought out because of their acquisitions." When in fact, I said, and you quote: "if Disney doesn't continue to diversify and continue to build up and grow, they may then be the subject of a takeover...Growth is a way to keep this from happening" It doesn't say that Disney was not a takeover because of aquisitions they made. It says that if they don't continue to grow, they may become one. It also says that growth is A way to prevent takeovers. This is hardly even related to what you claim I said. They are two entirely different ideas. Does this really need to be explained? "Ok, it's my opinion that Disney, if they did not diversify and grow, would have suffered the same fate as every other corporation in the sector that did not. That is, being gobbled up by a much bigger company. It happened to all of them. You either took other companies over, or you were taken over.” How is this not "Disney wasn't bought out because of their acquisitions."" Wow. I don't even say "aquisitions" in that quote. I said "diversify and grow." If they did not diversify and grow, they would have likely been aquired, because that is what happened to all of the companies then. One way to do that is through aquisitions. What has been going on is that these companies have been aquiring each other. Aquisitions, however, do not necessarily provide growth. Growth can be accomplished through various means. "Then maybe you should look at the official SEC filed Income Statement, which shows the effects of the Internet write off." Here. Read this: <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011108/80470_1.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011108 /80470_1.html</a> Here's the first two paragrahps: Pro forma revenues for the year remained approximately flat at $25.3 billion and segment operating income decreased 2% to $4.0 billion. Excluding restructuring and impairment charges, gain on the sale of businesses and the cumulative effect of accounting changes, pro forma net income and diluted earnings per share were flat at $1.5 billion and $0.72, respectively. Pro forma revenues and segment operating income for the quarter decreased 5% and 31% to $5.8 billion and $627 million, respectively, from the prior-year quarter. Excluding the restructuring and impairment charges and gain on the sale of businesses, pro forma net income and diluted earnings per share for the quarter decreased to $132 million and $0.06, respectively. This is why they have a P/E, as opposed to what you claim, and why they are making a profit still. You don't think they have a P/E? Go look it up like I did. It's not hard to find. Since you seem to like MSN, I found it there for you as well: <a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/research/profile.asp?Symbol=DIS" target="_blank">http://moneycentral.msn.com/in vestor/research/profile.asp?Symbol=DIS</a> Right side of the screen. P/E of 191.55, earnings per share of eleven cents. It's RIGHT THERE where you sent me to go look. "You left out the part about the major problems with Disney is that it is $15 billion in debt." I left out that part because that article DOES NOT MENTION IT. And the link does work, you simply have to copy and paste it. In any case, many, if not most, companies carry debt. Debt is not always a bad thing. Too much is, obviously, but having some is not bad. "You burden the company in so much debt, eat all the profits with interest and goodwill depreciation, and then you have so many poison pills that no one can afford to take it over." This is what you get? You didn't even read the article. How can you get this from anything anyone has said here? No one has said any such thing like this. However, it WAS what Disney management was doing prior to Eisner coming aboard. "I guess I’d need an MBA to understand how the company can cut back so far that they chase off all their customers, and thus be more profitable." No, but you might be able to profit from having one. Actually, sorry about the MBA comments. They were uncalled for. I do think if you really do have a 4.0 GPA, you should go to grad school. With your interest in business, an MBA might be something you'd be interested in. "Sure, earnings recovery is great, but how does the company get there." Well, that's the problem of course. The thing is that the theme parks were not the source of the loss of income, the film studio and merchandising were. So, if you are concerned about their bottom lines, then you should be complaining about their film output, not their theme park performance. Now, however, even the theme parks are having rough seas because of the economy and the capper of 9/11. "Becoming a media conglomerate has resulted in converting $2 billion profit into a net loss." Disney has been a media conglomerate for many years. They didn't just become one. "No, I’m saying he should quit using the profits to buy unprofitable units, and start using more of the funds to reinvest in the parks." If they had followed that pattern throughout their history, they never would have been more than a simple cartoon studio. And, as has been noted, the parks up until very recently have been doing fine. They need to invest in those areas that are doing less well. "I prefer to look at the official numbers, rather than the restated, when determining the value of a company. It is too easy for companies to hide recurring expenses in those one-time charges. Using ture income, the P/E can't be calculated becuase the company had a net loss." That's nice. The rest of the planet doesn't do things like that, though, and Disney does have a P/E. "Or, I could just go along with Jonvn, and agree that a Six Flags like park (DCA) isn't a major devistion of what Disney has been doing all along." I have NEVER said that.
Originally Posted By woody One note about acquisitions, sometimes they don't improve the stock price of the company. In fact, sometimes the acquisitions weaken the company if its a mismatch. If a corporate raider can value the company higher when broken down, they will takeover the company under those circumstances. There's no sure way of preventing a takeover if thats the intention. To say that's what Disney is trying to do is a little paranoid. Poison pills may prevent a hostile takeover, but Eisner can always initiate a friendly merger if the price is right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "I'm not going to apologize for a misinterpretation, even if it came from me. Apologies are required for actual insults." I, and I suspect many other people, would disagree.
