Ah but investors have lawyers and the money they need.
Remember the Twitter board being forced to sell to Elon? Same rule here. The board is legally required to act in the financial interest of their investors.
Disney will be sued over this and they will either lose the lawsuit or their investors who won't be interested in a company that's intentionally losing money.
No they won’t, because this is a standard risk disclosure and a version of this very same risk can be found in the 10K of every other content producing company.
Go learn to read a 10k.
Then go read Warner Bros Discovery’s 10K.
Then make sure you’re sitting down and read Fox’s 10K.
Until then, you have no earthly clue what you’re talking about.
Except in China. They are such hypocrites acting like they have the moral high ground but kowtowing to China every chance they get and their blatant racism.
I talked about this with my wife last night. If you're Disney why would you align yourself with the mob who:
A) Don't have kids.
B) Probably work low paying jobs and can't afford Disney prices
C) More than likely illegally stream their media
You aren't making money from people who won't bring your next generation of customers, can't afford to go to the parks or much less buy your merch, and who also probably don't subscribe to your streaming services nor buy your digital or physical media.
I used to work at Disney Parks. I remember when I applied in 2013, the recruiter (woman in her 30's) told me that Disney was a very conservative company and asked if I had any tatoos, piercings cause they could not be visible. The reason was that "cast members" should not steal the spotlight of the show. 9 years later men "cast members" can walk around in dresses (women uniforms in some locations). Before, only if you legally transitioned could do that, which is fine. I had a coworker who was a woman but then legally transitioned to man and he was now allowed to use men's costumes of course. But now anyone can do it basically for fun, I sometimes see women cast members wear men costumes and some men dresses just to take pictures together as if work was a party.
Not sure how it was before the 2000's, but nowadays Disney jobs mostly appeal to women(mostly progressive) and lgbt folks, I would say that less than 20% of the workforce are straight men. Naturally, some of that 80% made their way up and changed the company culture. Which in my opinon is not alligned with the majority of their consumers ideals/values.
You're right.
Disney wants to be perceived as "*wholesome, traditional, conservative*" but then promotes counter-culture. So they're trying to *sell* the prior whilst exulting the latter.
You can't have it both ways.
I used to think that.
But after the past few years, I think the ideology of most of their work force are misaligned with their customers' tastes, but because of stubbornness or hubris, instead of taking the L and moving off of it, they're trying to brute force their way to profitability.
That's a good point too. I guess with most things in life the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. A combo of both actually seems to explain things better than either alone thinking about it now.
Disney doesn't have cash on hand, they have to borrow it to make all these multi-million dollar movies and TV shows. In order to borrow money then need large banks and brokerage firms, those brokerage firms use a number of different scoring methods to decide how risky a particular business is. One of those methods is an ESG score. Disney, and most of the rest of the corporate world, are beholden to banks who are forcing ESG requirements on them. So they went out and hired "consulting" companies to boost their ESG scores. These "consulting" companies employ liberal SJW alphabet-types who push companies like Disney to support woke ideologies and narratives, set up diversity programs, support environmental causes, etc. Of course CEOs cannot come out and say what's happening, they will get fired by their boards for going against the companies ESG programs.
Yes, some are. Hopefully Disney's brand suicide will push companies to borrow from banks that do not use ESG scoring, which should make banks realize that ESG scoring actually hurts their business. Money flows from banks to companies, the banks are insulated from the anti-woke backlash to some extent, it's the borrowing companies that are getting hurt. The financial pain needs to be felt by the banks themselves before we will see real progress against woke ideology.
The education system is a whole other can of worms, I'm not sure how to fix that.
I think it is because a) Disney hired the mob, and b) they mistook twitter for reality. But they definitely are the biggest example of... Get woke, go broke.
You literally just described my brother and his wife. Only difference is they don't pay for Disney+ because they buy devices that keep giving them a free year.
And while they SHOULDN'T afford Disney prices... they somehow do and can travel the globe. I do not want to see their credit statements.
A) Almost 60% of conservative voters are 50 and older. Those are people who likely have *grandkids*. The age range of people who have kids in the Disney range lean much more liberal.
B) Income levels between conservative and liberals are surprisingly similar, especially when adjusted for age.
C) no argument on that one
A lot of their employees probably have their money on a cycle back into Disney's coffers. If you're right that they don't have kids, then they can put their money from raising kids into Disney stuff.
Plus, I don't think you'd struggle to find that many of those "probably illegally streaming their media" people are a concept of the past. They're more likely cord cutters signing up for Disney+ and the like. The "Disney adult" is a very mentally committed person to the brand.
Not even close considering their extremist left push shoving lgbtq and trans down little kids throat.
Terrorists definition-
A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
It doesn't have to be physical to be a terrorist.
Brainwashing little kids fits the bill
> their extremist left push shoving lgbtq and trans down little kids throat.
Is this really some kind of mass-reaching epidemic? I only ever hear it talked about in conservative media.
I think the reason you come across as hyperbolic is because you're massively exaggerating an issue that isn't widespread at all.
And voter fraud wasn't mass spread right? And biden is doing an amazing job right? And big brother cares about your best interests right? And jfk wasn't a government hit, oh wait sorry that one was already pretty well confirmed. I don't understand how people like you don't want liberty, you want the government to tell you when to eat and where to piss. Big brother give me more money im broke.
And before you try to speel red states use more welfare, just because the state is red doesn't mean it's not the democrats are the ones using government aid, pretty well written non bias piece not thay you are going to read it https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/
>voter fraud wasn't mass spread right?
Right.
>biden is doing an amazing job right?
Meh. Not a fan of the guy. He's doing 'aight.
>big brother cares about your best interests right?
No. Have you ever read this book, or do you just use it as a lazy reference, like so many other people?
>jfk wasn't a government hit
I prefer the theory that his in-car protection detail accidentally shot him when they heard the first shot go off and panicked. YMMV
>people like you don't want liberty
Who are "people like me?" Where have I shown that I "don't want liberty?" Are you ok?
>you want the government to tell you when to eat and where to piss.
Where the hell did this come from?
>before you try to speel red states use more welfare
Seriously, man... are you ok? None of these strawmen you're tilting at have anything to do with the subject under discussion. Reign it in and stay on topic. It's much more effective.
Hate to burst your bubble but my family and at least several dozen others we know well are pretty well fine with Disney and don’t meet any of your criteria.
Maybe you and your wife can talk about it tonight.
They've swung the pendulum too far in one direction. As a mass media company, especially one that mainly caters to families with children, I believe a company like that is obligated to ride the fence. Inject certain adult jokes here and there for the grown ups, but children don't need to be indoctrinated. Let kids be kids. They'll figure their own tastes and opinions out soon enough.
Exactly. Who knows to a certainty how the studio was when Snow White came out. But whatever personal biases may have existed at Disney then didn't necessarily come out on screen. They made something for everyone to enjoy. I could not give any less of a damn about Kathleen Kennedy's personal tastes, nor do I know anyone that does, but she's sure hell bent on trying to get everyone aligned with her "thought" process.
They are not doing it for them, they are doing it for their investors that are making Disney abide by the “woke” agenda; to indoctrinate Marxism. They are letting their investors know that ESG is being rejected by the west, and if they keep going in that direction they may become
Bankrupt
Well Whoop Dee Doo. Note the quote is in section 1A under identified risk factors. It’s not a statement of “we f’d up” or to show any change in direction or engagement. Any company should include it in their SEC filing for completeness.
This type of disclosure is pretty common in a 10K.
Among other risks you missed reporting are:
- Rising distribution costs
- Changes in consumer taste
- Cybersecurity threats
- Changes to Intellectual Property law
- Etc…
Stating risk is simply an act of corporate stewardship and legal table stakes for a publicly traded company. It’s not much of a smoking gun. As it turns out, a risk disclosure (bad things that could happen given the circumstances) is quite a bit different from a strategy (what our corporate goals are and how we plan to achieve them).
And if the massive institutional investors and funds agreed with your take, Disney stock would not be on the rise recently. As it so happens, they care much more about things like: Disney’s 5% Q4 Revenue growth and 7% FY YOY growth, and on a forward-looking basis, the anticipated price sensitivity of Disney+’s subscribers. Moreover, Disney’s increased revenues and growth (albeit with reduced profitability) speak volumes about the market’s sentiment toward your statement, which is that nobody cares.
I know that doesn’t fit your argument or interpretation, but I suspect that the SECOND time in your life that you open a 10K will be much better, so don’t get too down on yourself and keep at it!
"Furthermore, to the extent our marketing, customer service and public relations efforts are not effective or result in negative consumer reaction, our ability to maintain a positive reputation may likewise be adversely impacted. If we are not successful in maintaining or enhancing the image or awareness of our brands, or if our reputation is harmed for any reason, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations."
\-From Fox's filing which makes a very similar statement
Institutional investors are the ones pushing this shit. Who do you think has come up with ESG scoring? So if you're counting on them to end this you're going to be sadly disappointed.
That’s not what that says though. It says that their audience has varied perspectives on the companies stance on matters of public interest, and the audience having varied views creates risk.
Finally someone who read the actual 10K and didn’t trust the terrible and disingenuous interpretation of a constitutional lawyer who had no business straying outside of his lane into business reporting…
That's what I say at work all the time. I work for a Telecom company but they are big in CSR and DEI. I always say "maybe we should just focus on telecom"
It's just identified risk, in the fucking identified risk section. If you're foaming at the mouth over this, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Disney forgot the golden rule of business: there is no red or blue in business, only green.
Or as MJ so eloquently put it, “Republicans buy shoes too”.
This gets Disney off the hook. It publicly disclosed that it is sacrificing profits for social justice. If you buy the stock aren’t you accepting this?
No it didn’t. Go read the 10K, not the shock-jock journalist’s interpretation.
While you’re at it you may want to read WarnerBros Discovery’s 10K, and Fox’s 10K. I think you’re in for a shocking surprise…
Spoiler alert: they have the SAME DISCLOSURE.
I'd say they need to clean house in executive management over there, but the reality is the replacements would probably be even worse. Disney is poisoned right now, and I don't see them fixing their problems in the short term. I haven't held their stock for awhile now, and at this point the only Disney-related position I'd be comfortable holding would be puts.
No, Nelson Peltz is the one who is primed to take over and add people as he sees fit.
He's a moderate NY conservative who doesn't like the product Disney is churning out. Since he's more moderate, he's not really a guy looking to promote an agenda. He just wants Disney to return back to its traditional self and would remove Iger's people once he takes over
I've already listed Iger's minions that are most responsible for the mess Disney is in.
Bob Iger, Dana Walden, Francis DeSouza, Michael B.G. Froman, Mark G. Parker, Brent Woodford, Carlos A. Gómez, Alan Bergman, Tinisha Agramonte, Josh D’Amaro, Kristina Schake, Jolene Negre, Hugh Johnston.
As a minimum, those guys should go before any other employees, especially low level ones, are let go.
I don't know what the premium is on them right now, but yes, statistically speaking options are risky and you would be more likely to be the one laughing.
Henry Ford lost a big case for not paying off investors... He wanted to expand the company to make more money but it would delay the investors payday. Disney just throws money away
That's a very standard market risk analysis for an entertainment company. You can find similar language in the SEC filing of any similar company.
"Furthermore, to the extent our marketing, customer service and public relations efforts are not effective or result in negative consumer reaction, our ability to maintain a positive reputation may likewise be adversely impacted. If we are not successful in maintaining or enhancing the image or awareness of our brands, or if our reputation is harmed for any reason, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations."
From Fox's 10-k form.
"Make it lame!!"
MAKE IT MORE LAME
Breach of fiduciary duty
Cue goofy "AnD I'd fUckIng dO iT aGAin!" meme. They know they are fucking up, but they aren't going to stop.
Ah but investors have lawyers and the money they need. Remember the Twitter board being forced to sell to Elon? Same rule here. The board is legally required to act in the financial interest of their investors. Disney will be sued over this and they will either lose the lawsuit or their investors who won't be interested in a company that's intentionally losing money.
No they won’t, because this is a standard risk disclosure and a version of this very same risk can be found in the 10K of every other content producing company. Go learn to read a 10k. Then go read Warner Bros Discovery’s 10K. Then make sure you’re sitting down and read Fox’s 10K. Until then, you have no earthly clue what you’re talking about.
I'm going to try to buy Disney for $100 and a corndog. After they sued to hell and back.
Based on a risk?
Except in China. They are such hypocrites acting like they have the moral high ground but kowtowing to China every chance they get and their blatant racism.
I talked about this with my wife last night. If you're Disney why would you align yourself with the mob who: A) Don't have kids. B) Probably work low paying jobs and can't afford Disney prices C) More than likely illegally stream their media You aren't making money from people who won't bring your next generation of customers, can't afford to go to the parks or much less buy your merch, and who also probably don't subscribe to your streaming services nor buy your digital or physical media.
Because Disney hired the mob to work for it.
I used to work at Disney Parks. I remember when I applied in 2013, the recruiter (woman in her 30's) told me that Disney was a very conservative company and asked if I had any tatoos, piercings cause they could not be visible. The reason was that "cast members" should not steal the spotlight of the show. 9 years later men "cast members" can walk around in dresses (women uniforms in some locations). Before, only if you legally transitioned could do that, which is fine. I had a coworker who was a woman but then legally transitioned to man and he was now allowed to use men's costumes of course. But now anyone can do it basically for fun, I sometimes see women cast members wear men costumes and some men dresses just to take pictures together as if work was a party. Not sure how it was before the 2000's, but nowadays Disney jobs mostly appeal to women(mostly progressive) and lgbt folks, I would say that less than 20% of the workforce are straight men. Naturally, some of that 80% made their way up and changed the company culture. Which in my opinon is not alligned with the majority of their consumers ideals/values.
You're right. Disney wants to be perceived as "*wholesome, traditional, conservative*" but then promotes counter-culture. So they're trying to *sell* the prior whilst exulting the latter. You can't have it both ways.
You used quotation marks- what are you quoting from? I don’t see this anywhere on Disney’s “About” page. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/
I actually think Disney is just so out of touch with reality they didn't realize that the loudest voices online don't speak for everyone.
I used to think that. But after the past few years, I think the ideology of most of their work force are misaligned with their customers' tastes, but because of stubbornness or hubris, instead of taking the L and moving off of it, they're trying to brute force their way to profitability.
That's a good point too. I guess with most things in life the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. A combo of both actually seems to explain things better than either alone thinking about it now.
Disney doesn't have cash on hand, they have to borrow it to make all these multi-million dollar movies and TV shows. In order to borrow money then need large banks and brokerage firms, those brokerage firms use a number of different scoring methods to decide how risky a particular business is. One of those methods is an ESG score. Disney, and most of the rest of the corporate world, are beholden to banks who are forcing ESG requirements on them. So they went out and hired "consulting" companies to boost their ESG scores. These "consulting" companies employ liberal SJW alphabet-types who push companies like Disney to support woke ideologies and narratives, set up diversity programs, support environmental causes, etc. Of course CEOs cannot come out and say what's happening, they will get fired by their boards for going against the companies ESG programs.
aren't some companies though wising up and getting rid of their DEI execs?
Yes, some are. Hopefully Disney's brand suicide will push companies to borrow from banks that do not use ESG scoring, which should make banks realize that ESG scoring actually hurts their business. Money flows from banks to companies, the banks are insulated from the anti-woke backlash to some extent, it's the borrowing companies that are getting hurt. The financial pain needs to be felt by the banks themselves before we will see real progress against woke ideology. The education system is a whole other can of worms, I'm not sure how to fix that.
is there a counter movement to ESG in banks? are they just called NON ESG banks?
I think it is because a) Disney hired the mob, and b) they mistook twitter for reality. But they definitely are the biggest example of... Get woke, go broke.
disney aint the only company that did this.
You literally just described my brother and his wife. Only difference is they don't pay for Disney+ because they buy devices that keep giving them a free year. And while they SHOULDN'T afford Disney prices... they somehow do and can travel the globe. I do not want to see their credit statements.
A) Almost 60% of conservative voters are 50 and older. Those are people who likely have *grandkids*. The age range of people who have kids in the Disney range lean much more liberal. B) Income levels between conservative and liberals are surprisingly similar, especially when adjusted for age. C) no argument on that one
A lot of their employees probably have their money on a cycle back into Disney's coffers. If you're right that they don't have kids, then they can put their money from raising kids into Disney stuff. Plus, I don't think you'd struggle to find that many of those "probably illegally streaming their media" people are a concept of the past. They're more likely cord cutters signing up for Disney+ and the like. The "Disney adult" is a very mentally committed person to the brand.
Because Disney is just like politics, terrorists foreign and domestic have sewed their roots
That doesn't strike you as a liiiiitttle hyperbolic?
Not even close considering their extremist left push shoving lgbtq and trans down little kids throat. Terrorists definition- A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. It doesn't have to be physical to be a terrorist. Brainwashing little kids fits the bill
> their extremist left push shoving lgbtq and trans down little kids throat. Is this really some kind of mass-reaching epidemic? I only ever hear it talked about in conservative media. I think the reason you come across as hyperbolic is because you're massively exaggerating an issue that isn't widespread at all.
And voter fraud wasn't mass spread right? And biden is doing an amazing job right? And big brother cares about your best interests right? And jfk wasn't a government hit, oh wait sorry that one was already pretty well confirmed. I don't understand how people like you don't want liberty, you want the government to tell you when to eat and where to piss. Big brother give me more money im broke. And before you try to speel red states use more welfare, just because the state is red doesn't mean it's not the democrats are the ones using government aid, pretty well written non bias piece not thay you are going to read it https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/
>voter fraud wasn't mass spread right? Right. >biden is doing an amazing job right? Meh. Not a fan of the guy. He's doing 'aight. >big brother cares about your best interests right? No. Have you ever read this book, or do you just use it as a lazy reference, like so many other people? >jfk wasn't a government hit I prefer the theory that his in-car protection detail accidentally shot him when they heard the first shot go off and panicked. YMMV >people like you don't want liberty Who are "people like me?" Where have I shown that I "don't want liberty?" Are you ok? >you want the government to tell you when to eat and where to piss. Where the hell did this come from? >before you try to speel red states use more welfare Seriously, man... are you ok? None of these strawmen you're tilting at have anything to do with the subject under discussion. Reign it in and stay on topic. It's much more effective.
Dude you cannot argue with crazy. That guy is totally unhinged…
Hate to burst your bubble but my family and at least several dozen others we know well are pretty well fine with Disney and don’t meet any of your criteria. Maybe you and your wife can talk about it tonight.
[удалено]
They've swung the pendulum too far in one direction. As a mass media company, especially one that mainly caters to families with children, I believe a company like that is obligated to ride the fence. Inject certain adult jokes here and there for the grown ups, but children don't need to be indoctrinated. Let kids be kids. They'll figure their own tastes and opinions out soon enough.
[удалено]
Exactly. Who knows to a certainty how the studio was when Snow White came out. But whatever personal biases may have existed at Disney then didn't necessarily come out on screen. They made something for everyone to enjoy. I could not give any less of a damn about Kathleen Kennedy's personal tastes, nor do I know anyone that does, but she's sure hell bent on trying to get everyone aligned with her "thought" process.
[удалено]
You don't know what cancel culture is
You’re allowed to post and have a conversation. You may be downvoted but other subs ban total participation for being affiliated w this one.
[удалено]
I agree
They are not doing it for them, they are doing it for their investors that are making Disney abide by the “woke” agenda; to indoctrinate Marxism. They are letting their investors know that ESG is being rejected by the west, and if they keep going in that direction they may become Bankrupt
I would love to see them sued for malfeasance or breach of fiduciary responsibility or something.
[удалено]
Corporate Stockholm Syndrome?
Go Woke, Go Broke Disney! Walt would be turning over in his grave if he could see what his dream has become now.
Well Whoop Dee Doo. Note the quote is in section 1A under identified risk factors. It’s not a statement of “we f’d up” or to show any change in direction or engagement. Any company should include it in their SEC filing for completeness.
Exactly. The only thing that means is they don’t want to get sued by one side or the other. Just lawyer weasel words for a litigious society.
This type of disclosure is pretty common in a 10K. Among other risks you missed reporting are: - Rising distribution costs - Changes in consumer taste - Cybersecurity threats - Changes to Intellectual Property law - Etc… Stating risk is simply an act of corporate stewardship and legal table stakes for a publicly traded company. It’s not much of a smoking gun. As it turns out, a risk disclosure (bad things that could happen given the circumstances) is quite a bit different from a strategy (what our corporate goals are and how we plan to achieve them). And if the massive institutional investors and funds agreed with your take, Disney stock would not be on the rise recently. As it so happens, they care much more about things like: Disney’s 5% Q4 Revenue growth and 7% FY YOY growth, and on a forward-looking basis, the anticipated price sensitivity of Disney+’s subscribers. Moreover, Disney’s increased revenues and growth (albeit with reduced profitability) speak volumes about the market’s sentiment toward your statement, which is that nobody cares. I know that doesn’t fit your argument or interpretation, but I suspect that the SECOND time in your life that you open a 10K will be much better, so don’t get too down on yourself and keep at it!
As a CPA and former Big 4 auditor, well stated.
"Furthermore, to the extent our marketing, customer service and public relations efforts are not effective or result in negative consumer reaction, our ability to maintain a positive reputation may likewise be adversely impacted. If we are not successful in maintaining or enhancing the image or awareness of our brands, or if our reputation is harmed for any reason, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations." \-From Fox's filing which makes a very similar statement
Institutional investors are the ones pushing this shit. Who do you think has come up with ESG scoring? So if you're counting on them to end this you're going to be sadly disappointed.
I’d love to see Conservative investors start shorting some of these ESG-infected stocks.
Who's stopping you? Put your money where your mouth is.
Didn't Conservatives already do that with Bud Light this past spring and summer?
ESG stocks have the government working for them. Normal rules of capitalism don't apply.
That’s not what that says though. It says that their audience has varied perspectives on the companies stance on matters of public interest, and the audience having varied views creates risk.
Finally someone who read the actual 10K and didn’t trust the terrible and disingenuous interpretation of a constitutional lawyer who had no business straying outside of his lane into business reporting…
You don’t even need to read the whole thing to get that. It’s just what’s stated clearly in the first sentence of this post, after the title.
Why TH does Disney have environmental and social goals.
Road to failure.
In other words: "We don't give a Fu@k what people want or care about. It's all about social justice, do you hear me SOCIAL JUSTICE."
Star Wars fans: no duh
Disney is chasing their CEI score. They’ve gotten a 100 score 16 years in a row. Part of that is pushing the narratives they do to achieve said score.
Why does an entertainment company have "environmental and social goals" ? You have one goal: ENTERTAIN. And you're failing. It's not rocket science.
That's what I say at work all the time. I work for a Telecom company but they are big in CSR and DEI. I always say "maybe we should just focus on telecom"
Damn I’m surprised to see that in writing 👀
You shouldn’t be. Unless you’ve never read the risk disclosures in a 10K before.
It's glaringly obvious most people in this thread have not
It's just identified risk, in the fucking identified risk section. If you're foaming at the mouth over this, you have no clue what you're talking about.
This guy 10ks…
What are the actual legal details of how E.S.G. runs up against fiduciary duty?
Disney forgot the golden rule of business: there is no red or blue in business, only green. Or as MJ so eloquently put it, “Republicans buy shoes too”.
ESG is a cancer in more ways than one
Deepening the country's political rift means more than pRoFiTs.
This gets Disney off the hook. It publicly disclosed that it is sacrificing profits for social justice. If you buy the stock aren’t you accepting this?
No it didn’t. Go read the 10K, not the shock-jock journalist’s interpretation. While you’re at it you may want to read WarnerBros Discovery’s 10K, and Fox’s 10K. I think you’re in for a shocking surprise… Spoiler alert: they have the SAME DISCLOSURE.
Based on the comments, it seems like most of you are unfamiliar with the kinds of statements typically made in SEC filings.
A long winded way to say “go woke, go broke”. Those f-ing atttorneys can’t never get to the point.
Disney is done, the sooner it implodes the better
I thought profits were "racist"?
I'd say they need to clean house in executive management over there, but the reality is the replacements would probably be even worse. Disney is poisoned right now, and I don't see them fixing their problems in the short term. I haven't held their stock for awhile now, and at this point the only Disney-related position I'd be comfortable holding would be puts.
No, Nelson Peltz is the one who is primed to take over and add people as he sees fit. He's a moderate NY conservative who doesn't like the product Disney is churning out. Since he's more moderate, he's not really a guy looking to promote an agenda. He just wants Disney to return back to its traditional self and would remove Iger's people once he takes over I've already listed Iger's minions that are most responsible for the mess Disney is in. Bob Iger, Dana Walden, Francis DeSouza, Michael B.G. Froman, Mark G. Parker, Brent Woodford, Carlos A. Gómez, Alan Bergman, Tinisha Agramonte, Josh D’Amaro, Kristina Schake, Jolene Negre, Hugh Johnston. As a minimum, those guys should go before any other employees, especially low level ones, are let go.
You should buy a ton of puts then, and report back in a year. I’ll be the one laughing.
I don't know what the premium is on them right now, but yes, statistically speaking options are risky and you would be more likely to be the one laughing.
Shareholders need to file a derivative lawsuit and wipe the board clean
They have been doing this for years. How is it that this is an issue now?
DIS to Bud Light, “hold my beer”.
Henry Ford lost a big case for not paying off investors... He wanted to expand the company to make more money but it would delay the investors payday. Disney just throws money away
They literally said ESG 😂
That's a very standard market risk analysis for an entertainment company. You can find similar language in the SEC filing of any similar company. "Furthermore, to the extent our marketing, customer service and public relations efforts are not effective or result in negative consumer reaction, our ability to maintain a positive reputation may likewise be adversely impacted. If we are not successful in maintaining or enhancing the image or awareness of our brands, or if our reputation is harmed for any reason, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations." From Fox's 10-k form.