In a brand new SEC submitting, Disney has made its counterargument in opposition to Trian’s “Restore the Magic” marketing campaign that’s geared toward securing Nelson Peltz a seat on Disney’s Board of Directors. This comes after a media and advertising blitz by Peltz, who’s making an attempt to make his case to followers and traders that he can repair Disney’s faults.
We’ve already lined Peltz’s preliminary slide presentation to “Restore the Magic,” which sounds to us like a “Save Disney” remake–minus having Roy E. Disney because the face of the marketing campaign. We’ll revisit a few of that commentary right here in mild of Disney’s new SEC submitting and interviews, and additional clarify why we expect this proxy combat might be good for Walt Disney World and Disneyland followers.
Even for those who haven’t learn our half one of many “Restore the Magic” saga, there’s an excellent probability you’re already acquainted with this battle. If you’re lively in Disney circles on social media, there’s an excellent probability that you just’re being bombarded with “Restore the Magic” adverts or sponsored posts. Peltz has additionally already accomplished a number of interviews, with Disney responding each straight and not directly. Suffice to say, it’s go to be an extended and public combat.
Let’s dig proper into Disney’s new SEC submitting, which is basically a Powerpoint presentation. In this, the corporate leads with the argument that the Disney Board of Directors is impartial, “highly qualified” and has “provided strong oversight focused on delivering superior, sustained shareholder value.” Disney additionally touts how the board “regularly reviews, and is heavily involved in, setting the strategic direction of the company.”
This contains the launch of the direct-to-consumer platform (DTC) and pivoting from development to specializing in profitability. It additionally purportedly contains addressing “leadership challenge” as they emerge, with a “focus on succession.” Disney additionally factors to incoming Board Chairman Mark Parker, and the way he’s an exemplary chief for Disney, in addition to Carolyn Everson, who was added to the Board and has media experience due to her roles at Meta and Microsoft.
Following this, Disney dedicates a complete slide to the next assertion: “Nelson Peltz does not understand Disney’s businesses and lacks the skills and experience to assist the board in delivering shareholder value in a rapidly shifting media ecosystem.”
If Disney had been main with its strongest argument, it could be a loser. DTC is exactly the issue, and if Disney’s assertion is that the Board has accomplished an excellent job with that–hemorrhaging billions per quarter–that’s fairly the suspect declare. Same goes for coping with management challenges and succession planning. I doubt anybody goes to offer Disney’s Board excessive marks for the choice to increase Chapek’s contract solely to fireside him just a few months later, resulting in severance funds of over $20 million.
As for succession planning (or moderately, lack thereof), Disney’s observe document is well-documented. While I’ll agree with the corporate that Mark Parker is an efficient alternative and establishing the Succession Planning Committee is a brilliant transfer, that occurred as Disney equipped for this proxy combat. Peltz’s simple retort is: “See? I’m already instigating positive changes.”
Drawing consideration to Peltz’s lack of observe document in media is correct, however that’s not a distinction with Disney’s present board. Carolyn Everson is highlighted as a result of she has the closest factor to media expertise, and that’s through Meta (Facebook) and Microsoft. Not precisely apples to apples with Disney.
Fortunately for the corporate, Disney did not lead with its greatest case in opposition to Peltz. Following an ironclad argument about Bob Iger’s tenure and his observe document of development, the corporate digs deeper into its mergers and acquisitions.
Disney highlights the purchases of Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, saying they enhanced the corporate’s worth for shareholders and had been transformative for the corporate. Again, these successes are indeniable. Iger grew Disney’s portfolio into an mental property behemoth past simply animation.
Pixar has continued to carry out nicely, with the Star Wars franchise and Marvel Cinematic Universe delivering outsized field workplace performances and being the foundational property for the Disney+ streaming service. Even for those who don’t like Star Wars or Marvel, there’s little denying that these purchases appear to be bargains on reflection. The monetary outcomes communicate for themselves.
Disney goes on to defend its acquisition of twentieth Century Fox. The firm argues that this transaction was “critical to better positioning Disney to address key secular shifts in the media sector” and goes on to make the case as to why. Disney factors to how the Fox buy broadened its model (FX, Hulu, NatGeo, Star, and many others.) and mental property portfolio (Avatar, X-Men, Simpsons, Deadpool, and many others.) and offered the corporate with a “deep bench” of expertise, together with Dana Walden, who’s a future CEO candidate.
Disney goes on to appropriate factual errors in Peltz’s argument in opposition to the Fox buy, brazenly questions whether or not he’d desire a competitor have bought Fox, and goes on to clarify why the corporate didn’t overpay for twentieth Century Fox. All of that is compelling, even when the acquisition value of Fox does seem excessive upon superficial inspection.
As I’ve mentioned earlier than, that is my principal hesitation with critiquing the twentieth Century Fox transaction. Sure, it appeared like means an excessive amount of to pay, even on the time and particularly as in comparison with Disney’s earlier trio of acquisitions. However, I’ve the self-awareness to acknowledge there’s so much I don’t know.
Betting in opposition to Bob Iger in the case of M&A is like betting in opposition to James Cameron in the case of blockbusters. They know greater than you, whoever you’re, so simply don’t do it. Consequently, I’ll put aside my novice, surface-level impression of that deal and defer to Disney and Iger. They’ve earned it.
In probably the most humorous slide of Disney’s presentation, it makes use of Peltz’s personal phrases in opposition to him, through a CNBC interview final week that…didn’t go so nicely! Without query, if that interview had been your solely publicity to this proxy combat, you’d assume Peltz was out of his factor and presumably solely doing this to be a chaos agent.
Peltz didn’t have many good, substantive solutions for what he’d convey to the desk and a few of his claims had been factually inaccurate. Other interviews and arguments have been way more persuasive, so we view this slide extra as an amusing eye-poke than a compelling case made by Disney.
Disney then goes on to rebut a few of Peltz and Trian’s claims about motivations. These don’t strike me as worthy of highlighting. It’s spin in each instructions–Peltz desires to solid himself because the savior and Disney desires to border his because the villain, desperate to oust Iger. Neither mirror actuality, which is extra nuanced and messy.
Disney’s SEC presentation concludes with a timeline of the corporate’s engagement with Peltz. The very first thing that ought to stick out is what number of instances that Chapek and Peltz met (and likewise that Ike Perlmutter was an obvious catalyst for this, due to course he was). Now distinction that with how new CEO Bob Iger has basically given Peltz the chilly shoulder.
Disney’s SEC Proxy Statement supplies ‘color commentary’ right here: “Mr. Perlmutter said he and Mr. Peltz supported Mr. Chapek, and that adding Mr. Peltz to the Board would help Mr. Chapek counter recent headwinds he had faced, solidify his position as CEO, and preempt any other potential shareholder nominations of director nominees at the 2023 Annual Meeting. He said without Mr. Peltz there, former executives including Mr. Iger, would be back at Disney.”
That paints a clearer image of why issues performed out how they did. Chapek was extra receptive to Peltz as a result of the beleaguered CEO wanted allies. Previously, we speculated that Disney’s Board of Directors would possibly’ve introduced again Iger to gear up for this combat, feeling that Chapek was less than the duty. With this added data, it’s potential that it wasn’t a matter of Chapek not being suited to battle–perhaps Chapek didn’t need to combat as a result of he needed an ally on the Board.
In phrases of commentary, I truly need to begin by revisiting and supplementing my evaluation of “Restore the Magic” from the final publish. To be clear, I don’t assume Nelson Peltz has altruistic motives. It’s uncertain that any affordable individual truly thinks that Trian is inquisitive about “Restoring the Magic” in the identical sense that followers need it restored. That’s merely the advertising slogan–and similar to most advertising, it’s BS.
Peltz nearly definitely doesn’t care in regards to the intangibles or the corporate’s inventive legacy, historical past, and many others. This is exactly why I drew a distinction between Peltz and Roy E. Disney, who had a vested stake and real ardour for the corporate’s inventive legacy. The interviews with Peltz clarify that he doesn’t actually care or grasp any of that. Quite merely, he desires to see the corporate turn out to be extra worthwhile, shift focus to parks (most likely for the constant money circulate), reduce spending on streaming, and reinstate the dividend by 2025.
Obviously, Peltz being a company raider brings with it wholesome skepticism about his motives. Some might need the angle that such people are by no means good for manufacturers and their followers.
To be certain, there may be an inherent stress between traders and lovers. It does look like, as a rule, Wall Street positive factors come on the expense of followers. Cost-cutting and value will increase are used to juice share costs, to the detriment of customers. We have written about any such short-term mentality numerous instances, and the way it’s detrimental to Disney’s long-term well being.
However, that’s not what’s taking place right here. Peltz’s purported objectives have time horizons no sooner than 2025. As its presentation factors out, Trian Group is oriented on the long-term, and its observe document and common funding dedication bears that out. This declare just isn’t merely window-dressing to win over followers.
My view is that there doesn’t essentially must be a stress between traders and followers when each are centered on the long-term well being and accountable development of the corporate. The notion that Wall Street is “bad” for manufacturers is misguided. Fairytales about passionate inventive visionaries single-handedly forging empires would possibly recommend in any other case, however enterprise acumen and monetary restraint are additionally essential. Industry and creativity can work hand-in-hand in the direction of mutually useful ends–the secret’s each being centered on the long-run and never slicing corners.
The firm prioritizing short-term income at Walt Disney World and Disneyland is exactly the critique we and different followers have been making during the last a number of years. Again, Trian’s core thesis is that value will increase and nickel & diming is short-term considering that places the model worth and long-term well being of Disney’s theme parks enterprise in danger. This is a degree we’ve made many many many many many many instances.
Some Disney followers have contended that Peltz’s older age means he’s essentially inquisitive about milking Disney for short-term positive factors. I disagree. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are famously long-term worth traders, even to at the present time, regardless of their mixed age of 191 years outdated.
You might simply as simply argue that since Peltz is older and has already collected wealth past what he can spend in his remaining years, he’s inquisitive about legacy-building. Maybe Peltz is concentrating on a prolific firm like Disney as a result of it’s a means of cementing his repute lengthy after he’s gone. This just isn’t my competition, it’s only a believable counterpoint. I gained’t fake to know what motivates rich traders to do what they do, however for my part, age is irrelevant.
It’s truthful to not take Peltz’s claims at face worth or query whether or not he has ulterior motives. However, it’s additionally truthful to level out that it’s not clear and apparent that Peltz is unhealthy (or good) for the corporate. There has been vigorous debate by analysts and traders through Bloomberg, CNBC, Fortune, Barron’s, Financial Times, and others as as to if he’d be an asset to Disney. (Those are all hyperlinks to particular articles you can learn for a well-rounded overview of this combat.)
The solely factor that’s clear is that there isn’t any clear consensus about Peltz. Not amongst analysts, traders, speaking heads–and even board members and management at corporations that had been beforehand in Peltz’s crosshairs. Some within the latter camp vouch for him, together with these at Heinz and P&G who reward him for turning round these corporations. In different instances, he’s not seen in a lot much less fond phrases. His observe document–which is certainly combined–known as into query.
According to FT, “Peltz is widely considered to be a fairly constructive activist investor, according to people who have found themselves on the other side of the negotiating table.” A supply near Disney put it in blunt phrases: “As usual with [Peltz], you know, there’s always some kernel of truth, and there’s always some level of bullshit.”
In my view, it’s the kernel of reality that’s important, and what that would do for Disney. The bluster doesn’t actually matter a technique or one other.
Already, Peltz has prompted adjustments at Disney. That is, until you consider that the abrupt bulletins of 3 BIG Changes at Walt Disney World to Improve Guest Experience & Value and Good Changes Coming to Disneyland had nothing to do with him, and it was whole coincidence that that information dropped hours earlier than Peltz launched his proxy combat.
To be certain, this isn’t fully as a result of Peltz. D’Amaro and different leaders at Walt Disney World have been keen to enhance visitor satisfaction, however had their fingers tied. Iger was aware of this, expressed “alarm” at Walt Disney World value will increase, and was involved that Chapek was “killing the soul” of Disney. All of that’s well-documented, and predates the Peltz proxy combat.
However, it’s unimaginable to dismiss the standoff with Trian and Peltz as taking part in zero function, particularly given the timing of the aforementioned adjustments on the parks, Mark Parker’s elevation to Chairman, and institution of the Succession Planning Committee. At minimal, “Restore the Magic” has been an accelerant that has already fast-tracked plans that had been beforehand in movement.
Hence the assertion within the prior publish that company politics makes unusual bedfellows. To no matter extent an alliance exists right here between Peltz and followers, it’s one among comfort. It’s not as a result of our values align, however as a result of he may be means to an finish. If he causes the corporate to focus much less on streaming and extra on the parks, and making Disney extra accountable–that’s a win for followers.
Beyond what has already occurred, the battle will nearly assuredly immediate further constructive adjustments at Disney. In an try and undercut Peltz’s place, the corporate will seemingly voluntarily making a number of the requested adjustments and enhancements to show that he can’t add worth since they’ve already applied all of his strategies.
Among different issues, this implies reining in runaway spending on streaming content material, clear succession planning, and deleveraging. For Walt Disney World and Disneyland, it additionally seemingly means extra manageable value development, much less nickel & diming, and improved visitor satisfaction. It additionally simply would possibly imply park growth initiatives are given the inexperienced mild, as an excellent religion exhibiting that there’s long-term imaginative and prescient of the parks they usually don’t exist to easily subsidize streaming losses. (Josh D’Amaro and Bob Iger simply spent the week touring Walt Disney World…there was seemingly a purpose for that.)
With that mentioned, that is solely excellent news for those who’re primarily a fan of Walt Disney World and Disneyland, and never as a substitute centered on the Disney+ streaming service. The circulate of high-budget content material will seemingly gradual over time and its value will enhance, as Disney+ is solely not sustainable at current. From my perspective, that is nice information–I don’t actually care about Disney+ and am uninterested in the theme parks subsidizing different folly and failures. Others might disagree, and that’s high quality.
At the top of the day, it’s just one board seat (at most). There’s solely a lot Peltz can do with that, and dismantling Disney and promoting it off for elements (or no matter different fears followers have) most assuredly just isn’t a kind of issues. For me, it’s the battle that has the worth. This has already been very high-profile and the subject of exhaustive media protection–that can proceed to be the case because the battle heats up. So lengthy as Disney is keeping off this combat, they may hold making constructive adjustments within the parks to show Iger is severe about “improving the guest experience by providing more value and flexibility.”
Need Disney journey planning suggestions and complete recommendation? Make positive to learn 2023 Disney Parks Vacation Planning Guides, the place you’ll find complete guides to Walt Disney World, Disneyland, and past! For Disney updates, low cost info, free downloads of our eBooks and wallpapers, and rather more, join our FREE e mail e-newsletter!
YOUR THOUGHTS
What do you concentrate on Disney’s response to the “Restore the Magic” Campaign? Did the corporate make a compelling case, or are its arguments flawed? Skeptical about that Nelson Peltz’s actual motivations, or assume he’s actually inquisitive about long-term success? Think this might be useful for the corporate and followers on the finish of the day? Optimistic that this may push Iger to lastly get severe about selecting a successor or deal with enhancing visitor satisfaction within the parks? Thoughts on the rest mentioned right here? Do you agree or disagree with our evaluation? Note that neither Disney nor Peltz introduced up politics or tradition wars of their shows; as such, all off-topic feedback about both might be deleted.