They go to their hand held devices because ESPN gives your handheld devices access if you have the ESPN watch app - wait a minute - you have to have ESPN before you get this access - how do you get ESPN - you have to have cable!!!!
ESPN is going to make itself very valuable over the next few years. It will find a way to deliver this asset so that Disney makes good money.
Train companies went down the tube because they did not realize that they were in the transportation business, and, instead of exploring and embracing automobiles, competed with automobiles - guess who won and lost. Disney knows that it is in the entertainment business - it has to entertain, and will find appropriate avenues to entertain - it may be in cable, or stand alone products, or something we can't even imagine at this stage.
I speculate that we might see a little dip. I'm betting, that with a 100+ price, that we might see some scaling back of stock purchases. They might have bought back some last year at nearly 120, and see how much more they can buy back at lower prices. They also may be running out of money to buy back (at least based on board authorization, and perhaps because they are running out of SWTFA money). But this is wild speculation. If true, I think you may still be able to pick up some Disney under 100 in the next 3 months, but don't bet too much on it.
JB is still packing them in. They will have nearly $250 million this weekend (maybe more if they get a beat). CACW will begin to take some oxygen out of the room for JB, but there is a difference in the segments they target. They may have over $700 million worldwide, and if so (or close), they will be on their way towards $1 billion +.
Zootopia is in the home stretch. It will still glean nearly $5 million this weekend in North America. By the end of the weekend, it will only $14 million behind Inside Out, when a few weeks ago it was about $30 million behind. That doesn't mean it will match the domestic number of IO of $356m, but it means that it might still have another $20 - 30 million left after this weekend. Overseas it gleaned about $9 million during the week, which means maybe that it is picking up steam in Japan, which it means it could still hit $1 billion. That would be very very nice.
Think of it - Disney could easily have 3 movies in the top 10 next week - maybe in the top 6 or 7!! If CA could top $200 million, add another $30 for JB and Z. That rivals SWTFA
The NY Times has an article about FNMA (it probably applies to Freddie Mac as they lump them together), basically discussing recently released documents concerning at least one of the cases against the U.S. regarding the pending law suit regarding alleged breaches as to equity holders). The main point is that there is evidence that, in August, 2012, the US received information that FNMA and FM were now looking at supporting themselves, were in a position of generating significant income, and could return to stand alones. Shortly afterwards, the US effected the procedures that permitted the US to drain these entities of all profits.
I am an attorney that concentrates in bankruptcy. Debtors in reorganization or trustees owe an element of fiduciary obligation to creditors in insolvent circumstances. However, in a solvent situation, there is a shift to equity holders (at least in my opinion). Granted, solvency is rare in the bankruptcy forum, but it is still there.
It amazes that the US agencies in charge seem to be so oblivious to this aspect of FNMA and Freddie Mac. I understand that we - consumers, government officials, and others - are very concerned that many entities in the 2002 - 2008 period acted improperly, at least in a business judgment sense, and should pay a price - but AIG (which invented the mortgage packages that caused the crisis) survived, and others too have survived (i.e., Bank of America, Citi), although others have not - i.e., Lehman. But I have heard that FNMA/Freddie Mac were not the biggest problems (in fact, had less bad loans at issue than others). But (or and) a fiduciary duty is a fiduciary duty.
The article may have had some person promoting it - I wouldn't be surprised if the the plaintiff(s) in the Court of Claims action fed the NY Times some information. The only reason that is relevant is because some of the NYTimes notes of testimony may be out of context and there are two sides to every story.
I have a hard time thinking that the snow pack went down that fast. And, if it did melt, it went to some lakes and reservoirs.
But I'm just speculating.
Talking about speculation - a little sell off today - I actually look at it as a good sign. It's risen so much that, if earnings weren't spectacular, then it would have sold off. With some easing today, decent earnings will boost it.