As a long term Mattel shareholder, I am hoping that Mattel simply believed that the cost of a Frozen doll starting in 2015 wasn't worth it, and that it would create too much of a burden for Hasbro to spend money on other things.
I think that Mattel is more interested in building out its own brands. That was the reason for the purchase of Thomas and the Lego competitor. They better be right.
it is having a bad day. but unless the toy market is really bad, they are paying 4.6% dividends right now. Unless they are having a real bad year (and this year isn't good I would grant), this could be a real buy.
As a former commercial lender, can you tell me on how we should read into the recent refinancing. It seems to me that a lender would not have agreed to refinance at a lower rate for an extended time if it wasn't satisfied with it assets and prospects
Excuse me - they just refinanced their long term obligations.
So, the answer to your question is none.
I want to add a word - there is some difference between "book value" and "tangible book value". I believe that book value is the difference between all assets and all liabilities. "tangible book value" does the same, and then decreases the amount by the value of "intangible assets" - that is, "good will". For example, HERO might have bought a company for $100 million - but this company's assets were at a book value of $90 million - the extra $10 million would be characterized as goodwill. This $10 million is taken from the initial "book value".
This is a conservative approach. This doesn't mean that "good will" is valueless. For example, you may have two amusement parks, that each cost $500 million to construct - one goes under the name Disney, the other under some unknown name. Hands down that the Disney would make more money, and, if you wanted to buy it, it would cost more (and be worth it for people would come to it other than the no name brand).
HERO has to make money. The present quarter will be tough. If it breaks even and has decent sales, it will do ok. Then it needs to turn things around the next two quarters.
It does, however, seem to have some real value.
Tangible Book Value, in my opinion, is based upon the purchase price of assets, less depreciation. It is an accounting determination.
This may mean that the true fair market value is more or less. It could be more, upon a sale, if an asset has been depreciated significantly, but the asset can be sold for more, then fair market value is higher than book value. In the last quarter, two assets (I believe rigs) were sold, and they resulted in a profit because the value was greater than the book value. I think there is something to be said that HERO has various assets on its books for which it could sell for a higher amount than what is on the books. That would mean that the fair market value is greater than the 5.31 book.
On the other hand, if a party is desperate to sell an item, it could go for less. I believe that HERO bought some rigs from a company liquidating them in a bankruptcy, and, that could be a sale under some desperation - and, in that case, HERO might be holding some items at a book value less than fair market value. On the other hand, if HERO was under pressure, and had to sell some rigs, it would probably get less than the fair market value and less than book value - I would like to think that HERO, with it cash it is holding, and with the long term loans it has, is not under desperate circumstances and can ride out this present storm. One indication may be that, if I read the recent rig report, HERO sold a couple of rigs - if they book a profit, that means that they are sitting well - if they book a loss, then you might say they have real problems.
An accountant may or may not have an obligation to report discrepancies in book and fair market value. I would think if it was an obvious issue, then the accountant would have to put some conditions on its audits stating a concern.
And, of course, the usefulness of, the income derived from, an asset is relevant. If there is no income or likelihood of income, this affect fair market value.
Mattel does very well on the doll side, so I don't think Disney would take that away. I would also suggest (just my wild speculation) that Disney has a nice working relationship with Mattel, and, if Marvel had not placed its lines with Hasbro earlier, would have given Mattel at least a piece of the Marvel line.
But I'm just guessing.
Because its a better company.
Does either of those companies own Pixar, or Marvel, or any of the Disney worlds. Do they own ESPN. Do they have Disney Animation (creator of Frozen). How about Lucas Films/Star Wars. How about a video game maker that just came out with a Guardians game that comes off the shelf as soon as it is put on it.
Disney just has brands/assets that are going to last very very long.
For those waiting for a dip, it doesn't get much better than this. If you see a point more, and you want to buy, buy now. It wouldn't be a bad idea to buy now also.
As bad as you suggest that the oil price is for hero, it is good for my heating bill.
And I would argue that a $90 price provides a sufficient base for oil producers to produce oil. Yes, $150 would create a demand for hero and others, but $90 is a good base.
I thought today was going to be horrible - sdrl had stated yesterday according to alpha that this was a bad year, but next was going to be worse (although forming a bottom). But maybe that was priced in already.
And I listened to the conference from a week ago - it really wasn't so bad - and they have a couple of rigs that may be increasing their rates by about $40,000 each in November - that is about $30 million a year, which should help out nicely.
This company needs to keep on making money. There is an interesting article on alpha on this company. It says that it is making money nicely right now, with good backlog. The problems? First, It needs to diversify, as it is too heavily reliant on GM - which they are doing (although the slump in Brazil is hurting these efforts to diversify). Second, it has a poor debt to equity ratio - why? because they have come out of rough times, and need to pay off debt and increase equity - their present profits should help that, if it continues -that is really why they need to make money. With a present pe of 7, if they continue that, they will make money to build up equity and payoff debt.
they had a presentation at an investors' conference. sometimes (I speculate), after the presentation, the attendees go over their notes and begin buying some of the stocks of the companies that presented. so I think a few of them saw that this is a nice value play, and bought some stock, creating some demand, and some increase in price.
You are absolutely right. There is little like a Disney Park or movie. This has been a drab summer for movies, until Guardians - and Guardians will hit $300 million next weekend - a movie many thought would be in the 150 to 175 million range - it will do about 325 domestically, and could hit over 800 million total with overseas. And Maleficent is over 750 and still drawing some sales.
Disney has three of the top 5 movies this year (and without a Pixar movie this year). Next year - two pixar movies, Avengers 2, and Star Wars.
I think we are are in a 85 - 95 range until May, 2015, but every time I think we have even a stalling pattern, I've been wrong, and seen new highs.
I am not in favor of buying in the hopes of a buyout. But if someone wanted to buy a rig company, that has lot of capacity, this is a fair target.
I personally think that they have to start making consistent real money. Use it to pay down some debt, buy back some stock, and do dividends. Then you can see this company approach $10 a share. And all that's possible.
And a bankruptcy just isn't there - not only the cash on hand is a good indicator, but the fact that lenders just refinanced at lower rates means something.
that's strange, rumor has it that there will be a buyout offer at $100 a share in February. Perhaps your "words" and my "words" should get together (this is obviously a sarcastic comment as I don't want an SEC investigation to start (and I have not heard any "words"), at least as to what I say).
yes, and that's my point. Disney is a quality company. It has quality properties, quality brands, and quality employees. When it drops, it is a buying opportunity. So many times over the past two years I have said to myself that, if it dips, I should buy some more. And it hasn't.
And I have to say this - so many times I have heard that earnings for this year is at 4.19 or that it is trading at 19 pe for 2015 earnings. No!!!! It has made 3.43 for the first three quarters of this year. Do you really think that it only made 85 cents this quarter? with full parks during the summer at higher prices? with the Guardians hit? with the World Cup profits coming in? with Frozen marketing still breaking records? Last year they took a loss for Lone Ranger - this year they have Guardians that will mean an additional 20 - 25 cents profit. I think 4.70 a share profits for the present year (which has only about 4 weeks left) and a present 19 pe is more correct.
They have raised prices. There is a limit to increasing prices. They can't overcharge, otherwise they cut off gaining more customers.
When I went to the parks the first time over a dozen years ago, it was about $40 an adult. Now it is 99.
All in good time it will be $200.
No they don't. Well, some small amount do. But the retailers put in their orders now. That is why the July 1 - Sept 30 quarter is so active.