Disney has a clear path for Star Wars. I saw one commentator that suggested that $1 billion world wide first week is possible. If that happens, I think it could do the same the next week (which is vacation week here, and probably elsewhere too).
And that is only the beginning. The only issue I have is that Disney has no new movies in August and September. Antman better be good.
I'm not sure what numbers you are looking at. I'm sure that there are some stock options, exercised, that they are buying back. But they are steadily buying backs shares, and it has reduced the number outstanding. It might be that you're not factoring the shares that they issued to buy Lucas Films (of late), and Marvel and Pixar.
Of course, it is more expensive to buy back stock at 110, than 90, or 60, or 30, and the bang for the buck is less. In retrospect, they should have leveraged everything they could to buy back stock when it was in the 30's. But, then, Iger is plenty savvy for me.
The remarkable thing about Disney is that it went ex dividend today, which means it really hit a new high. And I don't think it's Disney's movies that is powering it - Inside Out certainly is a real hit - it has done 200 million so far, could hit 250 by the weekend, but should begin to level off soon after (unless it has a "frozen" pickup in it). It does ease any concern that Pixar was in any trouble, but only makes up for the frustration of Tomorrow Land, and the lack of an overwhelming Avengers at 1.37 billion (it opens in Japan this weekend - maybe they expect a huge box office there). Maybe the huge haul of Jurassic World leads to confirmation that Star Wars will easily beat $2 billion (I'm holding out for $3 billion).
I think the Parks are really booming, that TV has some nice results in it, and that consumer products are really hitting a nice level. But, unless Antman is a huge huge hit, Disney isn't going to have another movie for about 3 months. I think Disney will hit some nice numbers soon, extend with the earnings, but then level off in September and October. If the "Good Dinosaur" is a big hit (not guaranteed as some are not impressed with the trailer), we're not going into Star Wars with a lot of momentum. We will see 125 - but I am holding firm for January, 2016.
(and, for what it matters, Cinderella has hit $200 million, and is still drawing in some real money).
It's not sitting near highs, it is at its high. It went ex dividend today - add 66 cents to the closing price. When Disney announces over $1.50 per share in profits for the quarter just ended, and you realize that it will earn nicely over $5.00 a share this year, and multiply it by 25, then you will realize that 125 could be fair value. And I know that 25 is a high pe, but not for a growing stock. And not for a stock with such strong brands. And not for a stock that has Star Wars on its calendar in December.
Your references to Kramer and Buffet are interesting.
As to Kramer, to whom you look to for support to sell Disney, he has said that Disney is a stock to hold forever (or at least a very long time). He has not suggested that holders sell and take the profits.
On Buffet, I read that he had purchase Disney in the early 1960's, and sold when he had a profit of about $50 million about 6 months later. In all due deference, he has said that this was one of his biggest mistakes. It certainly contradicts his holding of well known brands.
I'm not a trader. Something in me won't let me do that. I look for value. Disney has value. A lot of it. For nearly 2 years I have felt that disney was marching to 125 by early next year, and nothing has changed (yes, Avengers 2 wasn't a complete blow out, and Tomorrow Land hurt, but Inside Out is making up for that). And Iger's extension for 2 years to 2018 augers well (I think 200 is very possible). Sit back and enjoy.
I'm glad I ask good questions.
But I am very optimistic about the next earnings report. The Tomorrowland box office is quite disappointing. I was hoping that they would do better overseas - they haven't. But they wouldn't have announced a dividend at this time if they weren't happy with the results of this quarter so far. I think 1.50 to 1.55 is likely when they report.
So does this mean it will go up, down or whatever, in the short run. And how will the ex-dividend date of July 6 affect everything?
by the way - I checked my earlier posts and saw that, a few days ago, I said that the dividend this year would be between 1.25 to 1.40 - I was right in the middle - not bad.
And the nice thing about this surprise dividend is that it reassures disney holders that the poor reception that Tomorrowland received is not going to damage the stock much.
Interesting dividend move. It surprised me. It goes against them trying to minimize expense in distributing dividends given the single shareholders - maybe these single shareholders are trading in their single shares with the stock price jumping over 100.
It also bodes well for the next quarterly earnings release.\\
See what happens after you trade and not hold long term.
It seems that, when this was proposed in the early 1990's, there was general state support and local governmental support, but opposition from historians and related groups. And it was to be a historical theme park.
It seems strange that Disney would revisit the same concept because it would face the same opposition now. And Disney is very self conscious of its image. No reason to risk anything that would be a ten year project.
However, The Sweet Briar closing, and now reopening, does seem strange. It was sudden, and its turn around sudden. And this was not a full blown Disney resort, but something that would feed off of DC's tourism.
But this is a no go. Disney is concentrating on Shanghai and turning around Euro Disney. After things settle down, in about a year, they will carefully chart out their next venture. There next CEO, if it is Tom Staggs, has significant Parks experience, and will make measured choses.
They are already talking about the "Speith" effect. This would be nice, as it would move stock (and expensive stock at that) through the door, generating sales and profits, and reducing carrying costs.
Let's hope that this great hope does pan out. He does seem to be a well spoken and humble person.
And, at least today, it is a nice beneficiary. For, at least today, the wind is at its back. A new (euro) high, and a little rise in the euro, is helping it to a new US high. But you are a trader. And more will, in the short term for trading purposes, will need a real Greek settlement - or are they buying on the rumor, and will sell on the news?
That is why I don't trade - I like the longer term.
And how is that trading of Disney going? Did you catch the last jump over the past two weeks from 108 to 114? (sorry about that - I couldn't help myself).
I do hope that you are enjoying your family time. I really do appreciate your views.
First, to follow the topic name, Disney's timing for Inside Out seems just about perfect.
I think you're a little too hard on Avengers 2. Marvel has a plan (one that I hope to say in the future was a very very nice plan). This is a stepping stone in that plan. They needed to present a variety of characters of the Marvel Universe for future movies. I would simply say that they were trying too hard in this movie.
That being said, remember that that the lead up to Avengers (1) was nice, but not excessive. Thor and Captain America did only 180 or so domestically - they were even called commercials for Avengers (1). Avengers (1) exceeded everyone's expectations. And it was a good movie - I watched a little of it last night with my son and family, and it was concise, bantering, simply but with just the right number of twists.
But I agreed that they did too much in Avengers/Ultron. If you are right that this was originally 3.5 hours, then certainly a lot was lost. They even spent too much money. If it was 3.5 hours, I think they should have made it into two movies - 1 hour and 45 minutes for each part would have been about right, would have explained everything better, and would have been a better spending of money.
But let's not complain too much. 450 million domestically is nothing to sneeze at. And Disney will look at this movie, understand what they did right and wrong, and learn a lot that they will put into future movies. Maybe that is why Avengers 3 is in two parts.
But on the "slip" on the Avengers - let me say two things - I was disappointed in it as we are going to just about hit 1.5 billion (and that's not in the bag by any chance), and I was looking for 2 billion. But others thought that it would be merely a 1 billion. I think 1.5 b isn't any thing to be frustrated with, although Disney may have missed an opportunity.
I'm not. But I underestimated Avengers Ultron and Tomorrowland. I think we will break 120 by the end of the year, and then see 125 very soon thereafter. And I really think that Iger wouldn't have agreed to stay two more years if he didn't expect much more - and that is what I am really looking at.
Inside Out seems to have done over 30 million on Friday - maybe as much as 34 million. This may translate into as much as 90+ million - much better than the 60 million or so I had seen predicted a few days ago.
It is the second best Pixar opening (no chance to beat Toy Story 4). And, with a multiplier of 4.1 (typical pixar multiplier) - that puts it well over 300 million. And, with a clear path for this movie for about three weeks (Minions is the next children friendly movie on July 10), that is very doable. Maybe $1 billion worldwide isn't out of the question.
This could make up for Tomorrowland's disappointment and Avenger's flat numbers (although 1.5 billion is nothing to sneeze at).
Amazing what a really good story can do for you. Now, if JJ Abrams can give us a good story for Star Wars, we might see the $3 billion I speculated about a few months ago. And I did see one article this morning that suggested some believed a $1 billion worldwide opening weekend was possible.
A real sigh of relief. I was getting a little concerned (because I believe Disney has under performed on Av and T by at least $500 billion). Next up - Antman - if that could give us $250 domestic and $750 worldwide, we'd be setting up the rest of the year (and more) nicely.
I had actually thought that Furious 7 demonstrating an appetite for these types of and all movies, and Avengers was going to ride a wave. And Jurassic Park's numbers may simply say that movie goers like action movies.
Avengers was good - but it simply tried to hard. A simpler movie might have done better (and saved money). They didn't need that Thor pool scene, and a few others.