Investing Thread

[MU82]

why would you support a known pedophile who befriended a number of people you support and ruined countless lives

Wut? I don't support any Catholic priests.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I saw this the other day in regards to public investment.  Political interference hurting investment returns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/republicans-woke-capital-esg-investment/677294/


The War on ‘Woke Capital’ Is Backfiring
Republicans want to outlaw state investment in funds they see as tainted by progressive ideology. They’ll probably just get lower returns.

By James Surowiecki

One of the stranger political crusades of the past few years has been the Republican war on so-called woke capital, which has led GOP politicians across the country to adopt a kind of anti-corporate, pro-regulatory rhetoric that one normally associates with the left wing of the Democratic Party. And among the GOP’s favorite targets in this war has been ESG investing—investment funds that take “environmental, social, and governance” considerations into account.

For Republicans, ESG funds are a Trojan horse, designed to smuggle progressive attitudes toward climate change, and diversity and inclusion, into executive suites and corporate boardrooms, all under the guise of supposedly improving investment returns. And so, in red states, state treasurers have pulled public money out of firms that are associated with ESG, including even some of the world’s biggest investment firms, such as BlackRock and State Street.

On top of that, Republican legislatures in at least 20 states have adopted anti-ESG rules of one sort or another. Last year, after the Biden administration revised a Trump-era rule to make clear that pension-fund managers could use ESG if it did not hurt investment returns, Republicans in the House and Senate (along with two Senate Democrats) passed a resolution seeking to repeal the rule. And a coalition of Republican state attorneys general filed suit in federal court to have the rule overturned. (Biden vetoed the congressional resolution, and a district court tossed out the lawsuit, so the rule remains in effect.)

But the ESG front in the right’s war on woke capital is still active. Republican legislators in New Hampshire are now trying to raise the stakes. Earlier this month, they proposed a bill that would order any government agency investing state funds to ensure that no public money goes to investors who manage their funds “with any regard whatsoever based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.” More striking, the bill would make it a felony to knowingly violate this order. (The wording of the bill does not attempt to define ESG, aside from using this catchphrase language.) In other words, the bill would effectively criminalize any ESG investments on the state’s behalf.

As I wrote last year, ESG investing is far from the vehicle for woke capitalism that Republicans say it is. Instead, it’s largely a faddish label that allows investment managers to pretend they’re doing good while mostly doing business as usual. The ESG trend also hit a wall in the past year, thanks in part to the political backlash and in part to the accurate perception that it chiefly amounts to greenwashing. The Republican Party is really battling against a specter of its own imagining.

Even so, that battle has the potential to do actual damage. ESG investing may be dumb, but laws like this possible one in New Hampshire are even dumber. For a party supposedly dedicated to the free market, the GOP has become oddly comfortable with trying to dictate how investors make decisions.

In the simplest sense, after all, the new law would effectively exclude many investment companies from consideration—even if their funds’ track records suggest that they might outperform the market. (Again, this could include giant, mainstream firms such as BlackRock.) It would eliminate the possibility of using, say, funds that pay attention to climate-change risk as a hedge against that risk, even if a state’s pension fund also had many investments in fossil-fuel companies.

And the broadness of the law’s language—including, most notably, its prohibition on funds that use ESG criteria “with any regard whatsoever”—would likely ban investments in funds that take environmental factors into consideration, even when those considerations were plainly relevant to future corporate prospects. That could easily apply to such firms as ExxonMobil and Tesla.

Most odd, the bill would effectively prohibit investments in firms that take corporate governance into account, which would keep fund managers from explicitly considering such factors as board composition, concentration of power in the hands of the CEO, executive pay, and so on. These considerations arguably fall within the fiduciary responsibility of the fund manager—the bill would outlaw the work of a professional who does basic due diligence about the security of clients’ money. Making it a felony to invest money with firms that explicitly pay attention to the problem of, say, excessive CEO power would, of course, be great for executives who want to run their companies like private fiefdoms, indifferent to shareholder interests. But it would be terrible for investors—and for companies themselves.

Naturally, the authors of the bill include some weasely language in the legislation that gives them plausible deniability when it comes to the obvious negative business consequences the law would have. The bill would make it a felony only if state money is invested “knowingly in a manner violating fiduciary duty concerning environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.” In other words, if the state agency doing the investing can prove that using ESG criteria was in line with its fiduciary duty, it could escape the felony charge.

The problem, of course, is that no government officials are going to take the risk of being dragged into court because they included the wrong fund as an investment choice. So even if actually enforcing the law might be challenging—how do you prove that taking governance into account was not financially motivated?—agencies will take the easy way out, and simply blacklist any company that mentions ESG (or perhaps even the words governance and environment). And that chilling effect is, of course, exactly the point of the law.

The New Hampshire bill justifies itself by citing the need for the state to earn “the highest return on investment for New Hampshire’s taxpayers and retirees.” But both federal and state laws already legally oblige investment managers to maximize risk-adjusted returns. The paradox is that by narrowing the range of potential investment options, while also effectively barring the state from using some of the world’s biggest investment firms, the New Hampshire law might well reduce returns, not increase them. But for the people writing such legislation, that’s perhaps a small price to pay to teach woke capital a lesson.

Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

James Surowiecki is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and the author of The Wisdom of Crowds. He also blogs at Medium.

[Uncle Rico]

I saw this the other day in regards to public investment.  Political interference hurting investment returns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/republicans-woke-capital-esg-investment/677294/


The War on ‘Woke Capital’ Is Backfiring
Republicans want to outlaw state investment in funds they see as tainted by progressive ideology. They’ll probably just get lower returns.

By James Surowiecki

One of the stranger political crusades of the past few years has been the Republican war on so-called woke capital, which has led GOP politicians across the country to adopt a kind of anti-corporate, pro-regulatory rhetoric that one normally associates with the left wing of the Democratic Party. And among the GOP’s favorite targets in this war has been ESG investing—investment funds that take “environmental, social, and governance” considerations into account.

For Republicans, ESG funds are a Trojan horse, designed to smuggle progressive attitudes toward climate change, and diversity and inclusion, into executive suites and corporate boardrooms, all under the guise of supposedly improving investment returns. And so, in red states, state treasurers have pulled public money out of firms that are associated with ESG, including even some of the world’s biggest investment firms, such as BlackRock and State Street.

On top of that, Republican legislatures in at least 20 states have adopted anti-ESG rules of one sort or another. Last year, after the Biden administration revised a Trump-era rule to make clear that pension-fund managers could use ESG if it did not hurt investment returns, Republicans in the House and Senate (along with two Senate Democrats) passed a resolution seeking to repeal the rule. And a coalition of Republican state attorneys general filed suit in federal court to have the rule overturned. (Biden vetoed the congressional resolution, and a district court tossed out the lawsuit, so the rule remains in effect.)

But the ESG front in the right’s war on woke capital is still active. Republican legislators in New Hampshire are now trying to raise the stakes. Earlier this month, they proposed a bill that would order any government agency investing state funds to ensure that no public money goes to investors who manage their funds “with any regard whatsoever based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.” More striking, the bill would make it a felony to knowingly violate this order. (The wording of the bill does not attempt to define ESG, aside from using this catchphrase language.) In other words, the bill would effectively criminalize any ESG investments on the state’s behalf.

As I wrote last year, ESG investing is far from the vehicle for woke capitalism that Republicans say it is. Instead, it’s largely a faddish label that allows investment managers to pretend they’re doing good while mostly doing business as usual. The ESG trend also hit a wall in the past year, thanks in part to the political backlash and in part to the accurate perception that it chiefly amounts to greenwashing. The Republican Party is really battling against a specter of its own imagining.

Even so, that battle has the potential to do actual damage. ESG investing may be dumb, but laws like this possible one in New Hampshire are even dumber. For a party supposedly dedicated to the free market, the GOP has become oddly comfortable with trying to dictate how investors make decisions.

In the simplest sense, after all, the new law would effectively exclude many investment companies from consideration—even if their funds’ track records suggest that they might outperform the market. (Again, this could include giant, mainstream firms such as BlackRock.) It would eliminate the possibility of using, say, funds that pay attention to climate-change risk as a hedge against that risk, even if a state’s pension fund also had many investments in fossil-fuel companies.

And the broadness of the law’s language—including, most notably, its prohibition on funds that use ESG criteria “with any regard whatsoever”—would likely ban investments in funds that take environmental factors into consideration, even when those considerations were plainly relevant to future corporate prospects. That could easily apply to such firms as ExxonMobil and Tesla.

Most odd, the bill would effectively prohibit investments in firms that take corporate governance into account, which would keep fund managers from explicitly considering such factors as board composition, concentration of power in the hands of the CEO, executive pay, and so on. These considerations arguably fall within the fiduciary responsibility of the fund manager—the bill would outlaw the work of a professional who does basic due diligence about the security of clients’ money. Making it a felony to invest money with firms that explicitly pay attention to the problem of, say, excessive CEO power would, of course, be great for executives who want to run their companies like private fiefdoms, indifferent to shareholder interests. But it would be terrible for investors—and for companies themselves.

Naturally, the authors of the bill include some weasely language in the legislation that gives them plausible deniability when it comes to the obvious negative business consequences the law would have. The bill would make it a felony only if state money is invested “knowingly in a manner violating fiduciary duty concerning environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria.” In other words, if the state agency doing the investing can prove that using ESG criteria was in line with its fiduciary duty, it could escape the felony charge.

The problem, of course, is that no government officials are going to take the risk of being dragged into court because they included the wrong fund as an investment choice. So even if actually enforcing the law might be challenging—how do you prove that taking governance into account was not financially motivated?—agencies will take the easy way out, and simply blacklist any company that mentions ESG (or perhaps even the words governance and environment). And that chilling effect is, of course, exactly the point of the law.

The New Hampshire bill justifies itself by citing the need for the state to earn “the highest return on investment for New Hampshire’s taxpayers and retirees.” But both federal and state laws already legally oblige investment managers to maximize risk-adjusted returns. The paradox is that by narrowing the range of potential investment options, while also effectively barring the state from using some of the world’s biggest investment firms, the New Hampshire law might well reduce returns, not increase them. But for the people writing such legislation, that’s perhaps a small price to pay to teach woke capital a lesson.

Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

James Surowiecki is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and the author of The Wisdom of Crowds. He also blogs at Medium.

Huh

[JWags85]

Two tiered society

There are countless non wealthy, non elite with drug problems who go about their daily lives and are successful and don't catch heat about it, for better or for worse.  Rich or poor, your drug issues become a problem when they start negatively affecting others around you via crime, work performance, etc...  Does this happen quicker if you have limited resources to acquire drugs?  Sure, but that doesn't change my point.

Do I want my CEO or my employers strung out even if they are crushing it?  Not especially.  But Ive known functional addicts in all levels of socioeconomic society.

I know its your constant axe to grind but not EVERYTHING the affluent do or "get away with" is a reason to instinctively call out some divide. 

I saw this the other day in regards to public investment.  Political interference hurting investment returns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/republicans-woke-capital-esg-investment/677294/


The War on ‘Woke Capital’ Is Backfiring
Republicans want to outlaw state investment in funds they see as tainted by progressive ideology. They’ll probably just get lower returns.

Yea, I think ESG in a broad sense can be pretty stupid and self serving nonsense with little value, but the only way to move away/past it is letting money talk and seeing those investments fail or provide meager returns.  Mandating in either form is bad and the antithesis of true American business.  I totally understand people freaking out about ESG being government mandated or forced, tacitly or otherwise...but the exact opposite is just as bad.

[jesmu84]

There are countless non wealthy, non elite with drug problems who go about their daily lives and are successful and don't catch heat about it, for better or for worse.  Rich or poor, your drug issues become a problem when they start negatively affecting others around you via crime, work performance, etc...  Does this happen quicker if you have limited resources to acquire drugs?  Sure, but that doesn't change my point.

Do I want my CEO or my employers strung out even if they are crushing it?  Not especially.  But Ive known functional addicts in all levels of socioeconomic society.

I know its your constant axe to grind but not EVERYTHING the affluent do or "get away with" is a reason to instinctively call out some divide. 

Illicit drug use matters or it doesn't. Thus far, with some small regional exceptions (though they seem to be growing), our society has decided illicit drug use is bad. We punish should users.

Herman stated he didn't care if a person was engaged in illicit drug use as long as they were running a profitable company.

That's a pretty blatant "two tiered society" viewpoint.

There is a divide between the ultra wealthy and the rest of society. I don't think, based on all the available evidence, that should be a controversial point.

My own personal view is that that divide is immoral and harms society.

[rocky_warrior]

Don't want to continue dragging down the investing thread with rocky's vehicle opinions, but to close out a couple things...

Does not compute

Haha.  '98 Wrangler.  286k miles or so.  The inline 6 is/was a bombproof engine.  Paired with a manual transmission it almost never needs time in the shop.  Most repairs I can do in my own garage with a socket set. 

I appreciate all that. But Toyota is actually selling fewer and fewer non-hybrid ICE vehicles. For example, starting with the 2025 model year, you won't be able to buy a new-model Camry that isn't a hybrid.

That's great and all.  But again, the fact that a hybrid is more complicated that an ICE, and an EV is less complicated than an ICE, makes hybrids a non-starter in my opinion.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Don't want to continue dragging down the investing thread with rocky's vehicle opinions, but to close out a couple things...

Haha.  '98 Wrangler.  286k miles or so.  The inline 6 is/was a bombproof engine.  Paired with a manual transmission it almost never needs time in the shop.  Most repairs I can do in my own garage with a socket set. 

That's great and all.  But again, the fact that a hybrid is more complicated that an ICE, and an EV is less complicated than an ICE, makes hybrids a non-starter in my opinion.

I don't understand why being "more complicated" would be a problem. The car I drive today is way more complicated than the one I drove thirty years ago, but it is a ton more reliable. 

And then there is this.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/electric-vehicles-are-less-reliable-than-conventional-cars-a1047214174

This year’s survey data show that hybrids continue to be among the most reliable vehicle type: Hybrids have 26 percent fewer problems than conventional models, even though they have both a conventional powertrain and an electric motor and therefore more potential problem spots than conventional cars.

“It might not seem that long ago, but Toyota launched the Prius hybrid about 25 years ago,” Elek says. “Automakers have been making hybrids long enough that they’ve gotten really good at it. Plus, many hybrids are also made by manufacturers that tend to produce reliable vehicles overall, such as Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia.”

[MU82]

That's great and all.  But again, the fact that a hybrid is more complicated that an ICE, and an EV is less complicated than an ICE, makes hybrids a non-starter in my opinion.

I did as much research as I could possibly do before buying my cars, and I saw no evidence that hybrids were more problematic than non-hybrids. As Sultan said, Consumer Reports actually has given top grades to many hybrids, with hybrid versions being rated much higher in some cases than their ICE twins.

We had a 2007 Prius that never had a single problem - until we got t-boned and it was totaled (side-curtain airbag might have saved my wife's life). We've had our 2016 Sonata Hybrid for 7+ problem-free years.

I'm not trying to talk you into anything, rocky, just stating some facts.

[rocky_warrior]

I don't understand why being "more complicated" would be a problem. The car I drive today is way more complicated than the one I drove thirty years ago, but it is a ton more reliable. 

Consumer Reports actually has given top grades to many hybrids, with hybrid versions being rated much higher in some cases than their ICE twins

Gosh I didn't expect this conversation  to continue. 

I started my career in the automotive controls industry.  Primary worked for Ford and Honda writing software for their engine / transmission / 4wd controllers.  ICE vehicles haven't really advanced for 30 years.  I know, that's damning.  But, many have mastered it, especially Toyota and Honda in "not changing too much" but still being able to manufacture (manufacturing is key quality element here) reliable vehicles.

So...Hybrids...are about 30-50% more complex than an ICE.  Mechanical linkages, electrical, what have you (for sultan, that's where service problems start).  It's great that the Prius has been doing it for so long, and pretty reliable.  Kudos to Toyota for that, but no doubt hybrids are more complex, and thus, more failure prone as they get older.

So then we get to EVs.  Honestly the leader Tesla has been crap for reliability.   But most of their drivers don't put that many miles on per day.  You've also seen big problems with the Lightning, and I know an E-tron owner that just had her car totaled because it got hit by a pickup truck tire (tire came flying off the truck).  I have no doubt that that as EVs become more mainstream they will be be more reliable (but they're not there yet).  The value just isn't there yet.

So, that brings me back to ICE's.  Old technology.  If you buy smartly, the car will last you for 30+ years.

(as to Sultan's "today is way more complicated than the one I drove thirty years ago", that's infotainment, as they say in the industry.  And well, if you're counting on lane change warnings as a sign of reliability, I can't help you)

[Hards Alumni]

When I heard Apple was coming out with a $3,500 virtual reality headset that would look crazy-huge on anyone's face, my initial reaction was: "Who's gonna buy that?"

Turns out, 180K units were sold even before the Vision Pro's official launch - that's $630M before the product even hit stores, online retailers and the official Apple website.

From the NYT DealBook newsletter ...

The NYT’s Kevin Roose says: “I still have no idea whom or what this thing is supposed to be for. At $3,500, it’s not a device for the masses, or even the mass affluent. It’s a big, honking statement piece — a status symbol for your face.”

The WSJ's Joanna Stern says to look past the deficiencies of this first-generation product. “It’s the best mixed-reality headset I’ve ever tried, way more advanced than its only real competition, the far cheaper Meta Quest Pro and Quest 3. These companies know these aren’t really the devices we want. They’re all working toward building virtual experiences into something that looks more like a pair of regular eyeglasses.”

Casey Neistat, a digital influencer, was blown away. “In summary, buy Apple stock cause this is without a doubt a new product category that they will see through.”

I've lost track of how many times over AAPL stock has appreciated since our own Douchey told his fellow Scoopers to sell it ... but it's a ton.

Well, that's because some Apple product users have a cult like devotion.

The product is DOA imo.  I could go into the reasons I believe this if you'd like.

[Skatastrophy]

Well, that's because some Apple product users have a cult like devotion.

The product is DOA imo.  I could go into the reasons I believe this if you'd like.

Man I thought the Airpods were DOA. I was wrong and I don't guess about apple products anymore.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Well, that's because some Apple product users have a cult like devotion.

The product is DOA imo.  I could go into the reasons I believe this if you'd like.

I think the money quote is "These companies know these aren’t really the devices we want. They’re all working toward building virtual experiences into something that looks more like a pair of regular eyeglasses.”

It is a step in the process.

[Hards Alumni]

I think the money quote is "These companies know these aren’t really the devices we want. They’re all working toward building virtual experiences into something that looks more like a pair of regular eyeglasses.”

It is a step in the process.

And I don't disagree.  This is like their VR 0.05 product.

[MU82]

Well, that's because some Apple product users have a cult like devotion.

The product is DOA imo.  I could go into the reasons I believe this if you'd like.

We agree on all of that.

I think the money quote is "These companies know these aren’t really the devices we want. They’re all working toward building virtual experiences into something that looks more like a pair of regular eyeglasses.”

It is a step in the process.

And we agree on all of that.

In a matter of years, there will be VR and AR products that look like regular eyeglasses and that will be as affordable as cellphones are today. Apple is getting a jump on the innovation. It will be interesting to see where it goes and how quickly it gets there.

But for now, I'm pretty damn surprised that apparently hundreds of thousands of these (or more) will be sold.

[Hards Alumni]

We agree on all of that.

And we agree on all of that.

In a matter of years, there will be VR and AR products that look like regular eyeglasses and that will be as affordable as cellphones are today. Apple is getting a jump on the innovation. It will be interesting to see where it goes and how quickly it gets there.

But for now, I'm pretty damn surprised that apparently hundreds of thousands of these (or more) will be sold.

Honestly, I think they're actually pretty far behind on the innovation.  Their strong point right now is their visual panel inside the headset.

I think what they've made is just gimmicky enough to have sold what it has so they can recoup SOME of their initial investment.

The problem when something like this gets released is that it comes with a ton of hype and if doesn't meet that hype or have a good use case, people will be reluctant to purchase the next version.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Honestly, I think they're actually pretty far behind on the innovation.  Their strong point right now is their visual panel inside the headset.

I think what they've made is just gimmicky enough to have sold what it has so they can recoup SOME of their initial investment.

The problem when something like this gets released is that it comes with a ton of hype and if doesn't meet that hype or have a good use case, people will be reluctant to purchase the next version.

I read this post on my Google Glass.

[MU82]

Disney stock up big after hours following a better-than-expected earnings report and strong guidance.

From Seeking Alpha:

Walt Disney stock (NYSE:DIS) gained 8% in early after-hours action after posting earnings that landed on the high side of profit expectations and offered upbeat guidance for 20% growth in full-year profitability.

For the period ended Dec. 31, Disney (DIS) logged relatively flat revenues of $23.5B (vs. $23.77B expected).

But amid ongoing cost-cut success, operating income rose by 27% to $3.88B. And excluding certain items, diluted earnings per share jumped 23% to $1.22, vs. consensus for $1.04.

The company pointed to realizing more than $500M in selling, general and administrative and other operating expense savings "across the enterprise" for the quarter.

Meanwhile, Disney+ core subscribers shrank by 1.3M quarter-over-quarter -- an unsurprising result given price hikes on the service.

Disney+ ended the quarter with 46.1M domestic subscribers and 65.2M international; with 38.3M more from Disney+Hotstar, total subs landed at 149.6M vs. expectations for 151.2M.

“Our strong performance this past quarter demonstrates we have turned the corner and entered a new era for our company, focused on fortifying ESPN for the future, building streaming into a profitable growth business, reinvigorating our film studios, and turbocharging growth in our parks and experiences," CEO Bob Iger said in the company's release.

Disney also said it would take a $1.5B stake in Epic Games to work with the company on new experiences: a "games and entertainment universe connected to Fortnite." Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent (OTCPK:TCEHY).

Hulu subscribers topped expectations by landing at 49.7M (45.1M on subscription video on demand, and another 4.6M on Hulu + Live TV), vs. expectations for 49.2M.

On average revenue per subscriber, Disney+ core gained 2% to $6.84. Hotstar ARPU jumped 83% to $1.28. Hulu's SVOD ARPU ticked up 1% to $12.29, while its live TV offering rose 4% to $93.61.

Revenues by segment: Entertainment, $9.98B (down 7%); Sports, $4.84B (up 4%); Experiences, $9.13B (up 7%).

Operating income by segment: Entertainment, $874M (up 153%); Sports, -$103M (vs. prior-year -$164M); Experiences, $3.11B (up 8%).

On Sept. 8, DIS closed at $81.31. Later that evening, our own Douchey said for the bazillionth time that the company was doomed ... and he dared Scoopers to buy the stock.

As I write this, it's at $106.50 after hours. So that's a 31% gain in 5 months.

Once again, Douchey gives great "opposite advice."

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Iger righting the SS Disney. Cranking up the streaming prices even at the cost of subscribers was necessary given the drag.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Once again, Douchey gives great "opposite advice."

The George Costanza of Scoop.

[tower912]

Back off.  We will all be driving EVs next year, just like he said.

[Lennys Tap]

Disney stock up big after hours following a better-than-expected earnings report and strong guidance.

From Seeking Alpha:

Walt Disney stock (NYSE:DIS) gained 8% in early after-hours action after posting earnings that landed on the high side of profit expectations and offered upbeat guidance for 20% growth in full-year profitability.

For the period ended Dec. 31, Disney (DIS) logged relatively flat revenues of $23.5B (vs. $23.77B expected).

But amid ongoing cost-cut success, operating income rose by 27% to $3.88B. And excluding certain items, diluted earnings per share jumped 23% to $1.22, vs. consensus for $1.04.

The company pointed to realizing more than $500M in selling, general and administrative and other operating expense savings "across the enterprise" for the quarter.

Meanwhile, Disney+ core subscribers shrank by 1.3M quarter-over-quarter -- an unsurprising result given price hikes on the service.

Disney+ ended the quarter with 46.1M domestic subscribers and 65.2M international; with 38.3M more from Disney+Hotstar, total subs landed at 149.6M vs. expectations for 151.2M.

“Our strong performance this past quarter demonstrates we have turned the corner and entered a new era for our company, focused on fortifying ESPN for the future, building streaming into a profitable growth business, reinvigorating our film studios, and turbocharging growth in our parks and experiences," CEO Bob Iger said in the company's release.

Disney also said it would take a $1.5B stake in Epic Games to work with the company on new experiences: a "games and entertainment universe connected to Fortnite." Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent (OTCPK:TCEHY).

Hulu subscribers topped expectations by landing at 49.7M (45.1M on subscription video on demand, and another 4.6M on Hulu + Live TV), vs. expectations for 49.2M.

On average revenue per subscriber, Disney+ core gained 2% to $6.84. Hotstar ARPU jumped 83% to $1.28. Hulu's SVOD ARPU ticked up 1% to $12.29, while its live TV offering rose 4% to $93.61.

Revenues by segment: Entertainment, $9.98B (down 7%); Sports, $4.84B (up 4%); Experiences, $9.13B (up 7%).

Operating income by segment: Entertainment, $874M (up 153%); Sports, -$103M (vs. prior-year -$164M); Experiences, $3.11B (up 8%).

On Sept. 8, DIS closed at $81.31. Later that evening, our own Douchey said for the bazillionth time that the company was doomed ... and he dared Scoopers to buy the stock.

As I write this, it's at $106.50 after hours. So that's a 31% gain in 5 months.

Once again, Douchey gives great "opposite advice."

I don’t know how long Heisey has been bearish on Disney, but even with the 31% gain in the last 5 months it’s still down 45% in the last 3 years. Meanwhile the S and P is up 28% for the same period. IOW it’s been a major dog. If one picks the absolute bottom on major dogs one can still make money but there are better ways to invest imo.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Back off.  We will all be driving EVs next year, just like he said.

Paid for in Bitcoin

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I don’t know how long Heisey has been bearish on Disney, but even with the 31% gain in the last 5 months it’s still down 45% in the last 3 years. Meanwhile the S and P is up 28% for the same period. IOW it’s been a major dog. If one picks the absolute bottom on major dogs one can still make money but there are better ways to invest imo.

Yes, but DIS was crushing the S&P500 from 2010-2020...then Bob 2 took over. All indications are that Bob 1 is pulling the right levers. IMO, he is one CEO worth his pay and then some.

The key will be for DIS not to unnatural carnal knowledge up the transition again once Bob 1 re-retires.

EDIT: Maybe Bob 2 got unlucky with the timing of COVID first denting park/cruise revs and then entering the streaming wars at the costliest time. But then again maybe it was more than just bad luck.

[MU82]

I don’t know how long Heisey has been bearish on Disney, but even with the 31% gain in the last 5 months it’s still down 45% in the last 3 years. Meanwhile the S and P is up 28% for the same period. IOW it’s been a major dog. If one picks the absolute bottom on major dogs one can still make money but there are better ways to invest imo.

I merely chose the date that Douchey did.

Also this:

Yes, but DIS was crushing the S&P500 from 2010-2020...then Bob 2 took over. All indications are that Bob 1 is pulling the right levers. IMO, he is one CEO worth his pay and then some.

[MU82]

UPDATE: In actual trading, DIS is up 10% this morning. So that's about a 35% gain since Doucheynomics were presented.