SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Strategies & Market TrendsBuffettology


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: James Clarke who wrote (1702)7/24/1999 1:44:00 PM
From: Mark Marcellus
   of 4661
 
Remember what Buffett says - buy a business that could be run by morons, because someday it will be - that is where Disney is today

Actually, Peter Lynch said that. Buffett stresses buying into management where you have the utmost faith in their competence and integrity. It's also important to note that he did not exactly buy into Disney, Disney bought Cap Cities. There was a lot of speculation at the time as to whether he would sell his stake. He may wish that he had, now.

The irony is that there was a time when Disney was a well managed company. In retrospect, it looks like Frank Wells might have had a lot more to do with that than he was given credit for.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (1704)7/24/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Michael Burry
   of 4661
 
I guess I would also add that the thrust behind the "run by morons concept" is that the business should still be thriving while it is being run by morons. The idea is that it will be an even greater business under geniuses. So the troughs will still be palatable and the peaks will be ecstasy. Just buying a business in trouble because it is being run by morons doesn't make sense to me. The trough then becomes unpalatable, and the peak may be just average or worse.

As well, we must always be wary of the latter situation, since it is not entirely certain that a genius will be able to turn the business around at all. The qualitative judgements become quite important.

I happen to like Disney a lot. I agree with those that say the ESPN franchise is worth the ABC price. I think that they are making the right net moves, but with poor execution and without regard to creating shareholder value through correct pricing. In the 21ish range, I'd buy some. I've already bought a tiny itty bit for a family member who thought she should own some (she also had to have GAP), but that's just in a portfolio I manage, not one of my own.

Now I've just been asked to manage a couple custodial counts for a couple just-born nieces. They'll need the money in 18 years. And you can bet Disney will be going in those too, at the right price.

Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (1704)7/24/1999 6:26:00 PM
From: Michael Burry
   of 4661
 
Actually, Buffett did buy Disney, twice. Once, in 1966, and the other at the time of the Cap Cities transaction. Buffett had an option of cash or stock, or a combination. He chose all stock, and additionally bought shares of Disney in the market. From his 1995 letter:

We have also recently bought Disney stock in the market.

One more bit of history: I first became interested in Disney in 1966, when its market valuation was less than $90 million, even though the company had earned around $21 million pre-tax in 1965 and was
sitting with more cash than debt. At Disneyland, the $17 million Pirates of the Caribbean ride would soon open. Imagine my excitement a company selling at only five times rides!

Duly impressed, Buffett Partnership Ltd. bought a significant amount of Disney stock at a split-adjusted price of 31› per share. That decision may appear brilliant, given that the stock now sells for
$66. But your Chairman was up to the task of nullifying it: In 1967 I sold out at 48› per share.

Oh well, we're happy to be once again a large owner of a business with both unique assets and outstanding management.


Judging purely from these descriptions, I would say that Disney today is much different than at the times he bought the stock. As well, it fails the "moron" test. But I'll always be looking for the right entry.

Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LauA who wrote (1703)7/24/1999 6:32:00 PM
From: Michael Burry
   of 4661
 
LauA,

Re: present value thinking, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not investing much like Buffett. Graham was a great investor, but Buffett took it to a new level and improved upon it. Times change, and the next great investor will certainly have taken Buffett's approach to a different level.

Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: James Clarke who wrote (1702)7/24/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: Shane M
   of 4661
 
Jim,

Here's a link discussing some technology that could materially impact media outlets like Disney. Sounds like a cool device to have too.

cgi.pathfinder.com

Shane

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Michael Burry who wrote (1707)7/24/1999 10:11:00 PM
From: Shane M
   of 4661
 
Mike,

Here's a little piece by Fortune on Pre Paid Legal

cgi.pathfinder.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Shane M who wrote (1709)7/24/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: Michael Burry
   of 4661
 
That's misleading. The company in its current form hasn't been around that long. If excess acquisition costs can be booked as an asset, I don't see why the commission advances can't. Just recognize what they are when you do your valuation. It's stinky, no doubt. And if the insiders start to bail, I will too. It's like the timeshares, and like Apple. The negative bias is so great, and the shorts so tremendous that it makes the perfect contrarian play.

Also, its cooperation deals with CNA and other large insurers has yielded low to nil sales. This is most concerning to me, and is the thing that makes me regret bringing it up on this board. When I come right down to it, I own it for reasons other than Buffett's tenets.

Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Michael Burry who wrote (1705)7/24/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: James Clarke
   of 4661
 
<<Now I've just been asked to manage a couple custodial counts for a couple just-born nieces. They'll need the money in 18 years. And you can bet Disney will be going in those too, at the right price.>>

My first baby is scheduled to pop out in three weeks, and I am starting a college fund right off. I'm thinking the same thing as you are about Disney - just waiting for the right price, then in it goes. Maybe that price comes during a market meltdown, maybe it comes without one. (I am in no hurry to invest this account with the market at 30 times earnings and interest rates going up.) The problem with this patient strategy is that my wife has loved Disney since she was a little kid with her Bambi blanket in Japan 35 years ago. So ever since I told her I'm looking at Disney she asks me every day why I haven't bought it yet so she can get the annual report. So if I miss it, I am going to have hell to pay.

"Run by morons" was probably a facetious comment. Eisner had a hell of a run with this business for five years. But the guy has always struck me as sleazy - maybe it was the half a billion of options he cashed in near the peak, maybe it was the board's payoff of several other executives to the tune of $100 million each. But I don't like to see sleazy management running a company with Disney's image. They do not behave like owners.

JJC

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: James Clarke who wrote (1711)7/25/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: LauA
   of 4661
 
James, I don't think that I'd characterize Mike Eisner as "sleazy". That's a cheap shot from someone who doesn't know him. Re: options - I assume that if your BOD offered you a slug of options which then became quite valuable, you'd cash them too. I remember one big instance of option cashing was tax driven. Eisner has been runing Disney for 15 years, not five. The current Disney is a very, very different business than when he first started. It could be time for someone new. But you do recall that when he started there, he took over from a Disney-in-law. And he has operated with the blessing of Roy. Shareholder/owners have been pretty happy until recently. Many years ago his contract was nominal until ROE exceeded 11-12%. But above that hurdle he received a big chunk of profits. When things started, that seemed quite fair because the company had underperformed for so long. I don't know what it looks like now.

Lau

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Michael Burry who wrote (1710)7/25/1999 1:21:00 AM
From: Shane M
   of 4661
 
makes me regret bringing it up on this board. When I come right down to it, I own it for reasons other than Buffett's tenets.

Don't apologize for discussing PPD. I'm glad it was discussed here. PPD was showing on my screens too and I had yet to look into it. Financially it looks like a stock with the appropriate criteria. Given the context (I think it turned up on a Buffett screen you ran on your value thread, right?) talking about the business is entirely appropriate here IMHO.

Shane

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10