Comment by rurp
11 hours ago
Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.
11 hours ago
Wow. I have a low opinion of ABC as I said in another post, but this level of pettiness is still surprising to me.
It’s basically a fuck you to the shareholders. Hey we’ve got this dead asset someone will pay for but we won’t sell because they were mean to us.
Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.
If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
But this isn’t reputation management. This is retribution for past affronts. This action in no way retroactively protects them from what was said.
1 reply →
It's hard to imagine how it could be damaging to ABC to have it public under someone else's brand.
ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
It's not that a shareholder won't care, but that the modern US company is such a large basket of businesses, it's impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away. So, in practice, there's very little pressure to do things right, and a lot of pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it actually helps the company's profitability or not. There can be negatives if you are doing massive damage to the company's image, but even then, ABC has done more than a little bit of that over the last couple of years to no ill effects. Just ask Kimmel.
1 reply →
Hence my point of “if they’re doing this, they are likely making other emotional, anti-shareholder decisions”
Disney's 2025 profit was $12B:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
8 replies →
> shareholders are Disney
Who's shareholders are the public.
> The shareholders aren't going to care
This is not a valid defense in court. You can't let "attitude of investors" override "sound financial decisionmaking."
1 reply →