Nah, Finkel's both blue and black.Bah, what would they know about it? They're probably still running a mono-black Shadow deck and wondering why everyone sideboards blue to make dupes.
(You're totally right, though.)
Nah, Finkel's both blue and black.Bah, what would they know about it? They're probably still running a mono-black Shadow deck and wondering why everyone sideboards blue to make dupes.
(You're totally right, though.)
It was a 5-minute clip with that mad money guy explaining the different scenarios of what could happen. It might be on YouTube I saw it on televisionDo you have a source for this - just so I can bring that up for other people who decide to get into the "WotC should get rid of Hasbro, just like thesecorporate raidersactivist investors said they should!" nonsense.
When investor complaints about mismanagement line up with employee complaints about mismanagement I listen. The employees are usually more concerned about the long term health of a publicly traded company than any other stakeholders, including usually upper management. And definitely more than folks whose major interest in the company is how much they're going to be able to sell the stock for in the next few quarters - or even days. (Private companies are a bit different in that respect - there's usually a legacy that the folks at the top are concerned about).Here's the thing. I don't care about the investors' complaints. I don't care that they're not getting as much money as they might otherwise. Hasbro is not an anchor around WotC's neck. Hasbro's financial plans are an anchor around Alta Fox's neck.
Do you think that Finkel's involvement and their arguments about supporting Magic (already a major cash cow, but undersupported in some ways I can see as a mostly casual but longtime player) better are purely smokescreen?But when investors are complaining that a company is "mismanaged" because they could make more money thought stock manipulating shennanigans and the management won't do it, they need to be roundly ignored. Not just ignored - actively shouted down. That's how companies get destroyed. Because folks like that are not motivated to thnk about the long term health of the company - they're motivated to think about how to maximize their earnings. And if destroying the company would make them wealthy beyond the dreams of King Midas, well, they're going to do that.
Are you aware that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize the money the investors make? If they fail in that duty, they can be sued.
Pure smokescreen? Probably not. It wouldn't be the first time some "activist investor" wargaming the companies moves out in his own head became convinced that he knows better than the folks managing the company.Do you think that Finkel's involvement and their arguments about supporting Magic (already a major cash cow, but undersupported in some ways I can see as a casual player) better are purely smokescreen?
All totally good points. I was wondering when someone would point out that WotC being on its own is, at best, a two-edged sword. Yes, they might, currently be getting slowed down in some way because they may be subsidizing some other product lines, but EVENTUALLY D&D will be in a doldrum again, and then it will be REALLY NICE that G.I. Joe or whatever is kicking out the cash that year.When investor complaints about mismanagement line up with employee complaints about mismanagement I listen. The employees are usually more concerned about the long term health of a publicly traded company than any other stakeholders, including usually upper management. And definitely more than folks whose major interest in the company is how much they're going to be able to sell the stock for in the next few quarters - or even days. (Private companies are a bit different in that respect - there's usually a legacy that the folks at the top are concerned about).
But when investors are complaining that a company is "mismanaged" because they could make more money thought stock manipulating shennanigans and the management won't do it, they need to be roundly ignored. Not just ignored - actively shouted down. That's how companies get destroyed. Because folks like that are not motivated to thnk about the long term health of the company - they're motivated to think about how to maximize their earnings. And if destroying the company would make them wealthy beyond the dreams of King Midas, well, they're going to do that.
Wizards right now is a company that basically produces two products - Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons - along with being the major cog in Hasbro's long-term electronic gaming strategy. They are very profitable licenses to own right now, but being part of a larger company can help to shield them when times eventually again dip for those two major products. Because they will - the entertainment industry is not an ever increasing line of popularity, it's full of ups and downs.
All I know is Hasbro needs to get its act together and fix GI Joe.
Nothing in life is pure, but pretty much yup, totsl smokescreen.Do you think that Finkel's involvement and their arguments about supporting Magic (already a major cash cow, but undersupported in some ways I can see as a casual player) better are purely smokescreen?
But when investors are complaining that a company is "mismanaged" because they could make more money thought stock manipulating shennanigans and the management won't do it, they need to be roundly ignored. Not just ignored - actively shouted down. That's how companies get destroyed. Because folks like that are not motivated to thnk about the long term health of the company - they're motivated to think about how to maximize their earnings. And if destroying the company would make them wealthy beyond the dreams of King Midas, well, they're going to do that.
People can sue for anything.the main objective of a publicly traded corporation is to increase shareholder value. BY LAW, if a corporation does not do that, investors are allowed to sue.
If, supposed, putting you and I in a very large pot and boiling us alive would increase shareholder value, corporate ethics dictates that the corporation should do so, and the board would be remiss to not push for it; it's literally their job.
Is this wrong? Yes. But corporations cannot change because doing that might reduce shareholder value.
That's...not how that works.the main objective of a publicly traded corporation is to increase shareholder value. BY LAW, if a corporation does not do that, investors are allowed to sue.
If, supposed, putting you and I in a very large pot and boiling us alive would increase shareholder value, corporate ethics dictates that the corporation should do so, and the board would be remiss to not push for it; it's literally their job.
Is this wrong? Yes. But corporations cannot change because doing that might reduce shareholder value.
I don't blame you for believing this - because up until a few years ago I also thought it was true - but that's not really the case. The doctrine of "maximizing shareholder value" isn't really codified into law that way - corporations are required to act in the long term interests of the shareholders but they aren't required to act in such a way that benefits short term gains via stock price shennanians - especially not when those shennanigans damage the long term health of the corporation.the main objective of a publicly traded corporation is to increase shareholder value. BY LAW, if a corporation does not do that, investors are allowed to sue.
Yes kung fu gripe sucks and breaks in a year.All I know is Hasbro needs to get its act together and fix GI Joe.
I'm more concerned about the MTG cardstock... And seriously, please fix foils so they stop looking like pringles.All I know is Hasbro needs to get its act together and fix GI Joe.
Yeah, that's why it is important to be clear in social media spaces, such as this, that this is not reflective of what "The Fans" wa t, just piratical stock brokers looking to score big game.Pure smokescreen? Probably not. It wouldn't be the first time some "activist investor" wargaming the companies moves out in his own head became convinced that he knows better than the folks managing the company.
But I suspect that the fact that "weaponized nerdom" has become a thing in the last few years online is the reason that they're pushing that narrative. Trying to get a mob of fans onto your side to push to get your way online works, so folks are going to keep using it as long as it keeps working.
Hasbro does own a ton of stuff, most of which aren't doing well, and many products have been shelved. Most of Hasbros value is generated by WotC. Some stuff like Nerf is still does well.
You know, IMHO the 'problem' with G.I. Joe isn't that it HAS a problem. Its problem is it is just a fairly silly kid's toy that is rooted in a sort of 'militaristic toy' aesthetic (it is a toy soldier after all). It doesn't really translate that well into a broader cultural thing. Its a shallow pond to play in, and nobody should be surprised when what comes out of it is shallow and rather trivial and has little real hold on people's minds. I think the 'fix' is to just make the best possible G.I. Joe dolls as possible, maybe a kid's cartoon or three, and call it a day! Find some richer milieu in which to tell actual stories that have characters that are not just cardboard cutouts and toon 'Dr Evil' style villains. Its a limited concept, maybe not the one that really has great potential to become a huge property.Suggestions on how they do so?
I always laugh at this. It's such an absurd reality we have constructed for ourselves and our children.the main objective of a publicly traded corporation is to increase shareholder value. BY LAW, if a corporation does not do that, investors are allowed to sue.