WotC Filing: Wizards of the Coast makes up roughly 70% of Hasbro's value

[Steampunkette]

So... "Value" is not "Revenue" or "Profits".

It's Valuation.

My house is worth $130,000. That doesn't mean I'm getting cash out of it. (Quite the opposite, really). It just means the VALUE is at $130,000.

They then go on to say how much WotC made for Hasbro in 2021 to try and convince you that it made 70% of the profits for that year... but that's not the case.

WotC made $1.29 billion in 2021. Hasbro, as a -whole-, made $5.47 billion. https://investor.hasbro.com/static-files/09f9b01d-1faf-4cb3-ab5d-634cbbefe000

The issue lies in -ownership-. Hasbro doesn't -own- most of the properties it makes toys of. Star Wars, Marvel, Sesame Street, Disney Princess Line, etc etc etc. All owned by Disney. So while they all combined to make another $4.18 billion for Hasbro in 2021, their value is significantly less because it's -just- the License, rather than outright owning the property.

Through WotC, Hasbro owns the IP of D&D and MtG.

The OP article is heavily massaged numbers structured to make you feel outraged by giving you an intentionally lesser picture of what's happening.

 

[Steampunkette]

Also of note:

What has happened in the last five years that would lower the value of stocks past what it was five years ago?

5 years ago it was worth $95 a share. Today it's worth $85 a share. At it's peak between the two it hit $121 a share. And at it's lowest point it hit $46 a share.

It hit it's lowest point on March 20th, 2020.

It went from $104 on the 7th of January down to $46 on the 20th of March, 2020.

I'll give you a hint. It starts with C and ends with oronavirus.

Also, the 365 day low they're "Near"? Was $81 and about a week ago when they haven't released any new toy lines or games. Their high? $103. Coinciding with the release of new sets of MtG cards and D&D book releases.

Gosh. I wonder why.

It's almost like the company's value fluctuates based on release dates ranging from $120 down to $80 and they're trying to use that fluctuation based on release dates to trick you into thinking Hasbro is running the company into the ground.

 

[Maxperson]

Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.

So saith the U.S. Supreme Court (in those exact words, in 2014).

What was the vote on that? If it was close, there's a very good chance that this Supreme Court would say something different.

 

[bedir than]

future TV & movie projects

As a reminder. The TV and movie projects are part of eOne

 

[Irlo]

What was the vote on that? If it was close, there's a very good chance that this Supreme Court would say something different.

In this case, the break on the voting doesn't matter, because the issue of corporate prioritization of profit was not the issue that the court was deciding. It was a supporting argument in the body of an opinion. There were dissenting opinions, but they weren't dissenting on that particular point.

 

[Parmandur]

As a reminder. The TV and movie projects are part of eOne

Which are in-house, which means under control of the corporation...which will all feed into each other.

 

[Maxperson]

In this case, the break on the voting doesn't matter, because the issue of corporate prioritization of profit was not the issue that the court was deciding. It was a supporting argument in the body of an opinion. There were dissenting opinions, but they weren't dissenting on that particular point.

If it wasn't at issue, then this decision didn't decide it, correct? That means that the last time it came up, probably pre-modern corporate law, is what currently prevails. And the current court make-up seems unlikely to change that.

 

[billd91]

If it wasn't at issue, then this decision didn't decide it, correct? That means that the last time it came up, probably pre-modern corporate law, is what currently prevails. And the current court make-up seems unlikely to change that.

It wasn't directly at issue, but with it being in a SCOTUS decision, it can certainly be used in subsequent court cases. If this is the case I think it is, Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the conservatives aren't likely to change it. The decision was written by Alito and joined by all of the conservative justices at the time.

 

[Leatherhead]

They are just trying to cut WotC out from under Hasbro so they can go full-on industrial whaling with the MTG Arena customers.

It would be horrible for anyone not forking over huge wads of cash to play the game, and I hate to see what would happen with D&D once they try to do the same thing with it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A company is not only products and services, but the prestige of the brand, and the contacts for deals with others.

My suggestion is Hasbro to buy capital stock of Epic Games to make money with the licenced collaborations in Fortnite. Why not haven't we seen more skins of G.I.Joe after Snake Eyes?

Now Hasbro is more interested into the digital market, and not only videogames, but also to become a kid-friendly media empire as "Walt Disney". You may know I love theories and speculations about mergers and acquisitions, but it is not too fool to say we could see any new linked with Hasbro in the future. If there is certain radical changes in the entertaiment industry and some big fishes fall this or the next year, maybe Hasbro wanted their IPs.

If I was a Hasbro CEO I would lose sight of the current paht by Ony Paths and its franchises, not only World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness. How is Paradox Interactive compared with Hasbro?

Other theory is Gamma World will be a videogame and working as a playtesting of a future d20 Modern 2.0.