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

[Ancalagon]

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.

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.

 

[Irlo]

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.

People can sue for anything.

There is no statute in state or federal law requiring corporations to maximize shareholder value. They are required to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

 

[Jer]

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.

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.

Why do we all believe that's the case? Mostly because there are a lot of people who woud like it to be the case and they benefit if we believe it to be true. Upper managment types can use "maximizing shareholder value" to excuse whatever harmful or even anti-social behavior they want to engage in. Investment types make their money by selling stocks, so they want it to be true that the entire economic system caters to them and their needs. And so on.

Even if you think about it for a bit it doesn't really make sense that it would be codified in the law that way - the idea that the law should cater to the needs of the people who are selling their ownership stake should take precendence over the needs of the people who are keeping their ownership stake is silly if you think about it. If you're going to protect someone's interests shouldn't it be the folks who are actually keeping a stake in the company, not the ones looking to sell it off? (This is also why the "activist investors" will always couch their arguments in how it impacts the long term health of the company - because they know that's how it actually works and the argument "I want this so stonks go up and I can sell" would be laughed out of the shareholder meetings).

Here's an interesting discussion about the idea - where it originated and where it went wrong - in the context of major business figures starting to talk about abandoning the idea a few years ago (uber capitalist Jack Welch called it "The Dumbest Idea in the World" over a decade ago, so this is a discussion in the corporate world that's been going on for a while): Why Maximizing Shareholder Value Is Finally Dying

 

[jasper]

All I know is Hasbro needs to get its act together and fix GI Joe.

Yes kung fu gripe sucks and breaks in a year.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Do not equate "revenue" with "value". Every thing that Hasbro owns, but isn't currently pushing, still has value.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Suggestions on how they do so?

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.

I mean, contrast with Star Wars. Yes, it has plenty of silly stuff too, but the characters and situations are much deeper and more varied. Its just a lot better milieu in that you can use it in many more ways. You can have fuzzy ewok toys, space ships, heroic rebels, evil Sith Lords, etc. etc. etc. I mean, its not the most sophisticated stuff ever, but its a lot deeper than TESTOSTERONE PLUS AUTOMATIC WEAPON YEEEHHHHAAAA (with a touch of flag waving). Just saying.

And, in terms of how that relates to D&D... D&D is a heck of a lot broader than G.I. Joe also. IMHO its a much stronger IP in a lot of ways. You can do a lot with it. So, maybe in that sense the thought that taking earnings from D&D and using it to flog G.I. Joe is, long term, a losing proposition. OTOH that isn't to say that every other Hasbro IP is equally niche. I am far from having a catalog of what all they own...

 

[Scribe]

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.

I always laugh at this. It's such an absurd reality we have constructed for ourselves and our children.

'Why yes, corporations are people.' Is right up there too.