D&D General Hasbro activist begins proxy fight, urges Dungeons & Dragons spinoff

[Parmandur]

I should buy some Hasbro.




Yep. Based on the pitch and some of the folks involved (like Jon Finkel) I strongly doubt that it's a threat to the gaming products. It may be a threat to future potential spinoff TV/movie products.

First, the movie/TV products are about equal in importance to me to the base game. Second, just because they have gamers on board with Ideas for the game doesn't mean the gaming products are under threat, precisely from said gamers with Ideas.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Activists explaining their case.

I think we need to be careful when we use the term "activists" when it comes to these types of issues.

"Shareholder activists" ("SA") can mean a lot of things. For example, SA can push to reduce CEO compensation. Or SA can demand that the company pay its workers more (usually with the idea that increased wages will lead to more long term profits). Or SA can demand that the company provide dividends instead of sitting on cash. And so on.

In this case, the SA is a hedge fund that promises investors returns well-above average. The interest of the SA is to make a large short-term profit, either through the adoption of this strategy, through increased volatility that leads to a scenario wherein the stock rises (a buyout by another company or a stock buyback, for example) or through getting "paid off."

That doesn't mean that the proposal doesn't necessarily have merit; but this isn't about the long-term viability or success of the company either in whole or in component parts.

 

[darjr]

I dint know if this hasn’t been mentioned.

Without Hasbro the grand experiment that was 4e would not have been possible, nor the grand endeavor of 5e.

Whatever you think about either edition, D&D would have probably been mothballed for more Magic only projects.

Note I am NOT knocking magic either.

 

[Parmandur]

I think we need to be careful when we use the term "activists" when it comes to these types of issues.

"Shareholder activists" ("SA") can mean a lot of things. For example, SA can push to reduce CEO compensation. Or SA can demand that the company pay its workers more (usually with the idea that increased wages will lead to more long term profits). Or SA can demand that the company provide dividends instead of sitting on cash. And so on.

In this case, the SA is a hedge fund that promises investors returns well-above average. The interest of the SA is to make a large short-term profit, either through the adoption of this strategy, through increased volatility that leads to a scenario wherein the stock rises (a buyout by another company or a stock buyback, for example) or through getting "paid off."

That doesn't mean that the proposal doesn't necessarily have merit; but this isn't about the long-term viability or success of the company either in whole or in component parts.

Yeah, and I despise that sort of approach: it turns everything it touches into garbage.

 

[ko6ux]

Just wait until Justin LaNaga finds out about Total Shareholder Return.

 

[darjr]

Just wait until Justin LaNaga finds out about Total Shareholder Return.

Melt his brain it will!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Why not both...?

What?

And the TV/Movie stuff are part of the products thst I enjoy, along with merchandising: I am actively excited Hasbro's current ambitions, and want them to happen.

Well, to be honest, so am I, but I am not a stockholder and I am not going to solicit shareholder support for any particular side in this argument. I simply do have enough information.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think we need to be careful when we use the term "activists" when it comes to these types of issues.

"Shareholder activists" ("SA") can mean a lot of things. For example, SA can push to reduce CEO compensation. Or SA can demand that the company pay its workers more (usually with the idea that increased wages will lead to more long term profits). Or SA can demand that the company provide dividends instead of sitting on cash. And so on.

In this case, the SA is a hedge fund that promises investors returns well-above average. The interest of the SA is to make a large short-term profit, either through the adoption of this strategy, through increased volatility that leads to a scenario wherein the stock rises (a buyout by another company or a stock buyback, for example) or through getting "paid off."

That doesn't mean that the proposal doesn't necessarily have merit; but this isn't about the long-term viability or success of the company either in whole or in component parts.

Part of the pitch is about those returns. Part of the pitch talks about excessive executive compensation. Part of it talks about improving customer value with changes to how D&D, Arena, and MTGO and MTG (in paper) are supported.

 

[LordEntrails]

I'm not 100% sure on the financials, but Finkel being one of the nominees, and his comments, give me some confidence. There is definitely opportunity for better handling of Arena and the pro play environment, especially in comparison to eSports in other games.

Other than reading their bios on that site, I know nothing about any of those 5 candidates. But, if I was a shareholder, my summary would be that none of those 5 know anything about running a gaming company or sitting on a gaming company board. 2 are in IT management, 1 in software and the other two in unrelated industries. I would note vote for any of them. Not an impressive slate of candidates for the board.

 

[Zaukrie]

Hedge funds breaking up companies rarely works out well for product, customers, or employees. It does wonders for SHORT TERM returns, however.

And, no, shareholders have very little influence on companies. A tiny, miniscule, number of people run companies, some of which MIGHT have been nominated by a shareholder (or group). But that's pretty rare.