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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
I'm not sure of that. It looks to me more like Hasbro has complicated D&D's development and not in an always good way. I think we're pretty sure from various accounts that one reason 4e got sidelined was because of Hasbro and the $50 million core brand designation and 4e didn't have enough legs for that. By comparison, back in WotC's independent days, it looked like Peter Adkison was more than willing to subsidize other games (like D&D) with Magic's largesse.
I think the success of 5th edition has more to do with Hasbro backing off or adjusting to lessons learned from 4e's record. So I'm less sure they promoted it to that level of success as much as got out of the way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Zaukrie

New Publisher
The plan could threaten the film/TV plans, and the game. I see nonparticular reason to suspect thst this group has Magic or D&Ds best interests at heart, or would know what the best thing to do would be if they did.
These groups care about short term gain, nothing more. So, ya, the product would suffer and anything that cost money would be scrapped. 100%.
 

nevin

Hero
Why would Hasbro spin off a cash cow?
When companies spinoff like that they have to buy their freedom. They usually end up taking on a ton of debt to pay off the parent company. It is rarely good for the company being spun off. Best case they get stuck for several years paying down debt instead of spending money on income drivers.
 

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.
The “make the world better” activists commonly have resolutions added to the proxy for shareholder votes. Very rarely do these ever get passed and never seen where this helps the stock price. I also am not aware of these types of activists being large investors.
(The counter proof to this is Blackrock which pushes ESG hard and is a large investor as well.)

The “fix the company and increase shareholder value “activists are the more general use of the term. When you hear about activist funds, this is what is being talked about. They try and takeover the Board of Directors and force change.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I think the success of 5th edition has more to do with Hasbro backing off or adjusting to lessons learned from 4e's record.

It isn't clear to me that Hasbro really had input in the design direction of either 4e or 5e. If someone has evidence that they did, I'd be interested in seeing it. And that's evidence I'm looking for, not plausible narrative.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
The “make the world better” activists commonly have resolutions added to the proxy for shareholder votes. Very rarely do these ever get passed and never seen where this helps the stock price. I also am not aware of these types of activists being large investors.
(The counter proof to this is Blackrock which pushes ESG hard and is a large investor as well.)

The “fix the company and increase shareholder value “activists are the more general use of the term. When you hear about activist funds, this is what is being talked about. They try and takeover the Board of Directors and force change.

Eh ... I think that we need to be clear about something, here. I made sure to differentiate different types of SAs (shareholder activists)- some of are motivated by environmental concerns, some by corporate governance concerns, some by financial concerns, some by ethical concerns, etc. This includes everything from "tree huggers" and "higher wage" types to "give us higher dividends" and "you aren't maximizing shareholder value."

I think most people are fairly aware of those in common discussions. However, I think there are also those who benefit from the confusion between the first group and the more specific type of SA here- those who acquire a specific interest in order to immediately capitalize in the short term; common terms used in the past were "Corporate Raider," or "Asset Stripper," or even "Perennial Strike Suit Litigant."

I agree that the umbrella term "activist shareholder" covers all of this (and more). I was making what I thought was the rather banal point that many people were unaware of these distinctions; that they might not know that the asset fund behind this was a Hedge Fund behind this (Alta Fox Capital Management) prides itself on generating "exceptional risk-adjusted returns" and, for example, previously did the same thing with Collector's Universe, Inc., which led to Collector's Universe being sold to an investor group led by ... Nat Turner, you know, the guy they nominated for the board of Hasbro (also, the sale would encumber the target with a lot of debt).

This is all perfectly normal, and I'm not saying it's wrong- I'm just saying that there are different types of shareholder activists, and that there are those who benefit from people unknowingly using the term.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It isn't clear to me that Hasbro really had input in the design direction of either 4e or 5e. If someone has evidence that they did, I'd be interested in seeing it. And that's evidence I'm looking for, not plausible narrative.
This doesn't have anything to do with design decisions - rather management of the product/brand.
 

Remove ads

Top