rumored leveraged buyout of Hasbro

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Umbran]

There is the chance of a buyout by a private equity firm bringing better management of core assets, leading to better products and soaring sales...

Setting aside the "most cases" for the moment...

The overall management seems to have been pretty good. We may or may not agree with what they've done with our particular favorites, but it sounds like Hasbro is doing well in a tough economic climate. Not just any old management is apt to beat them at it.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I wouldn't expect "private" to necessarily be more aggressive. The psychology of the leadership is not so directly linked to the type of ownership.

Private, per se, may not necessarily be more aggressive but D&D is such a small part of the Hasbro universe that the opportunities the brand presents would be more aggressively pursued in a smaller corporate environment such as that offered by a private firm (IMO).

Also a private firm doesn't have to create reports to satisfy the great Ponzi scheme which is the modern sharemarket. Management can simply identify and pursue opportunities without having to worry about hitting a particularly quarterly earnings target (of course, it does without saying that they do have to hit an earnings target at some point but they can do so without being crucified by analysts et al).

 

[Umbran]

Private, per se, may not necessarily be more aggressive but D&D is such a small part of the Hasbro universe that the opportunities the brand presents would be more aggressively pursued in a smaller corporate environment such as that offered by a private firm (IMO).

Again, not necessarily. The whole of Hasbro is huge. WotC is a small part. D&D is a smallish part of WotC. without knoing the character of the new management in detail, there's no reason to think this small corner of the overall business would get any real attention, much less aggressive attention.

Management can simply identify and pursue opportunities without having to worry about hitting a particularly quarterly earnings target (of course, it does without saying that they do have to hit an earnings target at some point but they can do so without being crucified by analysts et al).

For something this large, the analysts are there, regardless. Only who they report to changes.

The idea that the management doesn't have to report to another authority cuts both ways. They are free to do things stockholders might not agree with - that doesn't mean those things are good for the brand in question. They are just as likely (if not more likely) to throw it under the bus for economic gain as they are to aggressively pursue the business in a serious manner.

 

[malraux]

Under the theory that only quarterly numbers matter, there's no way then for a new edition to ever be written. 4e was associated with a year of really low sales, clearly contradictory to the idea that only continually meeting quarterly numbers matters.

 

[ggroy]

It could also go in the wrong direction for D&D, if the LBO firm decides to shut down the D&D division as a cost-cutting measure. In such a scenario, the LBO firm may very well auction off the D&D intellectual property.

Though I don't know who in the tabletop rpg world has the deep pockets to win such an auction. (ie. Paizo, Mongoose, etc ...). In principle somebody else with deep pockets could come in and make the winning bid, such as a video game company.

 

[ggroy]

Under the theory that only quarterly numbers matter, there's no way then for a new edition to ever be written. 4e was associated with a year of really low sales, clearly contradictory to the idea that only continually meeting quarterly numbers matters.

In principle they can "outsource" the design and development of a new edition to one or several freelancers.

 

[malraux]

In principle they can "outsource" the design and development of a new edition to one or several freelancers.

It's not a matter of how they spend the money, its the fact that a new edition is going to be preceded by poor sales. An announcement means that there's no reason to buy new products for the old edition. The point being that HAS has been a fairly benevolent handler of D&D.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Setting aside the "most cases" for the moment...

The overall management seems to have been pretty good. We may or may not agree with what they've done with our particular favorites, but it sounds like Hasbro is doing well in a tough economic climate. Not just any old management is apt to beat them at it.

Which is why I think that the best place for WotC and D&D to be is as a tiny part of Hasbro, where they are not known for selling off a division after an underperforming quarter.

Now, I am more concerned about the awful WotC managerial style, where they fire valuable creative people every June and every Christmas

 

[Derulbaskul]

Again, not necessarily. The whole of Hasbro is huge. WotC is a small part. D&D is a smallish part of WotC. without knoing the character of the new management in detail, there's no reason to think this small corner of the overall business would get any real attention, much less aggressive attention. (snip)

Actually, that's what I'm saying.

I'll try again.

I believe that there are other opportunities for the D&D brand particularly in relation to a big-budget movie with a real director. I think these opportunities are more likely (not 100%) to be pursued by a private company because D&D will mean more to a private (or smaller) company than it does to Hasbro. They are more likely to aggressively pursue opportunities for the D&D brand because they won't have Habsro's portfolio of much more valuable brands competing for management attention.

(snip) For something this large, the analysts are there, regardless. Only who they report to changes.

The idea that the management doesn't have to report to another authority cuts both ways. They are free to do things stockholders might not agree with - that doesn't mean those things are good for the brand in question. They are just as likely (if not more likely) to throw it under the bus for economic gain as they are to aggressively pursue the business in a serious manner.

Nope, you're not replying to my post.

I was saying that... oh heck, I'll just quote myself:

(of course, it does without saying that they do have to hit an earnings target at some point but they can do so without being crucified by analysts et al).

It's generally easier to chase a long-term opportunity in a private company because the only pressures are internal and not external. And the internal "analysts" are likely to be privy to the same commercially sensitive information that is motivating the long-term play.