Disney, Bud Light, and Nike Go Head-to-Head With Critics With Controversial New Campaigns

We have been discussing the ability of shareholders and consumers to push back on political or ESG corporate policies. Companies like Disney have already experienced backlash over political campaigns or positions. However, companies are not backing down. This month, both Disney, Bud Light, and NIke are back in the midst of controversies in going head-to-head with critics. This could trigger an interesting period of litigation by shareholders opposing such campaigns as driving down the value corporate stock and brands.

Nike has long been one of the most activist companies in its social and political campaigns, including its controversial corporate support for Colin Kaepernick in his protest during the national anthem at football games.

Recently, it also faced calls for boycotts after the company selected transgender Dylan Mulvaney to feature its sports bras and other products. Mulvaney went on Instragram to declare:

“Home for a moment and leaning into cozy workout wear life with @nikewomen ‘s newest Zenvy leggings and Alate bra! They’re so comfortable and buttery soft, perfect for workouts and everyday wear! #feelyourall #teamnike #nikepartner”

That led to an immediate backlash:

Nike pushed back on critics this weekend and told consumers that they needed to be “kind” and “inclusive” while declaring “hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors that are not in the spirit of a diverse and inclusive community will be deleted” from its sites.

The Nike decision follows another backlash against Bud Light that put Mulvaney on its beer cans.

These campaigns, particularly the beer endorsements, produced an obvious disconnect with many beer consumers who did not want Mulvaney on their beers. While networks described the outcry as a “right-wing backlash,” shareholders may question whether putting a controversial transgender personality on cans of beer will advance or deter sales.

Some expect the Bud Light campaign to alienate many consumers. In the coming weeks, we will see if the campaign increases or decreases sales. However, the legal question is whether shareholders are going to oppose such campaigns as divisive and damaging for the brand.

Disney is an example of that backlash. However, the mouse has now taken the gloves off in a bold move to defy the state of Florida. Disney’s opposition to Florida’s parental rights bill on education led to boycotts and possible retaliatory legislation. 

After its unique self-governance status was removed by the state, Disney used its effective control over the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to get the board at the last minute to hand over direct control of the district’s development rights and privileges to the company. It made the transfer just before the district was gutted by the legislature.

Disney’s move is breathtaking and, in my view, uniquely stupid. I wrote earlier that Disney’s aggressive position toward Florida was harmful to the company and its shareholders. Picking a fight with a state with general tax authority is pretty dumb when you have billions sunk into fixed real estate and assets in the state.

Florida will now seek to nullify this move, but the company has declared all-out war with the state. Even if the state is unsuccessful, it can use other means to even the score with the company. While it was possible that there could be a resumption of civil relations between the state and one of its largest corporate citizens, this has burned any bridge for such a reconciliation.

Once again, the company seems oblivious to economic consequences of its aggressive postures toward the state. While this may be popular for executives, it is not popular with a sizable number of consumers, particularly in Florida. The question is: why escalate the tension?

These companies could trigger shareholder revolts if the moves continue to spark boycotts or diminish sales.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies have already led to limited litigation, including shareholder demands for greater transparency or ESG commitment from companies. Some shareholders have also argued that the political views of corporate officers are being pursued over the profits of the company.

Such lawsuits on both sides can be difficult. Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty,” but must show that the officials acted in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they could argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.

These latest moves could force these issues. For Disney, it is a surprising decision given the departure of former CEO Bob Chapek after he triggered the controversy over the parental rights legislation. Now, Bob Iger will either move to defuse the situation or face the wrath of a motivated and infuriated legislature.

Legally, we may be entering a new phase in litigation over controversial corporate campaigns. Bud Light, for example, knew it would create buzz with Mulvaney. The question is whether it is the right type of buzz and whether shareholders can object that executives are too willing to test the “go woke, go broke” theory.

246 thoughts on “Disney, Bud Light, and Nike Go Head-to-Head With Critics With Controversial New Campaigns”

  1. These corporations are telling their female customers that a childish and silly gay man – who only very recently decided to dress and present himself as a “girl” – is the best representation of womanhood they could find to represent their products.

    Essentially, a behavioral challenged man can present himself as a (in his word) girl, and we are all expected to not only accept, but celebrate this gender lunacy.

    Their message would also seem to be that womanhood is so inferior to manhood that the later can become the former by only declaring it to be so – and do a better job at it.

    Kamala Harris added to her own silliness by sending a letter to this silly boy/girl to recognize her first year of “girlhood.”

    This is almost as ridiculous as the transgender Admiral at HHS who was selected as Women of the Year because “she” overcame the challenges of being a women in the field of medicine – while not mentioning the she had lived as a he for the prior 56 years.

    I suggest that each adult person should have the freedom to live the life they choose, but not expect anyone else to celebrate their gender dysphoria or narcissism.

  2. @TulsiGabbard 🌺:

    The Restrict Act does a lot more than just make it illegal for Americans to use TikTok. It will give unelected bureaucrats the power to make it illegal for Americans to use any other app or website, monitor our every move, censor our online speech, and crush any dissent, all under the guise of “national security”.


  3. Seems this is more of a governance than a legal issue, and the resolution to be driven by shareholder votes & consequent changes in board control and executive management, if any.

    1. Spot on comment, Hunter Brown!

      So far I haven’t seen any regulatory initiatives that would be pushing this transgender theme. However, the SEC issued a rule proposal last year that has been extremely controversial – the Climate Disclosure Proposal. The 500-page document outlines numerous disclosure mandates that are intended to enhance and standardize disclosures to address perceived “investor needs” for information about a company’s climate-related business risks. These rules would require public companies to disclose information about the oversight of climate-related risks by their boards of directors and management. They would also be required to disclose how any climate-related risks identified have had, or are likely to have, a material impact on a company’s business and consolidated financial statements over the short-, medium- and long terms and the risks associated with a company’s transition to a smaller carbon footprint. If adopted, as proposed, the Proposal would requires public companies to disclose very granular information about GHG emissions – in some cases relating to customers and suppliers. My sense here is that the Securities and Exchange Commission is attempting to regulate corporate behavior through disclosure mandates. A possible result of these governmental efforts would be to replace the “shareholder primacy” model of corporate governance with the “stakeholder” model, pursuant to which a company manages its business in an effort to address numerous stakeholders. Make no mistake – this stakeholder model is catching on. I have copied below an excerpt from a published paper that I wrote on the topic.

      While the Proposal might appear to be an investor protection initiative, it might be more accurate to describe it as an effort to regulate corporate behavior through disclosure mandates. The Proposal does not differentiate between information that would be useful to investors and information that would be material to an investment decision – a distinction with a difference from a liability perspective. The concept of “materiality” is the cornerstone of the federal securities laws. It is a standard oriented toward financial outcomes. It is not clear how corporate policies that might be implemented in an effort to comply with the new disclosure regime would impact financial performance. The shareholder primacy model focuses the corporate mission on measurable financial results. In contrast, the stakeholder governance model requires management to juggle the demands of the various stakeholder constituencies. If adopted in its current form, the Proposal will impose substantial disclosure burdens on public corporations, and it will likely be subject to challenge in the courts. For investors who have an expectation of profit from the enterprises in which they invest, disclosure of a corporation’s governance model might be more meaningful than the disclosures currently proposed.

      1. “the Securities and Exchange Commission is attempting to regulate corporate behavior through disclosure mandates. A possible result of these governmental efforts would be to replace the “shareholder primacy” model of corporate governance with the “stakeholder” model”

        Agree. It also foots with the concentrated voting block (~20%) of institutional fund managers who are required to vote in accord with the Prudent Investors standard voting (ie in the interests of shareholders) but in fact over ride those interests in favor with off agenda social issues. Is there a large scale class action lawyer in the house?
        And the fix is to vest the voting rights in the beneficial owner, make the rights detachable & marketable such that an beneficial investor in all these indexed funds (you or me) could 1/ vote his shares as he likes 2/ sell them for value or 3/ do nothing. The control premia (say a ~20% block) can be indicatively valued from the M&A market. This would break the oligopoly of voting, the proxy advisor cartel, bring a market based check on the value of corporate governance (imperfect perhaps, but a market price nevertheless), and perhaps open the catchetic market in corporate control. Add skin in the game with a relatively simple blockchain app.

  4. For Nike to produce and display a commercial that shows a young man “dancing” around in a woman’s sports bra is disrespectful to all women – real women – whether they are customers or not. He may use lipstick or nail polish and may don women’s attire, but that does not make him a woman. As they say: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. SHAME on Nike!


    It is becoming clear to all why the vote was restricted in the American restricted-vote republic.

    Why turnout was 11.6% in 1788; why general vote criteria by State, per the Constitution, were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

    How the vote was fundamentally restricted by immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, within the year of adoption of the Constitution.

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

    “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

  6. Brief History of Feminism:

    1st wave: 1920s seneca falls, suffragette movement, women gain right to vote.
    2nd wave: 1960s a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, my body my choice, ’70s roe v wade, summer of free love movement
    3rd wave: ’80s you’ve come a long way baby, successful like a man, corporate suits, shoulder pads.
    4th wave: make some room, ladies. a man can be a woman too.

    What is a woman? “I’m not a biologist so I can’t say.”
    But yes, men can be women too.

    Ladies, [if we may still call you ladies]
    you have sold your souls to Progressivism.
    being a woman is no longer a protected class.
    Progressivism has won its War on Women.
    Bizarrely, Progressive women are cheering on their own diminishment.

    1. America was conceived, designed, engineered and produced to be a severely restricted-vote republic, under an infinitesimal government, the purpose of which was merely to secure the rights and freedoms to the people which are provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The vote was relatively unimportant and provided merely to perpetuate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not destroy them and replace them with the Communist Manifesto. One man, one vote “democracy” is the “dictatorship of the proletariat” designed to destroy freedom, free enterprise and private property.

      America was to be free, comprised of freedom-loving individuals engaged in the “pursuit of happiness” as free enterprise, not invaded and conquered by government sanctioned dependents and parasites living on other people’s money and artificial “affirmative action” status, as students, employees and citizens.


  7. An option: learn to make your own beer. If Miss Hannigan can figure out how to make bathtub gin, anyone should be able to figure out how to make their own beer, right?

  8. We have reached the point where gigantic companies have become another branch of the government rather than a corporate citizen. And it is not just Disney. The government can’t do anything because it is too slow, too corrupt, and generally lacking the ambition to protect consumers. If they pulled that stunt on Trump, all roads into Disneyland would be under construction.

      1. @George…
        The funniest thing about that video is the MSM.
        They first kept saying he used an ‘assault rifle’. An AR-15.

        Yet its not.
        Its an HK MP-5 which is a sub machine gun. 9mm. (Pistol round not rifle round.)

        Anyone who knows anything about guns knows this.
        They are fun to shoot. They are legal in states that allow NFA weapons, as long as you can pass the extra background hoops and pay the tax stamp(s).


        1. The National Firearms Act, 1934, like most other legislation of the era – Federal Reserve Act, IRS, Social Security, Medicare et al. – is irrefutably unconstitutional.

          Congress has the power to tax for and fund only debt, defense and general Welfare, and the power to regulate only money, commerce and land and naval Forces.

          The MSM and their audience are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom through self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.

          The principles of communism illegally and unconstitutionally prevail in America.

          Enemies must be neutralized with extreme prejudice.

          The singular American failure has been, since 1860, and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

          Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional acts, along with those of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama and Biden, must have been immediately struck down by Judicial Review.

          1. @George, the NFA was passed and was updated several times since its creation.
            IIRC its passed SCOTUS sniff tests in the past.

            While this is off topic… just goes to show you the decline in the quality of reporting.


          1. Huh?
            The spent shells eject from the MP5 to the right. Not sure what you’re seeing


  9. Jonathan: Disney, Bud Light, Nike and other corporations are simply responding to changing social norms that reflect the views of most young consumers. Nike featured transgender Dylan Mulvaney in an ad because studies showed the purchasers of Nike products support LGBTQ and transgender rights.

    Somewhat related there was an election this week for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz won by 11% over her conservative opponent. This will give the liberal majority on the Court an opportunity to decide whether abortion will be available in the state. Scott Walker, former GOP governor in Wisconsin and current president of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, put his finger on the problem: “Younger voters are the issue. It comes from years of radical indoctrination–on campuses, in school, with social media and throughout culture. We have to counter it or conservatives will never win battleground states again”.

    A recent Harvard poll confirms Walker’s prediction. The poll shows that for young voters their priority issues are inflation, the right to abortion, protecting democracy, climate change, LGBTQ and transgender rights and gun control. And what are conservatives and the GOP doing to respond to Walker’s call to action? They are making it more difficult for university students to vote, passing anti-abortion bills–even banning the morning after pill and making it a crime for anyone to offer advice or assisting a woman or girl in procuring an abortion. Some GOP controlled states have just passed laws banning transgender people from participating in the sports of their choice or getting transgender health care.

    The Harvard poll also showed that climate change was a big issue for young voters who made a significant difference in the 2020 elections. Trump’s loss was due, in part, to his position on climate change. He called it a “hoax invented by the Chinese”, pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement and spent 4 years pushing fossil fuels.

    On gun control young voters want gun control legislation. And what is the GOP response? In Florida DeSantis just signed a bill that allows for the concealed carry of firearms without a license or training. In Tennessee there have been massive protests after the massacre at the elementary school in Nashville. This week 3 lawmakers joined the protests inside the Tennessee capitol. Two were Black. The GOP voted to expel the 2 Black–but not the White female lawmaker. So instead of addressing gun legislation the Tennessee GOP engaged in a racist spectacle in the former Confederate state.

    So while large corporations are seriously addressing the issues important to young voters the GOP is going in the opposite direction. And what is your advice? You want conservatives to file shareholder suits to challenge the “woke” policies of corporate boards. Now that will appeal to young voters! It seems conservatives, like you, keep shooting yourselves in the foot when trying to appeal to young voters. The GOP conservatives have no original ideas. They are simply “anti” everything the Democrats and progressives stand for. That’s likely a disaster for the GOP in next years elections and why Scott Walker is crying in the wilderness!

    1. Dennis McIntyre, you say that these woke companies are just reflecting changes in social norms. Why is it then that Disney suffered a $4 billion dollar loss in 2022? The only answer is that the public is buying less rather than more of their product. Just because they reflect changes in your social norms doesn’t mean that they are reflecting a change in social norms for the nation as a whole no matter what fantasy you create in your own mind. May I make a suggestion. Put your money where your mouth is. Just rush right out and buy as much Anheuser-Busch and Disney stock as you can afford. We will anxiously await your reporting on how you blew all your retirement money. My recommendation is that you invest your retirement money at a nearby casino instead. Be careful reading what Dennis McIntyre says because it may result in an urge to gamble.

      1. TIT: No. You don’t have the “only answer”. The reason why fewer people are spending money at Disney may well, and I would posit, is likely due to boycotting Florida because of DeSantis. I won’t go there again until he’s gone–not even to visit friends who keep asking me to please come and visit. People like you –who don’t understand just how repulsive Trump is, or how important abortion rights, gun control and LGBTQ rights are to the majority– just don’t get it. So, IMHO, people are putting their money where their mouths are. There’s plenty of great places to visit that don’t help the Florida economy, something DeSantis takes for granted. There are lovely beaches all over America. And, there’s even another Magic Kingdom–in California,–where they don’t censor Anne Frank books or abuse drag queens who just want to entertain children by reading books to them.

        1. Abortion rights, gun control and Let’s Get Biden To Quit “rights” are antithetical, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and irrefutably unconstitutional.

          NUT, do you know what country you are in (i.e. illegally)?

        2. Sure Gigi, Oh Florida, if only Gillum were our governor…..oh what could have been…Just imagine how much better life would have been in Florida under a governor found passed out in his own vomit, doing meth in a hotel room with male prostitutes.

          1. When I read Anonymous’ comment, I mistakenly saw it as…

            “Oh Florida, if only GOLLUM were our governor…”

            After my initial laughter, I though he would make a splendid governor. Stow him away in the governor’s mansion with that precious ring and he’ll leave everyone in the state alone and not bother anybody.

            1. Looks like Gigi’s preferred choice for Florida governor will soon be stowed away wearing precious rings of another sort.

              “Gilllum walked into the courtroom wearing leg shackles and handcuffs with a chain around his waist.”

              “Gillum and one of his closest advisors were indicted last June by a federal grand jury on charges they illegally funneled campaign donations to themselves. Both were charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 19 counts of wire fraud; Gillum faces an additional count of lying to the FBI about his interactions with undercover agents.”

              “The trial, which could last weeks, is set to begin April 17 at the federal courthouse in Tallahassee…”

              Oh Florida, what could have been…right Gigi?

        3. Gigi, how does it make any sense to hurt Disney by boycotting Florida. You do know that the population of Florida is expanding while the population of California is in decline. So your saying that Disney is losing money because people are boycotting Florida. There is a phrase that describes such an action. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rather, one would think that if your position is correct people would be flocking to Florida to support Disney in its time of need but this is not happening. The reason for this is that most people are not in favor of what Disney is producing and most people do not think like you. Logic took flight in your very first sentence. We do however appreciate the comedic relief.

          1. The one cutting of his nose to spite his face is DeSantis. Disney is a huge draw, and he just has to prove what a spiteful little sh*t he really is, and how he doesn’t care that the majority of Americans don’t agree with his censorship, abuse of LGBTQ people and abuses of power. When people visit Florida, they help the economy of Florida, even if they don’t go there to visit Disney–hotels, rental cars, gas for rental cars, meals, groceries–all expenses that are incurred that help the Florida economy by just going there, regardless of whether someone visits Disney. Most people support Disney and its right to object to DeSantis’s draconian abuses of power, but supporting Disney also benefits Florida–so how many peoiple will hold their nose and go anyway? It’s expensive, too, and there are other places that have nice beaches that don’t come at the cost of helping the economy of a state that elected a tyrant. DeSantis isn’t going to stop f’ing with Disney because he just has to prove to the deplorables that he’s as big an A-hole as Trump, so if I were Disney, I’d stop making improvements to the property, look around for a better place, sell the property to Six Flags or another amusement company, pull out of Florida and rebuild someplace else with nice weather and nice people–like the Bahamas–or maybe even Cuba that might be ready to make a sweetheart deal to attract Disney. Operating costs would be far lower, too, especially for human resources, so the ticket prices would be less. It wouldn’t cost much more to fly the extra 90 miles to Havana, and we have Guantanamo Bay nearby. What would happen to Florida if Disney decided to pull out? I guarantee that this scenario never occurred to DeSantis. You are dead wrong in claiming that “most people are not in favor of what Disney is producing”…most people support LGBTQ rights, oppose censorship and tyrants like DeSantis.

              1. Naw, it’s way more fun with Gigi here.
                She wrote this: “What would happen to Florida if Disney decided to pull out?”
                Would it be a civility violation if I replied to her asking if her mom ever wondered the same thing about her dad? hehe.

                    1. You members of Cult 45 just can’t help proving every single day what deplorable trash you really are, in addition to not having the intellectual capacity to come up with anything cogent or intelligent to say when confronted with facts or arguments you don’t like.

            1. Googoo, Thanks for this. I needed a good laugh and your Cuba suggestion fit the bill nicely. I can’t wait to go on “It’s a Workers Paradise After All” or “Refugees of the Caribbean”. By the way Gitmo is nowhere near Havana.

          2. TiT,
            That right there.
            Deep Blue states like CA and NY are loosing population (net) by the hundred of thousands every year (they lost Congressional seats, and are expect to lose more in the coming years). Corporations too.
            Guess where all those people are going? TX and FL are the two biggest gainers.
            Why are they leaving?
            High crime, high taxes, high cost of living.
            I would argue Disney embracing wokeness is a big reason for their losses. Many of their wokeism they have embraced in their movies is reflective of poor boxoffice sales and declining streaming revenue.

        4. Gigi, thank you for NOT coming to Florida, we’re being overrun by refugees from northern blue cities and states. As far as gun control and trannies performing for kids, most of us here seem to think DeSantis (who polled 60% in the last election) is on the right track. And considering some of the sexually explicit books being assigned by woke teachers and librarians, we’re merely exercising our parental rights to protect our kids — no one here is censoring books for adults.

          Disney? Don’t make us laugh… They’ve consistently fired long-time employees (Florida residents) and sought replacements from outside the US in the recent past. Now they’ve decided to revive *heavily* discounted annual passes for residents… guess that $4 billion loss is starting to hurt.

          So again, thank you for your support by keeping your woke a** out of Florida. We understand it’s NOT Trump who is repulsive.

      2. @Think it through,
        C’mon man, you could have summed it up with “Go Woke, Go Broke”.

        These companies are catering to a small niche who doesn’t normally buy their products.
        Or they hired, in Disney’s case a group of LGBT+ whatever types who want to promote this agenda.
        Same for the teachers who are pushing this agenda on kids in school.

        In Budwiser’s case, they saw a TikTok idjit who has a bunch of followers and thus thought to find a way into a niche market.
        Nike? Who knows? Must have just gotten on the bandwagon and wanted to sell their products into the trans market. Not carrying about losing market share in other markets.

        What they will see is their revenues drop, they’ll find some other excuse.


    2. If you bothered to watch the Tennessee House debate the adoption of the expulsion resolutions you might have seen what I did, no admission by those two members that they “might” have broken the House rules but rather they accused all other house members of racism, just as you have repeated here. While I agree that there are real and abhorrent occurrences of racism in this country even today, what happened in Tennessee wasn’t one of them. These individuals knowingly broke the House Rules and expressed not an scintilla of regret. According to them, they were within their rights to break the House rules in a manner never before done in the history of the state.

      What makes them so special as to demand other House members accede to their demands for “safe gun storage laws”, “red flag laws”, “bans on semiautomatic rifles”, and if they refuse, then they are entitled to bring all State House business to a halt?
      Uniquely, our country protects the rights of the minority as well as the majority. A thousand protesters in Tennessee can have no direct effect on the Tennessee House forcing them to cave in to their demands than the government of the United States caving in to the January 6th protestors.

      1. They got expelled for breaking rules that are not as serious as they make them out to be. There have been legislators in that state who have kept their jobs on far more serious violations. They were kicked out because the majority wanted to send a message and that was “know your place”. They expelled two young black legislators and kept the only white female legislator. It was purely racist in nature. Tennessee legislators robbed a constituency of their representation because they want everyone to know who is in control. Democrats have no power to affect any legislation in Tennessee. Protesting for gun control would not have changed anything in the state. But they chose to make an example of them by telling those two legislators to shut up and sit down, to “know your place”.

        If they choose to run again they would certainly win. They have the advantage of being put back in spite of what republicans in the legislature wanted by the constituents of those districts. The democrats can certainly nominate them again for their constituents to vote them back in.

        1. I beg to differ with you. They were expelled because they broke the rules. They were warned, but no, they had to bring in a bullhorn to cheer on the crowd and bring to a screeching halt all of the house business for the day. This world runs on rules. They were given the opportunity to stop the interruption but they refused. They chose to hold the rest of the house members hostage for the duration of their stupid antics. They chose to break rules for the first time in the state’s history. I have zero sympathy for them. Talk about minor offenses, they were simply ousted from their positions, no different than unruly school children being expelled from school.

        2. Democrats want everyone to forget this is all happening because a trans Leftist went on a rampage to murder kids at a school.
          The FBI is holding the killer’s manifesto and refusing to release it.
          Why do you think that is?

    3. Dennis — You know what else happened in Tennessee? A surprise visit by Kamala, our VP.
      She’s supposed to be VP for ALL the people, especially in times of tragedy and grief.
      So VP Kamala made a visit to Nashville. Not to attend any of the vigils for the children murdered by a trans terrorist. Not to meet with the families of this horrific shooting. Not to offer condolences in remembrance of the ‘Tennessee Six.’
      No, Kamala, the Vice President of the United States rushed to the side of the ‘Tennessee Three’ to make a firery speech about silencing people, racism, pushing gun control, and their leftist agenda. Then the ‘Tennessee Three’ got an invitation to the White House.
      Classy, eh? So unifying for the country. So healing for the soul of a nation.
      What scummy hideous pigs these people truly are. FJB and his VP too.

  10. Svelaz says that Disney an Anheuser-Busch have no fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders. When a company sells its stock they tell the buyer that the stock is a good investment. They say that you should help finance our company and if you do so you can expect a profit on your investment. Svelaz, this is so investment 101 that it’s difficult for me to understand how little you really know about the subject. My bad, its not.

    1. TiT, Anheuser-Busch is owned by InBEV a large foreign corporation that has products other than beer. That’s why their stock would still be a good investment even if American beer drinkers lost their minds and chose not to buy their beer. There are plenty of customers who buy their beer regardless of what is on the can. I can expect a good return on my investment given that InBEV has a very broad product range that is not just beer. Smart investors would know that.

  11. Disney, Nike and AB don’t really care about the consumer. They are more afraid of the big fund managers like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. Especially Larry Fink of BlackRock. He is the “Big Daddy” of the ESG movement.




  13. Evil is at its most pernicious when it leverages good traits like kindness and compassion in order to wedge its foot in the door. “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” And the truth is a male cannot be a female. If you cannot and will not accept that, what you’re pursuing is the opposite of love.

  14. Under the first amendment to the Constitution, Anheuser-Busch and Jack Daniels are certainly entitled to feature drag queens in their advertisements. Also entitled to free speech are Americans who want to publicly promote and discuss a sudden decline in sales of the products sold by those corporations.

  15. Whatever your thoughts about trans rights, the fight against kids being mutilated or anything else, I challenge you to watch Dylan on The Price is Right (pre-trans grift) and then say that Dylan Mulvaney isn’t mentally challenged. In my opinion this guy is either a lunatic (probably) or an actor pulling of a very long grift.

    Did anyone ever say that Tiny Tim wasn’t mentally challenged? Did anyone ever take Pee Wee Herman seriously? This isn’t a normal person, in my humble opinion he has mental issues.

  16. Turley is ignoring the one thing that is obvious about those companies. They are exercising their freedom of speech,. Turley is dead silent on it for one simple reason. He can’t say that because it would alienate his readership and his boss, Fox News.

    These companies are free to chose whatever they want to say regarding their support. If people are being upset about their choices they are free to stop doing business with them. Shareholders can choose to stop buying shares and people can choose to stop going to Disneyland. But here Turley is not defending their right to express their views because it’s their right. Disney got punished by Florida because it expressed a view disagreeing with the governor. That was a clear violation of the 1st amendment and Turley sat silent and deliberately chose not to defend Disney’s right to express their view. That is why Turley is a massive hypocrite. Disney’s move with the board was brilliant.. Turley left out the fact that DeSantis didn’t think things through when he chose to punish Disney for disagreeing with his policies.. The original intent was to strip Disney of their governance district, but that would have put a billion dollars of debt onto those districts and the state was sure as hell not going to absorb a billion dollar debt. So they chose instead to abolish the board and control it thru DeSantis appointed lackeys. Disney brillliantly and transparently changed the rules before the Desantis appointed board took over. It stripped them of the majority of their power…forever. If DeSantis pushes for legislation to change that they will have to show in court why and that would expose the fact that Disney is being punished for expressing their disagreement and that is an unconstitutional violation of their 1st amendment rights.

    Turley is being a first class hypocrite by not defending these companies free speech rights. He claims to be a free speech absolutist. Clearly he’s not,. He’s an absolute hypocrite.

    1. Svelaz, this is a totally specious and dimwitted post on your part. Nobody brought up freedom of speech because nobody is claiming Disney doesn’t have a right to make any statement they want to. What is being debated is whether they’re violating their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders by wading into an unnecessary controversy and if the shareholders have some recourse if they object strongly enough. You’re baying at the wrong moon.

      1. Nathan,

        Disney doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders are only there to buy shares because they like the company’s product. Their product is entertainment and that is derived from the talent of their employees. It’s what keeps their brand going. Shareholders are there only for the returns. If they don’t like what the company is doing in regards to disagreeing with legislation that harms or demagogues their employees they can sell their shares and move on to other stock. That doesn’t mean other shareholders who do support the company’s views would not come in and fill that void. Shareholders are always going to flock to a company that is doing well regardless of a disagreement that is not universally shared. LGBTQ shareholders will fill the void and there are wealthy individuals who identify as such. What makes one so sure that the majority of shareholders are conservatives who don’t agree with the company’s views on the LGBTQ community?

        This is about punishing companies because they expressed their views contrary to governors or conservatives who believe everyone should be adhering to THEIR values. It’s not an ‘unnecessary’ controversy. It’s a necessary acknowledgment of a changing culture that is a reality. Disney’s stock has not gone down, it has not gone on a huge sell off, right? What does that tell you? That the majority of shareholders do not share the views of those who are wanting to punish the company for expressing their disagreement with the governor’s legislation. They are supporting their employees and that is a value that many would prefer by a large majority. Not the small loud minority of conservatives whining about the fact that society is changing and leaving them behind.

        1. Svelaz, you say that other shareholders will come in and fill the void left by those who have divested themselves of Disney stock. This filling the void is not occurring. Walt Disney (DIS 0.06%) stock fell 43.9% in 2022, underperforming the S&P 500’s decline of 19.4%. Investors can lay some of the blame on Disney+, where spending on new content led to a $4 billion operating loss for Disney’s direct-to-consumer segment in fiscal 2022 (ended Oct. 1).Jan 26, 2023. Why do you think that Disney had an operating loss of $4 billion in 2022. Does it ever cross your mind that parents don’t want to have their children viewing one prince kissing another prince so they are refusing to buy Disney products? Even when it’s easy to figure out you just can’t seem to get it.

        2. Svelaz, on 3/28/22, Disney made its post on Twitter condemning the Florida bill. Its stock price was $140. Three months later the stock price was $97. To me, that looks like the stock price went down. Its last closing on Thursday was $99. It is still down. I can read a stock chart. Can you?

        3. Svelaz, on 3/28/22, Disney made their post on Twitter regarding the Florida bill. Their stock price that day was $140. Three months later, their stock price was $97. That reads like their stock price definitely went down significantly. On Thursday the stock closed at $99…still down a year later.

          Just for fun, google “Does a BOD have a fiduciary relationship to the stockholders”. You will get a simple and emphatic and universal YES and any number of articles describing what it is..

          You seem to just make crap up and think that no one is smart enough to see through your BS.

          1. Nathan, Disney’s stock prices have always fluctuated between those numbers. It’s not uncharted territory for Disney. It’s easy to cherry-pick certain dates to provide an example. What you are leaving out is that the stock prices have been slightly lower but stable. That is not a reason to be concerned about. Historically their prices have been reliable for investors for quite a long time.

            Here’s a clearer picture of their prices historically,


            Disney stock prices in 2008 were just $18 a share. The highest share prices came along when the Marvel franchise was acquired and then we had the pandemic in 2020 which slowed down the production of movies. Current stock prices are average for Disney pre- MCU. With the upcoming new phases in the MCU those prices are going to rebound. This is nothing more than normal market activity.

            1. Svelaz, I can’t see how comparing the stock price on the day of the tweet to the stock price three months later and then on to today is “cherry-picking”. Going back to 2008 is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here.

              How about some current AB reaction from the store aisle?


              1. Nathan, you’re not getting it. Stock prices fluctuate all the time and Disney is no exception. What has been true of Disney stock is that it has been consistent in growth and stability. You cherry-picked a date and compared it to the lowest point you could find when you know the prices were fluctuating between $90 to $119 throughout that time frame you cite.

                The Budweiser issue is temporary. Some distributor panicking over the reaction that is not going to last past two weeks is just panicking. The company is not going to incur massive losses because some red necks and “offended” country folk are boycotting or shooting beer cans in defiance. This is no different than NFL fans going nuts over a beer company endorsing a team they oppose and “boycotting” for a week their favorite beer. Please, it cannot get any stupider than that. These are beer drinkers who have a massive choice of beers at their disposal choices that are mostly owned by the same company they are boycotting.

                1. “Stock prices fluctuate all the time . . .”

                  Funny, isn’t it, how the Left makes that argument in defense of a Woke corporation (Disney), but ignores that argument for a company like Twitter.

        4. Again you are an idiot.
          Is there any topic you can not make a fool of yourself ?

          Shareholders OWN Disney.
          The ONLY Duty The MANAGEMENT of Disney has is to SHAREHOLDERS.

          Shareholders elect the Board of Directors,
          The Board of Directors hires the management.

          Disney IS the Shareholders.

          The Board does not OWN disney – though often many board members own shares.

          The MANAGEMENT does not OWN Disney – though often they own some shares.

          The Management of a corporation are EMPLOEES.

          They are hired and fired by the board.
          The Board is hired and fired by the Shareholders.

          The Shareholders ARE the Owners.

          They ARE who everyone else at Disney works for.

          Shareholders are there to do WHATEVER THEY PLEASE.

          They can as you point out – sell their shares if they are unhappy.
          But they can ALSO fire the board. And Fire the management.

          They can if they wish decide that Disney is going to get out of the business of childrens entertainment and venture into space travel or toaster ovens.

          Shareholdes OWN the company.

          A “Share” is literally a percentage of the ownership of the company.

          While you are LOOSELY correct that Many shareholders will flee companies that are doing poorly,

          The reverse is also true. There are specific investors that Seek out companies where the management is making bad decisions that are harming the value of the company. They buy enough shares – at reduced prices because of the bad management,
          Take over the board, fire the management and hope to make alot of money by restoring the value of the company.

          You are full of Schiff, because you do not understand who the “BOSS” is.

          The BOSS of a corporation are the shareholders PERIOD. End of Story.
          It is THEIR company. They own it. The Board and Management exist to make shareholders happy.

          Though I would note that even Shareholders are “disciplined” by the market.

          Even Shareholders can not CHOOSE to make stupid decisions that reduce the value of a company UNLESS they own the majority of the shares AND refuse to sell at any price.

          Further you should KNOW all of this from the Recent Twitter takeover.

          Musk offered to buy ALL of the shares of Twitter at above market prices.

          The Management of the company COULD NOT SAY NO – even if they wanted to – and they did.
          Had they tried to stop Musk – they would have been personally liable for the losses of other shareholders.
          Even the Board of Directors could not say no for exactly the same reason – had that resulted in a loss to shareholders,
          They would have been on the hook.

          In Fact even a Majority of Shareholders could NOT refuse to sell to Musk – absent a better offer.
          Because the minority of shareholders would have sued and won for the loss of Value they suffered.

          Twitter is today a PRIVATE company – it is OWNED exclusively by musk and possibly a few other private investors.

          AS Such Musk can do whatever he dam well pleases.

          Musk can make decisions that harm the company – because he is only harming himself.

          I would note that the absolute fiduciary duty of management and the Board to the interests of Shareholders is not merely dictated by the market it is enshrined in the law.

          If the management acts to harm shareholder value – the value of the company they can and will be dismised by the board – and if not then the board will be dismissed by shareholders.

          Further if either the management or the board do so DELIBERATELY – then they are on the hook PERSONALLY to shareholders for that lost value.

          This is enshrined in both state and federal law.

          Shareholders OWN the company. They have absolute total control of it – if they choose. And even if they do not Everyone is answerable to Them.

          1. “Shareholders OWN Disney.
            The ONLY Duty The MANAGEMENT of Disney has is to SHAREHOLDERS.

            Shareholders elect the Board of Directors,
            The Board of Directors hires the management.”

            But they don’t run the company.

            And no the only duty the Disney management has is to the shareholders. Their duty is to the brand and its customers. Shareholders are only there to make money from their investment in the company which makes its money from the brand and what they represent.

            Shareholders are there for the brand and its value. The big shareholders who vote for management will not upset that brand for fear of losing value and currently, that value is not being threatened by their expressing their opposition to a government policy that affects their employees. It’s their employees who make their brand possible. It’s the source of creativity and imagination that keeps the brand value up. They are also very keenly aware that a lot of their customers are also members of the LGBTQ community.

            “The MANAGEMENT does not OWN Disney – though often they own some shares.”

            Management often owns the MAJORITY of shares. They use shares as compensation, right? The majority of Disney stock is owned by institutional investors 64%, the next biggest shareholders are public. 36% The insider shareholders own just 1% which are the CEO and a few board executives.

            The institutional shareholders are NOT going to acquiesce to a minority conservative group’s demands against the much larger public. They are not going to damage the brand by kowtowing to a small group that would not make a serious impact on the company’s revenues. It’s just not reality. Disney is not being “badly managed” in fact they are managing the company just fine. The best example is how they handled the Reedy Creek board and how they maintained control of their district thru legal means against the governor. It means the majority of investors APPROVED of the move. They need that control because it’s detrimental to the value of the company and those investors know that.

            “The reverse is also true. There are specific investors that Seek out companies where the management is making bad decisions that are harming the value of the company. They buy enough shares – at reduced prices because of the bad management,
            Take over the board, fire the management and hope to make alot of money by restoring the value of the company.

            You are full of Schiff, because you do not understand who the “BOSS” is. ”

            LOL!! specific investors seek out companies where management is making bad decisions and harming the value of the company. They are not there to invest in the company. They are there to plunder whatever value it has left and take sell it for a profit. They seek only short-term gains instead of long term. They buy enough shares at reduced prices so they can control the company so they can sell it off for more than they invested in and that is not always guaranteed. Disney is not that kind of company. You seem to be confusing small companies with giants like Disney as being the same when it comes to management.

            “The BOSS of a corporation are the shareholders PERIOD. End of Story.”

            It’s far more complicated than that because oftentimes management is often the biggest shareholder in a company. But if the public owns the next biggest chunk of shares they can affect the value of the stock if they choose to leave and when those shareholders are supportive of LGBTQ causes they are not going to alienate those shareholders because a few loudmouths are calling for boycotts.

            Ultimately the value of any company is determined by the consumer. Not the shareholders. Disney’s value is dictated by the consumer and currently a small number of conservative consumers are not going to reduce the value of the company in any significant way.

            1. Still an idiot. The ONLY duty of management is to shareholders.

              Management serves customers BECAUSE that is the way to profit the shareholders.
              Shareholders expect managment to serve customers – because that is the way in which the shareholders will profit.

              Shareholders are there because the beleive their investment/ownershop will deliver the best return for the degree of risk that they are willing to take.

              YOU are free to invest for whatever reasons you wish. But if you invest for any other reason that matching your personal risk/reward preference – you will do more poorly and you will harm yourself.
              Further unless you own your own business – the remaining shareholders who are focused on risk and reward will outvote you all the time.

              The only relevance of brands is that brands increase the value of a company to shareholders.

              EVERYHING about a company is about shareholder value.

              “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

              ― Adam Smith,

              This is what drives Free markets.

              This is also Why free markets are inherently a force for good.

              I have repeated over and over that free exchange occurs for ONLY one reason – BOTH parties are better off after the exchange.

              As I have said many times before – you will only trade a $ to McD’s for a hamburger if you want the hamburger more than the $.
              McD’s will only trade the Burger for the $ if they want the dollar more than the burger.

              If you are McD’s that means the only way you can end up better off – profiting, is by giving tyo your customers a Burger they want more than their money.

              Free markets stop working – standard of living collapses. Everything fails, if Businesses Stop trying to make sure customers are better off from exchange than they were before.

              The entire reason that Businesses serve customers is their own self interest. PERIOD.

              In the free market the way you make YOUR life better is by making others life better.

              The GOAL is to make YOUR life better – the MEANS is making the lives of your clients better.

            2. “Management often owns the MAJORITY of shares.”

              In a publicly owned company NEVER.
              That is often true of private companies.

              I own all the shares in my Due Dilligence LLC.
              I own all of my embedded software company.
              I own all of my real estate business.

              Privately held companies are nearly always owned by the management.
              There is rarely a board. The owner and the management are usually the same.

              Publicly owned companies are pretty much NEVER owned by management.
              It is highly unlikely that the management- CEO’s etc own more than a few percent of a publicly held company.

              Often but not USUALLY the Board members own a majority of shares.

              I would note that this is the norm for many reasons.
              One of which is legal liability.

              When ownership and management are the same there are fewer legal protections – the so called corporate veil.

              When the separation between management and ownership is preserved – the liability of owners is limited to the value of their stock.

              In my software business if I screw up – I can be sued for everything I own.
              In my due Dilligence LCC absent a criminal act that I commit my liability is capped at the value of the company.

              This is one of the major reasons that corporations are formed. The owners of corporations have no personal risk that is greater than the value of their stock.

            3. Svelaz, it is clear that you know nothing about business, markets, corporate governance.

              That you are making things up.

              Some of what you say is correct – though almost accidentally.

              Other remarks are commonly correct – but NOT rules, just norms.

              As an exampel most shareholders are NOT aware of the decisions of management – keenly or otherwise.
              They appoint a board, they are careful about that, and they expect the board to hire the best management they can afford.

              CEO’s are paid exorbitant amounts of money – Because making excellent management decisions is incredibly important to the value of the stock. CEO’s are usually paid in Stock – so that it is heavily in their interest to improve the value of the stock.

              Kodak went bankrupt a decade ago. Do you think that Kodak shareholders which they had paid far more money for a better CEO ?

              The difference in still between the very best CEO’s and the next teir down is tiny. But that tiny difference could means billions in in shareholder value. That is why CEO’s are paid exhorbitantly.

              At the same time – they are EXPECTED to deliver.

              Few shareholders give a schiff about LGBTQ+ or any other branding and marketing. They care about the price of the stock.
              If management has lost value – then whatever they have done – they failed.
              If management has gained value – they succeeded.

              SVB management made choices that did not increase shareholder value – EVB shareholders have been wiped out – they lost everything. Depositors will likely retain most of their deposits.

              When a company is in trouble – it is the shareholders that lose out.

              You are perfectly free to invest based on woke values or whatever you want.

              You are the exception rather than the rule.

              Aside from the capital I have invested in myself – my businesses – all the rest of my invested income is in managed investments – like IRA’s.

              I pay a small portion of the profits of my investment to investment managers whose job it is to invest my money to the leve3l of risk/return I have asked for . Periodically they tell me who they invested in for me. I pay no attention.
              But every single month I pay close attention to how much money they have made me.
              I have no idea if they invsted in Disney or Master Cake. But I know if they are making or losing money.

              The people managing my money are for the most part NOT paying attention to whether the managers are Woke or not.
              But whether they make money or not.

              And that is how it should be.

              The reason for AHB or Disney or Nike to promote and LGBTQ+ immage is that it will make shareholders money.

              If they are wrong about that – the value of the company will decline. the shareholders will loose money,
              many will go elsewhere.
              A decline in the value of the company – means less stock value, less ability to borrow and invest and less ability to produce.

              Whether Disney’s LGBTQ+ choices are good or bad is determined by the Market.
              Disney stock has been tanking since mid 2021. It has dropped from 160 to 99.
              During the same period the DJIA has been rising steadily.

              That means Disney is making poor choices. Is that their LGBTQ+ choices ?
              We will find out when they figure out how to reverse their losses.

            4. Nearly all institutional investors care about ONE THING – increases in stock prices.

              The actual Value of Disney has declined by 140B in the past 18 months.

              Absolutely positively institutional investors – and ALL OTHER OVENSTORS,
              Care greatly about that. If you invested a billion in Disney 18 mopnths ago it is now only worth about 600M.
              And that is in a time when inflation is driving everything else up.

              Few investors care about LGBTQ+ or conservatives.
              The care about stock values.

              As I noted before – SVB shareholders – and that includes institutional investors were wiped out.

              When a bussiness is in trouble – it is the investors that suffer.

              Believe me they care.

              If they do not – if investors make ESG choices or Woke investment choices – and those choices do NOT produce high returns – people move to other institutional investors.

              If My IRA consitently underperforms – I will find someone else to manage it.

              If an investment management firm tells me thaty are LGBTQ+ friendly – AND they provide a rate of return matching the competition – I will place my money with them.

              If they lose more than non-LGBTQ+ firms – I am moving. I will investg in Alex Jones – if that provides me the best return at the risk I am will ing to tolerate.

              And nto only am I not alone – Whether you like it or not that is not only the norm
              it is 99.999% of all investment.

              1. John, I thank those supporting ESG every night before I go to sleep, because in the longer term help to increase the value of my portfolio.

            5. You can try to read the minds of shareholdred.
              Or you can do something much simpler that will tall you EXACTLY what they think about Disney’s management decisions.

              You can look at the share price.

              Dropping stock prices ALWAYS mean investors do not beleive Disney is worth its price – that managemnt has failed.
              Rising prices mean management has succeeded.

              Stock prices drop – because investors have lost trust and want out.

            6. One of the differences between us is that you try to guess what people think – to read minds.

              I look for measures.

              Disney’s stock price does not tell us what investors think about Disney’s LGBT!Q+ marketing.
              They do tell us what investors think about Disney’s choices and its future.

              SVB failed – that means the management destroyed the entire shareholder value and started burning into the value of depositors.

              If your IRA invested in SVB – it lost everything.

              I can only speculate why investors have lost confidence in Disney – but it is beyodn any doubt they have done so.
              I KNOW the management failed. That is a FACT, it is not mind reading.

          2. John Say,
            Idiot is right.
            I only read part of it’s post, and it’s understanding of economics, well, I can see why such corporations and banks are failing if they have the same logic (i.e. NONE!!) as Sleezelaz.

            1. Svelaz never knows anythign at all about anything he talks about – even though he claims for himself absolute authority.

              Elsewhere he is pontificating on free markets claiming that the markets favor his prefered minorities.

              Maybe he is right. That is pretty easy to test.
              Let the free market work it out.

              But he never is willing to do that.

              Whenever he even thinks he might not get his way – he steps in seeking to use force.

              And claims that because he did not get his own way – it must have been some tiny number of dastardly conservatives who improperly denied his whims, when it was just ordinary people speaking through the market.

              He is also not smart enough to grasp that the market will provide for everyone.

              Either the mass market will incorporate the LGBTQ+ community – or that community will have its own niche markets.
              Either the Ted Nugents will end up in the Niche market or the Dylan Mulvaney’s will.

              Regardless left alone it will all work out – and it will change as peoples values change.

              What is niche and what is mainstream is a very accurate reflection of the values of all people.

              Nothing else comes close to accurately reflecting our values.

        5. With further respect to your idiocy.

          The “politics” of shareholders is irrelevant.

          People are free to buy or sell disney shares for whatever reason they wish.

          You are correct that LGBTQ+ people – both rich and poor – most stock in the US is NOT owned by the uper wealthy, it is owned by ordinary people – primarily but not exclusively through IRA’s and Pension plans.

          Regardless, If the Management of Disney acts to reduce the value of the company – as you note LGBTC+ investors can buy shares and say “keep doing what you are doing even though it is harming the company”.

          Though they will not likely succeed – because almost NO ONE is going to agree to be on a corporate board with a deliberately depressed by management choices stock value.

          Why – Because minority shareholders can sue their asses off.

          If you want to impose YOUR values rather than the values of the Marketplace reflected by the share price of the company,
          You must own 100% of the company – otherwise you as a board member or management have a fiduciary liability to the minority shareholders you have harmed.

          But aside from the above – you have a Different problem. Absolutely LGBTQ+ investors can buy disney stock.

          But so can anyone with any political values they might have, who understands that the Board and Management of Disney have made choices that devalued the company.

          Those investors can come in take over and throw out the woke board and management and restore the value of the company – and PROFIT enormously.

          Even if the LAW did not obligate boards and management with a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

          The working of the market would impose that normally.

          If what you claim actually came to pass – if LGBTQ+ shareholders bought into Disney to prop up idiot boards that were destroying the value of the company – I would wait for them to do their worst – and then invest heavily in Disney.

          KNOWING that once Disney’s value was damaged enough that a class of investors that looks for badly managed companies that they can take over and profit by restoring shareholder value with INEVITABLY move in and take over abd bring the value back
          to THEIR and MY profit.

          You are not only on the wrong side of the law – you are on the wrong side of reality.

          The ONLY way you win this fight is if the Market – disney consumers decide that they want more Woke Disney products.
          If the market were to decide Woke disney is worth more than normal disney.

          So far that has proved NOT to be the case.

          1. “Regardless, If the Management of Disney acts to reduce the value of the company – as you note LGBTC+ investors can buy shares and say “keep doing what you are doing even though it is harming the company”.”

            Who says they are harming the company? They are doing just fine. The only ones thinking the company is being harmed are those shareholders who are being a bunch of snowflakes. They can leave any time they want and that doesn’t harm the company at all. There are other investors willing to take their place all the time. Disney has a long prosperous future with the products they are developing. Their employees, many of who are LGBTQ are the source of their imagination and creativity that makes their brand unique is what keeps their value up.

            The most important thing for Disney is its brand, not its shareholders and they know that.

            You believe that Disney is destroying their brand, but the math doesn’t agree with your assessment. They are well in tune with their customer base and a small, loud, conservative slice of their customer base is not going to devalue what they see as a successful future. Their kids will still want to see the MCU movies , Star Wars, go to the theme parks, cruises, etc. Parent’s are always going to want to show their kids a good time and even they would be loath to disavow a company even when they know the product they provide is still good anyway.

            “But aside from the above – you have a Different problem. Absolutely LGBTQ+ investors can buy disney stock.

            But so can anyone with any political values they might have, who understands that the Board and Management of Disney have made choices that devalued the company.

            Those investors can come in take over and throw out the woke board and management and restore the value of the company – and PROFIT enormously. ”

            Your problem is that you think those who are griping about the current views of Disney are a majority. They are not. That’s why the company has not lost value any more than it has in the past when controversial issues pop up. The controversy about the live-action film The Little Mermaid has a black actor as the main character was short-lived. They may alienate some customers but gained a whole bunch of new ones.

            You ‘wish’ they would take over the board so that they could “profit enormously” but that would be at the expense of their brand. That profit would be short-lived. You’re thinking short-term. Disney is always thinking long term which is exactly how you maintain the value of a company. You’re looking for quick satisfaction in lieu of long-term stability. You’re definitely on the wrong side of reality.

            1. If your IRA, Pension, Life insurance had money invested in SVB – that money is GONE.
              It has been lost. It si never coming back.
              You will have less to retire on.
              You are worse off.

              If your IRA, Pension Insurance had money invested in Disney – half of that is gone.
              Maybe it will come back. But the likelyhood of seeing the Return you would had you invested in a
              DJIA indexed fund is ZERO.

              Stock price losses are very real.
              Institutional investor losses are loses for peoples pensions, IRA’s. Insurance.

              Bad managemnt decisons by SVB or Disney result in REAL HARM to REAL PEOPLE.
              And most of the harm is to Ordinary people – not the uber rich.

              These are not opinions, they are not mind reading they are FACTS.

              Disney has lost $160B in value in 18months. Almost half its value.

              Real People have $160B less money. Less to retire on, less life insurance.
              It also means all other forms of insurance will increase in price.
              Insurance companies make their money by investing premiums until the have to pay out losses.
              If those investments do not perform well – they must raise premiums.

            2. You keep discussing your approach as if it is certain. It is not. It is speculation.
              The Disney losses over the past 18months are REAL.
              They are NOT speculation.
              They are also losses when the market as a whole was gaining.
              18months is not short term.

              Disney’s management has Failed.

              We can have a debate about why they failed.
              But they have unequivocally failed.

              They have Failed in their duty to shareholders – who are now poorer.
              Institutional investors are NOT Elon Musk.
              They are peoples pensions and IRA’s they are life insurance, and auto, home and medical insurance premiums.

              Institutional investor losses will harm peoples retirement and increase the price of insurance.

              The verdict is in – Disney failed over the past 18months.

              The only thing left is the autopsy to determine why.

              You have lost this debate.

            3. I do not wish anything.

              I keep telling you facts, or the way markets actually work.

              Lets look at reality.
              Disney has lost $160B in value.

              Lets Presume that you are Carl Icahn. and you beleive you know why Disney lost that value and you beleive you can fix the management of Disney to restore that value.

              You need to come up with investors to buy 51% of Disney – in theory. In practive it is highly likely that a significant portion of existing shareholders will vote with you. A typical successful takeover would require buying about 15% of the stock. That is about $20B.

              So you gather investors with $20B. and you buy 15% of the stock, and combined with other existing shareholders who want to profit, you take over the board, throw out the management and put in new management.
              And in the course of 9 months they restore the value of the company.

              Your $20B in stock is now worth $40B – you have made a 100% profit in 9 months.
              You can sell out, having made a fortune and look for another company that has lost value because of poor decisons.

              Of course if you are wrong – you will make less money or even lose money.
              But the vast majority of investors who do this – rarely if ever lose.
              If you can find companies that have lost value by poor but fixable management decisions – you can make a fortune.

              At this point Disney is highly vulnerable to a take over.

              If those taking over think that the poor management decision was polluting a child friendly brand – that is what they will change.

              I am speculating as to what will get changed – but not by much.

              I am not speculating at all about the FACT that Disney is a target for essentially a form of hostile takeover.
              Anyone who has sufficient funds to buy alot of Disney stock, and beleives they can restore the value of the company,
              has a huge incentive to do so.

              But lest say I am wrong

              Not only has disney harmed investors – real people with IRA’s and pensions.
              But it has slashed its market capitalization – its ability to borrow money or invest.
              It ability to make additional films, to do marketing.

              Loss in share value has real consequences for the business and for investors.

              That is not speculation or mind reading or oppinion – it is FACT.;

        6. It does not matter what the majority of shareholders are – Woke, or Conservative.

          What matters is what the effect of the current management and Board is on shareholder value.

          The Only way that Disney can avoid its fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value is to go private.

          You can win this fight only one of two ways :
          Take disney private.
          Make Disney more profitable as a Woke corporation than as a non-woke corporation.

          You LOSE in every other scenario. The only question is how quickly.

          Publicly held corporations MUST maximize shareholder value without regard to politics.
          They must do so by law. and they must do so because Markets will FORCE it.

          Public corporations can be political – but only if the benefits are greater than the harms – and that is rare.

          It is irrelevant whether the politics of a corporation are consevative or woke. If they harm shareholder value they MUST and WILL go, one way or the other.

          I would note that Shareholder value criteria is the ONLY criteria.

          A public corporation can hold strong political views in a NICHE market.

          MyPillow as an example is politically active. So long as the market for Pillows is so large that MyPillow can build value by growing a niche market – its politics are not a fiduciary problem.

          But if MyPillow reached a scale where its politics alienated more customers than if gained – the politics would have to change.

          Generally all companies are more likely to lose value from even mildly controversial positions.

          Regardless, the ultimate test of the board and management of a corporation is the Marketplace.

          If the managment diminishes the value of the business – one way or the other they will be GONE.

          And THAT is the only criteria – not woke, not conservative.

          1. Companies lose value all the time and they gain it back just as quickly. They follow the moods of the consumers and are dictated by the majority of the consumers who buy the products. Disney will be fine. There are far more benefits to supporting the trans community than acquiescing to a small vocal minority.

            Disney stock has rebounded since last year and in fact, is forecast to be higher when the new phases of the MCU and star wars franchises get going.

            Shareholders come and go as the proverbial tides. What matters is the consumer, not the shareholder. They are only there for their return on their investment, which is never guaranteed. It’s a risk, just as it is with everything else.

            1. “Companies lose value all the time and they gain it back just as quickly.”
              They do, but not 50% of their value and not over a 18month trend counter to the market as a whole.

              That is not a tiny bit of bad news.
              That is a management failure.

              “They follow the moods of the consumers and are dictated by the majority of the consumers who buy the products. ”
              Correct, When Disney properly anticipates consumers values – they make money.
              When they do not the lose money.
              When disney loses money it is ALWAYS a management failure.

              All you are fighting over is the results of the autopsy.

              “Disney will be fine. ”
              They are already not fine.

              They are LITTERALLY 1/2 the company they were 18months ago.

              They are 1.2 way to being SVB.

              I would further note that unless they CORRECTLY diagnose and correct the root problem and a 50% loss of value means there is a SERIOUS problem – they will NOT be fine in the future.
              You can not recover until you find and correct the problem.

              “There are far more benefits to supporting the trans community than acquiescing to a small vocal minority.”
              Again Disney lost 1/2 their value – $160B. They did that by doing SOMETHING wrong. Something serious.

              What is it that Disney has done that has diminished their value over the past 18+ months ?

              Asuming it is tgheir LGBTQ+ stance – it is ALREADY crystal clear that “minority” of conservatives – is a far more important part oftheir customer base than the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters.

              If you were right – they would not have lost half their value.

            2. Disney has lost 30% of its value in the past year.
              That is not a rebound.

              You may be right about MCU and Star Wars.
              But you have not provided a reason to beleive you are.

              Disney releases new material all the time.
              There has been new MCU material in the past 18months.

              What have they changed that means that what they release soon will appeal to the market more than what they have released int he past 18months.

              You do not seem to grasp – there is ZERO doubt they are doing something VERY WRONG – the MARKET has spoken.
              This is not a blip.

              They have been told that their customer are NOT happy with what they produce.
              What have they done to fix that ?

              You do not address that.

              Disney absolutely can do better in the future.
              But not by continuing to do what they have been doing for the past 19+ months.

              That is not an opinion – that is a FACT.

              Disney did not lose half its value over one bad movie.

            3. “Shareholders come and go as the proverbial tides.”
              When a business is badly managed – shareholders GO.

              Further you do not grasp the importance to a company of its market cpaitalization.

              That is its ability to borrow, finances, invest.

              The drop in market Capitalization means Disney will have about half as much to invest in those future works that you think will save it.

              “What matters is the consumer,”
              Alittle bit of both. When shareholders leave and market value declines, the company has less resources to correct its problems.

              Regardless, the decline in value over the past 19months means it has offended consumers.

              You have not been willing to admit that. You still want to pretend that the loss of 1/2 Disney’s value in 18months is just random – that it has no cause. Even the daily volatility in stocks has a cause. But usually those causes are small and shortlived.

              Sustained declines mean big causes, they mean the company has lost touch with its consumers.

              You have not provided an explanation for how Disney lost touch with consumers. What has it done that has offended them ?

              “They are only there for their return on their investment, which is never guaranteed. It’s a risk, just as it is with everything else.”

              Correct – in Disney’s case ROI is determined primarily by the ability of management to make consumers happy.
              That BTW is core to EVERY business. The risk is that Disney will fail at that.
              Investors bet they would not. When the share price declines – that is shareholders saying they no longer beleive Disney is as capable of making consumers happy.

              Regardless, the value of the company declined because Disney failed to make consumers happy.
              Disney has had more than 100% declines in profits for 2 of the past 3 years.
              Consumers are not happy. Managment has failed.

            4. Investment is a risk,. but it is not random. It is not a roll of the dice.

              Shareholders bet on the skills of the management.
              They are not betting on tea leaves.

              You do not think very much about what the things you say mean.

        7. If Disney doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility to its stock holders, why would Amy invester trust them with their money. That’s ludicrous!

      2. If every other claim of Svelaz was correct – unless Disney’s management choices maximize shareholder value,
        even without shareholder lawsuits and with a mythical influx of LGBTQ+ investors, they will eventually be the target of a takeover by a corporate raider.

        Any company whose management is obviously devaluing shares, is an oportunity for profit for a big enough investor who will restore shareholder value.

        1. John, you’re basing all your ire on wishful thinking. Your fantasy is that some investors will come to Disney’s rescue because of some imaginary damage that is occurring that you have no proof of. There will be no lawsuits because the majority of its customers support the company’s views and their support of the views of their employees. The only ones not liking that position are conservative legislators who are using the power of government to punish their right to express their views as a means to prostitute themselves to their most zealous constituents because its easier and more convenient.

          1. Aparently you can not read.

            Nor do you have any familiarity with reality.

            Any company anywhere anytime where there is a free market, that has damaged itself without destroying itself for ANY REASON.

            Will ALWAYS be a rpe target for investors like Icahn who specifically look for companies that have in some way damaged their own value.

            They will – as we have seen REPEATEDLY come in buy up enough stock at the artificially low procies due to the poor choices of prior management. They will take control and they will increase the value of the company and make money of the mistakes of others.

            Will this happen to Disney ? or …. ?

            It will happen if the fact pattern I cited above is matched – if a company has damaged its own value but not irrecoverably.

            SOMEONE will see that value that can be regained and will step in.

            You are Free to beleive that Disney has not damaged its value in that way.
            You may be right. But it is 100% certain that if they have one of two things will happen – They will FAIL, or someone will step in gain control one way or another and fix the problem and restore the value.

            That does not have to be a corporate raider. Disney’s board could come to their senses and hire a new management, ro shareholders could replace the board.

            But absolutely positively is shareholder value is diminished by poor management decisions – those decisions WILL with certainty be reversed one way or the other, or the business will fail..

            There is not a third option.

            Absent FORCE from government free markets will ALWAYS drive businesses to maximuize shareholder value and punish those that do not. Shareholder value is nearly always maximized by conforming to the wishes of the market – consumers.

            You keep claiming that the problem is a small number of conservatives and republicans.

            If you are correct – the free market will work that out.

            If on the other hand sufficient number of bud light drinkers do not want Dylan Mulvaney on their beer cans – one way or the other – Mulvaney will NOT be on those cans.

            YOUR the one unwilling to trust that without putting your thumb on the scale that things will work out as you wish.

            I would further note that one way or the other – constrained only by the limits of the total wealth we produce, everyone will get their needs met.

            The only question is whether the LGBTQ+ community is the niche market or whether those like Kid Rock are.

            The market will sort that out fine.

            I noted that SVB’;s woke decisions may not have been the straw that broke the camels back but they likely would have survived or not failed as badly but for them.

            This is self evident. If the companies that adopt your Woke ideology ARE properly responding to the changing values of people,
            they will not merely survive but thrive.

            If the movies you produce, if the beer you produce if the marketing you do is what the market wants – your VALUE rises.
            If you misread the values of consumers – YOUR value declines.

            This is NOT a debate. It is a fact.

            The scale of the LGBTQ+ market and that of the Kid Rocks and Ted Nugents will be PRECISELY measured by AHB’s sales in the near future.

            If they made a good choice – if they read the market well – they will thrive and grow,
            If they misread it – they will lose value.

            It is the law of supply and demand.

            The price of something is always directly proportionate to the number of people who want it, and the strength of their desire.

            This is an immutable law of economics.

            It has nothing to do with ideology – except that it will perfectly measure the strength of our values in a way that nothing else can.

          2. In the places where “conservative legislators” have thwarted your wishes – those conservative leislators are in the majority.
            They were elected by the majority of people, and they have governors – also elected by the maority of people who are also doing what you claim people do not want.

            To the greatest extent possible I would prefer these issues be sorted out in the free markets.

            Get government out.

            No public schools. no govenrment involvements int eh market beyond punishing the use of force or fraud. assuring that contracts are honored and that when a persons actions harm another they make those they actually harmed whole.

            Everyhting else the markets can sort out for themselves.

            But it is YOU the left that is unwilling to let markets work it out.

            You tell me that your values are shared by more people – then the choices of the market will reflect that.

            Almost No one will deliberately leave money on the table – and if the do – someone else will pick it up.

            You rant that you are not successful in forcing Phillips of Master Cake to bake your gay wedding cake.
            So go somewhere else. Why would you want a cake from someone you think is a bigot ?

            If Phillips deliberately reduces his own market – it is He who will be harmed – not gay couples.

            If the market tells Disney that its LGBTQ+ choices are wrong – there will still be someone looking to profit by making LGBTQ+ entertainment for the niche market.

            Do you know why the south passed Jim Crow laws ?

            Because they could not stop white businesses from buying and selling to blacks.

            Free markets work things out on their own reflecting the ACTUAL values of people.

            It takes FORCE government to push people to conform to values that are NOT theirs.

            If you leave government out of things – you remain FREE to persuade people to adopt your values.
            So long as you do not use force.

    2. Svelaz, nowhere in his post does Professor Turley say that people from Disney or Anheuser-Busch should be kept from saying what they want to say. Professor Turley is simply pointing out the consequences of their actions. Walt Disney (DIS 0.06%) stock fell 43.9% in 2022, underperforming the S&P 500’s decline of 19.4%. Investors can lay some of the blame on Disney+, where spending on new content led to a $4 billion operating loss for Disney’s direct-to-consumer segment in fiscal 2022 (ended Oct. 1).Jan 26, 2023. Guess what, if you have Disney stock in your 410K and you are retiring this year you will feel the pain. When a company feels no responsibility to its stock holders they should expect to reap the just rewards. Svelaz, I know that following a logical line of logic is very difficult for you to follow even when presented with the facts. Concerning Anheuser-Busch, who do you think drinks more Budweiser the trans community or the blue collar worker? If you see someone punching himself in the face a conclusion of derangement would be appropriate. Can I put it any simpler for you?

      1. TiT,

        “Svelaz, nowhere in his post does Professor Turley say that people from Disney or Anheuser-Busch should be kept from saying what they want to say. Professor Turley is simply pointing out the consequences of their actions.”

        The consequences should be a problem for Turley because they involve the government punishing a company for exercising their freedom of speech. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Turley is being silent on that obvious problem.

        TIT, stock prices change constantly. Disney’s stock price has increased 19% since Jan of this year. The blip it experienced would be just that, a blip as most stocks tend to experience. The new Marvel universe movies coming online and the star wars series on Disney Plus are keeping stockholders happy. Yep. you didn’t know that did you? A lot of trans and LGBTQ are big fans of the Marvel and star wars universe and they ARE a big part of their target audience. Their love for the series and the marvel comics franchise is what keeps those stock prices rising and stable. Do you think because some conservatives are whining that they are going to lose some value that they will gain back by supporting their target audiences? Disney knows what it’s doing. Turley is only feeding YOU BS so you can wallow in your rage. YOU are his target audience and he’s feeding you exactly what he needs to keep YOU reading his columns, to keep up his stellar viewing numbers. Crazy isn’t it?

        Disney’s stock forecasts are looking up due to the upcoming new phases in the MCU and star wars franchise. I for one would be happy to have Disney stock. Smart stockholders know better than to demand Disney cave to a small loud group of conservatives.

        As for Anheuser-Busch, they could care less if some folks get mad. They make so much money from all of their other products, they can afford to temporarily alienate some of their customers to gain a new base of customers. They know that. It’s the snowflake-whining beer drinkers who will cry and whine about one limited run of beer cans and will eventually forget about it and go back to drinking their favorite beer in no time. It’s a good thing they have a smorgasbord of choices in this country.

        Companies cater to their customers, not shareholders. Because a lot of customers are also shareholders. It seems you are in need of a serious education on shareholders and what they really are.

      2. The choices of all these companies would be excellent choices if they result in higher sales and greater shareholder value.

        These choices are wrong – because they were not profitable.

        This is the same problem with ESG.

        I constantly harp on the fact that absent force or fraud that a business is and must be free to do whatever it beleives is in its self interest.

        Contra the left – this FORCES businesses to reflect the ACTUAL values of consumers int he market place – NOT
        idiots in government regardless of political orienttation.

        If you beleive that consumers what businesses with your particular environmental values. Then those busiess that reflect those values will do well.

        The Free market – NOT the winners of elections most accurately reflects the REAL values of everyone.

        At the supermarket EVERYONE gets a vote. The rich the poor, whites. blacks, illegal immigrants and criminals.

        And Businesses MUST serve the market – the people, consumers or die.

        “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

        ― Adam Smith,

        1. “Contra the left – this FORCES businesses to reflect the ACTUAL values of consumers int he market place – NOT
          idiots in government regardless of political orienttation.”

          They ARE reflecting the values of consumers, the majority of consumers in the marketplace. A small minority of conservative consumers want to force businesses to conform to their small values to the detriment of the majority. That’s the problem they are not realizing due to their blind zealotry and unrealistic belief that everyone is going to agree to their terms. That’s why they are upset. Because they are losing ground to the changes in society and can’t grasp the concept.

          Yes businesses must serve the market and clearly, there is a market for more acceptance of the LGBTQ community and they also know that it IS a growing market they can tap into. Their more conservative customers would rather have businesses deny them acknowledging those new markets because it makes THEM uncomfortable with the idea that there IS such a market that they don’t want to acknowledge exists.

          “The Free market – NOT the winners of elections most accurately reflects the REAL values of everyone.”

          True, and the real values that the majority are reflecting are the acknowledgment and accepting the existence of trans people and their right to live how they want and enjoy the SAME rights as everyone else. It’s conservatives who are not accepting the reality of what the free market is doing. They don’t want what the free market is showing, a new market catering to the LGBTQ community. Conservatives and Republicans want to dictate to everyone else what “real” values are. Not the ones that society at large, the free market, dictates. It’s all about the “free market” as long as it’s only their values that matter. Everything would be alright as long as everyone adheres to their values.

          1. Svelaz,
            I can not make sense of what you are saying.
            You are arguing that I am right and wrong at the same time.
            But then contradictions do not phase those of you on the left.

            Regardless, If as you claim something is the result of an inconsequential number of conservatives then it will fizzle.
            Or if The free market choices of some small number of conservatives is balanced by an equal increase in those on the left.

            Before reversing you have argued that free markets work.
            Great – so lets let them play out. However they will.

            There has always been a niche market catering to fringe groups – that is nothing new.

            And I would tend to agree that it is growing.

            But you do not seem to understand the difference between a niche market – even a large one and the mass market.

            Again left alone the free market will meet everyones needs and wants to the best of our ability to do so from what we have produced.

            The market will meet the needs of Trans, and Gay, and mexican, and hip hop and drug adicts, and ….

            But that does not mean that Disney or Anheiser Bush will meet the needs of the entire market.

            The left and woke companies have chose to test whether the numbers they alienate are over matched by the numbers they attract.

            They have the advantage that many people – even those not fully supportive of LGBTQ+ do not care enough to change their purchases.

            AS to whether the LGBTQ+ community and those supporters who will also change brands over corporate policies will be sufficient to match losses – we will see.

            But one way or another someone will provide for BOTH.

          2. You keep saying Conservatives and republicans want to dictate – How so ?

            Republicans are for the most part Actively engaged in thwarting Teachers – GOVERNMENT From dictating to parents.

            So Kid Rock and Ted Nugent are not going to buy Anheiser Bush products – that is not dictating, That is exercising free choice.

            If you want Mulvany on your Beer cans – go Buy Bud Lite – I do not care.

            If you want to boycott Chick-a-filet – go ahead – I do not care.

            Express your preference for the best beer or the best fast food, or for your politics in your purchases.

            I do not care – that is what freedom means.

            But it also means that if things do not turn out your way – you are free to complain and Whine – but you are NOT free to use the force of government to change the results.

            Not with Beer, Not with Entertainment, not with employment.

            That each of us is free in our non-violent choices to chose what we drink, what we eat, where we work, who we hire, and who we sell to.

            It means you are free to protest a speaker. to Boycott the speaker. But you are NOT free to interfere with those who wish to hear that speaker, just because you don’t.

            I am perfectly happy to live within free markets – that will change dynamically the reflect peoples changing values.

            The evidence is that it is THE LEFT that is unwilling to do that.

            Conservatives are NOT saying you can not buy Bud Light. They are saying THEY will not buy Bud Light.

            They are not saying YOU can not read the wokified version of Anne Frank, they are saying THEY want the original.

            They are saying YOU can not impose your will by force through government on THEIR kids.

            You seem to want to wrap yourself in the free market – without actually accepting that it might not work out as you wish.

          3. It is pretty self evident that you have no knowledge of conservatives or republicans.

            You constantly make obvious false claims and assumptions.

          4. “Who says they are harming the company?”

            A drop in the value of the company of nearly 1/2 – $160B in value destroyed.

            That is failure. The only question is why.

            That is a drop that is counter to the market as a whole.
            So while the DJIA was rising slowly – Disney was tanking.

    3. An you AGAIN are ignoring the most critical things

      Companies do have Free speech.

      The Free Speech of SHAREHOLDERS.

      Companies belong to Shareholders.
      Not employees,
      Not management,.
      Not even boards of directors.

Leave a Reply