Clooney rebukes Loeb

http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/george-clooney-slams-sony-investor-dani…

flexes e-muscles

Anyhow, like most celebrity advocates, Clooney is an absolutely terrific actor who is unbelievably liberal and ignorant.

Anihilist:

I agree with you in most cases, but some of the stuff he said is very interesting. Specifically on how Loeb is essentially thinking that he can do a better job of running the company than the Sony board can and the effect that his actions have on people in that industry.

Sony has been in the shitter for years now. It has underperformed in many areas. Clooney is pissed b/c it will drive the entertainment side to be more price sensitive (i.e. not overpay and make less mistakes).

As CRE mentioned, the guy is a great actor and knows the Hollywood business better than Loeb. But, Loeb understands shareholder value and business valuation more than Clooney can fathom. And SNE has shit on its shareholders. Loeb knows what he is doing.

He's richer than Clooney for a reason.

Clooney was actually making a fairly decent point until he got here:

"How any hedge fund guy can call for responsibility is beyond me, because if you look at those guys, there is no conscience at work. It is a business that is only about creating wealth, where when they fail, they get bailed out and where nobody gets fired."

Where the idiocy just speaks for itself.

Who the hell is George Clooney

This quote:

“It’s crazy he has weight in this conversation at all,” Clooney continued. “If guys like this are given any weight because they’ve bought stock and suddenly feel they can tell us how to do our business"

Well, by definition owning stock means you have the right to voice your opinion and when you are most likely the largest individual shareholder in the company (didn't check numbers, so may be speaking out of turn) than you most certainly have the right and ability to throw your weight around.

I think Clooney gets a lot right and a lot wrong. All the valuation/shareholder arguments he doesn't understand, but he does point to the success of a lot of the films that SNE put out that seems to have been overlooked. Maybe he is implying that a split of entertainment assets won't allow for that same effect. He mentions how some of his films would have never gotten produced if SNE solely focused on tentpole movies, which would be bad for consumers despite not generating high shareholder returns. At the end of the day, Loeb put down over a bil, so he can decide to make whatever argument he wants. Management doesn't necessarily have to agree with him (and so far doesn't seem like they do), so the only way Loeb gets what he wants is if other shareholders take his side.

atomic:

Clooney was actually making a fairly decent point until he got here:

"How any hedge fund guy can call for responsibility is beyond me, because if you look at those guys, there is no conscience at work. It is a business that is only about creating wealth, where when they fail, they get bailed out and where nobody gets fired."

Where the idiocy just speaks for itself.

Everything up to that was just fair criticism from a perspective opposite of Loebs. But of course he had to rally the OWS crowd behind him. Or maybe he genuinely doesn't know the difference between hedge funds and banks like most people.

Clooney makes many valid points. The movie industry depends upon the revenue from tentpole films to fund risky, creative films that may or may not generate a positive return. Clooney is saying that you can’t run a movie studio with expected profit as your sole evaluation metric. If you did, then critically acclaimed, profitable films like Michael Clayton, Out of Sight, Good Night and Good Luck don’t get made. Those films help move the movie genre forward whereas tentpoles, which rely heavily upon special effects to draw audiences, do not. The fear is that over reliance upon tentpoles will mark the creative destruction and gradual economic erosion of the film industry. Naturally, Loeb would prefer that SNE only make profitable movies, which would hinder creativity.

His comments on HFs have a lot of validity. I also think it’s naïve to think that Clooney doesn’t know any financial heavy hitters. The HF industry directly benefited from the bank bailouts. Does anyone really think that their counterparties becoming insolvent would have left HFs unscathed? Please…

computerblue:

Clooney makes many valid points. The movie industry depends upon the revenue from tentpole films to fund risky, creative films that may or may not generate a positive return. Clooney is saying that you can’t run a movie studio with expected profit as your sole evaluation metric. If you did, then critically acclaimed, profitable films like Michael Clayton, Out of Sight, Good Night and Good Luck don’t get made. Those films help move the movie genre forward whereas tentpoles, which rely heavily upon special effects to draw audiences, do not. The fear is that over reliance upon tentpoles will mark the creative destruction and gradual economic erosion of the film industry. Naturally, Loeb would prefer that SNE only make profitable movies, which would hinder creativity.

His comments on HFs have a lot of validity. I also think it’s naïve to think that Clooney doesn’t know any financial heavy hitters. The HF industry directly benefited from the bank bailouts. Does anyone really think that their counterparties becoming insolvent would have left HFs unscathed? Please…

Uh... so what is your problem then? Loeb isn't shutting down Sony Pictures. He is proposing a spin off of the entertainment business. Those who wish to maintain ownership in that part of the business can do so.

Bank bailouts helped hedge funds, ensuring they got paid. But, let's not act like Hollywood and its cronies don't get special treatment themselves.