> That’s because Disney is claiming two contradictory things: Both that the assets were least producing so little value that it’s cheaper to destroy them than t

> That’s because Disney is claiming two contradictory things: Both that the assets were least producing so little value that it’s cheaper to destroy them than to keep them, and that the assets were worth $1.5 billion. This is not contradictory. They were once worth $1.5B but now they aren’t because no one was watching them. This happens all he time with inventory and cost of goods sold. I buy a bunch of lumber that can only make a special item and it costs be $1.5B. No one is buying that special item any more so now that lumber is worth $0, so I write off its value. It’s not a scam as if I later sell it, I pay taxes on its appreciation from zero. It seems Disney spent $1.5B on movies it expected to stream for many years and was amortizing the depreciation over many years. Now they expect to make nothing so they realize the complete depreciation now.