How MCA Rediscovered Movieland's Golden Lode By Peter J. Schuyten (Page 4) When pressed on the subject, Sheinberg talks in the vaguest generalities about opportunities in recreation, merchandising, and "places where people come to be entertained, or enterprises that occupy leisure time." If this seems evasive, it may be that MCA really doesn't know what it's going to do. At this point, what MCA may have is a $175 million solution looking for a problem. One area where its money won't do MCA a bit of good is in the business that interests Wasserman most. Not since those days when he envisioned what television would do for his company has he been so taken by a medium as he has been by video-disc entertainment. "I think its potential is literally mind boggling," he says. Taking care of the ducks. MCA has already made its major investment in the field by developing, in partnership with the Dutch company, Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken, a playback system on which it holds some of the patents. That investment in hardware out of the way, there is not much need for more money. Besides, Wasserman's main interest is in the software-what will go on the disc. He sees a chance to sell all over again those thousands of movies and television programs MCA has in its vaults. "I do believe that video-disc entertainment in the home will absolutely revolutionize the income of suppliers." Whatever the future brings, Wasserman is not about to let the result of thirty years of work and planning be plucked off by an acquisition-happy outsider. In the past, film companies have been favorite takeover targets because the instability of their operations has left them with low price/earnings multiples. And MCA, with all its cash and a debt-free balance sheet, is an even more attractive quarry. To fend off invaders, the company's shareholders last year passed an amendment to the corporate bylaws requiring the approval of shareholders owning 75 percent of the stock before an unfriendly takeover can succeed. More than half of the voting stock is now in the hands of the company's present and past management. But that won't always be the case. As Wasserman says, "I wanted to protect the future management and the board to the maximum degree possible. If the board wants to make a deal, fine. They've got total authority, whoever is on the board at the time. I just don't want them to be sitting ducks, spending all of their time worrying about being raided." << Page 3