Why do I say this? Well, let's think about it. Disney already has a ton of characters to manage. Why would it want to add the hassle of 5,000 more intellectual properties to the mix? Remember, Marvel isn't just about Hulk and Spider-Man. There are all kinds of lesser-known players in the company's library.

But I'm seriously flummoxed. Disney has not been a great long-term investment. As a trading vehicle, it's probably been good to some. Yet, the overriding thesis that every long-term shareholder focused in on when deciding to buy was the amazing potential value of Disney's own library of characters: Mickey Mouse, Hannah Montana, Buzz Lightyear. . . . I'm not sure Disney was a stock individuals bought on the speculation that management would engage a plethora of acquisitions to propel shareholder value.

And let's consider the other big acquisition made back in 2006. Pixar. Disney purchased Pixar for many billions of dollars. $7.4 billion, in fact (or closer to $6.3 billion net of cash controlled by Pixar, as this old corporate press release indicates). If you ask me, that acquisition didn't do much for shareholder value. It's impossible to know all the deals in place with the asset, and to calculate the exact cash flow that is generated by it, but if you look at Disney's stock price since 2006, you'll see that it hasn't performed too well.

Of course, the bulls on this deal will counter with the issue of the recession and the correct observation that just about every business has been hit. True. But I'll counter with the quality of Disney's dividend. You might be able to ignore the fluctuations in the stock if you're a long-term investor, but one thing that cannot be ignored is a poor dividend. Pixar, as far as I can tell, hasn't done much for the annual payout. And after yesterday's announcement, I think shareholders can forget about an increase in the payout next year.

What does the Marvel buyout say about Iger's leadership? I haven't been a huge fan of the guy, to be honest. I think he's given mixed messages over the years. On the one hand, he's praised the "Disney difference" and promoted the strategy of leveraging the Mouse's brands over several company platforms as a way of increasing returns on projects. He also stated that producing a smaller amount of movies each year would be financially prudent. How can adding Marvel to the portfolio logically dovetail with such professed thoughts?

In my mind, it cannot. I think Iger has run out of ideas. He's panicking. He's not certain Disney can grow organically. He bought Club Penguin. He hooked up with Steven Spielberg and the DreamWorks live-action pipeline. But he has to keep in mind the cost of capital. Is doling out $4 billion in cash and stock for Marvel the best use of the company's financial prowess? Would a dividend hike have been better? An increase in share repurchases?

A lot of pundits have expressed concern that Disney is paying too much of a premium for the asset. That is probably debatable, considering that Marvel was a powerhouse of potential on its own. I don't necessarily begrudge the premium; what I do begrudge is Hollywood's obsession with overpaying for things. Again, it all comes down to the available alternative uses of capital that any corporate decision has to be evaluated against. Iger, to me, is essentially signaling that he doesn't know how to intelligently invest in organic Disney initiatives.

What happens when Iger doesn't get the results he wants from the Mouse's video-game division? As all shareholders know, Disney has been increasing its investment exposure to interactive entertainment. Will Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: ERTS) be the next target? I wrote about how ludicrous this idea was last year. Now I'm not so certain it won't happen.

Well, it will be fascinating to see how the market digests the news over the coming months. In terms of the stock implications, I certainly hope you sold your Marvel shares yesterday. No need to play the arbitrage game if you were long Marvel.

I saw that DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) was up on speculation of it being the next media-deal target. I get it; again, I hope those long the stock sold into the excitement. If the market is in the mood for transactions in this space, perhaps investors should look at Lionsgate (NYSE: LGF). Quite frankly, I'm surprised the studio has not been acquired yet.

As for Disney, the stock was weak on Monday, but it rebounded a bit before closing down slightly under 3 percent. My feeling is that Disney could be a trade on a further dip. Even though I'm not bedazzled by the Marvel deal, I could see Disney rising in the short term after a sell-off. So I'd keep a watch on the price action with the Mouse and see if any interesting entry points become available.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change without notice.