Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, it does not seem likely that the appeals on the Chapterhouse case will be heard before the next report is due - so I predict (based on nothing more than cynical pessimism) that the stock will have a mild bump - whether because investors are not expecting dividends this time around, the sales of the satellite HQs allowing a dividend, or just the slow creep upwards.

Whether this bump is going to weather whatever the results of the appeals are....

Of course, I could be wrong - but I do not foresee a big bump, but neither do I foresee another big drop. Another small drop... also possible.

The Auld Grump

When you have a low volume stock like this, big moves can happen very quickly and big potential moves can also be absorbed quickly by one large buyer or seller. Actually predicting the behaviour of a stock like this is even harder than predicting how the market moves in general-- and that's a loser's game compared to taking a position and then waiting to be proven wrong.

I think GW's stock will respond to the contents of their financial reports. And GW has been doubling down on their one employee store structure. So the only real question is how the last while went as far as getting the right combination of employees and locations to have more stores open and remain profitable than close.

 frozenwastes wrote:
When you have a low volume stock like this, big moves can happen very quickly and big potential moves can also be absorbed quickly by one large buyer or seller. Actually predicting the behaviour of a stock like this is even harder than predicting how the market moves in general-- and that's a loser's game compared to taking a position and then waiting to be proven wrong.

I think GW's stock will respond to the contents of their financial reports. And GW has been doubling down on their one employee store structure. So the only real question is how the last while went as far as getting the right combination of employees and locations to have more stores open and remain profitable than close.

Low stock volume always concerns me since there are little tricks you can do.

There was 5 GW stores on my sphere of influence. There is only a one man store left. Indies will sell whatever makes them a profit.

But there will be a lot of double speak soon when the financials come out.

I wonder what method of accounting practices will they use this time around.... But I am expecting the usual from this company.

They could try telling everyone that a loss was expected because of the move to 1 man stores again, but I think even they aren't that dumb.

If they are rushing 7th specifically to make it onto this report that could help but I recall the report in which 6th launched was flat and they simply said 'yeah well, we can't complain.' or something to that effect.

They will also tell that the closing of all non-UK HQs was planned and a brilliant move, but restructuring still costs a bit
And that they expected this to be a weak year because they only released a new 40k edition, Space marines and thousands of other Codices. But next year will be brilliant!

 azreal13 wrote:
No, you're trying to argue that somehow Kirby is 'new' because...

You are putting words in my mouth and are misrepresenting what I said.

The current management team has not been through a business cycle together. That was my comment you are latching onto. Consistently throughout this thread, I have pointed to 7 years as the span for a business cycle even before this side discussion started.

1 of the board members has been there for 1 year. Another board member took over his positions in 2011. Kirby isn't new to the company but he has never worked with 2 of the 4 board members. 40% of your board has never been through a business cycle with the company as an executive. That matters. I know it doesn't fit your narrative but when analysts look at a company, they take things kind of things into account.

I assume that the next time someone gets promoted into the COO position we are going to say that person was secretly Kirby's right hand man as well? Shocked we aren't claiming Elaine O’Donnell isn't just a pawn of the evil Tom Kirby.

So I think what you're getting at is simply that it could influence the stock, not that the company's not necessarily going to be managed any differently?

That makes more sense.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, you're trying to argue that somehow Kirby is 'new' because...

You are putting words in my mouth and are misrepresenting what I said.

The current management team has not been through a business cycle together. Consistently throughout this thread, I have pointed to 7 years as the span for a business cycle even before this side discussion started.

1 of the board members has been there for 1 year. Another board member took over his positions in 2011. Kirby isn't new to the company but he has never worked with 2 of the 4 board members. 40% of your board has never been through a business cycle with the company as an executive. That matters. I know it doesn't fit your narrative but when analysts look at a company, they take things kind of things into account.

I assume that the next time someone gets promoted into the COO position we are going to say that person was secretly Kirby's right hand man as well? Shocked we aren't claiming Elaine O’Donnell isn't just a pawn of the evil Tom Kirby.

Actually, if you're asserting that directorship appointments aren't frequently down to personal relationships as much as experience or knowledge then you're being very naive. Especially when anyone who has had a corporate relationship with GW, or, in my case, is familiar with the environment, seems to be able to recognise that GW is very much an extension of Kirby's personality and philosophy.

I'll also remain healthily cynical that "the current board hasn't worked together for a full 7 year cycle" is of any real significance to any but a small number of analysts.

Putin is president of Russia for only two years, so he is basically a newcomer

Good thing most of us know who is in charge of GW, even when the vice janitor was exchanged two years ago.
That's the difference between knowing the company at hand and some textbook trolling.

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, you're trying to argue that somehow Kirby is 'new' because...

You are putting words in my mouth and are misrepresenting what I said.

The current management team has not been through a business cycle together. Consistently throughout this thread, I have pointed to 7 years as the span for a business cycle even before this side discussion started.

1 of the board members has been there for 1 year. Another board member took over his positions in 2011. Kirby isn't new to the company but he has never worked with 2 of the 4 board members. 40% of your board has never been through a business cycle with the company as an executive. That matters. I know it doesn't fit your narrative but when analysts look at a company, they take things kind of things into account.

I assume that the next time someone gets promoted into the COO position we are going to say that person was secretly Kirby's right hand man as well? Shocked we aren't claiming Elaine O’Donnell isn't just a pawn of the evil Tom Kirby.

Actually, if you're asserting that directorship appointments aren't frequently down to personal relationships as much as experience or knowledge then you're being very naive. Especially when anyone who has had a corporate relationship with GW, or, in my case, is familiar with the environment, seems to be able to recognise that GW is very much an extension of Kirby's personality and philosophy.

I'll also remain healthily cynical that "the current board hasn't worked together for a full 7 year cycle" is of any real significance to any but a small number of analysts.

Also ignoring that Rountree was CFO before COO (and had been since 2008).

Also ignoring that prior to that he was Director (not board of directors mind you...but Director) of Other Operations which is Forge World, Black Library and Outside Licensing (and had been since 2004).

Also ignoring that Kirby's management statement when Wells was appointed to CEO was:

Our half-yearly report does not usually have a Chairman’s preamble. The reason it does this time is because for the first time this is the Chairman’s preamble alone and not that of the Chairman and Chief Executive. In late November 2007 the board invited long-time Head of Sales, Mark Wells, to take on the role of CEO. This move recognises Mark’s increasing influence and allows him to take control of the day to day affairs of the business giving me more time to spend with senior staff in general, helping them, and him, achieve the long-term ambitions we all share.

Taking a more hands on roll in dealing with senior staff as opposed to a more traditional hands off roll for Chairman who generally spend their days dealing with the Board, investors and outside interests.

Also ignoring everything else which is known about GW and their management style and ability to adapt to change.

Analysts can look at whatever they want to look at. However, the reality is that if they are analyzing GW in the manner in which you are...they are missing the boat.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Putin is president of Russia for only two years, so he is basically a newcomer

Good thing most of us know who is in charge of GW, even when the vice janitor was exchanged two years ago.
That's the difference between knowing the company at hand and some textbook trolling.

Why is iit most of us can have a conversation without calling each other a troll but in this thread you consistent accuse others of troll.

If you cannot refute a point of view without resort to calling him or others a troll maybe you are the issue. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

I'll also remain healthily cynical that "the current board hasn't worked together for a full 7 year cycle" is of any real significance to any but a small number of analysts.


Analysts can look at whatever they want to look at. However, the reality is that if they are analyzing GW in the manner in which you are...they are missing the boat.

I have to agree. Whilst any analysis definitely has to focus on the quality and longevity of the management team, the grip that TK has over the company negates the point that DA is making about how long the management team has been together.

There is also disquiet when the chairman, CEO and a large investor is the same person.

There have been several warnings and suspensions due to the inability here in this thread of some in following the rules of this site.

At this point, insults, accusations of trolling, etc. are something that will now net anyone posting them an extended vacation from Dakka Dakka.

Address the relevant facts and opinions WITHOUT personal attacks.

If you feel someone has broken the rules here, please use the Moderator Alert button.

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

Actually, if you're asserting that directorship appointments aren't frequently down to personal relationships as much as experience or knowledge then you're being very naive. Especially when anyone who has had a corporate relationship with GW, or, in my case, is familiar with the environment, seems to be able to recognise that GW is very much an extension of Kirby's personality and philosophy.

You say that "anyone who has had a corporate relationship with GW". Who exactly had come out and given us an inside look at Kirby's "personality and philosophy"? Are you saying this as someone who reads online blogs that claim to have inside knowledge (which is probably even less reliable than the random rumours) or has a disgruntled employee that actually matters come forward? I ask this because you are making blanket generalizations about the management team which i don't see you supporting in any way shape or form. These characters that have been invented online and you've chosen to adopt are completely the construct of someone else's delusions. 99% of the people that talk this nonsense about GW probably have never even stepped foot in the UK, let alone actually gone to GW's corporate headquarters. And i'm sure none have even spoken a word to Mr Kirby.

GW aggressively protecting it's IP and their business practices has nothing to do with how it's board of directors are formed. Tom Kirby still only gets one vote per share he owns. 6.7% of the company is a pretty good % but it's not what anyone would call control and most certainly not enough to hand pick board members. The other 93.3% of the votes comes from other individuals and institutions. That's the way elections and "voting rights" work. Very basic stuff.

Again.. To be classified as an independent director, you have to meet certain criteria. I am amazed by how free conspiracies are thrown around by the peanut gallery. I was completely joking and didn't think anyone would actually try to imply that Kirby did indeed hand pick directors. sheesh.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'll also remain healthily cynical that "the current board hasn't worked together for a full 7 year cycle" is of any real significance to any but a small number of analysts.

40% of the management team would be considered new since the COO has only had the position since 2012 and the other director has only been there since 2013. You could still make the argument they were entrenched if they had just been directors but you also had 2 executive positions change hands over a very short period as well. CEOs typically aren't rotated in and out of companies that are actually surviving. He has to have made shareholders happy otherwise he'd be long gone.

I think you really need to refamiliarize yourself with the UK Code of Corporate Governance, the Company Act, GW's Articles of Association and, I don't know...maybe stop ignoring things which don't fit your perspective.

You keep saying things like To be classified as an independent director, you have to meet certain criteria and Every single UK company is required to have a 5 member board. The chairman, CEO, COO and 2 independent directors while ignoring facts that refute your claim that Kirby has had limited experience working directly with the current COO/CFO of the company and dismissing real issues like Tom Kirby still only gets one vote per share he owns. 6.7% of the company is a pretty good % but it's not what anyone would call control and most certainly not enough to hand pick board members.

So...a short primer:

The Code is not a rigid set of rules
There are very few absolutes within the UK corporate laws. Whether it is publicly traded or not - that is largely irrelevant. They present recommendations which companies follow - and they can break almost all the recommendations when they feel like it, for almost any reason they feel like. They do have to "explain" but the bar is set rather low on that one.

The roles of chairman and chief executive should not be exercised by the same individual.

For most of GW's history, that has not been the case. Excepting the brief period when Wells was CEO and another from late 1998-2000, Kirby has held both positions.

The board should state its reasons if it determines that a director is independent notwithstanding the existence of relationships or circumstances which may appear relevant to its determination, including if the director:
...has served on the board for more than nine years from the date of their first election.

Well, that rules out two of three independent directors based on the criteria listed in the code...how is it handled?

Having considered the performance of and contribution made by each of the directors standing for re-election, the board remains satisfied that the performance of each of the relevant directors continues to be effective and to demonstrate commitment to the role and as such recommends their re-election.

Pencil whipped. Sure, they are still independent even though they have been around since dinosaurs.

The board should be of sufficient size that the requirements of the business can be met and that changes to the board’s composition and that of its committees can be managed without undue disruption, and should not be so large as to be unwieldy.

No specific size to the board. Not 5, not 3, not 7. Just sufficient size. In GW's case, it is sometimes 5, it has been 6, when the last annual report was published - it was 4. It may drop lower at the whim of the Chairman...Kirby. It can also be raised in the same manner.

Except for smaller companies, at least half the board, excluding the chairman, should comprise nonexecutive directors determined by the board to be independent. A smaller company should have at least two independent non-executive directors.

They are qualified as a smaller company - and as such fall under the "should" have 2 independent directors. Not must have, should have. But, we have already seen that GW ignores should in things like Chairman and CEO being the same person.

As mentioned (many times) the COO who Kirby has limited working experience with was CFO for 3 years before they renamed him COO (total of 6 years on the board now) and prior to that he was the head of a major division of GW (for another 4 years). That gives him 10 years of working in pretty close contact with the Chairman and CEO. Given that Kirby was the one who appointed him to the non-executive position...it is highly unlikely that he selected someone at random from the pool of office workers, so quite likely they were working together even before that promotion happened.

Tom Kirby does "only" get one vote per share for his votes - but the nominating committee for new Directors is Myatt and Donaldson. Two guys who have worked with Kirby as Chairman for well over a decade and as the Chairman who determines if they are still independent...he has a certain level of influence over them.

If someone wanted to nominate (or propose a resolution to) replace Kirby as Chairman or CEO - or anything else for that matter, they need to control at least 5% as a single shareholder or at least 100 individual shareholders controlling a combined £10,000 worth of shares (the value is low...100 individuals being the higher bar to meet). The only individual who meets that is Kirby...who can propose actions anyway as Chairman. Of course, one of the 8 major holding investment companies could as well - though they likely would rather just sell their shares as opposed to try to figure out who would be best to come in and fix GW. That then would be a special action which requires 75% of the vote to pass...

Further, since voting at the AGM is entirely voluntary, and historical voting in the AGM for companies FTSE Small Caps is very low (downwards of 50% of total voting rights) - Kirby's shares effectively double, as he is sure to show up. Since he is the one who rubs elbows with the major investors - he will be more likely to gain the simple majority needed to get his way compared to the 75% majority that would be needed in a special action to go against him.

Not to mention your arrogant manner of dismissing everyone who is not you, like 99% of the people that talk this nonsense about GW probably have never even stepped foot in the UK, let alone actually gone to GW's corporate headquarters. And i'm sure none have even spoken a word to Mr Kirby.

Nevermind that I have known Merrett (not board but senior GW) for 15 years on several different levels. I knew Kirby when he was attempting to be an author writing Pelinore articles for Imagine magazine back in the early 1980s. Not like that is relevant to much of anything - but whatever, you seem to think it is. It also ignores (for some reason) that a large portion of the people posting actually live in the UK, and no doubt have been to GW's HQ...granted, speaking directly to Kirby - he tends to be above the riff raff.

Even for those who do not know anyone within GW - they can learn a lot from how Kirby handled the last drop. He went to cost cutting (something which they have continued to do since) and issued this statement for 4 years in a row:

We continue to see Games Workshop as a growth business. The chart below sets out our sales progress from 1991. Between 2002 and 2005 our sales were above our normal growth line. We believe that it is only a matter of time and hard work before we re-establish our historic linear growth rate.

For four years in a row, the sales declined and the linear growth rate has never returned that he was referring to. He sat back and did nothing expecting it to work itself out. Now he will do more of the same, he doesn't understand the product. He doesn't understand the customer. He doesn't understand the market forces which he is loosing out to. With a record number of products in the first half of this fiscal year, sales were down. He still does fancy himself to be an author, as is shown in the manner in which he writes his preambles in the annual reports (and tends to still fall short on that as well).

These are not internet conspiracies - they are observable facts. You can see it in his yearly statements, and in the repetitive actions year over year - time and again moving in the same direction.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I think you really need to refamiliarize yourself with the UK Code of Corporate Governance, the Company Act, GW's Articles of Association and, I don't know...maybe stop ignoring things which don't fit your perspective.

I read the entirety of your post and I don't see anything that indicated my understanding of UK code of corporate governance was wrong. In fact, all you did was copy and past sections from the GW site and offered biased commentary. Again, a glossary would be useful if you only have a cursory understanding of the stock market.

Kirby still has the same % interest in the company. No amount of shoulder rubbing is going to keep institutional shareholders happy. Results matter and if he doesn't get them, he will get replaced. Even if you double his share count, he still doesn't have enough to hand pick directors. Your entire premise is based on conspiracy theories and conjecture. If Kirby is such a good salesman, why hasn't he been able to sell the company to a large competitor and retire to the Bahamas?

And as much as I love the name dropping, my previous assertion that 99% of the people that bitch about GW have very little knowledge of their inner workings is spot on. Most of their information is served to them by people pretending to be important on the internet and they eat it up. It's pathetic.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I think you really need to refamiliarize yourself with the UK Code of Corporate Governance, the Company Act, GW's Articles of Association and, I don't know...maybe stop ignoring things which don't fit your perspective.

I read the entirety of your post and I don't see anything that indicated my understanding of UK code of corporate governance was wrong. In fact, all you did was copy and past sections from the GW site and offered biased commentary. Again, a glossary would be useful if you only have a cursory understanding of the stock market.

Kirby still has the same % interest in the company. No amount of shoulder rubbing is going to keep institutional shareholders happy. Results matter and if he doesn't get them, he will get replaced. Even if you double his share count, he still doesn't have enough to hand pick directors. Your entire premise is based on conspiracy theories and conjecture. If Kirby is such a good salesman, why hasn't he been able to sell the company to a large competitor and retire to the Bahamas?

And as much as I love the name dropping, my previous assertion that 99% of the people that bitch about GW have very little knowledge of their inner workings is spot on. Most of their information is served to them by people pretending to be important on the internet and they eat it up. It's pathetic.

Really?

Really?!

Ok, we're done here, I've tried to help,mot encourage communication in a smoother manner between you and, well, everybody else, but you're clearly just here with your own agenda, and with respect to Alpharius' warning, that at as far as I'll go on the subject.

You state GW are breaking the rules - Sean points out they they aren't, in fact rules - you come back with "but I knew that already"

I state that "people with a personal relationship with GW corporate often say that Kirby has very tight control" - Sean, who has that sort of relationship, agrees - you dismiss it based in the fact that "others don't have that sort of relationship" and accuse him of name dropping!

It really is a shame, because you first started out as someone who seems to have a genuine knowledge and alternate opinion to the woder consensus, and over the intervening time you're now just coming across as someone on a street corner shouting at everyone to buy gold because the end of the world is nigh.

I want to add something here to maybe clarify some realities. While this is a US based example, the governance in the UK and US are similar enough to apply to this example.

I own 21% of Common Class B Stock (i.e., common stock except my shares each count for 10 votes) of my corporation (currently private equity investors only). We have an independent Chairman, which I personally selected and appointed to the Board. And, with 21% of the issued shares, I am also the CEO and single largest shareholder.

That being said, regardless of the rules for boards, governance, etc., I do in fact have complete control of my company. Others can make suggestions, provide input, etc., but at the end of the day, the final decision rests solely with me. A similar example can also be said for Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook who owns 14% of the shares, yet 57% of the vote.

While Kirby doesn't have the same interest, so to speak, in GW from an ownership perspective, it is obvious he has that same kind of single control over GW. No one is going to force him out. Very rarely will institutional investors ever force an executive out. Why should they? They can just sell their shares in one company and buy shares in another company that has their stuff together without all the headaches. Same with retail investors (independent individuals). The only reason an institutional fund would ever force an executive out, that I am aware of, is if a member of the fund takes a 'personal' interest in a company. But that is about it.

One has only look at the Kodak from about 2008 to present day to see this example. Antonio Perez, who was only recently replaced, ran Kodak into the ground. He was a terrible CEO. So what did the major shareholders do? They all sold their stock and moved on before the crash into bankruptcy came. Even Leggs Mason, the largest shareholder for 15 years, cashed out and moved on. No one wants the hassle of being involved in "fixing" management at a company when they have thousands of other companies without these problems they can simply put their money in.

As far as the "guidelines" for governance, either in the US or UK, they are designed by what governments think will make things fair. However, the way things are supposed to work and the way things really work are completely different. Thus in the US why CEOs of public corporations are making absurdly excessive amounts of compensation for what value they really bring to the company. A Board, is also frequently referred to as a "Boy's Club" because everyone typically knows everyone else and pretty much let's the CEO do what they want. Frequently, a board member on one CEOs company has that same CEO on the board of the other company. That is the reality, no matter what the rules say.

Finally, as to results, the ONLY results that matter in a public company is the stock price keeps going up. That is it in a nutshell. Revenue growth doesn't mean squat is the stock price drops (just ask Twitter about this). Unfortunately, for most companies the stock market seems to reward cost-cutting and penalize healthy growth (especially in the US). It is no coincidence that some of the biggest days gains in stocks come with announcements of major layoffs. It is sad, but a cold reality nowadays.

The challenge any CEO has is to manage to these realities while also trying to build a sustainable business. It is a very hard balance to achieve until one has the success of a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, etc. Unfortunately, Kirby has fallen into the typical trap of focusing "too" much on the stock realities (which makes sense given his personal fortune is tied there) and, in so doing, has lost complete focus on what really makes that stock price climb on a regular basis.

I'm going to be frank here, and this is just my personal opinion, not fact. Kirby does indeed have a laser focus right now and that is on getting that stock price as high as possible before he retires. However, he, and his management team, are making all the wrong decisions for this to happen. As I have said in a previous thread, if GW were a US company, I would buying on a massive short right now expecting to make a killing in July when the results are reported. GW is in trouble, and it is obvious from all outward signs. This period, with the impending release of 40k 7th edition, they'll have shot every bullet in their barrel to try and stem the decline, but it is a very temporary fix at best. The real results of the 2013-2014 decisions are going to be felt in spades in the late 2014-early 2015 period without a doubt.

Exalted. Well stated.

This thread is about the stock price, but I think the discussion has become a debate about whether the stock price is a meaningful insight into the health of the company. It's also been very insightful to me to see the perspective of a guy (derek) who clearly has a great working knowledge of how the stock market works, but, based on the last few pages, has no clue how businesses are actually ran. It's kind of telling and shows why the hell stocks are so unpredictable and a beast of their own.

The other thing to remember, since this thread is about share prices, is for us Yanks to remember the conversion. The share prices given are in Pence, not Pounds. The current share prices are around $10.00 USD. The highest they've ever been is less than $20.00 USD.

To put that in perspective, according to a June 2013 WSJ article, the average stock price in the USA was between $30-$50 USD since 1980.

GW stock is pretty small time, and always has been.

 Wayshuba wrote:
I want to add something here to maybe clarify some realities. While this is a US based example, the governance in the UK and US are similar enough to apply to this example

When was your IPO?

Pretty sure he already answered that or is there some angle you have with this question?

I own 21% of Common Class B Stock (i.e., common stock except my shares each count for 10 votes) of my corporation (currently private equity investors only).

12thRonin wrote:
Pretty sure he already answered that or is there some angle you have with this question?

I own 21% of Common Class B Stock (i.e., common stock except my shares each count for 10 votes) of my corporation (currently private equity investors only).

He's being snarky/facetious (again)

Wayshuba owns equity in a private firm, not a publicly traded one.

It's the only thing he can see to refute, so it is the only thing he addresses.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:
I want to add something here to maybe clarify some realities. While this is a US based example, the governance in the UK and US are similar enough to apply to this example

When was your IPO?

Umm... did you see the point I made in that thread about it being private equity ownership only right now?

 azreal13 wrote:
It's the only thing he can see to refute, so it is the only thing he addresses.

It's all that needs refuting. He's talking private equity and it's a completely different ballgame. It's completely irrelevant. Going down and arguing every single point he made after that would be a waste of time.. Since you specifically asked me to do so...

I think it's kind of silly to try to argue that we live in an age where we don't have shareholder activism. That is absurd considering how many CEO are forced out on a yearly basis. Hell.. google it.

As for CEOs for companies like Kodak, I don't see how those are good examples. We have 3 CEOs since 2000 and 5 since 1999.. And this was a company that was part of the Dow Jones industrials. lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak Not seeing what point is being made by bringing them up? What's next, bringing up the CEOs for HP? GM? Any other revolving doors?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/23/the-ceo-revolving-door-is-speeding-up-study-shows/

Oh and the Facebook Zuckerberg thing is actually a horrible example to prove your point.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/01/zuck-power-play/

Under the arrangement, Dustin Moscovitz, Sean Parker, and a host of other Silicon Valley bigwigs have given Zuckerberg “irrevocable proxy” to control their votes. That means that their shares will swing with his shares.

“This is not common at all,” said Menlo Ventures partner Mark Siegel, who has monitored quite a few IPOs in his time in Silicon Valley and spoke to VentureBeat by phone today.

“He negotiated a very unique deal,” said Siegel of Zuckerberg’s coup. While no one knows exactly why Moscovitz, Parker, and a slew of high-powered VC firms would have given up their votes, Siegel speculated, “I’m sure there’s a point where shares were offered with that as a contingency.”

Those relationships were required to be disclosed upon the IPO. In order to be in compliance, those kinds of relationship must be disclosed. 1 share = 1 vote.

Since they are listed on the LSE.. Games Workshop has to stay in compliance. If they don't, they could lose their listing, get fined for every day they are out of compliance and could face even more severe penalties from UK regulators.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/compliance/compliance.htm

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It's the only thing he can see to refute, so it is the only thing he addresses.

It's all that needs refuting. He's talking private equity and it's a completely different ballgame. It's completely irrelevant. Going down and arguing every single point he made after that would be a waste of time..

I also think it's kind of silly to try to argue that we live in an age where we don't have shareholder activism. That is absurd considering how many CEO are forced out on a yearly basis.

As for CEOs for companies like Kodak, I don't see how those are good examples. We have 3 CEOs since 2000 and 5 since 1999.. And this was a company that was part of the Dow Jones industrials. lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak Not seeing what point is being made by bringing them up? What's next, bringing up the CEOs for HP? GM? Any other revolving doors?

Oh and the Facebook Zuckerberg thing is actually a horrible example to prove your point.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/01/zuck-power-play/

Under the arrangement, Dustin Moscovitz, Sean Parker, and a host of other Silicon Valley bigwigs have given Zuckerberg “irrevocable proxy” to control their votes. That means that their shares will swing with his shares.

“This is not common at all,” said Menlo Ventures partner Mark Siegel, who has monitored quite a few IPOs in his time in Silicon Valley and spoke to VentureBeat by phone today.

“He negotiated a very unique deal,” said Siegel of Zuckerberg’s coup. While no one knows exactly why Moscovitz, Parker, and a slew of high-powered VC firms would have given up their votes, Siegel speculated, “I’m sure there’s a point where shares were offered with that as a contingency.”

Those relationships were required to be disclosed upon the IPO. In order to be in compliance, those kinds of relationship must be disclosed. 1 share = 1 vote.

You are talking about how the stock market works... I am talking about how companies work. The biggest reason for a lot of CEO turnover, especially in the US, is it is more advantageous to take the "golden parachute" than stay employed. I personally know one CEO who did this through three companies to the point when he was running the third company, he was still collecting full pay from the other two companies.

Yes, there are CEOs forced out, but that percentage is very, very, very small compared to the number of CEOs who continue to run companies. There are 88 million companies in the world, 4.7 million of which have 50 or more employees and tens of thousands of public companies. How many CEOs exactly get "forced out" every year?

Oh, and FYI, even in public companies... one share DOES NOT always equal one vote (http://www.post-gazette.com/business/Biz-opinion/2012/11/11/Heard-Off-the-Street-When-vote-per-share-is-just-not-fair/stories/201211110149) or (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/new-share-class-gives-google-founders-tighter-control/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) or (http://ir.bombardier.com/en/share-information)

This is becoming a common practice now to have multiple classes of voting stock.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Kirby has been with the company a long time and bought it from Bryan Ansell who had his faults but seemed to show more genuine enthusiasm for the games, if all the various interviews with those involved in the early years of GW are to be believed. Kirby is quoted as saying he hated fantasy and his favourite author was Jane Austen.

What's wrong with Jane Austen?

 Wayshuba wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It's the only thing he can see to refute, so it is the only thing he addresses.

Oh, and FYI, even in public companies... one share DOES NOT always equal one vote (http://www.post-gazette.com/business/Biz-opinion/2012/11/11/Heard-Off-the-Street-When-vote-per-share-is-just-not-fair/stories/201211110149) or (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/new-share-class-gives-google-founders-tighter-control/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) or (http://ir.bombardier.com/en/share-information)

This is becoming a common practice now to have multiple classes of voting stock.

And those are disclosed are they not?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wayshuba wrote:

Yes, there are CEOs forced out, but that percentage is very, very, very small compared to the number of CEOs who continue to run companies. There are 88 million companies in the world, 4.7 million of which have 50 or more employees and tens of thousands of public companies. How many CEOs exactly get "forced out" every year?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/23/the-ceo-revolving-door-is-speeding-up-study-shows/

On the exchange traded companies? It's pretty common to see CEOs leave. It's has the same turnover as pretty much any other executive level job and for public companies it's definitely higher than private.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Since they are listed on the LSE.. Games Workshop has to stay in compliance. If they don't, they could lose their listing, get fined for every day they are out of compliance and could face even more severe penalties from UK regulators.


[http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/compliance/compliance.htm

Those rules you link to are to regulate (as the address implies) "traders-and-brokers" on the LSE, not the traded companies.

richred_uk wrote:


Those rules you link to are to regulate (as the address implies) "traders-and-brokers" on the LSE, not the traded companies.

Apologies.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/home/guide-to-listing.pdf

One highlight

Post-IPO interaction with the UKLA
l
DTRs
– a listed issuer must comply with the
DTRs on an ongoing basis, as failure to
comply with these rules may result in the
suspension of the listing of its securities. The
UKLA has a team dedicated to monitoring
issuers’ compliance with the DTRs, and to
providing guidance on these rules on a real-
time basis.
l
Prospectus requirements
– if the issuer
seeks admission of further securities of the
same class it will be required to produce a
prospectus, unless an exemption applies.
Exemptions include, among other things, the
issue of shares under employee share
schemes and bonus issues. The UKLA would
typically be required to approve any future
prospectus.
l
Significant transactions
– if the issuer has a
Premium Listing of its equity shares, it will be
required to consider whether any significant
transaction that it undertakes will need
announcement or, if it is of sufficient size,
shareholder approval. Lower size thresholds
are applied if the transaction is being
undertaken with a related party such as a
director or substantial shareholder. The
Listing Rules include rules governing the
disclosure requirements in circulars where
shareholder approval is sought, and also
clarify which circulars require UKLA approv

Sooo....

It is possible to have 1 share = >1 vote, as long as it is declared.

GW have no such declaration so it is reasonable to assume that no shareholders have this power.

I fail to see the relevance of this to anything other than allowing Derek to disagree with someone?

We're still at the point where I'm unconvinced that Derek has any real world experience of the difference between how corporate life works in practice and how it works in theory, and nothing that's been said is disavowing me of this.