Surprised no one posted this yet...

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2008/default.aspx

The "Business Review", in particular, had a lot of interesting info.

I'll leave the commentary to others, just pointing out one little bit I found interesting...

"The cost of raw materials, such as metal and plastic, represents no more than 5% of our sales and therefore we do not believe that the price volatility of these inputs represents a significant threat to our long-term profitability."



Vale,

JohnS

Yeah they've been saying that a long LONG time now. I think it's the same as the last several years worth of statements, actually.

I have been reading it over with a legal beagle and an accountant, so I get the deep dish. lol

=============

Holy

2.8 million to install a new website?! This makes me cry.

=============

"No transactions of a speculative nature are permitted."

Good. So LOTR will be discontinued then?

=============

Hmmm. 20$ million in secured credit, that's higher than before. Still seem to be running in the red, @ 10 million.

Apparently this isn't "good".

=============

Forward currency contracts...I hope these are being run intelligently. Better not be hedging your translational exposures!

=============

"The introduction of automated inventory replenishment and computer terminals with the new web store in the UK and US Hobby centres will help us manage our working capital more effectively."

How, exactly? Things like this should be explained.

Soundbite, it seems.

=============

No dividends this year, and Kirby is writing up his appraisal in a very unorthodox way.
Its ok to be a loose and trendy CEO with a good track record, Branson comes to mind here. However coming across all loose and trendy whe you are on the slide is very different.

This report will likely worry a lot of shareholders even beyond the news that their shares are down 2.4p with no dividend to keep anyone happy.

Man, it's a depressing financial statement.

Losses everywhere. :(

Yeah, I don't get the appraisal.

It's nice when the IIS server they just upgraded can't handle the strain on it, and you get:

SERVICE UNAVAILABLE.

Fail.

Orlanth wrote:No dividends this year, and Kirby is writing up his appraisal in a very unorthodox way.
Its ok to be a loose and trendy CEO with a good track record, Branson comes to mind here. However coming across all loose and trendy whe you are on the slide is very different.

This report will likely worry a lot of shareholders even beyond the news that their shares are down 2.4p with no dividend to keep anyone happy.

If you can share your understanding, how does this report stack to last years? Reading this reminds me why I didn't major in this area...

The market seems to have been expecting more. As a result the share price is on the slide again.

Financialy speaking this year can at best be seen as treading water for GW.

George Spiggott wrote:The market seems to have been expecting more. As a result the share price is on the slide again.

Financialy speaking this year can at best be seen as treading water for GW.

Thanks for the clarification. Is it a 'Didn't meet market expectation' scenario...but they still increased profit?

Sooo... still no budget for any sort of proof reader/editor?

They lost money, AgeofEgos.

Jayden, there's barely money for anything.

No idea how they spent 1.8 million on their website...it's gotta be something beyond that. For 1.8 mil buys alot of website, and they uhh don't have alot of website...

Financials look promising so hopefully the direction planned can steer them around to a strong forward trend.

Diablobats:

Please do not spam the forum with posts directing users to non-gaming related sites.

If you continue this practice, you will be banned.

Please PM me if you feel this warning is in error.


--yakface

knightdrake wrote:Financials look promising so hopefully the direction planned can steer them around to a strong forward trend.

Which financials are you looking at? 2002?

They still look horrible.

GW is a publicly traded company for are subject to more audit review. You may run your private business with loopholes, GW would have a harder time doing so.

Stelek, in comparison to the declining trend over the past several years this is an improvement. You said you had the legel beagle and accountant with you; they should be making the same comments. Don't know what you are looking at or may just be pessimistic. From my point of view as a corporate accountant with over 10 years experience working with private and public companies. Looking over the numbers from that experience the upswing is small but does set the stage for improvement. Stopping the losses even at a flatline to previous year is an accomplishment.

Then onto their stock, this will be good new and help improve the value which is a benefit to the various shareholders. The preamble talked about this and a better focus on them then from previous years. Last year was about getting back in touch with the retailers which from these reports shows it has paid off, especially in the Americas.

Stelek wrote:No idea how they spent 1.8 million on their website...it's gotta be something beyond that. For 1.8 mil buys alot of website, and they uhh don't have alot of website...

I don't know much about all the financial mumbo jumbo, but their website redo was no small task. The kind of technology and programming that went into both the front end is very high tech by any web store's standards and I'm sure the back end is too. That kind of programming and testing and data entry takes a VERY long time to do. They basically went from scratch and built an entire web store from the ground up. It's no small task. It's not the boss's nephew who took and HTML class and can add videos to his myspace page so that makes him an expert. It was a top notch professional job from a web design standpoint.

I thought I remembered reading they were expecting to pay 5 million for their new site, so actually they're under budget if that's true

it always makes me laugh when the financial statements come out and people start rambling about what it means. Unless you are a profesional in the field qualified to make an intelligent statement about any of it, just shut yer yapper. Nothing makes a person look worse than trying to talk about something like they are an expert when they dont know their a-hole form their elbow on the subject. Just because you think you know everything, or your uncle´s buddy was an tax accountant at H&R Block doesn´t mean you know squat about corporate financial statements in the UK.

so unless you are a corporate accountant, like knightdrake appears to be, keep your useless opinion to yourself unless you prefice it by saying: i have no clue what i am talking about but here is my two cents!

The problem as they see it is the hard numbers aren't very good.

For having some of the biggest releases for their primary game systems in recent history, why should I think that +200% effort plus +10% profit is good?

It's like Ford pushing out more Trucks when gas prices triple.

Reecius wrote:Stelek, Is their a limit to your ability to make your self look bad? You persist in trying to prove you are right when you obviously are clueless on the subject.

Just let it go, no one is impresed with your tough guy on the internet routine. The tougher someone acts on the net, the more socially impotent they must be in real life.

But then, here i am feeding into it. I seriously need to learn to just ignore some of the rediulous stuff people say on the net, it is so pointless to get involved.

so rant on, nothing i or anything anyone else says will change you, in fact, you probably like the attention in some weird way.

Anyone for a hot, sweet cup of irony?

Reecius,

Stelek (or anyone else) has the right to express their opinion about what GW's financial report says. It is a public document and this is a site dedicated to discussing gaming related information.

If you (or anyone else) happens to think Stelek's opinion lacks credibility that is absolutely your right and if anyone wants to put out a different opinion they are free to as well.


Finally, if you don't like Stelek's comments, just put him on your 'ignore' list and be done with it.

Just responding to quotes:

"The cost of raw materials, such as metal and plastic, represents no more than 5% of our sales and therefore we do not believe that the price volatility of these inputs represents a significant threat to our long-term profitability."

This has been known for a long time, which is why it will be amusing when GW claims their next PP-inspired price hike due to "materials costs".


"No transactions of a speculative nature are permitted."

Heh. I wonder how they measure risk for things like Army Books and Codices and new Editions.


Overall, things aren't terrible. And that's saying something small, given that we've got major banks failing on this side of the pond.

Wait, banks are failing?

Right, one of two banks at my business got siezed and sold over the weekend.

STRESS! :(

Forgeworld generated 2.7 million pounds. Just about 2% of overall sales.
All run by a handful of guys.

That is some high yield for GW.

I think they are on the right track making expansion kits for citadel plastics i.e. the bane blade mod kits and the new chaos SM troops.

18 stores already closed in the last year and another 15 worldwide to be reviewed this year.

A store was opened up here in Queensland a couple of months ago and another is due in sydney soon IIRC. They are continuing to make stores in Japan. So looks like US, UK or Europe would be losing them.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Orlanth wrote:No dividends this year, and Kirby is writing up his appraisal in a very unorthodox way.
Its ok to be a loose and trendy CEO with a good track record, Branson comes to mind here. However coming across all loose and trendy whe you are on the slide is very different.

This report will likely worry a lot of shareholders even beyond the news that their shares are down 2.4p with no dividend to keep anyone happy.

If you can share your understanding, how does this report stack to last years? Reading this reminds me why I didn't major in this area...

Not quite what I am saying, the report speaks for itself. My comment was on how it was written.

Ther intro is in high school speak, full of quotes everywhere and not generally from financial sources. If you were an investor you could tolerate a hopefully temporary share drop while the company is expanding, a lack of dividends while the company refocuses its investments, however both require business confidence. Business confidence requires the CEO to be either really hot, or look to be really hot in the future.

Some CEO's like to make themselves out to be modern and refreshing apparently writes some of his documents up this way, with anecdotes, of key quotes, its part of the new management style and is allegedly 'refreshing'. But it has to be done the right way, and evebn so when as modern CEO tries to make a relaxed presentation he will still get into the nuts and bolts later in the document. Kirby has used the same style throughout, which would lead me to think, what is he hiding?

Essentially the document is a cross between an end of year report and an investment brochure, the recipient has money, likely a lot of money riding on this and it is all he is given to go on for determining if his investment is worthwhile (though every good investor checks secondary sources). From reading this document would you feel relaxed to know that Kirby is in charge? Presentation is everything, this report is full of excuses for failure and half comments that dont really tell the investor anything. Most of what Stelek highlights is the same sort of 'sweeping generalities' as you find in party political manifestos, making claims and statements but not really promising anything. Sweeping generalities are a classic propoganda trick, but while that might fool average voters, but doesn't fool the average shareholder.

Rough recurring EBITDA of 14.6MM vs. 12.4MM, thats an improvement. Interest coverage went down but Debt/EBITDA improved. Not so bad. Better than I figured would be the case. Looks like they've stopped the bleeding for the moment. Now it remains to be seen how bad their sales fall off due to current conditions. If sales trends remain flat, their profitability should be reasonable next year.

No transactions of a speculative nature are permitted."

Heh. I wonder how they measure risk for things like Army Books and Codices and new Editions.

What they are saying is not speculative dervivatives trading, only direct trading to mitigate risk.
Interest rate hedging for a small company. To their banker-RESPECT. Forex hedging I can see due to their international ops.

Essentially the document is a cross between an end of year report and an investment brochure, the recipient has money, likely a lot of money riding on this and it is all he is given to go on for determining if his investment is worthwhile (though every good investor checks secondary sources). From reading this document would you feel relaxed to know that Kirby is in charge? Presentation is everything, this report is full of excuses for failure and half comments that dont really tell the investor anything. Most of what Stelek highlights is the same sort of 'sweeping generalities' as you find in party political manifestos, making claims and statements but not really promising anything. Sweeping generalities are a classic propoganda trick, but while that might fool average voters, but doesn't fool the average shareholder.

Er....All annual reports are like that.

jfrazell wrote:
Er....All annual reports are like that.

Not over here they are not. The investment base for the company is in the UK. We have had enough of this type of brochure from new Labour, it has lost its edge.

The financials look OK to me, and I have a business degree so don't jump down my throat anyone.

The shares have slid a bit because they announced no dividend this year or next. Last year they borrowed to pay a dividend -- this is a classic strategy to bolster tomorrow's share price at the expense of next year's.

Reading between the lines, now that four main investors own over 60% of the shares, the management feel they don't need to worry so much about short term share price increases and can concentrate on building the business for future profitability.

¨Anyone for a hot, sweet cup of irony?¨

hahaha, touche! I did become what i was condeming. Thanks for pointing that out, i needed that.

And sorry, Yak, you are totally correct.

¨Right, one of two banks at my business got siezed and sold over the weekend.¨

I am assuming you are reffering to IndyMac? i am pretty sure that is the 2nd biggest bank seizure in US history, bad times for the economy. I got out of the industry before I left on my trip, but that does not bode well. Things were looking bad while I was still working in banking and financing, and now it looks even worse. I am strongly considering converting all of my liquid assets into Euros as the dollar is expected to continue to drop for the next several years.

and on a related note, i have also been hearing whispers in the wind that there is a movement towars a unifed currency between Canda, the US, Mexico and a few Central American countries, similar to the Euro, but take that with more than a pinch of salt.

But on topic, I can only hope that GW pulls itself back into the black, which is the direction they appear to be going. As much as everyone here likes to be pessimistic, we all know we would be pretty upset if GW actually did tank.

Orlanth wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
Er....All annual reports are like that.

Not over here they are not. The investment base for the company is in the UK. We have had enough of this type of brochure from new Labour, it has lost its edge.

I've seen a few from over there that are PRish. Talking about how green you are and just great for the environemnt, when you're an integrated oil company for example. Its the nature of the thing.

From the mind of the completely uneducated:

I don't see how an increase in profit after steady losses over the last couple years is ever a bad sign...

I have alot of faith GW will recoup from the loss of LOTR, and will at least level out, if they don't manage to increase profits.

I just don't see this hobby as being as dynamic as other businesses.

If those increases were less than expected then: 1) stock not happy; 2) there can be signs that the Company has deeper problems or that those problems are more intractible than originally envisioned. I'm not saying thats this case, just a general response.

Stock is not happy because no dividend. Business-wise, it is the prudent thing to do, rather than borrowing to give money away. Borrowing is to drive future profits. And dividends are to be funded out of current profits.

Thats the theory anyway. The reality is that companies routinely will use financing to pay dividends. Its viewed as a sign of a declining company when dividends are stopped.

Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

What kinda shareholders does GW have, generally speaking? I mean, the guys that buy and sell stocks like mad every day prolly aren't gonna be buying GW, I would expect the majority to be folks that are into the hobby and the company and invested in GW more as a show of support and as a long term investment than to make a quick buck. I'm prolly way wrong cuz I know nothing about stocks, but still...

I just always kinda figured most folks investing in GW are GW fans, and they'll hang onto their stock outta love more than anything else

Strimen wrote:Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

Don't worry. You're in Canada. You won't have to bother with a vote. Your government knows whats best for you

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:18 stores already closed in the last year and another 15 worldwide to be reviewed this year.

A store was opened up here in Queensland a couple of months ago and another is due in sydney soon IIRC. They are continuing to make stores in Japan. So looks like US, UK or Europe would be losing them.

there is take a bout a 3 store in belgium ( a 2nd one in flanders to be more exactly sins the first one in flanders maide 210 % of what they expected to make ) but thats I think for next year.
flanders gw shops belong to the uk department.
and bdw its not only dollar thats going down the pounds have bin going down in value to lately.

Actually it was cabanc.com that failed.

Squat army codex & battalion would help the bottom line.

Glad to see that they've managed to do better than in previous years. I think they've been doing better, as a company, in general for the last while. Certainly I haven't felt as angry at them since they actually released my damn codex.

Necros wrote:What kinda shareholders does GW have, generally speaking? I mean, the guys that buy and sell stocks like mad every day prolly aren't gonna be buying GW, I would expect the majority to be folks that are into the hobby and the company and invested in GW more as a show of support and as a long term investment than to make a quick buck. I'm prolly way wrong cuz I know nothing about stocks, but still...

I just always kinda figured most folks investing in GW are GW fans, and they'll hang onto their stock outta love more than anything else

You know, as a GW fan, I've often (though briefly) contemplated investing in GW stock.

Then the logical part of my brain that likes money wakes up and pimp-slaps some sense back into me. I give myself a good chuckle for my momentary foolishness and then move on...

Love GW, have faith they'll turn it around, would rather trust the hobo outside Proctor and Gamble with my money.

Necros wrote:What kinda shareholders does GW have, generally speaking? I mean, the guys that buy and sell stocks like mad every day prolly aren't gonna be buying GW, I would expect the majority to be folks that are into the hobby and the company and invested in GW more as a show of support and as a long term investment than to make a quick buck. I'm prolly way wrong cuz I know nothing about stocks, but still...

I just always kinda figured most folks investing in GW are GW fans, and they'll hang onto their stock outta love more than anything else

On the website, the preamble from the CEO describes that they are primarily owned by four investing groups. His dry humor is a welcome change to the standard corporate CEO correspondence.

Strimen wrote:Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

Keep in mind that the "you" you are speaking of is simply the voting majority, not necessarily the "you" you are speaking to... broad statements like that are just as misleading as this one:

jfrazell wrote:Don't worry. You're in Canada. You won't have to bother with a vote. Your government knows whats best for you

Gentlemen and ladies, let's stick to the facts and remember that wargaming is an international hobby. If we want to talk politics, go to the off topic forum!

Strimen wrote:Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

Let's be real. Canada is the red button behind the glass with the sign over it that says "Break Me In Case of Emergency". We'll just subsume the great northern wastes. Who's going to save you? America?

All, right guilty as well but lets drop the Canada US thing or start a separate thread in OTT on that. Its not pertinent to the horror story that is reading English financial statements.

Perhaps they should make bitz sales a REAL option again (NOT that bitz-pack crap)

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:A store was opened up here in Queensland a couple of months ago and another is due in sydney soon IIRC.

Where's the one in Sydney going to open?

BYE

I think the real reason they took away the bitz ordering is because they didn't want to pay data entry people to re-add every little piece to the new site 1 by 1

I think it would be great though if they could at least bring back sprue ordering if not the metal stuff.

Scott_K wrote:
Perhaps they should make bitz sales a REAL option again (NOT that bitz-pack crap)

what to lose money again?

The bitz as they existed actually lost GW money- the bitz packs that are constantly being expanded actually do make profit- or at least break even.

holy crap, ANOTHER bank was seized! That is terrible, my buddies in the biz keep my up to date on what is happening, and that one flew under the radar. I checked and they are not a subsidiary of Indymac Either, they are a seperate bank associated with Arizona 1st Financial, it just keeps getting worse!

Wow, IndyMac is a giant and they were seized and are being sold piece meal right now.

And as for the merged currancy issue, it is something that will surprise me if it happens, but I wont be surprised if that makes sense. Right now Oil is traded in the US dollar, but it looks very much like it will switch to the Euro or possibly the Yuan, and if that happens it means bleak times lay ahead for the States (and Canada and Mexico too unfortunately). In order to stay competetive in the world economy it makes a lot of sense to merge our economic strength with Canada, Mexico (which is expected to transition fully into the first world in our lifetimes from what I have been hearing and reading), and a few Central American countries, many of whom already use the US dollar anyway.

It would give us the clout to keep trading Oil in our currency, and it would help all the nations involved, just as what happened with the Euro.

But anyway, sorry to derail the thread, i know a lot of this stuff is not in the slightst interesting to most people.

But here is to hoping my favorite game keeps on trucking so that we can all keep arguing about it on the net! and play the game from time to time too.

Well, I was impressed by the news today about a guy in NY that switched to an italian Piaggio Vespa (a scooter) that uses 3.5L/100. He was commenting on the fact that his car did consume, on average, 26L/100.

We're paying nearly 1.5€ per L, and our cars go from 7-14L (and that last on a very thirsty car). With average consumptions like that, no wonder...

Also, what's going on with the american economy? I've thought that the Euro was getting stronger, but the dollar seems to be falling at an alarming rate (some days I miss the news, and the next days, instead of coverage on this, it's just another Maddie-soap opera episode).

Anyway, (trying to get) back on topic, I had a small doubt: LOTR seems to be the prime reason for GW's financial state, or so everybody says.
Is it really that bad? I've got a few boxes, the models are nice and the rules seem good. What's so wrong with the game that it doesn't work? Besides, 15€ for 24 miniatures, very decent quality wise, makes me consider LOTR rather than Fantasy or 40k.

LOTR is to Fantasy as Rogue Trader is to 40K (or if you prefer, as Warmachine is to 40K).

No one wants to play with ten men 'armies' when they can play with more--wanna play small, play combat patrol I guess.

The kind of technology and programming that went into both the front end is very high tech by any web store's standards and I'm sure the back end is too.

Meh, not really. I see nothing on that site that isn't a very widely available skillset. I mean, all that's immediately visible is Javascript, JSP pages, and the presumption that there's some sort of Java backend doing commerce tasks. JSP is still viable, I guess, but it's a 2001 era technology, there are tons and tons of people who can do it.

A major question is how much they invested in hardware, software licensing, etc. Java Server Pages sites don't have a ton of licensing cost to them AFAIK.

Strictly in terms of man hours, if you assume a $100/hour bill rate, $1.8m is 18,000 hours, or a 10 person team working 40 hours a week for 45 weeks.

That's a high bill rate for an entire team, and that's a lot of hours for what they got, which is some javascript menus, maybe some sort of content management system, and a shopping cart. A quick inspection shows that its HTML is laden with comment blocks, which really shouldn't be present in a production site.

All in all, it's probably a typical software project, they probably paid a lot more than they should have to get a competent team to build it. But to have anything at all is a success, given how many times I've seen companies spend $250k, $500k, $11 million, for absolutely nothing.

Orlanth wrote:No dividends this year, and Kirby is writing up his appraisal in a very unorthodox way.
Its ok to be a loose and trendy CEO with a good track record, Branson comes to mind here. However coming across all loose and trendy whe you are on the slide is very different.

Kirby is the chairman, he was replaced as CEO by Mark Wells.

This report will likely worry a lot of shareholders even beyond the news that their shares are down 2.4p with no dividend to keep anyone happy.

As knightdrake pointed out, GW has reversed their previously declining total sales.

It’s a common error people make to look straight at the profit figure and assume that is the be all and end all of reporting. It isn’t, in fact it isn’t relevant at all. What you’re interested in future cash flows, and in this regards GW’s performance has improved over previous years. Still not great, but not as poor as the previous couple of years.

And the movement in share price post announcement doesn’t reflect performance. It reflects the announcement relative to the expectations of the announcement. You have to look at the share price over a longer period to get a decent reflection of actual performance. Even then, when looking at a shallowly held stock like GW it isn't a very good guide.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Stock is not happy because no dividend. Business-wise, it is the prudent thing to do, rather than borrowing to give money away. Borrowing is to drive future profits. And dividends are to be funded out of current profits.

The market doesn’t demand a dividend. Quite the opposite in fact, proven by the movement of share post dividend being less than the dividend paid. All things being equal people prefer the extra dollar still in the company, being used to fund expansion and increase the stock price.

Companies pay dividends to allocated tax credits accrued on the dividend to share holders (but I believe the UK got rid of that in like, ’97 or thereabouts).

AlexCage wrote:From the mind of the completely uneducated:

I don't see how an increase in profit after steady losses over the last couple years is ever a bad sign...

I have alot of faith GW will recoup from the loss of LOTR, and will at least level out, if they don't manage to increase profits.

I just don't see this hobby as being as dynamic as other businesses.

LOTR has been a strong performer for GW. I know it isn't popular on the internet, and I don't like the game either, but we are not the world.

We know that 40k SM alone easily outsells WFB, and consistently generates considerably more profit. And my understanding is that LotR is another money-maker for GW.

But sometimes, I have to wonder if LotR outsells WFB, and whether it would more profitable for GW to simply cancel WFB in favor of increased LotR investment and net profits...

JohnHwangDD wrote:We know that 40k SM alone easily outsells WFB, and consistently generates considerably more profit. And my understanding is that LotR is another money-maker for GW.

But sometimes, I have to wonder if LotR outsells WFB, and whether it would more profitable for GW to simply cancel WFB in favor of increased LotR investment and net profits...

Given the major cost to GW is in their retail network, not in their product ranges, I’d say it’s unlikely that any of their lines will be cut. Cutting LotR won’t make those mainstreet stores any cheaper.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Stock is not happy because no dividend. Business-wise, it is the prudent thing to do, rather than borrowing to give money away. Borrowing is to drive future profits. And dividends are to be funded out of current profits.

The market doesn’t demand a dividend. Quite the opposite in fact, proven by the movement of share post dividend being less than the dividend paid. All things being equal people prefer the extra dollar still in the company, being used to fund expansion and increase the stock price.

Thats an incorrect statement. The use of dividends attracts a different investor base. Lose the dividend and you lose that investor base.

I'll be the first to tell you I know nothing of business matters like this....I put my money in my 401k like they tell me to and trust someone else to take care of it.

I've sort of scanned through this thread and have seen arguments that sounded good to me, though it was all over my head. Is it possible though that, since I imagine a large amount of their sales are to the U.S., financial troubles at GW are an expected result of how we're having some rough financial times? I mean, when we're worried about things like fuel and food, miniatures are going to go on the back burner. I know that I havent bought anything other than the 40k 5th ed rulebook and some washes this entire year.

Do you not think that this sort of thing will resolve itself when the U.S. economy improves? Am I correct that GW sells a lot of product here, or is that just my impression?

Here's your profit, Fantasy Flight wants it more then GW does.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22022008/323/games-workshop-group-unit-sell-assets-fantasy-flight-250-000.html


Guess they got to pay for that high speed unworkable websight somehow.

Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

Good job, did you come up with that on your own? Watch South Park much?

I called that shiz, the last time we had this conversation. Its down to 150 and I still won't touch it. I expect that they will outsource more of thier IP, same as the Fantasy Flight thing, all the way out of business. Too bad, that RPG is pretty cool, I'd have thought that they would have started tying all of thier stuff together, instead of being as hard headed as they are about it.

Games Day Chicago had a much smaller turnout than I remember in the previous 4-5 years. I hope that's not a sign of things to come.

All in all, this report doesn't look as awful as the original posters made it seem. They have turned some things around, and it seems as though they've made some aspects of the game more readily available to the consumer (ie: more plastics, $22 boxed sets, Black Reach style releases, huge army deals for cheap, etc.).

The sales rep(s) I converse with from Chicago say that three more stores are supposed to open before 2011, and that LotR sales are fine. I know a big key to selling the game is demo's. A lot of independent retailers have the room for it, but don't give it enough thought or attention. Also, not everyone prefers big armies to small games. In fact, I know a lot of people who quit Fantasy and 40k because of GW's trend to lower points cost with each new edition while subsequently raising prices. Some people enjoy the small scale skirmishes, and a fast-paced game. Have you ever played LotR? It's extremely quick and easy to learn; and yet there's plenty of variation with each game. Besides, The Hobbit and a successor film have now gone into production (slated for 2010-2011), so I fully expect that the game will get some attention again in the future.

As it's currently rumored, there won't be an LotR supplemental releases for 2009, however, and 4 (yes 4!) army books/codices will come for the two main systems.

I think that GW spent a lot of money developing these products and programs to attract new customers. There's always a dip before the surge. A company can't just stay with the tride and true, who look to eBay more than anywhere else, and expect to get ahead. 2009 could be very good for them, with Marines this fall, Warriors of Chaos in the winter, IG and Dawn of War II early next year...

MOD EDIT: Cut the politics please. -The Mgmt.

sebster wrote:

LOTR has been a strong performer for GW. I know it isn't popular on the internet, and I don't like the game either, but we are not the world.

I'm sorry, I maybe should've clarified my comment on LOTR.

I was not saying that LOTR was, or is a loss for the company, nor was I making any comment on the quality of the game or its minis (having only the most passing of familiarity with either). What I was referring to was the huge drop in profits that was expected (GW even anticipated it publicly) when the trilogy ended.

There's little doubt where that profit increase from 2001 to 2004 came from. LOTR made GW far more accessible to the common geek, it brought in outside revenue, and expanded the consumer base. It was such a great asset! And now the fad has passed. GW needs something else equally as geeky to give their profits another booster-shot in the arm. Maybe.... Comic Book Wars! Cash in on all those trendy comic book movies!

brassangel wrote:Games Day Chicago had a much smaller turnout than I remember in the previous 4-5 years. I hope that's not a sign of things to come.

Just to keep things on the level, Games Day Chicago actually had more bodies through the door than the previous Chicago Games Days (even taking into account that we moved the GT to a separate date).

We had 25,000sqft more in the hall combined with all the extra room that the GT usually takes up. It made for a much more spread-out affair (which in turn kept the hall at a very reasonable temperature).

Versus last year (which had set the record), we had double the number of clubs participating by bringing and running events.

In all, it's been a good year for Games Days (the same trends were found at the Baltimore Games Day), and what I'd take as a sign that we've actually seen a growth in the number of hobbyists (and organized clubs).

Chris

Stelek wrote:The problem as they see it is the hard numbers aren't very good.

For having some of the biggest releases for their primary game systems in recent history, why should I think that +200% effort plus +10% profit is good?

It's like Ford pushing out more Trucks when gas prices triple.

The "big releases" aren't reflected this quarter. They spent a lot of money last quarter developing and making 5th edition. So the fact that they treaded water is pretty impressive. All there printing costs will be there. All there profit will be next year. I really expect to see a nice upswing in the next financial report (baring something unforeseen).

It's funny... GW is one of the few stocks I would like to own. Simply because I know so much about the inside workings of the business I feel like I understand what I'm investing in1

Uhh hate to be a socialist, but...regarding CEO pay, have you actually met one in person?

I've met alot in my role in IT.

Most are great salesmen.

Dumb as rocks, pretty boys way past their prime, sit in meetings in the morning and recreate in the afternoon.

They need 100 million a year, why exactly?

Question I have, is why they don't quit after a month. I know I would. Thanks for the millions, suckers!

@Stelek: If you're so much smarter than they are, why aren't you the guy making the big bucks?

@JohnHwangDD, that is a damn good question.

That reminds me, I have a question for you John, The DD at the end of your screenname, is it for dentist or are you proud of your chest? Sorry to go OT, but I have wondered for a long time.

hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

jfrazell wrote:Thats an incorrect statement. The use of dividends attracts a different investor base. Lose the dividend and you lose that investor base.

Fair point, I'll retract my statement on 'the market' and replace it with 'most of the market'.

This certainly holds in GW's case as 60% of their shares are held by institutional investors.

"The introduction of automated inventory replenishment and computer terminals with the new web store in the UK and US Hobby centres will help us manage our working capital more effectively."

How, exactly? Things like this should be explained.

Probably by keeping less stock on hand. Boxes of product in a warehouse aren't making money.

I'm assuming this change means that GW HQ has a better grasp of what individual stores have in stock and plan ahead better.

Stelek wrote:Uhh hate to be a socialist, but...regarding CEO pay, have you actually met one in person?

I've met alot in my role in IT.

Most are great salesmen.

Dumb as rocks, pretty boys way past their prime, sit in meetings in the morning and recreate in the afternoon.

They need 100 million a year, why exactly?

Question I have, is why they don't quit after a month. I know I would. Thanks for the millions, suckers!

1) I am a socialist.
2) Everyone in business talks down to IT people, we want you to go away.
3) I'm a management accountant, and deal with the CEO at least once a week. Around budget time we pretty much live in the same office.
4) CEOs come in a wide variety. There's guys who were very skilled in their profession, IT or engineering generally and ended up CEOs as a result - these guys are generally pretty poor. There's snakeskin salesmen - often bad but not always. And there's guys who really do set a great culture for their organisation... those guys are worth their weight in gold.
5) The combined remuneration package for Kirby and Wells, who split the CEO position during the financial year, was 522,000 pounds. Which is a nice little earner, but not that great by CEO standards.

AlexCage wrote:I'm sorry, I maybe should've clarified my comment on LOTR.

I was not saying that LOTR was, or is a loss for the company, nor was I making any comment on the quality of the game or its minis (having only the most passing of familiarity with either). What I was referring to was the huge drop in profits that was expected (GW even anticipated it publicly) when the trilogy ended.

There's little doubt where that profit increase from 2001 to 2004 came from. LOTR made GW far more accessible to the common geek, it brought in outside revenue, and expanded the consumer base. It was such a great asset! And now the fad has passed. GW needs something else equally as geeky to give their profits another booster-shot in the arm. Maybe.... Comic Book Wars! Cash in on all those trendy comic book movies!

Thanks for the clarification. It's an interesting idea and may well work. I wonder if GW is wary of cranking out a game with every fad and drifting away from their core game lines...

Darrian13 wrote:That reminds me, I have a question for you John, The DD at the end of your screenname, is it for dentist or are you proud of your chest? Sorry to go OT, but I have wondered for a long time.

Neither... If I failed to get into Medical School, I'd be a "DDS". As for my chest, I do a lot of pushups), so if I flex my pecs, maybe I could fill an A-cup?

The "DD" simply stands for "DakkaDakka".

Reecius wrote:hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

Close: "CC" for "CyberCathedral".

CC, oh ok, i remember it being something like that.

as far as CEO's go, the few that have known (working for medium sized financial firms, no great big companies) were more leaders and motivators than whiz bang industry geniuses. The good ones motivated you to rise up and made the work place enjoyable, helping the wheels to turn smoothly and keeping things moving ahead., the bad ones made you want to leave the company. The guys or girls who usually had all the answers to the technical questions, usually lacked the charisma to lead the company.

both roles were important, just different.

although my opinion is of limited validity as i cant honestly say i rub elbows with a ton of CEO's. I have met in my professional career 5 of largish companies, but they did all tend to have similar characteristics.

Thanks John. I was hoping I would not offend you with the question.

@Darrian:
I had no idea you were so sensitive. Besides, it's no different than me wondering with that "13" stands for...

@Reecius:
I've met my share of CEOs and they're as mixed a bag as any other group of people. Though as a rule, I think that CEOs generally tend to have better people skills than the average IT guy.

People skills = 100 million a year salary?

Neat!

CEO's are valued (when they are valued) for their business skills. For example, the CEO at the hospital where I work is doing a terrific job and is earning every penny (we're going through a terrible revenue slump due to the economy and cuts in Medicare, yet there have been ZERO layoffs or declines in patient care).

One of the reasons CEOs get paid more is because they are ultimately responsible for the performance of the company. With great responsibility comes a great golden parachute.

@ Chris: I stand corrected. Perhaps I meant to say that it "felt" smaller, given how spread out it was. There also seemed to be a small number of Golden Daemon entries. Nonetheless, I'm all for a more fluid affair if it cuts temperature, clutter, lost or stolen items, etc. Well done!

@Stelek: 81% of the millionaires in America spent more than 15 years building their wealth through investments and applied skillsets. What they become (from a personality perspective) once they reach the top, or their acquired people skills, has far less to do with their earning power than their ability to budget. In fact, many financial advisors have turned people who make $40K a year into millionaires with proper investing. Most of the wealthy are not CEO's, nor have they ever had that type of salary. Nonetheless, if one person has received the education, developed the skills in multiple technical, social, and marketing areas required to reach an executive position, and I have none of those things, then it is safe to say that I don't deserve $.01 of his/her money; nor do I have a say as to whether or not he or she deserves it. The businesses should have the power to determine what the face of their company earns. The CEO sets the goals, makes the promises, delivers the messages, and is usally chief of all the finances as well. If the board and it's shareholders believe he or she deserves an otherwise ridiculous amount of money, then let them make that decision if they feel as though the CEO has what very few others have. It's the same reason professional athletes make a ton of money. They have skillsets that very few others have; the kind(s) that drive a multi-billion dollar industry. If they weren't entertaining, there would be no fans. If CEO's didn't know what they were doing, their businesses would tank. Sadly, it does happen from time to time and then they aren't getting paid anymore, now are they?

Back on topic: I will wager that the Black Reach boxed set brings in a truck-load of sales. I'm already planning on splitting at least three with other people. Dawn of War was hugely successful, and brought the 40K universe into even average, non-geeky people's homes. They realized very quickly that the universe and storyline are actually interesting beyond the scope of a gamers perspective. I expect Dawn of War II to be huge. It's getting released alongside pretty much no other RTS threat for the PC platform. Perhaps Starcraft 2? But from what I've gathered, that's the exact same game it used to be with just a face lift. Many have agreed that Dawn of War was a far superior game to Starcraft, and not just because it had a newer engine.

Stelek wrote:People skills = 100 million a year salary?

Yup!

Just keep in mind that there are only a handful of multi-billion-dollar companies which can afford such compensation. And these companies require a lot of talent to run effectively.

Tho if one *really* wanted to pull down $1M USD in salary, it'd probably be easier as a finance guy working on Wall Street... And even that really boils down to connections to CEOs... Funny how that works.

Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now. Certainly a company, using it's best business judgment, shoudl be able to do whatever it can to bring in the talent it thinks it needs. Let's not forget, however, that most of the top of the business community are well connected, meaning that the candidate being given a huge salary by the board will probably sit on the board of another company, for the next candidate for a top job. Soon, the market will correct itself as non-officer shareholders start balking at these salaries. Of course, "the market will correct itself" is often code for "thousands will go bankrupt, millions will lose their jobs and billions in wealth will be lost," but the market is a cycle, and CEO compensation will even out.

Reecius wrote:hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

Cybercathedral......

Who the hell are you guys? It's been years since I've been there! And also years since I've lived in SoCal...

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now. Certainly a company, using it's best business judgment, shoudl be able to do whatever it can to bring in the talent it thinks it needs. Let's not forget, however, that most of the top of the business community are well connected, meaning that the candidate being given a huge salary by the board will probably sit on the board of another company, for the next candidate for a top job. Soon, the market will correct itself as non-officer shareholders start balking at these salaries. Of course, "the market will correct itself" is often code for "thousands will go bankrupt, millions will lose their jobs and billions in wealth will be lost," but the market is a cycle, and CEO compensation will even out.

Hey Polonius, I'll let you know how it looks when I get there.

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now.

To be sure, the CEO of ExxonMobil is worth every penny he's paid. Just under $40 BILLION in *net* profits?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now.

To be sure, the CEO of ExxonMobil is worth every penny he's paid. Just under $40 BILLION in *net* profits?

I'm sure he's a talented guy, but controlling a huge chunk of a limited commodity with skyrocketing demand probably doesn't hurt....

Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

At least GW's executive compensation isn't completely ridiculous compared to the rest of the economy.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...but I don't think it'll ring any more true if you do.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

At least GW's executive compensation isn't completely ridiculous compared to the rest of the economy.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...but I don't think it'll ring any more true if you do.

Are you speaking moral terms or economic terms? Morally, sure, you can argue that some work is inherently worth more or less than other. Economically, only the market determines the price of labor. You can argue that it's ridiculous, but yes, to Boards of Directors of large companies, a CEO's coffee break is more valuable than a janitor's life work. It's not less true because it's ridiculous. It's no different from saying that because a new GW rule is ridiculous, it's not true. It's true enough for the people that determine what's true, so either live with it or create your own value system.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

@whitedragon
you used to post at the cathedral! that is funny. i guess its a small electronic world we live in =), yeah, it has been ages, the site is gone now, but it has been effectively replaced by the pacific marauders forums.

i used to live in San Diego and i gamed with the cathedral guys, good group there. John was a regular on the boards as well.

@brassangel
its funny you mention that most people who are financially stable get there just through plain old fashioned hard work and saving. that is absolutely true. as a part of my job i would have to look at prospective clients total financial situation in order to advise them on how to get where they wanted to be. this included w2's, bank statements, liquid asset statements, etc. and often times, the people who were the most solid financially were a working mom and dad who both earned in the 40K range who had paid off cars, with a 30 year fixed mortgage that they never refinanced to pull cash out of the home and had always put the max amount of money in their 401K. By the time they were in their 40's they had a gak load of money in liquid assets, and nearly no debt. They would retire on schedule and live very well. Its not difficult to do, it just takes discipline.

some of the most screwed up financial situations i ever saw were with big money makers. They would have a family income of 200K+, but have massive debt, a home on an adjustable mortgage that they constantly took cash out of and was no where near being paid off. They were stressed out beyond belief and were struggling just to meet their monthly expenses despite having a huge income.I remember one guy that had 250K in credit card debt at 15% interest!! it was a bigger payment than most peoples mortgage.

being financially stable and secure is more about lifestyle choices and discipline, but most people dont like that.You dont have to make a ton of money, you have to be smart with the money you do make.

and, if you want to make big bucks and dont want to start a business, go into sales. Of the thousands of incomes i saw, salesmen made far and away the most money with the least responsibility and the least amount of education. All of the million plus a year earners i met that were not self employed were top level sales men. But, that takes a ton of talent and highly developed skills.

@stelek
saying all executives are morons is rediculous and you have to know that. you cant make a blanket statement about a group of people as they wont all possibly fit under it.

and people skills are worth bank, anyone who is reasonably intelligent can learn a skill set, even difficult ones like IT guys have. Leadership, people skills and vision to direct a group is a talent. it is worth big bucks as a good leader makes or breaks any group. An IT guy does not make or break a company, they help a lot and are necessary today, but a glowing IT man wont take a company to the top where a brilliant CEO will. The only problem is that a good Bullshitter can weasel his way in some times as recognizing true talent can be a talent all in its own.

jfrazell wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

Why do people argue first, before refuting what I say?

Read either article. You can say you're sorry, or not.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/07/31/exxon-mobil-update-markets-equity-cx_mp_0731markets34.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080731_733191.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis

I hope business week and forbes are reputable enough.

Exxonmobile is not doing well, and that's the truth of it.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...

All I know is that ExxonMobil just released their Q2 profit and that it set a new US record for quarterly profit. So if that's the definition of "not doing well", I shudder to think what "doing well" might mean.

I don't have to say anything. A person is worth only what somebody else is willing to pay. You may want to think that you're worth something. But if nobody's willing to pay you, then you're probably wrong. In the case of some of these CEOs, they're worth millions in salary because that's what their boards are paying. In contrast, I happen actually to hire IT guys so I know for a fact that the basic techs are a dime a dozen. A+ certs and all.

BOOOM!!!! HEADSHOT!!!!

Reecius wrote:the people who were the most solid financially were a working mom and dad.

being financially stable and secure is more about lifestyle choices and discipline,

and, if you want to make big bucks and dont want to start a business, go into sales. But, that takes a ton of talent and highly developed skills.

anyone who is reasonably intelligent can learn a skill set, even difficult ones like IT guys have.

@ Reecius: I'm totally agreed with everything you wrote.

And those dual incomes are great to insulate against risk.

Discipline is hard, but it is how you get ahead and stay ahead.

Sales is tough work, no doubt about it. And it takes serious people skills to build the kind of trust that makes big money.

Basic IT skills are *not* that difficult, which is why India is taking away so many jobs. High end IT skills are valuable, but they also take a lot of work to develop.

Regardless, if you want to succeed, you need to work very, very hard. And if you want to make big money, you need to be very, very particular about what you work at.

Hi, I'm another topic entirely. Glad to see you've reached me. =) Oh? You're original topic? I'm not really sure but I think it's about seventy five lightyears BACK THERE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't have to say anything. A person is worth only what somebody else is willing to pay. You may want to think that you're worth something. But if nobody's willing to pay you, then you're probably wrong. In the case of some of these CEOs, they're worth millions in salary because that's what their boards are paying. In contrast, I happen actually to hire IT guys so I know for a fact that the basic techs are a dime a dozen. A+ certs and all.

That's the single most depressing paragraph I've ever read.

It may be depressing but it happens to be true.

I don't doubt it, that's what's so depressing.

Reecius, you are absolutely correct about the way people handle or mishandle their money.

We have a TV show in the UK, hosted by an American in fact, who investigates people in financial trouble and sorts out their finances. Lots of people just spend, spend, spend on credit cards and don't think about how they will pay the bills. I have to say I'm a bit like that myself -- there have been times I've just cut up my credit card to prevent me spending. And I've got a degree in business, so I understand accounting and compound interest.

Stelek wrote:

jfrazell wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

Why do people argue first, before refuting what I say?

Read either article. You can say you're sorry, or not.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/07/31/exxon-mobil-update-markets-equity-cx_mp_0731markets34.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080731_733191.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis

I hope business week and forbes are reputable enough.

Exxonmobile is not doing well, and that's the truth of it.

I ask for proof and you show me a businessweek article? Thats cute.

We'll stick to public statements. Exxon made $389Bn in revenues LTM, $76Bn in EBITDA and $42Bn in net income (LTM 3/31). Consensus expectations are for $95Bn in EBITDA by FYE. They are the most profitable company in the history of mankind.

Refining is not their core business, just one of three (not including petrochemicals). All refiners are down the last two quarters due to frac margin compression within the industry. If you researched the topic before making statements you'd understand that. Its not an indicator they are having problems, its an indicator that pure refiners are getting squeezed.

Have you studied any of these before making your statements?
Development costs historically and vs. competitors
Lifting costs historically and vs. competitors
Same to same reserve replacement rates
Same to same new field discoveries
Same to same political risk involved in JVs with foreign powers
New agreements recently. Venezuela’s a creaky boy and they need that oil or are they still using ME sweets for their non-internal production? Do they have non-internal production?
Whats their complexity in comparison to their competition?
Whats that complexity internationally vs. the US?
What are they doing about that complexity?
Whats their turnarounds looking like? Were they completed properly or any delays?
Whats their hedging strategy? How far out?

By the way, it helps to actually spell the name correctly.

Abit OTT but what I find funny with the Exxon example is that they've that much money, but the investors are having a paddy because they'd failed to reach expectation. It's that thinking that adds to the whole recession mess. Due to this magic figure not being reached, the company decides to cut costs, so they streamline the company by getting rid of 2,000 staff. These people then have no jobs or less well paid jobs, so therefore no money to spend, times this by 'x' amount of similar companys doing the same thing and you have a large chunk of people not spending. Domino effect. All because said company only made £270 million instead of an expected £300 million.

Sadly, I do understand the oil business. You seem to think you can overload me with questions.

Other major industry players have alternate energy plans. Hell, BP renamed themselves to Beyond Petroleum years ago.

By the by, I use a spell checker, it likes to fix words. Since you seem to think taking pot shots is a valid argument strategy, here ya go:

"What's" not "Whats".

See? Totally meaningless, pointless, and tripe.

Anyway, why do you want me to answer the questions you can find on their website? With the answers already provided? Are you trying to sound intelligent or something? It isn't working.

Since you seem to believe all of the industry watchers and analysts that think EM is going to gradually disappear over the next fifteen years, and why do they think that?

For several reasons. Cramped refinery operations (the first and only thing you got right) aren't their major headache.
Rising oil prices not being matched at the pump, and their inability to find new oil sources--those are even worse issues facing EM.

Because that's what the company told Wall Street at its March 2008 annual analyst meeting. You should know as well that the company's projections have a history of being too optimistic. i.e. They like to blow smoke up everyone's , just like you tried to do.

You can go ahead and talk about how they are just losing money in refinery operations, but the truth is they aren't going to increase their production level.

You should know why, but you seem to think you just know better. Decades ago, Western oil companies controlled 70% of the oil reserves of the world. This includes EM, btw. Now, national oil companies control 80%.

So, no more new oil fields for EM. Known reserves are down. Oil production is falling, and despite all the expertise and the cash on hand--EM can't get into new fields.

So let's recap: You put out a bunch of useless questions, trying to pretend like you're a know-whats when you're certainly not. I've put out the facts that are scaring investors, and the board of EM itself.

You see, the corporate culture at EM has always been a bad one. If they can't make huge amounts of money (not necessarily a bad thing), they won't do it.

So they aren't making a huge commitment to new oil fields. Or new oil exploration. Yet, you don't mention this fact at all. Kind of odd, from someone who wants to tell everyone that EM is really just doing great. If they have flat (or the reality, are losing total) production and that's their big money maker, why don't you see a problem with this when the oil industry analysts do and started selling off EM stock yesterday?

Anyway, the future of EM is bleak. Most analysts I've talked to (yes, you too can get a real internet argument going by talking to real experts, instead of talking out your ) believe there are 2 viable futures for EM and 1 that isn't so viable:

Oil prices drop, to pre 2002 levels, which is what EM seems to be betting their future on. No one else in the market or those observing it believe that oil will fall to 30-45 dollars a barrel, which is what EM is banking on. Are they going to nuke China and India? That's about the only way that pipe dream scenario is going to happen.

They can continue to buy back their own stock, like they've been doing for years now (less stock in circulation now than just a few years ago--always a bad sign, but you knew that and went ahead and talked the talk anyway). Then they can hope to get a good stock trade for another major company (cough, like they did with Mobil, but you remember that too, or have you forgotten already...seems you have) because even with all of their money, with the huge valuation increase in oil company stock--they cannot actually afford to buy any other oil company. They can only trade for one.

The other viable option (the one people believe EM will go to, because the two options listed above aren't happening) is EM will in the next decade turn into a trust and eventually go private.

Yeah, that's an awesome company. In excellent shape to go the way of the dodo. Just doing fine.

You should sign up for their newsletter. I actually own EM stock, and get it for free. I listened in on the analyst meeting back in March, and nearly sold my stock. Then I'd miss the neat pink newsletter, where they say the ship is sinking but in nice institutional investment terms.

Sorry, you were being a smart and trying to win an argument, right?

It helps to know the facts.

*You started this fight with your statements.
*I’m not faulting someone for typing poorly or accidently misspelling words. You consistently spell the name of the company wrong that you’re arguing about. Its never been called Exxon Mobile. It was never Mobile before the merger. Mobile is a city. Mobil was a company.

You can go ahead and talk about how they are just losing money in refinery operations, but the truth is they aren't going to increase their production level. You should know why, but you seem to think you just know better. Decades ago, Western oil companies controlled 70% of the oil reserves of the world. This includes EM, btw. Now, national oil companies control 80%.

Your ignorance of the drivers of history is inspired. At one point, Western oil companies controlled all the oil reserves in the world. Those initial discoveries ran dry. New discoveries were made in nations with government controlled rights (or appropriated aka Mexico and later Chavez). You say it like it’s the fault of the oil companies. Having said that that’s not the driver to the refinery industry. The price of the oil is fungible, depending on how sweet/heavy it is.

So let's recap: You put out a bunch of useless questions, trying to pretend like you're a know-whats when you're certainly not. I've put out the facts that are scaring investors, and the board of EM itself.

The fact you can't answer the questions reflects that you really don't know what you're talking about. Your knowledge of the energy industry, particularly integrateds, is deficient.

You see, the corporate culture at EM has always been a bad one. If they can't make huge amounts of money (not necessarily a bad thing), they won't do it.

*That’s humorous. They’re the strongest public company in the world and you state they have a bad business culture? How do you think they got that way – Ouija board?

So they aren't making a huge commitment to new oil fields. Or new oil exploration. Yet, you don't mention this fact at all. Kind of odd, from someone who wants to tell everyone that EM is really just doing great.

*The Company’s reserve replacement cost is literally half the industry average. They’re doing something right.
*The Company is increasing investment to $25Bn from $21Bn in 2007 (roughly keeping up with oilfield inflation). Its not increasing spending because it literally doesn’t have to. Per Herolds, the definitive market source for E&P analysis (July 2008): “The company has a deep inventory of discovered resources (see Issue in Focus), with contract rights to about 50 Bboe, which is equivalent to over 30 years of production at 2007 levels. While access to resources remains a critical challenge for the industry, XOM is well positioned to deliver long term growth relative to its peers .“

You should sign up for their newsletter. I actually own EM stock, and get it for free. I listened in on the analyst meeting back in March, and nearly sold my stock. Then I'd miss the neat pink newsletter, where they say the ship is sinking but in nice institutional investment terms.

That’s all you have? A newsletter? Very cute. I’m sure you think the stockbroker is giving you good advice and not just churning your stock as well.

*Of course refinery operations currently are a major headache. Refinery ops, as evidenced by the standalones including Western and Tesoro are getting hammered due to the frac spreads/demand. But that’s industry wide and will change.
*The fact that you view a stock buy back as a bad thing, because they literally are making more than they can profitably reinvest reflects that you don't know what you're talking about.

"the future of EM is bleak"

Thats about as a nonsense argument as I've heard you use in quite a while and thats saying something. 3rd party consensus forecasts are for EBITDA of $111Bn by FYE 2010. That’s a 52% increase over FY 2007 and 134% increase over 2004. Yea, they’re about to crater at any time.

I apologize to everyone for sidetracking this thread and will stop now, but these statements had to be answered, especially after the smarmy manner in which they were presented.

Hmm. No facts, more talking. Guess I won the internets. Yay!

Yes I think this thread has wandered plenty OT.

You guys can continue via PMs if you want.