Just wondering how much is gw worth in sterling and indeed what would happen if i owned upto 49 percent of its shares-would things change in relation to prices? Also anyone know how many shares gw has available and there current price?

I wouldn't invest any money in GW shares now.

The last time I bothered to look (perhaps 2010) the company was worth 150 million Pounds. Very old info there though.

I agree that unless you intend to buy controlling stock in the company in order to force policy changes, GW is a bad investment currently.

There are other companies that are far safer and more lucrative investments.

234mm Pounds market cap as at now per Bloomberg.

jonny5 wrote:
Also anyone know how many shares gw has available and there current price?

March 1, 2013
As at the date of this announcement the Company had 31,730,532 issued ordinary shares.

Share price chart:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/longaw-share-price/

As it's listed in the UK if you acquired 30% of the shares in GW you would be forced to make a takeover bid for the whole company

(and you must be prepared to pay at least as much as you paid for the cheapest share you acquired in the 3 months previous)

so you could safely get 29.9% (if folk were prepared to sell to you), but if you hit 30% you'd need to be prepared to buy the lot

My Uncle's got shares in GW (among other companies) and apparently it's one of the most profitable ones he's got. I guess it's down to the fact that GW never runs out of people wanting to buy their stuff, and very few people ever switch to buying similar products from another company.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
As it's listed in the UK if you acquired 30% of the shares in GW you would be forced to make a takeover bid for the whole company

(and you must be prepared to pay at least as much as you paid for the cheapest share you acquired in the 3 months previous)

so you could safely get 29.9% (if folk were prepared to sell to you), but if you hit 30% you'd need to be prepared to buy the lot

I'd like to start a kickstarter. Anyone wanna help me own GW? I'll fix it.

 The Shadow wrote:
My Uncle's got shares in GW (among other companies) and apparently it's one of the most profitable ones he's got. I guess it's down to the fact that GW never runs out of people wanting to buy their stuff, and very few people ever switch to buying similar products from another company.

Share price does not always equate to company health. GW has seen stagnant sales volumes, and their only major way of showing any profit is to reduce costs by closing stores, facilities etc. They aren't really growing, so much as burning the fat. The problem there is that what happens when the company is as slim as it can be? What happens where there are no more costs that can be cut?

Cost reduction is a short term gain.

I'd happily join a Kickstarter for some new LLC to come in and buy out controlling share, but I don't think the current owners are inclined to sell enough to lose control.

Aerethan wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
My Uncle's got shares in GW (among other companies) and apparently it's one of the most profitable ones he's got. I guess it's down to the fact that GW never runs out of people wanting to buy their stuff, and very few people ever switch to buying similar products from another company.

Share price does not always equate to company health. GW has seen stagnant sales volumes, and their only major way of showing any profit is to reduce costs by closing stores, facilities etc. They aren't really growing, so much as burning the fat. The problem there is that what happens when the company is as slim as it can be? What happens where there are no more costs that can be cut?

Oh no, I'd agree, I was just commenting on the worth of shares, since someone mentioned it. GW is, if anything, declining, which I do actually find sad.

DeffDred wrote:
I'd like to start a kickstarter. Anyone wanna help me own GW? I'll fix it.

Count me in!

 DeffDred wrote:


I'd like to start a kickstarter. Anyone wanna help me own GW? I'll fix it.

Mate that's absolutely made my day.

 The Shadow wrote:

Oh no, I'd agree, I was just commenting on the worth of shares, since someone mentioned it. GW is, if anything, declining, which I do actually find sad

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf
Profit is up by nearly a third last year, and dividends rose by nearly 50%. And yet you honestly sit there and tell people that GW is failing and not to invest?

Dude, when it comes to financial data, Dakka is where facts go to die.

 BryllCream wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

Oh no, I'd agree, I was just commenting on the worth of shares, since someone mentioned it. GW is, if anything, declining, which I do actually find sad

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf
Profit is up by nearly a third last year, and dividends rose by nearly 50%. And yet you honestly sit there and tell people that GW is failing and not to invest?

 BryllCream wrote:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf
Profit is up by nearly a third last year, and dividends rose by nearly 50%. And yet you honestly sit there and tell people that GW is failing and not to invest?

That's for one year, a year in which GW increased their profits by cutting expenses and increasing prices while sales volume remained stagnant (or even declined). Maybe it's a good buy if you're only planning to hold the shares for a short time in the hope that the next financial report will give you a profit when you sell your shares, but GW's ability to make a profit in the immediate future has never been in doubt. What people are skeptical of is GW's long-term future, where the ability to increase profits by cost cutting and price increases goes away. And in the context of making an investment you hope to pay off in the long run GW looks like a pretty big risk.

(Unless of course you're buying shares in the hope of making a profit when the company gets bought by someone with more business sense, but in that case maybe you want to wait until share prices drop a bit before the end.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf
Profit is up by nearly a third last year, and dividends rose by nearly 50%. And yet you honestly sit there and tell people that GW is failing and not to invest?

That's for one year, a year in which GW increased their profits by cutting expenses and increasing prices while sales volume remained stagnant (or even declined). Maybe it's a good buy if you're only planning to hold the shares for a short time in the hope that the next financial report will give you a profit when you sell your shares, but GW's ability to make a profit in the immediate future has never been in doubt. What people are skeptical of is GW's long-term future, where the ability to increase profits by cost cutting and price increases goes away. And in the context of making an investment you hope to pay off in the long run GW looks like a pretty big risk.

(Unless of course you're buying shares in the hope of making a profit when the company gets bought by someone with more business sense, but in that case maybe you want to wait until share prices drop a bit before the end.)

Well said Peregrine.

Showing profit and paying dividends is not indicative of growth or success, as both can be "forced" with short term methods like cost cutting and taking out loans for dividends(which GW very much does).

If GW showed actual growth in sales volume, then profit would naturally follow that. Instead, they cut costs to offset the plateau in sales.

Now what would be great is if one of the people from Shark Tank decided to buy up enough of GW to take over and fix things, since those people all have a rather good grasp on how to fix companies and market them properly(or in GW's case, at all).

 The Shadow wrote:
My Uncle's got shares in GW (among other companies) and apparently it's one of the most profitable ones he's got. I guess it's down to the fact that GW never runs out of people wanting to buy their stuff, and very few people ever switch to buying similar products from another company.

It depends when you bought it...

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GAW.L#symbol=gaw.l;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

If you bought in 2003 to 2005, you'd only be just breaking even now. If you bought 2006-2012, you'd be doing quite well for yourself. If you bought right now, who knows where you'd be in a few years. Personally I think GW's stagnant sales are going to bite them in the arse sooner or later and things will start going south.

Revenue vs. Profits vs. Dividends is right, but I got a moment to look at revenues (in GBP).

2012: 131m
2011: 123m
2010: 127m
2009: 125m
2008: 110m
2007: 110m
2006: 114m

My guess for 2013? 135m to 140m, based on their half-year report. So, CAGR of like 2% or so?

---

Would I buy a stock as an investor? No way. Would I buy it as a fan? Maybe yes.

Then I'd go to their Annual General Meeting, eat their food, ask their executives some hard questions.

'Course, I'm In China so I'm not going to make that effort, I haven't been back to the UK in 10 years.

---

But when I was looking at their numbers and I want to ask this important question:

What's the average price increase per year? I remember it was around 5%? Is that right?

More. The next one will be about 10-20%.

 Sigvatr wrote:
More. The next one will be about 10-20%.

Source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf
Profit is up by nearly a third last year, and dividends rose by nearly 50%. And yet you honestly sit there and tell people that GW is failing and not to invest?

That's for one year, a year in which GW increased their profits by cutting expenses and increasing prices while sales volume remained stagnant (or even declined). Maybe it's a good buy if you're only planning to hold the shares for a short time in the hope that the next financial report will give you a profit when you sell your shares, but GW's ability to make a profit in the immediate future has never been in doubt. What people are skeptical of is GW's long-term future, where the ability to increase profits by cost cutting and price increases goes away. And in the context of making an investment you hope to pay off in the long run GW looks like a pretty big risk.

(Unless of course you're buying shares in the hope of making a profit when the company gets bought by someone with more business sense, but in that case maybe you want to wait until share prices drop a bit before the end.)

Sales and operating profits have been rising every year since 2007, except 2011 where there was a slight dip. I'd be surprised if they didn't continue to rise, given that there is clearly very strong demand for GW products.

But considering that the sales are stagnant at best (revenue increase doesn't exceed price increases), that they've done about as much cost cutting as they can get away with, and they have a lot of competition outstripping them by a huge margin in terms of growth and value, where are these rising profits going to come from?

Maybe they'll drop something on us that'll turn it all around, like a revolutionary core game, but I can't see it happening at the moment.

Sales are up though. Unless gw lied in the financial report?

 BryllCream wrote:
Sales are up though. Unless gw lied in the financial report?

Revenue and profits are up, not sales. What did the financial report actually say?

If sales were up, their revenues would have increased much more than 6.5%.

Sales= total number of transactions or number of actual product sold.

Revenue=total gross income of all sales

Profit= Revenue minus overhead.

So GW cut costs(meaning overhead) so that the profit per sale is higher. Then GW did a price hike, so that the revenue AND profit per transaction is higher.

When you compound both of those and only see the amount of growth they've had in recent years, it indicates that GW has had fewer or the same sales. Cutting costs and raising prices are not growth, and growth is what matters.

During a global recession, while headquartered in a particularly hard-hit economy. I get the hate, but really, this is a 100MM company that sells little green men. They are doing something right.

Herzlos wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Sales are up though. Unless gw lied in the financial report?

Revenue and profits are up, not sales. What did the financial report actually say?

If sales were up, their revenues would have increased much more than 6.5%.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
More. The next one will be about 10-20%.

Source?

Latest price changes for already released models e.g. Warriors of Chaos. Individual character models went up by ~25%, chariot went up from 26€ to 35€ aka ~25% increase, core infantry went up from 2,50€ per model to 4€ per model aka an increase of ~40%, not to mention the new standard price for monstrous units of 45+€.

Jack_Death wrote:
During a global recession, while headquartered in a particularly hard-hit economy. I get the hate, but really, this is a 100MM company that sells little green men. They are doing something right.

Yet in the same period a whole host of competitors have shown significant growth, or have come into existence and shown significant growth. They haven't shown any growth and have instigated a serious fat cutting operation which IMHO has really hurt their future growth potential* in order to appear stable.

Yes they have done some things right (or just been incredibly fortunate), but almost everyone they compete with is doing vastly better.

*1-man stores, shedding creative staff, dropping hobby store activities, games shows, promotions, advertising, free content, package reductions and price hikes.

Herzlos wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Sales are up though. Unless gw lied in the financial report?

Revenue and profits are up, not sales. What did the financial report actually say?

If sales were up, their revenues would have increased much more than 6.5%.

oh yeah, I meant revenue. It's still valid though, revenue is up, profits are up...only on dakka does that mean it's doomed

Sorry, but without data your reply is just more band-wagoneering. As the supply of pile-on posts here is infinite, the value is more-or-less zero.

Who are the "host of competitors" that are eating GW's lunch? Are any of them multi-national public companies with verifiable revenues?

Herzlos wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
During a global recession, while headquartered in a particularly hard-hit economy. I get the hate, but really, this is a 100MM company that sells little green men. They are doing something right.

Yet in the same period a whole host of competitors have shown significant growth, or have come into existence and shown significant growth. They haven't shown any growth and have instigated a serious fat cutting operation which IMHO has really hurt their future growth potential* in order to appear stable.

Yes they have done some things right (or just been incredibly fortunate), but almost everyone they compete with is doing vastly better.

*1-man stores, shedding creative staff, dropping hobby store activities, games shows, promotions, advertising, free content, package reductions and price hikes.

Because neither of those numbers equate to growth, and GROWTH is the long term goal of any good company.

Revenue is up from price hikes, what happens when people stop buying because it gets TOO high?

Profit is up from said price hikes, as well as cost cutting(probably more so), but what happens when you cannot cut any more costs?

Those are long term questions to short term methods.

I wouldn't say GW are doomed, but their current path is not sustainable indefinitely.

If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

Not necessarily.

If they cut out costs by closing stores that had lost them money the previous year, then that would cause revenue to go up.

Additionally, laying off people or other reductions in cost will drive revenue up without a bump in sales.

I don't have numbers, either way, in GW's case. But I've seen previous graphs that have shown sales as flat to trailing off in these threads before.

 Aerethan wrote:
Sales= total number of transactions or number of actual product sold.

Revenue=total gross income of all sales

Profit= Revenue minus overhead.

So GW cut costs(meaning overhead) so that the profit per sale is higher. Then GW did a price hike, so that the revenue AND profit per transaction is higher.

When you compound both of those and only see the amount of growth they've had in recent years, it indicates that GW has had fewer or the same sales. Cutting costs and raising prices are not growth, and growth is what matters.

That's all based on supposition. Although their operating costs have been reduced, for many companies commodities prices - energy, petroleum-based raw materials - have shot up so it's extremely doubtful whether their cost base has reduced a huge amount overall. If they've put up prices by 10 per cent, that could well be accompanied by an increase of 5 per cent in raw material costs. That's what most businesses are going through. And however you cut it, their revenues are up. There's a good case for saying their user base is static - but in this market, that's pretty good for discretionary purchases. Look at their publicly-quoted rivals, and that's a pretty good result.

We might all hate GW and their price gouging, but the fact remains that most companies would kill for a 10 per cent rise in earnings per share, year on year. They're doing better than comparable companies, like Hornby, who've outsourced their production to China. They deserve massive credit for that alone.

GW get a lot of stick compared to newer companies who are getting a great rep, often because their prices are lower. But do we know the workers in those Chinese factories, used by those newer companies, have any employment rights? Does exporting jobs from the UK or US to China make you a good guy?

Jack_Death wrote:
Who are the "host of competitors" that are eating GW's lunch? Are any of them multi-national public companies with verifiable revenues?

Most of them are private companies with international reach and therefor no verifiable revenues but have expanding ranges and player bases, and are taking market share from GW. There are figures showing that the wargaming market grew by about 10% in the US yet GW never saw that growth so it must have gone somewhere else.

Some companies which have had significant growth lately (in terms of ranges and market share at least, but we can also assume revenue are) Privateer Press (Warmachine), Corvus Beli (Infiniti), Warlord Games (Bolt Action, Hail Ceasar, Black Powder), Gripping Beast (Saga), Battlefront (FoW, now Dust), Mantic (KoW, Warpath, Dreadball).

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of other wargaming/mini's companies appearing and enjoying good growth due to improvements in technology (design, manufacture, distribution and marketing) and things like Kickstarter.

None of those companies were really on the radar 10 years ago, but are growing in popularity, catalog and size, whilst GW appears to be shrinking. So I think it's safe to say they are eating GW's lunch without having access to their accounts.

Sorry, technical glitch...

Dakkamites, I think you totally saw where I was going with my question.

Over 6 years, on average revenue grew at only about 2% to 3%.

Same time period, on average price increased at IIRC 5%, but I trust you more on 10% to 25%.

So even if you assume no new players, no increase in volume, revenue should go up 5%, 10%, 25%.

(What you said about profitability is right, I'm just looking at the top line as that's more telling.)

You see the gap. Sales volume is NOT stagnating. It's decreasing steadily. GW's bleeding out.

They're selling less per player or losing players (customers always churn out, but you earn new ones).

---

Jack_Death wrote:
During a global recession, while headquartered in a particularly hard-hit economy. I get the hate, but really, this is a 100MM company that sells little green men. They are doing something right.

Yeah, I considered that, too. It's a fair point, IMHO.

I hope that gap between a small revenue increase vs. a large price hike is temporary.

Cost-cutting is a temporary measure, after all. You can't save your way to success.

I'm hoping that gap just means selling less per player rather than negative customer churn.

I'd expect to see some initiatives to win players back. Is the Hobbit game all they have to do that?

So GW's not growing, they're cutting costs (which will inhibit growth more), and have no growth plan?

I don't know, but from this very simple exercise, GW's business looks really unhealthy.

---

Oh, and I also retract my point about buying GW stock for the AGM's free food and swag:

If you would like more transparency on Games Workshop, come to our annual general meeting. You will see our facilities, and maybe be quite surprised by how interesting they are. You will get to meet all the people who do the important things and talk to them about their jobs. You will also get, if such is your desire, a foaming pint of Bugman’s best in our famous bar. No, shareholders do not get a discount on beer. We don’t do discounts, not even for you.

Tom Kirby
Chairman
30 July 2012

I have to pay for my food and beverage at an AGM? No way, no point buying GW stock now.

Man, to say something like that, I think Kirby's deliberately driving down stock prices for a buyback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BryllCream wrote:oh yeah, I meant revenue. It's still valid though, revenue is up, profits are up...only on dakka does that mean it's doomed

Not when you consider the price hikes, and that it was the first real growth in FOUR years.

When growth is not even close to keeping up with price hikes, that's bad.

That's a sign of kinda price gouging, failed price gouging at that. GW's not exactly doing that, but close.

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

I'm assuming the 6.5% increase refers to the 2011 to 2012 bump, am I right?

If you look at only 1 year, you'd be about right (1.425%). Again, not when you consider other factors.

The 5% was my number, the average increase in prices year-on-year IIRC.

Others say 10%, 20%, 25%, which in retrospect is a little closer.

Since I already typed it out, here's the last 7 years again.

2012: 131m
2011: 123m
2010: 127m
2009: 125m
2008: 110m
2007: 110m
2006: 114m

So you had that price hike every year or so, but you see periods of 0 growth or negative growth.

The average revenue growth year-on-year is about 2% to 3%.

That's less than even my conservative 5% year-on-year price increase.

So it's like, you've been hiking prices every year, and after 4 years, you finally see a pay-off.

Again, that's not good. However, as before, it's more understandable considering the recession.

Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?

I can't believe you just legitimately asked that question.

There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

Ok, you can't believe it, but his point is perfectly valid. High-volume low-margin is a high risk strategy. One wrong move and your inventory is worth less than the cost of production. If we postulate that GW believe they are in a boutique industry (as they have plainly stated) it follows that maximizing profits, not revenues, is the winning play. They may believe that organic growth will be driven by local evangelical efforts on the ground (as they have plainly stated). They may believe that this strategy focuses on price-insensitive buyers (which follows, but isn't as plainly stated). So, a perfectly logical plan might focus on making higher margin sales at the expense of growing top line revenue. Is Ferrari run by idiots? They are CUTTING production to maintain exclusivity. It's a strategy.

I'm not saying you have to agree with that conclusion. I'm not saying that is definitely the GW strategy. However, waving away viewpoints that don't fit a rather narrow and poorly informed worldview (GW is doomed!) is a non-starter.

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?

I can't believe you just legitimately asked that question.

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

 BryllCream wrote:
So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

That's not at all what anyone here is saying, dude.

Edit: It's almost as if you're taking one or two sentences out of context to make a point. There's a word for that...

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

Not at all. PLenty of companies, especially those faced with rising costs, have put more money into marketing and made the switch to becoming a premium product. Tricker's shoes in the UK, for instance, who put up their prices, went for the premium market, and sell huge amounts in Japan.

Of course, done badly, or for other reasons, this strategy often fails, and it might well do so for GW, if that is indeed their strategy. But your assertion - that lower volume equates to a textbook definition of stagnation - is plainly wrong. Stagnation would equate to falling revenues (or profits), not falling volume.

 BryllCream wrote:
So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

Worst analogy ever. When did GW go to building yachts? They build toy soldiers, always have, always will.

And there is a massive difference between those who buy pencils and those who buy yachts.

Are you suggesting that GW's new model should be low volume high margin models for the top 1% only?

GW's prices can only go so high before EVERY customer drops them.

jonny5 wrote:
Just wondering how much is gw worth in sterling and indeed what would happen if i owned upto 49 percent of its shares-would things change in relation to prices? Also anyone know how many shares gw has available and there current price?

A cardboard box and a wet flannel to me.
It can be hard to put up a real number though.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now...

Let's go back to your question "Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation?"

You just used the text book definition of business stagnation. Flat or decreasing volume over time.

Not at all. PLenty of companies, especially those faced with rising costs, have put more money into marketing and made the switch to becoming a premium product. Tricker's shoes in the UK, for instance, who put up their prices, went for the premium market, and sell huge amounts in Japan.

Of course, done badly, or for other reasons, this strategy often fails, and it might well do so for GW, if that is indeed their strategy. But your assertion - that lower volume equates to a textbook definition of stagnation - is plainly wrong. Stagnation would equate to falling revenues (or profits), not falling volume.

That's was well put, HO.

However, it is my assertion that GW is not moving their business model from a bulk product to a premium product. It *appears as though they have raised prices, have flat or declining volume, and have cut costs to show an increase in revenue.

Now, what remains to be seen is cost reductions were short term "Slash and burn" measures, or long term strategic moves. If they got rid of under performing stores, that should help in both the near and long term.

For specialist games as an example, they may have gotten rid of slow moving inventory, removed out-dated molds that they couldn't justify recasting, and reduced inventory and warehouse space. Whether or not that will have an impact on this year's revenue would depend entirely on how much manpower and/or if additional warehouse space was needed to keep up with them.


*I asterisked appears because I am not privy to their year-on-year volumes, but (as I've said before) have seen charts bandied about in previous threads showing relatively flat profits and decreasing sales. However, I can't post those here for backup as I certainly don't have them.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?

You're thinking volume or SKU sales vs. revenues. Revenues are dollars in the door. SKU or volume sales represent growth or decline in the actual volume of units sold .

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

See... That's just flat out wrong for this market. The *value* of the 100k boxes over one box is that the former can build a a player base for later sales. A bit part of GW's success is that you can find players all over the place. A successful game system needs players. That one guy who got suckered into buying the million pound box ain't gonna have any friended to play with and, therefore, isn't likely to buy another box...

It's the power of networks. One telephone is useless. Ten might be handy. But when they're everywhere, you've really go something!

I'd argue that GW's "real" moat isn't so much their IP, but rather is their player base. Star Wars, Star Trek, and others have strong franchise IP. GW, like them or not, established a loyal player base early and have been able to profit from that for years. Its the player base that brings in new players. It's the player base that makes people buy GW stuff over other companies because they know there'll be someone to play against.

That is what GW is risking by selling fewer models at higher margins. At some point, your player base shrinks below the critical level needed and things can fall apart fast. GW can try to convince themselves that they're an IP company, and to a degree that's certainly true, but gaming has a innate social component and without the the critical mass needed to sustain that gaming piece, they're really just a small IP holder with a small manufacturing/distribution infrastructure that's swimming with some seriously big fish...

Valete,

JohnS

 cygnnus wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

See... That's just flat out wrong for this market. The *value* of the 100k boxes over one box is that the former can build a a player base for later sales. A bit part of GW's success is that you can find players all over the place. A successful game system needs players. That one guy who got suckered into buying the million pound box ain't gonna have any friended to play with and, therefore, isn't likely to buy another box...

I mostly agree with you, cygnnus. It all comes down to finding that "sweet spot" with your price to maximize per unit profits without hurting your volume so much that over all profits decline.

If you sell 100 units for $50, that's $5000 in sales. If they cost $25 to make, then you made yourself $2500.

If you raised the price to $75, you'd have to sell 67 units to maintain your $5000 in sales. But now you net profit is 3350 on those 67 units.

But have GW gone too war with their pricing? I don't know.

Now, getting back to ExNoctemNacimur's question at the top of page 2: "If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?"

It depends. How much of this revenue was made up of short-term cost cutting measures that might later bite them in the rear end? That's the sticky wicket.

BryllCream wrote:So if.my business is making a million pounds a year making pencils and I switch and start making yachts at a billion pounds a year, according to you I'm stagnating?

That's a very odd definition of stagnation. I've only ever seen it in relation to gw.

GW has not changed from making pencils to making yachts.

GW was making miniatures and is still making pretty much the same miniatures.

---

Some of you made reasonable points about positioning the same miniatures as a premium brand.

But GW hasn't done that either. It's highly unlikely perception has changed for the last few years.

And GW doesn't seem to be doing it, as it's not spending on market creation or extra R&D.

---

There was a good point that high-volume, low-margin carry risk if costs of production changes.

That's why GW went from using tin (raw materials can fluctuate in cost) to resin before.

Now, they're introducing a new risk now by squeezing out more casual players.

And as their player base decreases, every further player they lose hurts them more.

---

The best point IMHO was network effects. I play 40k because I can find other people to play with.

That's why I didn't get into Warmachine. I liked the lore, the designs, but few people played.

And now my FLGS has stopped carrying Warmachine altogether, just to prove what happens.

 BryllCream wrote:
There's no law in this country that companies have to sell as many products as possible at a low margin. Selling fewer kits for more money clearly makes financial sense so where's the issue?

It makes perfect sense if you've got a steady stream on price-elastic customers, your product is valuable in it's own right, and is a status symbol.

People will pay a fortune for a good watch, partially for exclusivity and for status, and because on it's own it's still a nice watch.

But GW sells toys soldiers for a game, so part of it's value is derived from the game and if no-one plays it anymore because it's too expensive, it's lost most of it's instrinsic value.

As has been said, the big thing going for GW at the moment is that almost all current wargamers have an army for a GW main system, so it's easy to find an opponent. But what if the price gets to a point where Warmachine is the default starting game, and you've got more chance finding a game with it (as appears to be the case in some parts of the US)? The only thing that can happen is that GW's biggest advantage and justification for the high prices starts to deteriorate.

Herzlos wrote:
price-elastic

That's the word I've been trying to remember! Thanks.

 kronk wrote:


Now, getting back to ExNoctemNacimur's question at the top of page 2: "If prices went up by 5% and revenue went up by 6.5%, does that not mean that sales increased by 1.5%?"

It depends. How much of this revenue was made up of short-term cost cutting measures that might later bite them in the rear end? That's the sticky wicket.

Actually, it doesn't "depend". Comparing those three items alone has zero meaning. Let's take an example:

Let's say the product is sold for $10 and has a production and distribution cost of $6. This would normally mean you make $4 per unit sold. Let's say we sell 1,000 of these for $4000 total revenue as our baseline.

Now, the following year production / distribution costs go up to $9 and we raise prices to $11. In this case prices were only raised by $2 because management thought that was the most they could get out of it this year and decided to eat the difference. So, we are only making $2 per unit. Sales is odd because sometimes you sell more at a higher price point than a lower one. So, let's say we sell 1500 units for a total revenue of $3000. In this case, prices went up by 10%, revenue went down by 25% and sales increased by 50%. If sales had gone the other way and we only sold 750 of them then the results would have been prices up by 10%, revenue down by 37.5%, sales down by 25%..

A third example is prices staying the same, but production/distribution costs going down slightly while number of units sold slightly. For example, production costs drop to $5, sales drops to 950 units. Here we have a 0% price rise, an 18% revenue increase and a 5% sales drop.

Point is, there is a relationship however it's not discernible with only those numbers.

GW products are in no way a status symbol. They are not the Rolex of toy soldiers. Comparing GW to any company who sells insanely high end products is moot, as toy soldiers are not a high end product, unless perhaps they are made out of solid gold and come pre painted by Mathieu Fontaine.

Premium product = price-inelastic customers. But whatever. Elasticity is the sensitivity of demand to price, so if demand is not price sensitive, it is inelastic

 kronk wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
price-elastic

That's the word I've been trying to remember! Thanks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nobody is comparing GW products to premium products, at least I am not. I was making a point about a profit maximizing versus revenue maximizing strategy.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW products are in no way a status symbol. They are not the Rolex of toy soldiers. Comparing GW to any company who sells insanely high end products is moot, as toy soldiers are not a high end product, unless perhaps they are made out of solid gold and come pre painted by Mathieu Fontaine.

clively wrote:

Point is, there is a relationship however it's not discernible with only those numbers.

And THAT was exactly my point in this post here.

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

Because:

1) As people have said, a successful game depends on having a sufficient player base. GW's advantage in model quality is steadily declining, and their rules are utter garbage. People buy their products for two reasons: because the setting is cool, and because it's the game everyone else is playing. If everyone else is playing some other game then GW loses one of their biggest ways of getting new customers. And with much lower sales volume they probably have to start closing stores, reducing their market presence even more.

2) Decreased volume is bad for sustainable growth. It's nice to speculate about extending the supply/demand curve all the way out to absurd levels and selling one box for a million pounds profit, but the simple fact is there's a maximum price that GW can plausibly sell their products for before everyone dumps GW in favor of buying something else. Once they reach that point further price increases mean decreased profit, and their current plan for "growth" ceases to be a viable option with no apparent backup plan. This is fine if you're an investor looking to make a short-term profit (since GW seems to be below that price cap for now), but it's a really bad sign if you're thinking about GW as a long-term investment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Why the hell does decreased volume equate to stagnation? If gw sell one box for a million pound profit, that's better than selling a hundred thousand boxes at a pound profit each

Because:

1) As people have said, a successful game depends on having a sufficient player base. GW's advantage in model quality is steadily declining, and their rules are utter garbage. People buy their products for two reasons: because the setting is cool, and because it's the game everyone else is playing. If everyone else is playing some other game then GW loses one of their biggest ways of getting new customers. And with much lower sales volume they probably have to start closing stores, reducing their market presence even more.

If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

2) Decreased volume is bad for sustainable growth. It's nice to speculate about extending the supply/demand curve all the way out to absurd levels and selling one box for a million pounds profit, but the simple fact is there's a maximum price that GW can plausibly sell their products for before everyone dumps GW in favor of buying something else. Once they reach that point further price increases mean decreased profit, and their current plan for "growth" ceases to be a viable option with no apparent backup plan. This is fine if you're an investor looking to make a short-term profit (since GW seems to be below that price cap for now), but it's a really bad sign if you're thinking about GW as a long-term investment.

And at some point, the entire earth is going to run out of resources and we'll all be boned. Regardless, saying that *at some point* GW's model will fall apart isn't very helpful - many company's long term plans look very shaky. Year on year GW have proved that they can boost revenue and cut costs - that's what's important for investors.

 BryllCream wrote:
If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

It's not just subjective opinion. I don't know a single person who got into 40k because of its awesome rules, and the most common opinion is that the rules are something you put up with because you love the rest of the game. Meanwhile all but the most dedicated white knights have to admit that GW's rules have laughable balance and constant problems with ambiguity/loopholes/etc compared to other game companies.

As for the models, that isn't a subjective opinion either, it's simple facts. GW used to have a huge advantage in model quality, they were the only company making a full range of large vehicle kits, and their multi-part plastic infantry were far better (both in detail and customization options) than the competition. Now both of these things are threatened: more and more companies are expanding into having a similar diversity of models, and their sculpting quality gets better and better. That doesn't mean that GW's models are horrible, just that they can no longer count on easy sales because they're the only company with tanks.

And anyway, the point was not that these things are killing sales, it's that they aren't driving sales. People buy GW games because of the setting (still doing just fine), because of the cool models (less of an advantage every year) and because it's the game all of their friends are playing (less of an advantage every year). Trying to make more profit off fewer sales is in direct opposition to one of GW's biggest advantages over their competition, and they don't really have anything to replace that advantage if they lose it.

And at some point, the entire earth is going to run out of resources and we'll all be boned. Regardless, saying that *at some point* GW's model will fall apart isn't very helpful - many company's long term plans look very shaky. Year on year GW have proved that they can boost revenue and cut costs - that's what's important for investors.

Sigh. GW's short-sighted business plan can potentially hurt them in the foreseeable future, while the entire earth running out of resources is a problem well beyond our lifetimes. Obviously nobody knows exactly when GW's policies will reach their inevitable end, but if you're looking at investing in GW you have to seriously consider the possibility that the company could start losing money at any time within the next few years, and could very easily fail to give a better return on your investment than your alternative investment options even in the immediate future.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If you want to make a point, don't use your own subjective opinion as a base. You can't say "I think GW's models and rules are rubbish, therefore x". You clearly think GW is rubbish, and that they are declining as a result. Like we haven't seen that before on the internet over the past 20 years

It's not just subjective opinion. I don't know a single person who got into 40k because of its awesome rules, and the most common opinion is that the rules are something you put up with because you love the rest of the game. Meanwhile all but the most dedicated white knights have to admit that GW's rules have laughable balance and constant problems with ambiguity/loopholes/etc compared to other game companies.

As for the models, that isn't a subjective opinion either, it's simple facts. GW used to have a huge advantage in model quality, they were the only company making a full range of large vehicle kits, and their multi-part plastic infantry were far better (both in detail and customization options) than the competition. Now both of these things are threatened: more and more companies are expanding into having a similar diversity of models, and their sculpting quality gets better and better. That doesn't mean that GW's models are horrible, just that they can no longer count on easy sales because they're the only company with tanks.

Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

 Peregrine wrote:

And anyway, the point was not that these things are killing sales, it's that they aren't driving sales. People buy GW games because of the setting (still doing just fine), because of the cool models (less of an advantage every year) and because it's the game all of their friends are playing (less of an advantage every year). Trying to make more profit off fewer sales is in direct opposition to one of GW's biggest advantages over their competition, and they don't really have anything to replace that advantage if they lose it.

It's interesting you think that this is why GW is doing well. I would argue that they're successful because of the miniatures they produce, combined with the beer and pretzal ruleset that creates a more casual hobby than the more niche games that people on dakka talk about.

But if you're not free to determine how GW make their money, you can't say how they're failing at it. So feel free to continue making things up.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Sigh. GW's short-sighted business plan can potentially hurt them in the foreseeable future, while the entire earth running out of resources is a problem well beyond our lifetimes. Obviously nobody knows exactly when GW's policies will reach their inevitable end, but if you're looking at investing in GW you have to seriously consider the possibility that the company could start losing money at any time within the next few years, and could very easily fail to give a better return on your investment than your alternative investment options even in the immediate future.

That's interesting. Name me a single company that will *definitely* grow and make money every year over the next five years.

Seriously. I've been working my ass off all week and it turns out I can just invest in these other businesses that are guarenteed to grow and make money! Stupid GW, with their business environment and variable share price

 BryllCream wrote:
Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

Please don't whine about spam instead of making constructive posts.

It's interesting you think that this is why GW is doing well. I would argue that they're successful because of the miniatures they produce, combined with the beer and pretzal ruleset that creates a more casual hobby than the more niche games that people on dakka talk about.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that GW is starting from a dominant position they built before their current competition existed. What you see now is that GW is constantly losing market share to that competition, which tells you that their current dominance probably has more to do with inertia than making a better product.

And you'd have to be absolutely insane to ignore the "all my friends play it" factor.

That's interesting. Name me a single company that will *definitely* grow and make money every year over the next five years.

Nice straw man. Some companies are likely (but not guaranteed) to make money, some are high risk/high reward, some are likely to lose money, etc. That's why investing is a gamble, not guaranteed money. But the fact that you can only be confident, not absolutely 100% certain beyond any possible doubt, that an alternative investment will grow and make money doesn't mean that investing in GW is magically less of a risk.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that you're ignoring the fact that GW is starting from a dominant position they built before their current competition existed. What you see now is that GW is constantly losing market share to that competition, which tells you that their current dominance probably has more to do with inertia than making a better product.

Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

And you'd have to be absolutely insane to ignore the "all my friends play it" factor.

I know. All my friends play 40k, I've never even met anyone who plays any of the things people on dakka always rave about.

Nice straw man. Some companies are likely (but not guaranteed) to make money, some are high risk/high reward, some are likely to lose money, etc. That's why investing is a gamble, not guaranteed money. But the fact that you can only be confident, not absolutely 100% certain beyond any possible doubt, that an alternative investment will grow and make money doesn't mean that investing in GW is magically less of a risk.

So, all investmnent is a risk, and you have no way of showing why GW is more of a risk than others, despite showing strong profit/revenue growth?

Okay I'll help you out, *here* are some reasons GW may not be so hot in the near future:

*The Hobbit flopped big time. A lot of money invested, very little interest.

*Rocketing commodity prices. This will surely impact stores' profitability as they need heating/air con.

*Stagnant consumer spending due to the recession.

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

I know. All my friends play 40k, I've never even met anyone who plays any of the things people on dakka always rave about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

So, all investmnent is a risk, and you have no way of showing why GW is more of a risk than others, despite showing strong profit/revenue growth?

I've already explained why: because GW's current "growth" is primarily based on unsustainable cost cutting (because eventually there's nothing left to cut) and price increases (because there's a maximum viable price), not true growth. It's a good short-term investment if you're confident that you can dump the stock before that unsustainable plan runs out, since GW will probably continue to "grow" for the immediate future. But it's a bad long-term investment because GW doesn't seem to have any plan for continued growth once their current plan is no longer viable.

Dakkamites, I think you totally saw where I was going with my question.

Over 6 years, on average revenue grew at only about 2% to 3%.

Same time period, on average price increased at IIRC 5%, but I trust you more on 10% to 25%.

So even if you assume no new players, no increase in volume, revenue should go up 5%, 10%, 25%.

(What you said about profitability is right, I'm just looking at the top line as that's more telling.)

You see the gap. Sales volume is NOT stagnating. It's decreasing steadily. GW's bleeding out.

They're selling less per player or losing players (customers always churn out, but you earn new ones).

Agree with this comment and will add...

As I have posted in the past GW will make a profit, and it will be a big one. Never before have I seen so much material being made and sold by GW to the declining customer base with increase prices than the year before.

Now as far as what GW is actually worth? The IP's mostly and not in hundred million range. Everything else can be placed on a fire sale/auction/deleted.

It's really a company on paper. You can have the best models/game/rule system around, but if you do not cultivate your customer base every 4 years to promote long term growth into the product you are selling you are essentially doing what GW is doing. Burn and churn your customer base and raise prices to obscene levels that the average person can not get into.

This is not a company I would invest into.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

I've already explained why: because GW's current "growth" is primarily based on unsustainable cost cutting (because eventually there's nothing left to cut) and price increases (because there's a maximum viable price), not true growth. It's a good short-term investment if you're confident that you can dump the stock before that unsustainable plan runs out, since GW will probably continue to "grow" for the immediate future. But it's a bad long-term investment because GW doesn't seem to have any plan for continued growth once their current plan is no longer viable.

Conversely I could argue that growth is unsustainable as GW is never going to take over the world. Maybe they've already reached their natural pinacle? Not everyone can play with toy soldiers.

But if they continue to cut costs and raise prices, that doesn't mean squat when the divident cheque comes through.

Bryllo, Bryllo, Bryllo...

Firstly, GW aren't a private company, they are publicly owned, that's what the P in PLC stands for.

Secondly, I first became aware of you on a similar thread to this, mainly because your lack of understanding of company finances and sheer naïveté in that regard really stood out. Now, since then, many, many people, myself included, have tried to explain the flaws in your arguments and why your assertions don't quite work, but at this point I can only assume you are either incapable or unwilling to understand them.

So which is it?

 BryllCream wrote:
Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

The market is defined as miniature wargaming, since that's the product that GW produces. Defining GW as being "casual" is nonsense because GW also sells to competitive players, and GW's competition also sells to casual players.

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

And what you keep ignoring is that it won't make them more money in the long run. It makes more money right now, but at the expense of damaging GW's biggest tool for getting new customers. So if you want a short-term investment and are sure you can dump your stock before you lose any money, buy GW shares. If you want a long-term investment then you have to be really skeptical of this plan.

Conversely I could argue that growth is unsustainable as GW is never going to take over the world. Maybe they've already reached their natural pinacle? Not everyone can play with toy soldiers.

Sigh. Weren't you just proposing that the growth in GW's competition is because the entire market is expanding?

But if they continue to cut costs and raise prices, that doesn't mean squat when the divident cheque comes through.

And the fact you keep ignoring is that the dividends won't continue to happen like this. The methods used to generate those awesome dividends aren't sustainable in the long run, and GW doesn't have any apparent backup plan for continuing to grow once their current plan runs out. So yes, buy stock to get the next dividend check and sell again, but buying GW stock to get long-term dividends is a pretty risky plan.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Or it means that the market is expanding? Lol. Other companies clearly cater to "hardcore" wargamers, GW cater to casual gamers. I don't think there's as much overlap as you think there is.

Other companies can cater to both casual AND competitive gamers. And we're talking about market share decreasing, which is a percentage, not an absolute number.

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

And you somehow think that it's a good idea to give up that dominant position and sell a small number of kits at a higher per-unit profit?

If it makes them more money, why not? They're a private company .

Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run. GW has a business plan aimed directly at our wallets, so they make a specific amount of new releases each year in order to keep a supposedly steady flow on sales and income without draining out their customers wallets. So despite all this careful planning on how we will buy they keep increasing the prices and still not making as much profit. So this means they are loosing customers (people go and no new people come). If they don't invest into getting new blood into the hobby our beloved game will shrink and maybe die.

If a company is growing more slowly than the industry in which they are based then that company is losing market share - the market is getting bigger, put their portion of that market is not.

At this point in time, GW is losing market share.

They are not shrinking - just growing more slowly than the industry taken as a whole.

Some of it comes down to making some business decisions that are... dubious at best:

Advertising - lack thereof.

Antagonizing long term customers - coupled with lack of advertising this can be crippling. When you rely on word-of-mouth then giving cause for getting bad-mouthed is bad.

Litigious behavior - at this point they have begun legal battles that they have little chance of winning, and at a higher cost than those that they are taking to court. Pyrrhic victories at best, image damaging losses more than likely.

We know the stock market value of GW, but its worth at this point?... Hard to say. They have assets that could be used to grow with the market, if properly utilized.

But under the current management? Likely dropping.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
If a company is growing more slowly than the industry in which they are based then that company is losing market share - the market is getting bigger, put their portion of that market is not.

At this point in time, GW is losing market share.

They are not shrinking - just growing more slowly than the industry taken as a whole.

Exactly!

Growth at a rate less than growth of the industry is not growth.
According to GW's most recent financial report they grew 6.5% last year I believe, the industry grew 15%
Since GW didn't grow that much their competitors, which they do have Bryll despite what you seem to think, their competitors must have for the industry to have grown. That is very bad news for GW.

 Capamaru wrote:
Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run.

It's not ridiculous at all. Obviously Ferrari is making a lot of money with their business plan of making an "elite" product at a high price and selling to a small number of customers. However, there's a huge difference between that and GW's situation. A Ferrari (like many other luxury items) is often a prestige thing, you buy one because they're rare, as a sign that you're a member of the exclusive club of people rich enough to afford such things. In fact, for many of their customers it would be ideal if prices went up and fewer people could buy them. But it's stupid for GW because a successful game, unlike a successful luxury car, depends on having a large number of customers so that you actually have people to play the game with. The more exclusive a game gets the less likely it is that anyone will bother playing it.

Ferrari did not shrink its customer base - it started with a small but high ticket base.

If Ford were to drop its current base to go after Ferrari's customers... then they would be in a similar position to GW.

Nor is GW producing the equivalent of Ferrari - contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

Ultraforge makes some resin models that look much better than GW's - they can argue that they are making a Porsche. And they are charging for a Porsche.

Mantic produces a Ford, markets for a Ford, and charges for a Ford. Not in quite the same market, but it will take you where you want to go.

Forge World - a GW subsidiary - is making a Mercedes and charging for a Porsche, but it is much closer to the truth than the boxy Ferrari that GW is putting out. You know, the one where a noticeable number of the cars are missing things like fenders?

Me, I want a Morgan... CMoN makes some nice ones, and charges accordingly....

I think that I have just about killed this metaphor, eh?

The Auld Grump

 BryllCream wrote:

*Stagnant consumer spending due to the recession.

But there isn't stagnant consumer spending due to the recession, for 2 reasons: luxury spending usually increases (as people want escapism) and the market in which GW is competing is experiencing record growth. GW is seeing stagnant consumer spending because they are losing market share to competitors, not because of the recession.

 BryllCream wrote:

Well that depends how you define "the market". I could define the market as "casual gaming/modelling", and GW would be pretty much the only ones in it. Or I could definine it in terms of "all games", in which case EA and Hasbro beat them about.

I'd say that most other games are more casual friendly than GW for a host of reasons; more streamlined rules, smaller figure counts, faster games, lower costs of entry. GW's rules are massive and clunky compared to many (like Mantics Kings Of War rule set, which is only about 16 pages long including army lists.)

I think we're using different definitions of casual; I mean quick pick-up games with some beer, you seem to be referring to games where the quality of the game doesn't count.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
... contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

The Auld Grump

THis is a very very interesting subject, but many people seem to be judging it on gut feelings, like their (reasonable) resentment of paying GW prices.

Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

Secondly, if you're going to criticise for price gouging, you need to compare like with like. Kromlech is a cottage industry based in Poland, which is paying less tax, and is essentially relying on IP that GW have created. Now, I applaud the fact we can buy their bits, but Kromlech are simply exploiting a market that GW has created. It's easy, if someone has created an iconography for Space Orks using design staff over a number of years, simply to design a niche product that takes advantage of concepts they have defined, without any of the cost base. Likewise, you have companies like, IIIRC, Privateer, who charge similar prices to GW - but make their products in China. So who is price gouging?

Thirdly, we have criticisms that GW is not growing the market. Then in other threads we have criticisms that they are catering to 13-year old kids. Which is true? Because it's the 13-year old kids who grow into gamers. And GW does far more to recruit them than other companies.

In terms of perspective, I'm a dad whose son plays 40k, as do his mates, I visit Dakka 'cos I do his conversions. I think the resentment of GW is like the resentment of thousands of other companies, where we would simply like their stuff to be cheaper - when, 9 times out of 10, making them cheaper would kill the company.

Overall, I applaud GW 'cos they pay their taxes - unlike Amazon, Starbucks, Google, you name em - because they don't exploit cheap production - unlike Primark, Tesco, and seemingly people like Privateer Press. I don't like their prices, but the nipper buys them from Dark Sphere and gets tremendous value out of them, when you factor in the making, the painting and the playing (the model airplane kits he used to make weren't noticeably cheaper). GW seem to me to be the ones growing the market because they're recruiting younger players.

Finally, I wish the UK and US post office would keep their price increases in line with GW's. There's been a price hike of 40% in the UK recently, which adds far more to our cost of constructing an army, than GW increases!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:
Shrinking your customer's base by going elite is almost never a good idea. It is ridiculous to believe that selling 100 Ferrari instead of selling a gazilion Fiat Panda will prove more profitable in the long run.

It's not ridiculous at all. Obviously Ferrari is making a lot of money with their business plan of making an "elite" product at a high price and selling to a small number of customers. However, there's a huge difference between that and GW's situation. A Ferrari (like many other luxury items) is often a prestige thing, you buy one because they're rare, as a sign that you're a member of the exclusive club of people rich enough to afford such things. In fact, for many of their customers it would be ideal if prices went up and fewer people could buy them. But it's stupid for GW because a successful game, unlike a successful luxury car, depends on having a large number of customers so that you actually have people to play the game with. The more exclusive a game gets the less likely it is that anyone will bother playing it.

So going elite means that you cannot have the same customers anymore. You rely on a few chosen people to support your high valued product in order for you to proceed and grow as a company while in the same time the not so elite competitors sells to everybody else. When it comes to cars and watches there are people willing to spend a fortune in order to get into that elite club of Ferrari owners or own a philippe patek that costs more than a Ferrari. When it comes to toy soldiers going elite means that you will probably be out of business in a very short time, especially if your marketing department is one composed of short sighted idiots like the ones in GW. BTW it is a good thing that Fiat bought Ferrari and VW bought Lambo and Bugatti cause people in saudi arabia would be in great trouble finding spare parts for their elite super cars..

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
... contrary to GW's hype there are companies that make a better product, and less expensively.

GW makes a decent product, mostly.

But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

The Auld Grump

THis is a very very interesting subject, but many people seem to be judging it on gut feelings, like their (reasonable) resentment of paying GW prices.

Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

Secondly, if you're going to criticise for price gouging, you need to compare like with like. Kromlech is a cottage industry based in Poland, which is paying less tax, and is essentially relying on IP that GW have created. Now, I applaud the fact we can buy their bits, but Kromlech are simply exploiting a market that GW has created. It's easy, if someone has created an iconography for Space Orks using design staff over a number of years, simply to design a niche product that takes advantage of concepts they have defined, without any of the cost base. Likewise, you have companies like, IIIRC, Privateer, who charge similar prices to GW - but make their products in China. So who is price gouging?

Thirdly, we have criticisms that GW is not growing the market. Then in other threads we have criticisms that they are catering to 13-year old kids. Which is true? Because it's the 13-year old kids who grow into gamers. And GW does far more to recruit them than other companies.

In terms of perspective, I'm a dad whose son plays 40k, as do his mates, I visit Dakka 'cos I do his conversions. I think the resentment of GW is like the resentment of thousands of other companies, where we would simply like their stuff to be cheaper - when, 9 times out of 10, making them cheaper would kill the company.

Overall, I applaud GW 'cos they pay their taxes - unlike Amazon, Starbucks, Google, you name em - because they don't exploit cheap production - unlike Primark, Tesco, and seemingly people like Privateer Press. I don't like their prices, but the nipper buys them from Dark Sphere and gets tremendous value out of them, when you factor in the making, the painting and the playing (the model airplane kits he used to make weren't noticeably cheaper). GW seem to me to be the ones growing the market because they're recruiting younger players.

Finally, I wish the UK and US post office would keep their price increases in line with GW's. There's been a price hike of 40% in the UK recently, which adds far more to our cost of constructing an army, than GW increases!

Pretty much entirely piffle.

Shall we look at other plastics molding companies, producing in similar volume? GW prices are high.

Because, at its core, that is what GW has become - a plastics molding company.

Plastics molding is less expensive per unit with larger runs. GW likely does have some of the largest runs in the industry.

Which means that they pay less per unit.

Kromlech is a cottage industry - which means manufacturing in smaller quantities, with lower savings for the company by means of higher production. And they do so with a more expensive material and slower process to manufacture their models.

And they are still beating GW with both price and quality.

I hate to tell you this - but if GW is selling to 13 year olds, and is selling to fewer and fewer 13 year olds then both are true. There is no need to pick between the two, they are not mutually exclusive.

And that is what is happening.

That is at the core of 'losing market share'.

Strange as it may sound - those 13 year olds? Their mums and dads kinda choke when they look at the price of The Hobbit game.... And the money is in the hands of those same parents.

Oy!

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
But compare Kromlech orcs to GW... GW is making a Volvo and claiming that it is a Ferrari and charging as though that was the case, Kromlech is making a Mercedes, and marketing and pricing as though that were true.

Ultraforge makes some resin models that look much better than GW's - they can argue that they are making a Porsche. And they are charging for a Porsche.

Mantic produces a Ford, markets for a Ford, and charges for a Ford. Not in quite the same market, but it will take you where you want to go.

Forge World - a GW subsidiary - is making a Mercedes and charging for a Porsche, but it is much closer to the truth than the boxy Ferrari that GW is putting out. You know, the one where a noticeable number of the cars are missing things like fenders?

I love car analogies, as they're often so easy to make. This is probably one of the best I've seen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Please don't spam the forum by insisting that your opinions are objectively true. It's boring and adds nothing to the debate.

Please don't post.

Fix'd.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
[Pretty much entirely piffle.

Shall we look at other plastics molding companies, producing in similar volume? GW prices are high.

Because, at its core, that is what GW has become - a plastics molding company.

Plastics molding is less expensive per unit with larger runs. GW likely does have some of the largest runs in the industry.

Which means that they pay less per unit.

Kromlech is a cottage industry - which means manufacturing in smaller quantities, with lower savings for the company by means of higher production. And they do so with a more expensive material and slower process to manufacture their models.

And they are still beating GW with both price and quality.

I hate to tell you this - but if GW is selling to 13 year olds, and is selling to fewer and fewer 13 year olds then both are true. There is no need to pick between the two, they are not mutually exclusive.

And that is what is happening.

That is at the core of 'losing market share'.

Strange as it may sound - those 13 year olds? Their mums and dads kinda choke when they look at the price of The Hobbit game.... And the money is in the hands of those same parents.

Oy!

The Auld Grump

I can see this is an emotive subject - people are arguing on their prejudices, or assertions, not on facts.

Your assertion that mums and dads are choking at the price of the Hobbit are entirely plausible. But are you seriously arguing that Krlomlech don't have a lower cost base than GW? Last time I checked, their little resin Painboy conversion was every bit as expensive as GW's origina. Kromlech's version is also entirely derivative of GW's ideas. All credit to them for producing a nice, boutique product, but the notion that they make GW look radically overpriced simply isn't borne out by the facts.

I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

And as stated above, that is the key to GW's success. Without getting into subjective opinions about the quality of the rules or minis, I know several people who only play because their friends do. If they go to a higher-priced, more "exclusive" business model I think it's going to turn out poorly for them.

Honestly I don't think it's an actual strategy they are employing. I think they are just utterly incompetent and flailing to keep making profit as long as possible before it comes crashing down. The very easy cash grabs they keep turning down illustrate that for me.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

This has been done several times in a couple of the big online communities now, including Dakka. I'm sure the threads are still there somewhere if you look.

The short version is that, although some assumptions have to be made on their sales "mix", GW prices tend to increase about 5% on an annual basis which suggests their player base/gross sales are actually in decline given a 2% CAGR for their revenue.

Also, just an aside, the recession ended in the US in 2009. US equities since then (publicly owned companies that make "stuff" for "people") have roughly doubled in value. Privateer Press, based on some tracking data done by retail-level distributors, seems to have roughly doubled in size as well while catering to US and int'l markets.

And finally, commodity prices are generally DOWN YoY, most notably the critical fuel/fuel byproducts prices that would really affect a plastics maanufacturer/exporter.

Just throwing that out in response to "Because recession, because gaming, because commodity prices".

GW tend to increase prices on a part of their range and not all of it. So a 5% increase will not be as severe as you might predict if you take the "facts" at face value.

This being the case the have a 2-3 year spread.

That was taken into account. Go dredge up one of the threads or do your own research if you want to dispute it.

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Notprop perhaps phrased it a tad harshly, but he's right. If YOU want to play something different, you'll probably have to invest in a starter and persuade your friends to have a game with you, not a massive problem if they don't have to invest anything but some time.

Many of us have had to do this or will do at some point in the future. If you like a game and are enthusiastic about it, it won't take long before that enthusiasm infects your gaming group.

Of course, if you're happy playing just 40k, there's no problem, but if you want to expand your gaming beyond that, you'll probably have to man up and invest some hard-earned.

sourclams wrote:That was taken into account. Go dredge up one of the threads or do your own research if you want to dispute it.

Really? It wasn't clear from your lecture on the topic. I had though it was a discussion, my apologies for getting confuzzeled.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

I think your error is that you don't want to plough your own furrow. If you do not challenge the established status quo then the alternatives you seek will remain out of reach.

I only choose Warmahordes for the "play like you got a pair" tagline. I don't think it applies to you in retrospect.

 azreal13 wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

Notprop perhaps phrased it a tad harshly, but he's right. If YOU want to play something different, you'll probably have to invest in a starter and persuade your friends to have a game with you, not a massive problem if they don't have to invest anything but some time.

Many of us have had to do this or will do at some point in the future. If you like a game and are enthusiastic about it, it won't take long before that enthusiasm infects your gaming group.

Of course, if you're happy playing just 40k, there's no problem, but if you want to expand your gaming beyond that, you'll probably have to man up and invest some hard-earned.

Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

Herzlos wrote:

Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Assuming that (a) you're not into pick-up games in the local scene/club/store, where the only sway you have is "I can also play X", or (b) your gaming opponents are willing to invest any time in a new system even if you're paying for all the minis. Some people are particularly stubborn in that respect.

No, if you just "man up" and spend a bunch of money on multiple armies for a new system then I am sure they will come around

Look, this is getting OT, but don't be so touchy.

If you didn't insist on getting your arse in your hand about some turn of phrase you've decided to be offended at, you might see the main intent of these posts is to try and help you move forward.

An example:
I fancy Dropzone Commander, I really like the minis, so I have ordered the rulebook to see how it plays. If I like the way it seems to play, I will purchase a starter unit for my faction. If I can find someone at the local club who wants to play, and buy their own, great, otherwise I will buy another starter for a different faction. That way, I can play anyone, hell, even if my mum fancies trying something new I will be set.

At the end of the day, if nobody else is interested, I have some cool ass minis. Besides, who knows what'll happen in a year, DZC may be the new 40k, or it may have disappeared without trace, leaving a residual fan base who happily pay through the nose for the original sculpts. Or anything in between.

The fact remains that if you want to play different games, you will likely need to lead by example.

Herzlos wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Firstly, we have assertions that GW have been raising prices by 10 or 25% per year, based on what a few friends have said. If someone's going to make that assertion, they need to back it up. It should be easy. Find some old price lists and let's do the math.

This has been done several times in a couple of the big online communities now, including Dakka. I'm sure the threads are still there somewhere if you look.

/
.

So, we have assertions that prices are rising by 10 or 20 per cent, but they remain assertions. There is evidence for any old tosh on the internet somewhere, probably that GW are lizardmen who are controlling the international banking system.

aside, the recession ended in the US in 2009. US equities since then (publicly owned companies that make "stuff" for "people") have roughly doubled in value. Privateer Press, based on some tracking data done by retail-level distributors, seems to have roughly doubled in size as well while catering to US and int'l markets.

Again, you seem to be judging this according to your own prejudices. GW is a UK-based business, and the UK is still bumping along the bottom. Good for Privateer Press if they're doing well - I notice no one on this thread is criticising them for charging GW-style prices, while producing in China.

Here's a real comparison, not taken from what some mate said on the internet. You can track GW stock against the market. You can also track them against a UK competitor, who celebrate their 150th anniversary this week I believe, 'God bless em.

Blue shaded line is GW. Green line is Hornby. Red line is NASDAQ.

Now I know a company that outperforms Nasdaq, that outperforms its leading UK rival, isn't doing quite as well as that company that some bloke I met read about somewhere on the internet. But a lot of people would kill for a share performance like this.



Now, personally I believeit is one of banes of modern UK business that CEOs care more about share performance than they do about customer satisfaction, and it's for that reason that, I believe, German manufacturing has outperformed Brit manufacturing over the last few decades. But this debate is about what GW are worth, and the notion that they're going to hell in a handbasket is categorically refuted by these figures, which are on the record, audited, and not some unverifiable spiel written somewhere on the interwebs...

How on Earth are you getting that Hornby are a competitor?

Completely different market.

That aside, share price isn't a reflection of how a company is doing, it is a reflection of how the market thinks it is doing, and, as has been discussed, profits and dividends can be manipulated to offer a false, or at least massaged, view of how a company is doing.

Anybody would think there was a CEO with major share holdings approaching retirement age or something.

Riiiiight, because the financial sophisticates posting drivel in this thread are much, much, much smarter than your average institutional investor.

 azreal13 wrote:
How on Earth are you getting that Hornby are a competitor?

Completely different market.

That aside, share price isn't a reflection of how a company is doing, it is a reflection of how the market thinks it is doing, and, as has been discussed, profits and dividends can be manipulated to offer a false, or at least massaged, view of how a company is doing.

Anybody would think there was a CEO with major share holdings approaching retirement age or something.

No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

You are joking, right?

The city tends to get wind of dodgy dealings well before the person in the street who's been to a GW shop. There are people who make a good living purely by researching all the data on publicly-quoted companies. They pay for information, too. The massive bonuses help incentivise them.

No, I'm not joking.

There is no dodgy dealing, cutting costs and generating efficiencies are all perfectly legitimate actions.

The information presented to these experts shows a company that is maintaining revenue, cutting costs and paying healthy dividends.

At this moment in time, there is nothing wrong with GW as a business, or an investment IMO.

However, those of us who have some sort of idea how large companies operate AND know a good deal about wargaming can see a number of inconsistencies which may possibly bode ill in the medium term.

Remember, Kirby is a major shareholder, and several other investors have recently divested themselves of their shares, so who's to say that those people who make a good living haven't red flagged the company already?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
[Pretty much entirely piffle.

Shall we look at other plastics molding companies, producing in similar volume? GW prices are high.

Because, at its core, that is what GW has become - a plastics molding company.

Plastics molding is less expensive per unit with larger runs. GW likely does have some of the largest runs in the industry.

Which means that they pay less per unit.

Kromlech is a cottage industry - which means manufacturing in smaller quantities, with lower savings for the company by means of higher production. And they do so with a more expensive material and slower process to manufacture their models.

And they are still beating GW with both price and quality.

I hate to tell you this - but if GW is selling to 13 year olds, and is selling to fewer and fewer 13 year olds then both are true. There is no need to pick between the two, they are not mutually exclusive.

And that is what is happening.

That is at the core of 'losing market share'.

Strange as it may sound - those 13 year olds? Their mums and dads kinda choke when they look at the price of The Hobbit game.... And the money is in the hands of those same parents.

Oy!

The Auld Grump

I can see this is an emotive subject - people are arguing on their prejudices, or assertions, not on facts.

Your assertion that mums and dads are choking at the price of the Hobbit are entirely plausible. But are you seriously arguing that Krlomlech don't have a lower cost base than GW? Last time I checked, their little resin Painboy conversion was every bit as expensive as GW's origina. Kromlech's version is also entirely derivative of GW's ideas. All credit to them for producing a nice, boutique product, but the notion that they make GW look radically overpriced simply isn't borne out by the facts.

Hmmm... let me think....

Why yes, I am seriously arguing that.

Now... take a look at the Orc Juggernauts from Kromlech.

Compare them to Ork MegaNobz from GW....

Less expensive, larger, better looking (in my opinion at the least*)....

And that without having a plastics molding company.

I rather doubt that GW pays even half as much for the Finecrap resin as Kromlech pays for the resin that they use. Even allowing for the price difference between the UK and Poland.

So... yeah. I do think that Kromlech has a higher overhead for manufacturing. By a considerable margin.

I did not cherrypick the Nobz - these were the Kromlech models that stuck in my mind when I first saw them, months ago. They are simply the example that I had to hand.

I do not play Orks - I just really liked those Juggernaut models.

The Auld Grump

* And I am not going to say that the Ork Meganobz look like crap - they don't. They just don't look as good to me as the Kromlech models.

Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
I literally only own a 40K army because my friends do. If I got to pick what game we played, I'd choose Warmahordes, Malifaux, or maybe Infinity.

......

You do get to pick, you can do whatever you like. Your friends may just need a push in a different direction.

Not sure you want Warmahordes, apparently you need to "have a pair" to play, you seem happier with the status quo.

Ah yes, buying Warmahordes armies when my friends won't play seems like a wise choice. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

What i don't understand is why people cannot try other systems (or so it seems) You don't need to buy their miniatures to play the game, just buy only (or download) the rules and proxy your 40k figures.
If some people will like it then they can start an army of that system.
For me it is different i have always been a fluff nut and collector first, gaming is secondary for me.

But i agree with most that is said in this thread, if GW doesn't change course it will slowly decent into Davy's locker (to mak an on topic commen )

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What i don't understand is why people cannot try other systems (or so it seems)

Because some people just don't like the game. I don't need to try Warmachine to know that I think that the models look stupid and I have no interest in playing it. I don't need to try FoW to know that I don't like games smaller than 28mm because the models aren't as detailed or fun to paint. I don't need to try Blood Bowl to know that the entire fantasy sports game genre is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry. Don't confuse "haven't tried your favorite game enough to satisfy you" with "don't have good reasons to lack interest in it".

Jack_Death wrote:
Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

If GW did employ armies of analysts they wouldn't still be making statements about how their core market are 12-14 year olds who collect models to paint and don't care about balanced game rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What i don't understand is why people cannot try other systems (or so it seems)

Because some people just don't like the game. I don't need to try Warmachine to know that I think that the models look stupid and I have no interest in playing it. I don't need to try FoW to know that I don't like games smaller than 28mm because the models aren't as detailed or fun to paint. I don't need to try Blood Bowl to know that the entire fantasy sports game genre is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry. Don't confuse "haven't tried your favorite game enough to satisfy you" with "don't have good reasons to lack interest in it".

Uh? what? not liking the the figures or the sytem are 2 different things, i am just saying to be open to different things. The most popular system doesn't mean that it is the best or the most fun to play.
The first warzone was a great tactical interesting game, the figures were somewhat lack luster.

(what was with the whole house rule sentence, it dissapeared when i replied)

Jack_Death wrote:
Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

I do because I am one (9 years retail-specific experience) and a lot of my friends work at the likes of BarCap, HSBC, UBS etc.

Broadly speaking Azreal is in the right.

To get detailed information of any quality requires a "working lunch" or due diligence work for a purchase, and even then the company will be spinning the numbers like a politician - I should know, I'm "finessing" a product-type 3-year sales record for our due diligence right now

Besides which GW is barely a grain of sand in the grand scheme of investment so no analyst is going to spend more than a cursory amount of time having a flick through their investor reports, "proper" analysis is generally done on request by the Big 4 accounting firms or when someone is actually eyeing up a takeover.

As an investment prospect I would consider investing in GW because I expect there will be a takeover in the short/medium term, but as a long term prospect under current management I'd rather set fire to my money.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Uh? what? not liking the the figures or the sytem are 2 different things, i am just saying to be open to different things. The most popular system doesn't mean that it is the best or the most fun to play.
The first warzone was a great tactical interesting game, the figures were somewhat lack luster.

The point is that even people who are open to new things don't necessarily want to try the awesome game you just found, and "does anyone play this game or even have any interest in playing it" is a perfectly legitimate factor to consider in choosing what (if any) game to invest a lot of money into.

(what was with the whole house rule sentence, it dissapeared when i replied)

That would be my signature.

If you are an analyst, I find it hard to believe that you agree with the statement that you know nothing about the market that you are responsible for analyzing. Note that I said MARKET, implying that you agree that you don't know anything about retail. It does not follow, of course, that you would have done a deep-dive on every single company in the segment as that would be impossible. I would bet good money that you are fluent in who the largest companies are by market cap in your segment, who are the big movers, and what industry standard metrics are for gross and operating margins, turnover, debt-equity, and so on. You would certainly know, based on a cursory analysis, if a company was high or low on any of these basic performance metrics relative to the industry. I would. This statement, that an institutional investor would have no knowledge of the market, was made in the context of firms that have already made substantial purchases and implied that they did so based on a superficial technical analysis. I expect that the due diligence that you describe and that I implied most certainly was on the agenda, and I stick to my (okay, overly snarky) statement that a comment to the contrary is at best ill-informed.

 Baragash wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

I do because I am one (9 years retail-specific experience) and a lot of my friends work at the likes of BarCap, HSBC, UBS etc.

Broadly speaking Azreal is in the right.

To get detailed information of any quality requires a "working lunch" or due diligence work for a purchase, and even then the company will be spinning the numbers like a politician - I should know, I'm "finessing" a product-type 3-year sales record for our due diligence right now

Besides which GW is barely a grain of sand in the grand scheme of investment so no analyst is going to spend more than a cursory amount of time having a flick through their investor reports, "proper" analysis is generally done on request by the Big 4 accounting firms or when someone is actually eyeing up a takeover.

As an investment prospect I would consider investing in GW because I expect there will be a takeover in the short/medium term, but as a long term prospect under current management I'd rather set fire to my money.

All I know is that if GW goes anywhere below £1.50 per share I will throw everything I have at it and probably take out a bank loan as well.

I've watched it go from £1 to £8 odd, back to £1.25 ish then up to whatever it is now.

I won't be missing out on that the next time it drops, which hopefully it will.

Jack_Death wrote:
If you are an analyst, I find it hard to believe that you agree with the statement that you know nothing about the market that you are responsible for analyzing. Note that I said MARKET, implying that you agree that you don't know anything about retail. It does not follow, of course, that you would have done a deep-dive on every single company in the segment as that would be impossible. I would bet good money that you are fluent in who the largest companies are by market cap in your segment, who are the big movers, and what industry standard metrics are for gross and operating margins, turnover, debt-equity, and so on. You would certainly know, based on a cursory analysis, if a company was high or low on any of these basic performance metrics relative to the industry. I would. This statement, that an institutional investor would have no knowledge of the market, was made in the context of firms that have already made substantial purchases and implied that they did so based on a superficial technical analysis. I expect that the due diligence that you describe and that I implied most certainly was on the agenda, and I stick to my (okay, overly snarky) statement that a comment to the contrary is at best ill-informed.

 Baragash wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

I do because I am one (9 years retail-specific experience) and a lot of my friends work at the likes of BarCap, HSBC, UBS etc.

Broadly speaking Azreal is in the right.

To get detailed information of any quality requires a "working lunch" or due diligence work for a purchase, and even then the company will be spinning the numbers like a politician - I should know, I'm "finessing" a product-type 3-year sales record for our due diligence right now

Besides which GW is barely a grain of sand in the grand scheme of investment so no analyst is going to spend more than a cursory amount of time having a flick through their investor reports, "proper" analysis is generally done on request by the Big 4 accounting firms or when someone is actually eyeing up a takeover.

As an investment prospect I would consider investing in GW because I expect there will be a takeover in the short/medium term, but as a long term prospect under current management I'd rather set fire to my money.

Ah, bless you for making the effort.

I suspect Baragash and I, when we say "market" we neither of us mean anything as ridiculously broad as "retail."

For myself, I was thinking more tabletop wargaming, model manufacture or you could even go as broad as toys. Either way, GW are more vertically integrated than just retail, so criteria for analysis would be different. In fact, I can't, off the top of my head, think of another PLC that designs, manufactures and retails its own product, and only its own product, globally. Perhaps Starbucks? But its late, I'm tired and not particularly motivated.

Regardless, every one of GW's direct competitors are privately owned, so it would be very difficult to assess their relative performance except through their own financials in their particular niche. An institutional investor is unlikely to be aware that Warmachine is growing at a rate of knots, unless he is given specific reason to research GW very closely. GW have had a perfectly adequate performance over the last few years, so why bother.

I will repeat that two major institutional investors divested themselves of their shares earlier this year, and a senior executive departed with apparently very little notice and hasn't been replaced. One could interpret that as rats leaving a sinking ship if one had a mind to. Not nailed on of course, but its fun to speculate.

But, don't let me, or someone who does this sort of thing for a living, dissuade you from your opinion, you may well be right. I just don't believe you are.

Fair enough, if I misread your intent re: "market" than mea culpa. I was comparing GW's metrics e.g. gross margins @ 75% to "specialty manufacturers" and "toy and games" just for the purpose of illustration, i.e. reading "market" as "industry segment".

I completely agree that they stand alone as a publicly traded, vertically integrated, wargaming company. In fact, I have made the same point repeatedly

ETA - back to the game - go Knicks!

 azreal13 wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
If you are an analyst, I find it hard to believe that you agree with the statement that you know nothing about the market that you are responsible for analyzing. Note that I said MARKET, implying that you agree that you don't know anything about retail. It does not follow, of course, that you would have done a deep-dive on every single company in the segment as that would be impossible. I would bet good money that you are fluent in who the largest companies are by market cap in your segment, who are the big movers, and what industry standard metrics are for gross and operating margins, turnover, debt-equity, and so on. You would certainly know, based on a cursory analysis, if a company was high or low on any of these basic performance metrics relative to the industry. I would. This statement, that an institutional investor would have no knowledge of the market, was made in the context of firms that have already made substantial purchases and implied that they did so based on a superficial technical analysis. I expect that the due diligence that you describe and that I implied most certainly was on the agenda, and I stick to my (okay, overly snarky) statement that a comment to the contrary is at best ill-informed.

 Baragash wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
Possibly the funniest thing ever written on any forum, ever. Do you have any idea what an analyst does? The people we are talking about employ armies of them.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the institutional investors make their decisions based on the company financials, and as they have no knowledge of the company's market would be completely unaware of potential trouble in the near future.

I do because I am one (9 years retail-specific experience) and a lot of my friends work at the likes of BarCap, HSBC, UBS etc.

Broadly speaking Azreal is in the right.

To get detailed information of any quality requires a "working lunch" or due diligence work for a purchase, and even then the company will be spinning the numbers like a politician - I should know, I'm "finessing" a product-type 3-year sales record for our due diligence right now

Besides which GW is barely a grain of sand in the grand scheme of investment so no analyst is going to spend more than a cursory amount of time having a flick through their investor reports, "proper" analysis is generally done on request by the Big 4 accounting firms or when someone is actually eyeing up a takeover.

As an investment prospect I would consider investing in GW because I expect there will be a takeover in the short/medium term, but as a long term prospect under current management I'd rather set fire to my money.

Ah, bless you for making the effort.

I suspect Baragash and I, when we say "market" we neither of us mean anything as ridiculously broad as "retail."

For myself, I was thinking more tabletop wargaming, model manufacture or you could even go as broad as toys. Either way, GW are more vertically integrated than just retail, so criteria for analysis would be different. In fact, I can't, off the top of my head, think of another PLC that designs, manufactures and retails its own product, and only its own product, globally. Perhaps Starbucks? But its late, I'm tired and not particularly motivated.

Regardless, every one of GW's direct competitors are privately owned, so it would be very difficult to assess their relative performance except through their own financials in their particular niche. An institutional investor is unlikely to be aware that Warmachine is growing at a rate of knots, unless he is given specific reason to research GW very closely. GW have had a perfectly adequate performance over the last few years, so why bother.

I will repeat that two major institutional investors divested themselves of their shares earlier this year, and a senior executive departed with apparently very little notice and hasn't been replaced. One could interpret that as rats leaving a sinking ship if one had a mind to. Not nailed on of course, but its fun to speculate.

But, don't let me, or someone who does this sort of thing for a living, dissuade you from your opinion, you may well be right. I just don't believe you are.