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

GW's P/E is always low they have a LOT of shares which makes P/E lower than it would be if they had less shares.

Even if GW stock was at its lowest point it would still be a terrible idea to invest in them. They're not going to make it much bigger than they already are. It's not like McDonald's or Apple with the company growing by leaps and bounds every day.
GW is pretty stagnant and is backsliding pretty bad recently.

 herpguy wrote:
Even if GW stock was at its lowest point it would still be a terrible idea to invest in them. They're not going to make it much bigger than they already are. It's not like McDonald's or Apple with the company growing by leaps and bounds every day.
GW is pretty stagnant and is backsliding pretty bad recently.

GW's stock doesn't seem to drop below 200GBP/share or get much above 800GBP/share. It's rise and falls look to be almost cyclical (with an extra long trough during the "Great Recession" where they were fairly low in price) and honestly the investors don't seem to care too much about what GW is doing and using it's stock as a way to basically turnover a profit (buy when it's around 200, wait until it's 800, dump shares).

I'd buy 1 Stock for fun.

I would never truly INVEST in GW, because who would invest in a company with such niche market. And lets face it, GW customers are not the most predictable, loyal bunch, for the most part, and thankfully.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

Is that was GW's revenues in 2013 have passed 2004 levels, when they were at the height of the LotR craze?

GW isn't hurting financially yet. They're sitting on enough money to run for about a year without making a dime. If things are starting to droop though (and I don't mean anecdotally, I mean legitimate drops in sales that can't be attributed to the winter weather that was punishing every retailer this last Christmas) then GW will be trying to cure the problem before it gets worse.

Also the company has several million shares priced at over 400GBP each, a "hostile" take over is not cheap, and it really isn't easy either (as soon as the company sees signs of it they can just split stocks and double the number of shares they have making it harder for someone to buy them out that way).

In 2004, Games Workshop had an earnings per share of slightly over 40p. Their current earnings per share is 17.7p. The stock hasn't split not has there been a issuance of new shares.

This means that the profitability of the company is less than half of the 2004 fiscal year.

Their cash or cash equivalents in December of 2012 was over 15M GBp with their cash or cash equivalents in December 2013 was just 9M GBp. That is a loss of 6M while actually having their operations generate 8.9M GBp in that years time. Without the 8.9M GBp that was generated their cash or cash equivalents would be almost nothing.

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

... except for them making 15 million GBP a year, sure.

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

Is that was GW's revenues in 2013 have passed 2004 levels, when they were at the height of the LotR craze?

GW isn't hurting financially yet. They're sitting on enough money to run for about a year without making a dime. If things are starting to droop though (and I don't mean anecdotally, I mean legitimate drops in sales that can't be attributed to the winter weather that was punishing every retailer this last Christmas) then GW will be trying to cure the problem before it gets worse.

Also the company has several million shares priced at over 400GBP each, a "hostile" take over is not cheap, and it really isn't easy either (as soon as the company sees signs of it they can just split stocks and double the number of shares they have making it harder for someone to buy them out that way).

In 2004, Games Workshop had an earnings per share of slightly over 40p. Their current earnings per share is 17.7p. The stock hasn't split not has there been a issuance of new shares.

This means that the profitability of the company is less than half of the 2004 fiscal year.

Their cash or cash equivalents in December of 2012 was over 15M GBp with their cash or cash equivalents in December 2013 was just 9M GBp. That is a loss of 6M while actually having their operations generate 8.9M GBp in that years time. Without the 8.9M GBp that was generated their cash or cash equivalents would be almost nothing.

EPS is all over the place with GW in general. I do agree it's down, but to be frank 2004 was still the LOTR bubble and they're barely at a point were revenue is starting to meet/clear that (in 2013). 2014's report looks like it won't make that.

And the thing about the loss in December is trying to figure out how much of it was an actual loss or was related to the worst shopping season seen in a long time. Every retailer was hurt this last season so I don't know if we can really claim that this year's lag was really GW's fault or not.

I'm not trying to defend GW here, I'm honestly really curious how they're actually doing (and I've got a tend analysis spreadsheet at home covering their income statement, balance sheet and ratios from 2007-2013 I used for a project in accounting just so I had an excuse to do it), but a year doesn't make a trend. If they are starting to nose dive then 2015 or 2016's reports will be the ones that will give us enough evidence to really support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

... except for them making 15 million GBP a year, sure.

Don't mind Kroot too much, he's German which automatically makes him a Nihilist.

Seriously though, I've been reading Kroot saying GW was dead for a few years now. If he keeps it up he may be right eventually!

 Psienesis wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

... except for them making 15 million GBP a year, sure.

How did you come by that figure? I'm assuming that you are taking their half year report and doubling the figure as a projection. That is a fair way to make a projection.

However, that is startling drop in profits from the previous year, which was 31M GBP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EPS is all over the place with GW in general. I do agree it's down, but to be frank 2004 was still the LOTR bubble and they're barely at a point were revenue is starting to meet/clear that (in 2013). 2014's report looks like it won't make that.

And the thing about the loss in December is trying to figure out how much of it was an actual loss or was related to the worst shopping season seen in a long time. Every retailer was hurt this last season so I don't know if we can really claim that this year's lag was really GW's fault or not.

I'm not trying to defend GW here, I'm honestly really curious how they're actually doing (and I've got a tend analysis spreadsheet at home covering their income statement, balance sheet and ratios from 2007-2013 I used for a project in accounting just so I had an excuse to do it), but a year doesn't make a trend. If they are starting to nose dive then 2015 or 2016's reports will be the ones that will give us enough evidence to really support it.

Did you also notice that their mid year report had their "Dividend per share declared" in the period was zero. That can't be good.

 Idolator wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

... except for them making 15 million GBP a year, sure.

How did you come by that figure? I'm assuming that you are taking their half year report and doubling the figure as a projection. That is a fair way to make a projection.

However, that is startling drop in profits from the previous year, which was 31M GBP.

GW's 2013 Income Statement:

2013 (in GBP):
Revenue: 134,597,000
Cost of Sales: (36,243,000)
Gross Profit: 98,354,000
Operating Expenses: (78,125,000)
Royalties: 1,025,000
Operating Profit: 21,254,000
Finance Income: 176,000
Finance Costs: (35,000)
Profit before taxation: 21,395,000
Income Tax Expense: (5,077,000)
Retained Earnings: 16,318,000

So they made 16,318,000 in actual retained profits in FY 2013 (up from FY 2012's 14,714,000) which is largely held onto because GW is floating enough money to pay for all their liabilities even if they came due today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Did you also notice that their mid year report had their "Dividend per share declared" in the period was zero. That can't be good.

They paid two dividends the year prior though, and they seem to do the dividend payments in the second half of their fiscal year typically. In 2007, 2008 and 2009 they paid no dividends for the entire fiscal year, and since then they've been paying pence per share in dividends.

And remember that GW is going through a period of frantic creation right now. They're not going to have as much cash laying around, or be paying rich dividends when they're investing so heavily into new product lines and a breakneck throughput for new IP.

hahah we'll see, I may buy one just for the hell of it.

 Ailaros wrote:
And remember that GW is going through a period of frantic creation right now. They're not going to have as much cash laying around, or be paying rich dividends when they're investing so heavily into new product lines and a breakneck throughput for new IP.

From what I've seen GW has never really paid massive dividends, but yes, this is pretty true too. Especially if they're also trying to keep that buffer of cash so they don't have to borrow money if they have another bad year like 2007.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You are a few years late. GW is economically crippled so hard, it can't be hidden anymore before shareholders, not enough profit left to fill the coffers of Tom Kirby himself. Most infrastructure sold, revenue and profits dropping, every sign of a company panicking in the last stage of its existence. So unless a hostile takeover happens, I wouldn't bet that more of the same will remedy this situation.

... except for them making 15 million GBP a year, sure.

How did you come by that figure? I'm assuming that you are taking their half year report and doubling the figure as a projection. That is a fair way to make a projection.

However, that is startling drop in profits from the previous year, which was 31M GBP.

GW's 2013 Income Statement:

2013 (in GBP):
Revenue: 134,597,000
Cost of Sales: (36,243,000)
Gross Profit: 98,354,000
Operating Expenses: (78,125,000)
Royalties: 1,025,000
Operating Profit: 21,254,000
Finance Income: 176,000
Finance Costs: (35,000)
Profit before taxation: 21,395,000
Income Tax Expense: (5,077,000)
Retained Earnings: 16,318,000

So they made 16,318,000 in actual retained profits in FY 2013 (up from FY 2012's 14,714,000) which is largely held onto because GW is floating enough money to pay for all their liabilities even if they came due today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Did you also notice that their mid year report had their "Dividend per share declared" in the period was zero. That can't be good.

They paid two dividends the year prior though, and they seem to do the dividend payments in the second half of their fiscal year typically. In 2007, 2008 and 2009 they paid no dividends for the entire fiscal year, and since then they've been paying pence per share in dividends.

I see where you got those. It's not always easy to follow these investor reports since I'm more familiar with PNL's but the basics are the same.
It appears that profit attributed in 2013 was 51p per share. If there is no significant change from the midyear report and profits remain at 17p per share, they are looking at a significant loss in profits. If the EPS remains as it is, that is a projected total earnings of 5,439,333 GBP. That's a huge hit to take.

Aye, but with this holiday season being pants so far there is no real "proof" that it's GW's fault this year.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Aye, but with this holiday season being pants so far there is no real "proof" that it's GW's fault this year.

Going back to what you said earlier ( I think). I'm with you. I would not invest in a company with market volatility having that much effect on their bottom line. 60% decrease in profits is a catastrophe. Considering other companies consider a 5% decrease as being terrible .

Idolator wrote:I would not invest in a company with market volatility having that much effect on their bottom line. 60% decrease in profits is a catastrophe. Considering other companies consider a 5% decrease as being terrible .

That's the vagary of retail, though. GW is no more exempt than a company like Coach, or Gap.

I share your distaste for retail equities myself, but if there were a time to invest in GW, you could do a lot worse than right now.

Their share prices are very volatile with no real connection to what the company is doing overall (for now).

Investor confidence is a hilarious thing honestly.

As for profits I don't feel comfortable pointing fingers at GW yet. Call me fickle if you want but I need more information than a a single bad holiday season that put a lot of major retailers in a scramble. If the FY 2015's holiday season report also shows them losing money then I'll be more on Kroot's side that they may be heading into troubled waters financially.

Ridiculous assertion. The only way GW will change is if it collapses by this point. Hope the company is bought out, it doesn't matter by who. Nobody would be worse.

 Harriticus wrote:
Ridiculous assertion. The only way GW will change is if it collapses by this point. Hope the company is bought out, it doesn't matter by who. Nobody would be worse.

So B/P then? Or GM?

In terms of recreational activities company's there is nobody worse, and I've dealt with a lot of them. EA is a bastion of friendliness and competency compared to GW.

 Ailaros wrote:

Idolator wrote:I would not invest in a company with market volatility having that much effect on their bottom line. 60% decrease in profits is a catastrophe. Considering other companies consider a 5% decrease as being terrible .

That's the vagary of retail, though. GW is no more exempt than a company like Coach, or Gap.

I share your distaste for retail equities myself, but if there were a time to invest in GW, you could do a lot worse than right now.

I don't have a distaste for retail equities, some are quite good. Heck the most money that I ever lost was due to GM and government interference.
Retail as all other businesses do have instances of volatility. However, even within that volatile market, a decrease in profit growth is a serious concern, a small decrease in profits is usually a cause for great alarm a 25% decrease in profits is full on panic time. With the subsequent firings, selling and other various corporate blood letting to follow. We're looking at a projected 60% loss here.

Unless they pull a magic rabbit out of a hat they are in big trouble. If they were sandbagging by keeping information from the public and had a better figures than they reported, then they have possibly run afoul of the law. I don't know what Securities and Exchange laws are in the UK.

A look at the Coach investor reports( a company that, that like GW, also specializes in high end luxury goods)you can see that they have managed to increase their profits in the same market atmosphere. To be honest, their reports are far more detailed than GW's with just about every aspect on display. So it seems that the secretive nature of GW is an integral part of the company.

Having helped someone go through Disney's yearly Financial Statements for their project I find GW's to be fairly clearly laid out. They have pages of notes dedicated to every section and do a fairly good job of explaining everything.

Disney, on the other hand, only puts forth the bare minimum required by GAAP in the US.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Having helped someone go through Disney's yearly Financial Statements for their project I find GW's to be fairly clearly laid out. They have pages of notes dedicated to every section and do a fairly good job of explaining everything.

Disney, on the other hand, only puts forth the bare minimum required by GAAP in the US.

I believe you. Disney has it's base as an entertainment company. That is some shady book keeping going on in that sector!

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Having helped someone go through Disney's yearly Financial Statements for their project I find GW's to be fairly clearly laid out. They have pages of notes dedicated to every section and do a fairly good job of explaining everything.

Disney, on the other hand, only puts forth the bare minimum required by GAAP in the US.

I believe you. Disney has it's base as an entertainment company. That is some shady book keeping going on in that sector!

Well they have to hide their donations to the fifth Reich.

hobojebus wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Having helped someone go through Disney's yearly Financial Statements for their project I find GW's to be fairly clearly laid out. They have pages of notes dedicated to every section and do a fairly good job of explaining everything.

Disney, on the other hand, only puts forth the bare minimum required by GAAP in the US.

I believe you. Disney has it's base as an entertainment company. That is some shady book keeping going on in that sector!

Well they have to hide their donations to the fifth Reich.

Well...that and their full time staff of elite medical professionals tasked with keeping Walt's head in suspended animation and developing the technology to revive him.

And heating the underwater research base isn't cheap as its located under the south pole, and don't start me on dessalanization.

Thanks for the responses! If someone invested in a couple shares when the market crashed in '08, you would have doubled your money. Granted they tumbled at the beginnig of the year but could offer a nice entry point, if interested. Now, saying you would never put money in a game that makes "plastic miniatures" is reasonable. Hobby companies are always high-risk.

I'm suggesting we should own shares because we care about the company and want to see them succeed. Example: I invest in AMD because I want them to take market back from nVidia/Intel, this doesn't mean I put my life savings in them but I do support them. I don't put my money in Wal-Mart because I don't like their company or their values. Granted, I don't own GW but plan on buying in when I get a chance, that way in 15 years my daughter can sell out and start a army with the profits (she is 7 months right now). If the company crumbles then I lose some money but money comes and goes anyway.

Oh well, I'm gonna go work on some IG or whatever they are called now