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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

GW's profits haven't been growing at all. They've been pretty much the same for the last 5 or so years. Now, coupled with rising prices this tells us one of two things. Either the same amount of people are buying less or GW are shifting less stock due to there being less and less people willing to buy it.

Or... as stated in the last financial report, they are simply hiring more people and investing into their machines and other things (Hobbit license?), meaning that rising prices - inflation - investments may not necessarily net fewer sales at similar net-profits.

That would seem to be at odds with the changing down of stores to single person operations? You can always put 'hiring more people' in a financial report, these things are always a massive exercise in spin after all, when you actually hire new people over the course of the year, that statement does not detract from letting more people go than you're bringing in.


I know the casting machines, especially the plastics, are costly and I expect new setups were required for the new Hobbit minis. I'm hoping to see a solid increase in sales when these movies are released, along the lines of the LotR boost they saw during those movies era. I'd love to also see that profit used to strengthen the company and invest in the long term paying games of 40k and fantasy, instead of maximise dividend.

 htj wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 htj wrote:
@notprop

Surely the lack of liquidity at the time for dividends to be paid at least shows bad budgeting?

Not really. Cashflow is a liquid concept in that differs on a daily basis. Reports are a snapshot in time and companies will try to boost this to give the best reflection of their company to the market. So cash will be hoarded At half and full year by deferring payments as much as possible (legal!). Debts are less looked at at lower levels, so you could reasonably borrow at year end for a dividend payment without worry if like GW you have low debts anyway.

Further you can also do this if you are confident that there is money incoming to five the debt. GW have significant licence fees due in At certain points so they could bank on that coming in. They have also in the past spread large incoming licence payments over the purse of a number of years rather than the imediate point in time that it is paid.

Well, there you go. Interesting stuff, thanks. The licensing issue raises a thought. I wonder how GW would be affect by the possible folding of THQ.

I'm guessing money in advance or at least mostly in advance would see GW alright. I think there was a significant license inclusion in the last two years as well as a renewed way of managing that one off income throughout the course of the license iirc.

If the licence is drafted in a fairly normal fashion bankruptcy/insolvency will be cause to terminate the contract and recover costs by GW. They will then procure a new licensee. Could earn GW a few £ if all the peices fell into place.

@notprop

Well, that'd be something positive to come out of it, at least.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


That would seem to be at odds with the changing down of stores to single person operations? You can always put 'hiring more people' in a financial report, these things are always a massive exercise in spin after all, when you actually hire new people over the course of the year, that statement does not detract from letting more people go than you're bringing in.

Perhaps. But whether or not they are spin, they are obviously (but a few) possible reasons why the naive fallacy of "price hikes > increase in profit, ergo GW is loosing customers" just isn't going to fly.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


That would seem to be at odds with the changing down of stores to single person operations? You can always put 'hiring more people' in a financial report, these things are always a massive exercise in spin after all, when you actually hire new people over the course of the year, that statement does not detract from letting more people go than you're bringing in.

Perhaps. But whether or not they are spin, they are obviously (but a few) possible reasons why the naive fallacy of "price hikes > increase in profit, ergo GW is loosing customers" just isn't going to fly.

True, that isn't a worthwhile conclusion, a more relevant equation would be to look at the mean increase in retail price of the miniatures (say take 100 items, cost increase in the last 5 years and compare base profits over the last 5 years from the financial reports, then factor in outside influences including the scaling down of staff in shops, the move, especially in North America, from prime mall locations to smaller premises in strip malls and then look at if profit has moved to match the increase in retail price.

You know how getting presents at Christmas is way better than getting just given some cash in hand?

Maybe they could encourage people to invest by paying dividends out in presents..

Say like, one LOTR goblin per 5 shares?

Although, I suppose Kirby would be fethed then... his living room would look like the Mines of Moira.

 mattyrm wrote:
You know how getting presents at Christmas is way better than getting just given some cash in hand?

Maybe they could encourage people to invest by paying dividends out in presents..

Say like, one LOTR goblin per 5 shares?

Although, I suppose Kirby would be fethed then... his living room would look like the Mines of Moira.

Convincing "Investors" to make due with only products instead of equity for risking their money is the idea of the decade. They call it Kickstarter.com

If we're talking about investment, how's the Finecast going these days? Still completely gak?

You'd think they would want to get that all sorted before the Hobbit stuff appears because, well people licensing stuff like LotR don't like it being associated with substandard product.

I can see the Hobbit stuff being 100% plastic, or at least very close to that.

 mattyrm wrote:

 notprop wrote:


Nothing to see here except my annoyance at not buying GW shares a few years ago.

Aye and me, if you cant beat em....

Hey, it has been outperforming the S&P500 since I bought mine last year

Bought it in anticipation of the Hobbit movie announcement.

And thus begins the next semi-annual thread of amateur financial analysis and about how GW is going down the tubes. Same logic and arguments as always. Someone should necromancy the mid year thread just to save us having to type all the same arguments over again.

silent25 wrote:
Same logic and arguments as always

Which are still as valid now as they were when the LotR bubble burst. GW won't be dead tommorow but in a decade?

Time will tell who is right.

Palindrome wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Same logic and arguments as always

Which are still as valid now as they were when the LotR bubble burst. GW won't be dead tommorow but in a decade?

Time will tell who is right.

Except people have been making the same arguments since the mid-90's.

But I agree that the post LotR crash had me believing GW might be going under, but they came back and now seem to be stressing that any extra profits from the Hobbit movies is temporary.

Of course I only plan to keep my stocks till the last Hobbit movie comes out, or earlier if they bomb

*comes back from reading new Hobbit thread*
DEAR GOD!!! SELL!!! SELL!!! SELL!!

If GW can keep recruiting customers at a rate only slightly less than they lose them, the price increases will make up the difference and they'll keep making money. It's not sustainable for ever, but for a long, long time.

Their internal restructuring and cost cutting worked. They're not hemorrhaging money like the end of Kirby's "fat and lazy" (his words) years.

Add in their good access to debt if things go wrong and they can plod along though a decade long dry spell.

The death of the dividend is one of the worst things that happened to the stock market. It used to be unthinkable to not pay out a dividend (well, a long, long time ago anyway) if you had profits. Then if you wanted to reinvest some capital instead, you'd go back to the market and solicit some investment money and issue some stock. I may be a conservative old timer, but i see buying stocks that don't pay dividends like buying rental properties that don't pay rent.

Yes, Kirby et al are lining their own pockets as much as anyone elses, but they're doing the right thing by paying profits to the people who own the business.

That said, GW's market cap makes it a pretty risky investment. It's actually quite a volatile stock. The yield on the dividends isn't anywhere near high enough to justify the risk.

silent25 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Same logic and arguments as always

Which are still as valid now as they were when the LotR bubble burst. GW won't be dead tommorow but in a decade?

Time will tell who is right.

Except people have been making the same arguments since the mid-90's.

But I agree that the post LotR crash had me believing GW might be going under, but they came back and now seem to be stressing that any extra profits from the Hobbit movies is temporary.

Of course I only plan to keep my stocks till the last Hobbit movie comes out, or earlier if they bomb

*comes back from reading new Hobbit thread*
DEAR GOD!!! SELL!!! SELL!!! SELL!!

People having been saying that GW was about to fold since the day they opened. The steady annual decline in sales volume since 2004 (? its about then anyway) is what makes me think that they have a limited future unless they re-invent themselves or are simply bought out by Disney.

Time to pretend I know about business and comment on how much GW sucks.

God forbid a company doing company stuff.

 htj wrote:
Good. Glad to see that they're still going strong.

And let's pray that GW leadership don't fall prey to any Hedgefunds robber barons.
Each company being own by the Hedgefunds are usually ruined.

One thing I did read on the warseer link that could cause a problem is the royalties from THQ, if they have defaulted on a credit, can games workshop still expect the
royalties next year from THQ?

If THQ really goes bankrupt, they might miss out on that.

Really though, the license is worth something and another dev will swoop it up in the longer run. Not really a permanent setback.

Wait, THQ are skint?! I hadn't heard.. and I'm gutted, I am a big fan of them, I own at least 5 or 6 of their games, and all of the 40K themed ones.

I'm somewhat stunned by that news, I really struggle to understand how large well known companies that produce such good products manage to feth up so badly.

Surely most of their games sell well right?

They made some really bad choices (apparently Udraw cost them $50 million). They aren't quite dead but they have until the 15th of January before their bank calls in their loans. They are supposed to have found some mystery backer though so they may well survive, at least in some fashion.

Well if nothing else the bank will try to keep them going somehow; that way they'll see a little more money back at least. There's a lot of knowhow and skill concentrated in THQ; it'd be a shame to let that go to waste (and bad for the bank, as well)!

I suspect that the money will be found by selling off assests, i.e. studios and game IPs. They could wait and allow them to release COH2, Metro and their other games nearing completion but I suppose that depends on how much risk the bank is willing to take.

Just for your information: Tom Kirby, chairman of the board, gets 383,650 £ out of this decision by the board. His current salary is 352,000 £. Not considered are the dividends his wife gets.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Just for your information: Tom Kirby, chairman of the board, gets 383,650 £ out of this decision by the board.

Excellent! Now he'll be able to afford that ivory back scratcher!

Crappy ivory? Bah, make it a Finecast back scratcher, plus a box of the new Hobbit Trolls

Games Workshop's Escape from Goblin Town starter set. Will presumably sell for GBP 80,- in the limited edition version. Contains 56 miniatures
Lego's Battle of the Goblin King set. Sells for GBP 79,99 SRP in the regular version. Contains 7 miniatures.

Just sayin...

 Zweischneid wrote:
Just sayin...

Yes, but why...?

Totally different products. And nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Just sayin...

Yes, but why...?

Totally different products. And nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Was meant as a reference to the discussion of GW pricing themselves out of the market with overblown price hikes.

Example:

If GW can keep recruiting customers at a rate only slightly less than they lose them, the price increases will make up the difference and they'll keep making money. It's not sustainable for ever, but for a long, long time.

I'm not sure what you think the example was showing, though. Yes, the Lego set only contains 7 'miniatures' (ignoring, of course, little details like the rest of the set). You could also point out that a single Sideshow Collectibles statue will cost you the same or more, and only contains a single 'miniature'... and it would still be completely irrelevant as an illustration of whether or not GW are out-pricing their customer base.