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.

Slightly off topic, but I tried to order one of the new Edge paints and all of them were "No longer available". Weird...

 Hulksmash wrote:
A couple sets have come back up. The escort carriers are another one that's available again.

Thanks for the tip. The minute I read this I rushed to the FW site and saw that the Lightning Strike fighters had popped back up as available so I bought the 3rd blister I needed.

Seems like it's a good idea to check periodically if there's something you're desperate for.

Lol, when I finally find some BFG players in NZ, I'll scratch build my own Ork fleet - screw buying the proper models

 judgedoug wrote:

A simple bit of investigation reveals that GW ran a deficit for FY2012. They made a profit of 19.5 million and paid it all out to investors, ending in a year loss of 0.06 million. This is because their stock prices have been relatively flat for many many years, which is a bad thing - they are worth less now due to inflation. If an investor can't at least match inflation with their money, it's a loss (and better invested in other things... hell, a low interest normal savings account would return better than GW stock). Companies give out their profit as bonuses to shareholders to keep them still invested despite an overall loss of value of shares.

Assuming this is true, it does not in any way mean that GW is in trouble. All it means is that their net cash position is lower in 2012 than in 2011. There are many companies that should arguably do this (that is, give their cash to investors), with Apple being a prime example. (Apple has huge reserves of cash that they are essentially sitting on.)

Remember, the goal of a publicly traded company should be to provide a return to investors. Ultimately, that means paying dividends. In fact, theoretically, a stock price is the expected, discounted future value of the dividends the stock will pay; it is essentially a bond with uncertain coupon payments and no principal repayment.

That said, it is entirely possible that GW is behaving shortsightedly. This is not uncommon for publicly traded firms. Mainly, this is because the managers get punished for short-term performance that doesn't meet market expectations. This gives them an incentive to mortgage the future to the detriment of shareholders.

However, it's generally a bad idea to assume GW's managment is incompetent. They are professionals and have a lot more riding on the success of the company than us, their customers and fans. Remember, GW is not in business to make you (specifically) happy. If they can make more money via a business strategy that, say ropes in young customers, sells them a bunch of models, and then pisses them off into leaving, than by catering to the hardcore gamers, they should do so. It is also safe to assume they have better idea on how their revenues respond to price changes (that is, what the demand elasticity is) than any of us. As someone who does this sort of thing professionally, trust me, estimating demand elasticities is hard.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

A simple bit of investigation reveals that GW ran a deficit for FY2012. They made a profit of 19.5 million and paid it all out to investors, ending in a year loss of 0.06 million. This is because their stock prices have been relatively flat for many many years, which is a bad thing - they are worth less now due to inflation. If an investor can't at least match inflation with their money, it's a loss (and better invested in other things... hell, a low interest normal savings account would return better than GW stock). Companies give out their profit as bonuses to shareholders to keep them still invested despite an overall loss of value of shares.

but.... but.... but that is heresy! GW posting a loss???? Heresy I tell ya!!!

But in earnest, if you can please provide the data on how you came to this conclusion I would greatly appreciate it.

If you look at 2011-2012 annual report, it shows them having diluted earnings of 46.6 pence per share, and paying dividend 47 pence per share. So yes, company's cash position declined about £200k because of paying dividend, but it barely makes a dent for their £17 million cash reserves. So it's not like they're making a "loss" just because they pay dividend.

Stock price being "flat over many years" is a good thing these days, when the stock market might collapse any minute! GW stock has signifantly outperformed the stock index. Remember that nowadays investors buy bonds on essentially zero interest just that their money would be safe.

 MrEconomics wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

A simple bit of investigation reveals that GW ran a deficit for FY2012. They made a profit of 19.5 million and paid it all out to investors, ending in a year loss of 0.06 million. This is because their stock prices have been relatively flat for many many years, which is a bad thing - they are worth less now due to inflation. If an investor can't at least match inflation with their money, it's a loss (and better invested in other things... hell, a low interest normal savings account would return better than GW stock). Companies give out their profit as bonuses to shareholders to keep them still invested despite an overall loss of value of shares.

Assuming this is true, it does not in any way mean that GW is in trouble. All it means is that their net cash position is lower in 2012 than in 2011. There are many companies that should arguably do this (that is, give their cash to investors), with Apple being a prime example. (Apple has huge reserves of cash that they are essentially sitting on.)

Remember, the goal of a publicly traded company should be to provide a return to investors. Ultimately, that means paying dividends. In fact, theoretically, a stock price is the expected, discounted future value of the dividends the stock will pay; it is essentially a bond with uncertain coupon payments and no principal repayment.

That said, it is entirely possible that GW is behaving shortsightedly. This is not uncommon for publicly traded firms. Mainly, this is because the managers get punished for short-term performance that doesn't meet market expectations. This gives them an incentive to mortgage the future to the detriment of shareholders.

However, it's generally a bad idea to assume GW's managment is incompetent. They are professionals and have a lot more riding on the success of the company than us, their customers and fans. Remember, GW is not in business to make you (specifically) happy. If they can make more money via a business strategy that, say ropes in young customers, sells them a bunch of models, and then pisses them off into leaving, than by catering to the hardcore gamers, they should do so. It is also safe to assume they have better idea on how their revenues respond to price changes (that is, what the demand elasticity is) than any of us. As someone who does this sort of thing professionally, trust me, estimating demand elasticities is hard.

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on. Wargaming as a market is expanding, GW have been stagnant in terms of their raw figures, and when you look beneath the surface it's likely they're not even doing that well; using "efficiency savings" and price rises to keep revenue afloat despite substantial loss in volume is the epitome of unsustainability.

Nobody is suggesting that GW aren't perfectly well aware what they're doing, and that it will make them money, many of us just consider sacrificing or putting at risk the long term health of the company for short-term gain to be incompetence.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on.

Apple just took $17 billion loan to pay shareholders. Maybe they're in trouble too?

Backfire wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on.

Apple just took $17 billion loan to pay shareholders. Maybe they're in trouble too?

Questionable =/= "in trouble". It's only in combination with the other factors at play with GW that it indicates larger issues.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Questionable =/= "in trouble". It's only in combination with the other factors at play with GW that it indicates larger issues.

And this is what keeps getting ignored. It's not about any individual action by GW. Taken in isolation each of them could be a perfectly rational decision by a healthy company. But when you look at the big picture what you see is a company struggling to make the next financial report acceptable to the shareholders, even at the cost of long-term success.

Backfire wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on.

Apple just took $17 billion loan to pay shareholders. Maybe they're in trouble too?

The two situations are not comparable. Apple is getting something in return for their money: $17 billion worth of Apple shares. They are merely converting one form of liability for another - partial ownership of the company for money owed to the bank.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on.

Apple just took $17 billion loan to pay shareholders. Maybe they're in trouble too?

The two situations are not comparable. Apple is getting something in return for their money: $17 billion worth of Apple shares. They are merely converting one form of liability for another - partial ownership of the company for money owed to the bank.

I believe repurchased shares are retired.

It's essentially a form of paying dividend, without paying dividend.

edit. Publicly owned companies can't own themselves.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 MrEconomics wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

A simple bit of investigation reveals that GW ran a deficit for FY2012. They made a profit of 19.5 million and paid it all out to investors, ending in a year loss of 0.06 million. This is because their stock prices have been relatively flat for many many years, which is a bad thing - they are worth less now due to inflation. If an investor can't at least match inflation with their money, it's a loss (and better invested in other things... hell, a low interest normal savings account would return better than GW stock). Companies give out their profit as bonuses to shareholders to keep them still invested despite an overall loss of value of shares.

Assuming this is true, it does not in any way mean that GW is in trouble. All it means is that their net cash position is lower in 2012 than in 2011. There are many companies that should arguably do this (that is, give their cash to investors), with Apple being a prime example. (Apple has huge reserves of cash that they are essentially sitting on.)

Remember, the goal of a publicly traded company should be to provide a return to investors. Ultimately, that means paying dividends. In fact, theoretically, a stock price is the expected, discounted future value of the dividends the stock will pay; it is essentially a bond with uncertain coupon payments and no principal repayment.

That said, it is entirely possible that GW is behaving shortsightedly. This is not uncommon for publicly traded firms. Mainly, this is because the managers get punished for short-term performance that doesn't meet market expectations. This gives them an incentive to mortgage the future to the detriment of shareholders.

However, it's generally a bad idea to assume GW's managment is incompetent. They are professionals and have a lot more riding on the success of the company than us, their customers and fans. Remember, GW is not in business to make you (specifically) happy. If they can make more money via a business strategy that, say ropes in young customers, sells them a bunch of models, and then pisses them off into leaving, than by catering to the hardcore gamers, they should do so. It is also safe to assume they have better idea on how their revenues respond to price changes (that is, what the demand elasticity is) than any of us. As someone who does this sort of thing professionally, trust me, estimating demand elasticities is hard.

Even assuming you subscribe to the sort of Hayekian, short-term-profit-at-any-cost business ethics which justify a company pissing all over stakeholders to squeeze out a few extra pennies for shareholders, I'm fairly sure borrowing money against the company in order to pay extra dividends is still an indication that something questionable is going on. Wargaming as a market is expanding, GW have been stagnant in terms of their raw figures, and when you look beneath the surface it's likely they're not even doing that well; using "efficiency savings" and price rises to keep revenue afloat despite substantial loss in volume is the epitome of unsustainability.

Nobody is suggesting that GW aren't perfectly well aware what they're doing, and that it will make them money, many of us just consider sacrificing or putting at risk the long term health of the company for short-term gain to be incompetence.

It remains to be seen whether GW's actions are putting the long term health of the company at risk. I agree that it's possible, but the market sure doesn't seem to think so. The stock price has more than tripled over the last 5 years! It has been roughly flat since July, but whatever. Frankly, if managment doesn't think they have a good use for their cash reserves, using some to pay a dividend is a reasonable decision. You may think there are plenty of ways to invest that cash, but are you really so sure you're better able to make that assessment than managment?

Incidentally, can anyone tell me how long the current GW regime has been in place? Because if they are taking a very short-term view of things, that is a quality that likely will be present throughout their tenure. If they've been around awhile, it suggests that they care about the long term (3+ years) at least somewhat.

At any rate, even if they are knowingly looting the company for short-term gains, to me that isn't incompetence, it's fairly typical managerial ruthlessness combined with responding to incentives. You might accuse the corporate board of incompetence, but in the US at least (not sure about the UK), the board is usually in an incestuous relationship with the CEO, and thus faces similar incentives.

Of course, that does suggest big problems with corporate governance in the US, but GW is far from the only example. (And for the record, I'm a pretty hardcore neo-classical economist myself).

Looks like the FW restock is running thin. Think I bought the last set of Escort Ships.

GW UK website also thinning in terms of whats available. As kroothawk mentioned, a refresh or two an hour shows something else out of stock or sold out...

 MrEconomics wrote:


It remains to be seen whether GW's actions are putting the long term health of the company at risk. I agree that it's possible, but the market sure doesn't seem to think so. The stock price has more than tripled over the last 5 years! It has been roughly flat since July, but whatever. Frankly, if managment doesn't think they have a good use for their cash reserves, using some to pay a dividend is a reasonable decision. You may think there are plenty of ways to invest that cash, but are you really so sure you're better able to make that assessment than managment?

Somewhat. There are lots of smaller companies that used to nip at their heels, now outright taking market share away from them. These companies are so good, that they seem to make profitable, what GW cannot. This leads me to conclude that GW thinks that this is a passing fad (like how they view the internet) or that they want to leave those markets and focus on a core version of their old vision (leading them to slowly be dethroned as the largest wargaming company)

We may not be able to judge internal decisions, however we can judge them relative to other companies. These companies, with less start up capital than GW has lying around these days, manage to produce better quality and cheaper miniatures and games, edging GW out of spaces they traditionally ruled.

GW themselves proved that if they reinvigorate an old line, it makes money. Case: Dark Elves, Grey Knights, Necrons, Space Hulk. So one wonders why they don't blow Firestorm Armada out of the water with a full line of plastic BFG miniatures. Why they don't retake the fantasy skirmish market from Dark Age / Malifaux / etc by revamping Mordheim. or having a crack at scifi skirmish with Necromunda.

Occams razor says that it must simply be short term thinking. We could invest in something that will pay off next year, or we could cut it completely and make money now with a frenzied buy off.

Proponents of GW keep telling us about how much money they have, about how they are supposedly in a fantastic position financially, so it cant be that they don't have enough money.

GBL wrote:

 MrEconomics wrote:


It remains to be seen whether GW's actions are putting the long term health of the company at risk. I agree that it's possible, but the market sure doesn't seem to think so. The stock price has more than tripled over the last 5 years! It has been roughly flat since July, but whatever. Frankly, if managment doesn't think they have a good use for their cash reserves, using some to pay a dividend is a reasonable decision. You may think there are plenty of ways to invest that cash, but are you really so sure you're better able to make that assessment than managment?

Somewhat. There are lots of smaller companies that used to nip at their heels, now outright taking market share away from them. These companies are so good, that they seem to make profitable, what GW cannot. This leads me to conclude that GW thinks that this is a passing fad (like how they view the internet) or that they want to leave those markets and focus on a core version of their old vision (leading them to slowly be dethroned as the largest wargaming company)

We may not be able to judge internal decisions, however we can judge them relative to other companies. These companies, with less start up capital than GW has lying around these days, manage to produce better quality and cheaper miniatures and games, edging GW out of spaces they traditionally ruled.

GW themselves proved that if they reinvigorate an old line, it makes money. Case: Dark Elves, Grey Knights, Necrons, Space Hulk. So one wonders why they don't blow Firestorm Armada out of the water with a full line of plastic BFG miniatures. Why they don't retake the fantasy skirmish market from Dark Age / Malifaux / etc by revamping Mordheim. or having a crack at scifi skirmish with Necromunda.

Occams razor says that it must simply be short term thinking. We could invest in something that will pay off next year, or we could cut it completely and make money now with a frenzied buy off.

Proponents of GW keep telling us about how much money they have, about how they are supposedly in a fantastic position financially, so it cant be that they don't have enough money.

I think you've made some good points.

One thing I think you're missing though is that GW is a multi-product, monopolistically competitive firm. That skews their incentives when it comes to their menu of products. Particularly, it can be tricky for them when their products are close substitutes for one another. Regarding skirmish games, while they may be able to sell Necromunda or Mordheim at an accounting profit, they may know (or believe) that those sales will canibalize sales of more profitable products like 40k. Therefore, they may prefer to allow their competitors free-reign in that market, if they are compensated by causing the overall size of the skirmish game market to be much smaller than otherwise. After all, many of their most profitable consumers (people with lots of disposable income) may find gaming time to be their main limiting factor in driving their purchases. If that is the case, they may prefer to try to force those consumers to buy something that's much more profitable, even knowing they will lose some business to PP or whoever.

TLDR; We have to consider GW's incentives to price discriminate, which may cause them to do things that would seem bizarre in a competitive (in the economic sense) market.

Well, it was predictable really:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/350778147877

Sad about the Escort Carriers still. I hate that Forgeworld makes it so hard to order from them here in the US.

Backfire wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

A simple bit of investigation reveals that GW ran a deficit for FY2012. They made a profit of 19.5 million and paid it all out to investors, ending in a year loss of 0.06 million. This is because their stock prices have been relatively flat for many many years, which is a bad thing - they are worth less now due to inflation. If an investor can't at least match inflation with their money, it's a loss (and better invested in other things... hell, a low interest normal savings account would return better than GW stock). Companies give out their profit as bonuses to shareholders to keep them still invested despite an overall loss of value of shares.

but.... but.... but that is heresy! GW posting a loss???? Heresy I tell ya!!!

But in earnest, if you can please provide the data on how you came to this conclusion I would greatly appreciate it.

If you look at 2011-2012 annual report, it shows them having diluted earnings of 46.6 pence per share, and paying dividend 47 pence per share. So yes, company's cash position declined about £200k because of paying dividend, but it barely makes a dent for their £17 million cash reserves. So it's not like they're making a "loss" just because they pay dividend.

Stock price being "flat over many years" is a good thing these days, when the stock market might collapse any minute! GW stock has signifantly outperformed the stock index. Remember that nowadays investors buy bonds on essentially zero interest just that their money would be safe.

Yeah, they just can't afford several years like 2011 (2.79 million defecit that year). GW is in a unique position right now where they have been cutting costs but not increasing revenue... the cost cutting increases their profit but it is paid out in bonuses to mask their growth stagnation. But it is very common for companies to pay out bonuses to investors, as kind of a 'carrot on a stick' to keep them retained as investors. What matters is whether their army-a-month release tactic will have paid off in sales growth (which is a very short time solution as they will eventually start hitting consumer fatigue).

Any investors buying 0% interest bonds are the mining investors. They put their money in something and the rest of us mine them for their money, because they have no idea what they're doing. Anyone with a speck of knowledge of the current climate knows the best bets are long term investments like CVLI in companies like Northwestern Mutual (who have paid dividends every year including 1929 and 2008)

But we're wayyyyy off topic.

One final data point in favor of GW's financial health: Their P/E ratio is about 14, apparently. So the market seems to have them valued roughly appropriately.

I suppose their long-term prospects will ultimately depend on how they end up implementing 3-D printing. If they play their cards right, they could use their size to rake in the profits. If they screw up, it could be a problem. Time will tell.

My money is on screw up. Finecast anyone?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Finecast anyone?

I'd rather not, thanks.

 Lansirill wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Finecast anyone?

I'd rather not, thanks.

I'd rather have Finecast Specialist Games than not have them at all.

For the record, if any Americans who're after the AdMech cruiser or battleship know someone from the UK, they're both still available on the UK site. They also still have the Apocalypse battleship.

The shipping would probably be pricey, but not as much as the ebay prices are going to be for the next few months.

The battleship is still available in the US (mine just posted as shipped.) The cruiser and light cruiser are out though.

Well, the following are also gone:

Dauntless w/Torpedos
Epic SM Drop Pods
Epic SM Rhinos
Epic SM Thunderhawk
Epic IG Character Pack
Epic Great Gargant
Epic Ork Fighta Bomberz

I'd ordered the Dauntless, Bomberz, Thunderhawk, and Great Gargant so that' sad but hopefully that means all my other stuff is in as I think that was the Titan order I put in which included all the Eldar Titans and Flyers and an Ork Gargant.

Hulk, if they don't ship you your Gargants, I may be able to help you find one(or two) at retail price.

Good to know. I'll know in a little bit but I basically ordered one of all the titans since I have all the normal epic armies and titans, while prolific online, get a hell of a mark up over time. Does your source have a Great Gargant?

Both Dauntless variants are also still available in the UK.

 MrEconomics wrote:

Incidentally, can anyone tell me how long the current GW regime has been in place? Because if they are taking a very short-term view of things, that is a quality that likely will be present throughout their tenure. If they've been around awhile, it suggests that they care about the long term (3+ years) at least somewhat.

Tom Kirby lead a management buyout of GW from Brian Ansyll in 1991 and took the company public in 1994. He is still the head of the company serving as the Chairman and CEO and holds roughly 6% voting stocks.

Popular belief on this board is that all actions done by GW are done to enhance his wealth and his wealth alone.

silent25 wrote:


Tom Kirby lead a management buyout of GW from Brian Ansyll in 1991 and took the company public in 1994. He is still the head of the company serving as the Chairman and CEO and holds roughly 6% voting stocks.

Popular belief on this board is that all actions done by GW are done to enhance his wealth and his wealth alone.

I thought the popular belief on this board is that all actions done by GW are done at the discretion of several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a Pict.

Seems about as plausible as anything else.