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.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:
No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.

PP is a privately owned company which is owned by those two who ultimately profit from it. They take actions to increase the companies profitability. Just like shareholders profit from the company they've invested in and want to take actions to increase it's profitability. The fact that GW is public and PP is private still doesn't change the fact that both are companies in business to make a product and profit from it.

But I've got it, your one of PP "White Knights" but trying to discredit anyone who criticizes them makes you look petty.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

Well, FTSE classification isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the market as in the specific niche that GW operate in and those companies that compete directly with them, as outlined here...

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

Also, you say "we can only speculate" about GW financials, yet your post that drew my initial response was, lets face it, a very high handed and dismissive response to another poster in itself. If we can "only speculate" how are you so confident that you are right and they were wrong? Or are you in possession of more detailed info, and in which case would you mind sharing with the class?

 prplehippo wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.

PP is a privately owned company which is owned by those two who ultimately profit from it. They take actions to increase the companies profitability. Just like shareholders profit from the company they've invested in and want to take actions to increase it's profitability. The fact that GW is public and PP is private still doesn't change the fact that both are companies in business to make a product and profit from it.

But I've got it, your one of PP "White Knights" but trying to discredit anyone who criticizes them makes you look petty.

Look at the whole sentence.
Look at what you "fixed".
Look how said sentence is wrong.
Look at how YOU'RE (yes, this is the correct one in this context. Get it right) coming across as "hurr durr PP is just as the evuls as GW" even though the companies could not be more different.

So, once again, to make you understand your own sentence. Unless Matt Wilson is now the owner of Games Workshop, your sentence makes zero sense and just comes across as a petty attack on a former employer who obviously pissed in your cheerios.

@grimtuff

My statement is perfectly reasonable.

Quit being a pedantic ass.

 Grimtuff wrote:

So, once again, to make you understand your own sentence. Unless Matt Wilson is now the owner of Games Workshop, your sentence makes zero sense and just comes across as a petty attack on a former employer who obviously pissed in your cheerios.

I fear that your first sentence in the above quoted portion of your post is a loose prepositional phrase.

Just sayin' yo.

 Enigwolf wrote:
If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them.

If companies turning assholish is an inevitable progression over time, then the solution is equally simple. In that case, we can always jump down to whatever the contemporary equivalent of PP-now is. Support the little guy, and when they become a big guy, abandon them and find another little guy to support.

xxvaderxx wrote:

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

PP also doesn't have anywhere near the customer base GW. More customers means more people that will go online and complain about something.

Personally, GW as a company hasn't done me wrong. Yes they charge a premium, but they've ALWAYS charged a premium, ever since I got into the hobby back in the late 80s. Hobby related items of good quality are always expensive. Try buying a good RC car or plane, expensive as hades, especially the planes. Anybody that has dealt with GW's customer service knows they stand behind their product like few other companies will.

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

Well, FTSE classification isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the market as in the specific niche that GW operate in and those companies that compete directly with them, as outlined here...

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

Also, you say "we can only speculate" about GW financials, yet your post that drew my initial response was, lets face it, a very high handed and dismissive response to another poster in itself. If we can "only speculate" how are you so confident that you are right and they were wrong? Or are you in possession of more detailed info, and in which case would you mind sharing with the class?

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

Indeed....there are many tales of companies which went downhill once investors took over, thinking they'd profit because they were 'experts', without understanding the business they were at all.

Look at what happened to Rackham.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

But here's the thing. As has been stated numerous times in countless threads, GW's revenue is flat and has been for years. This tells us one of two things: either less customers are buying the same amount of product or the same amount of customers are there but less product is being shifted.

It is quite simple. IF Mr T Kirby will make a lot more money out of the sale ,than he will if It keeps under the same owner ship.(After the current legal case ends,) then GW plc will be sold.

When the C.E.O /Chairman runs the company for HIS personal benefit, it can all go a bit pear shaped .

Lanrak wrote:
It is quite simple. IF Mr T Kirby will make a lot more money out of the sale ,than he will if It keeps under the same owner ship.(After the current legal case ends,) then GW plc will be sold.

When the C.E.O /Chairman runs the company for HIS personal benefit, it can all go a bit pear shaped .

I'm not sure how you think Tom Kirby can influence share sales, besides the 6% or so that he owns and could potentially sell. He doesn't run all those investment groups that actually own GW.

 Enigwolf wrote:

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

Which is why I cited it as strong anecdotal evidence! I grant that there's no numbers, but I would be interested if you could suggest an argument that the store holders don't know what's selling or how they're doing year on year? This is also interesting as, regardless of FTSE classifications, these stores are the ones that hold GW product on the shelf cheek by jowl with other products which, broadly speaking, appeal to a similar consumer, ie many tabletop gamers will play, or have played CCGs or vice versa. So if people are still willing to spend on these other products, but GWs income is static despite price rises and an increase in spending on products of a similar nature, that is an interesting debating point at best, pretty scary for GW at worst.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

Fair enough, hopefully our discussion has shown that there may be a kernel of truth to his accusations, if by no means cut and dried.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

Which is why I cited it as strong anecdotal evidence! I grant that there's no numbers, but I would be interested if you could suggest an argument that the store holders don't know what's selling or how they're doing year on year? This is also interesting as, regardless of FTSE classifications, these stores are the ones that hold GW product on the shelf cheek by jowl with other products which, broadly speaking, appeal to a similar consumer, ie many tabletop gamers will play, or have played CCGs or vice versa. So if people are still willing to spend on these other products, but GWs income is static despite price rises and an increase in spending on products of a similar nature, that is an interesting debating point at best, pretty scary for GW at worst.

I see no flaw with this, as long as we're acknowledging it as anecdotal evidence, in which case I would wholeheartedly agree with you. You asked earlier for my opinions, and after giving it a day of thought, my personal postulation is that GW's costs are increasing on one hand, and that their playerbase is slowly seeping out from them. This goes hand-in-hand with their recent (last decade) change in business strategy where they are looking to cycle through new players rather than pay heed to their committed veterans. As a result, they compete for the former with their competitors, and simultaneously lose the latter to their competitors. However, it does seem to appear that they are aware of this, and have been for a long time (if anyone at GW doesn't know of all the hate that is directed to them, they're living under a rock). Whether they can do anything about it or not is a different story. We have seen a better release schedule now, what with new casts being released with the 'dex release, for example, and better-balanced 'dexes, as well as faster FAQ updates. I used to drink the GW haterade, but I'm of the opinion that we should give GW a few years for the bullwhip effect to kick in and their actions now to be realized then. And that's what I'm trying to convince people - give GW some hope and some time, and we may well be pleasantly surprised. They may not listen to us as their customers, but they will sure well listen to competition and the flow of money, and that may be all it takes for GW to get back on its feet.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

Fair enough, hopefully our discussion has shown that there may be a kernel of truth to his accusations, if by no means cut and dried.

There may be a kernel of truth, as we have discussed, it cannot be attributed to one factor and only one factor alone, which was what he was insinuating. What I was trying to prove was that that was not the case.

Well Apocalypse 40l seems to think that the sale has happened.
http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-change-of-control-coming.html

And I think he is right.
Per GW's shareholder statistics page:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/
Putting the hard numbers here in case they change.
Shareholder-------------------------------------------Number of shares------Percentage
The Nomad Investment Partnership LP-------4,999,141----------------15.7
Investec Asset Management Limited-----------3,087,765-----------------9.7
Ruffer LLP----------------------------------------------2,492,260-----------------7.8
Tom Kirby-----------------------------------------------2,131,394-----------------6.7
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited---1,865,218-------------5.9
FIL Limited---------------------------------------------1,753,900-----------------5.5
Artemis Investment Management LLP---------1,620,001-----------------5.1

However, per one of the comments on the Apocalypse 40k post, pointed to the Morningstar.com statistics:
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-overview.html?t=GAW®ion=GBR&culture=en-us

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Only flaw in this logic I will point out, the dates on the Morningstar.com are not all recent. It may be they don't list companies that have owned the stock for more than 2 years.

Just because the shares are changing hands doesn't mean it has to be another company (Hasbro etc) taking over does it? Can't it just mean that the shares are changing hands, not necessarily that the new majority holders are intending to make changes and what not?

At current value, in order to buy up all the stock it would cost in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars to buy GW. Based on GW's current earnings it is going to take decades to pay off the loan needed to buy GW.

If someone buys GW I think it will be rather astonishing. None of the things people keep yakking about that are supposedly preparing GW to be sold are in the vicinity of the financial stratosphere of cash needed to buy GW or make GW "look good" to some prospective buyer.

JWhex wrote:
At current value, in order to buy up all the stock it would cost in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars to buy GW. Based on GW's current earnings it is going to take decades to pay off the loan needed to buy GW.

If someone buys GW I think it will be rather astonishing. None of the things people keep yakking about that are supposedly preparing GW to be sold are in the vicinity of the financial stratosphere of cash needed to buy GW or make GW "look good" to some prospective buyer.

Correct. When it comes to large companies such as GW, buyouts typically happen over time with quantities of shares being purchased over time and ending with a take-over. The indication in the previous (skim-read) blog post is that the shares have been changing hands in large quantities. You don't usually see this happen unless it's a company like Google buying someone out.

They don't actually have to buy all the shares. They can buy a controlling interest (or simply lobby those votes to vote for a merger) and then issue their own stock to replace GW stock. So if Hasbro did want to buy out GW, many shareholders would find their GW shares replaced by Hasbro ones.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just wanted to also add that the sale of GW would be a fine feather in the cap of Tom Kirby. A last accomplishment in his fine career of making tons of money from what was thought to be a niche hobby. He's nearing retirement age and successfully negotiating the sale or merger of GW would be an excellent way to begin retirement-- and likely with even more money than he already has. Perhaps with a fat wad of Hasbro shares that kick off dividends more consistently than GW does (GW has cut their dividend in the past while Hasbro has been rock solid with theirs).

silent25 wrote:

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Such a massive change in stock ownership and voting rights should be immediately notified: if you look at GW's investor relationship page, there are two such notifications over last month, both which seem rather mundane.

In other words, no such ownership change has taken place yet.

Backfire wrote:

silent25 wrote:

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Such a massive change in stock ownership and voting rights should be immediately notified: if you look at GW's investor relationship page, there are two such notifications over last month, both which seem rather mundane.

In other words, no such ownership change has taken place yet.

The only explanation I can come up with is the shares traded hands on Friday. Based off previous declarations, transactions on Friday can be reported on Monday. Hence my comment of when markets open up in several hours.

Again, take this with some salt.

Concerning the shares, this have been the changes this year so far:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/528503.page#5664661

Kroothawk wrote:I would also like to point at this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/519620.page

In March this year, within one week of CEO Mark Wells stepping down, large investors massively sold GW stock, while a few bought it:
The Nomad Investment Partnership LP 16.2% (- 645,859 shares, January 18.7%)
Investec Asset Management Ltd 9.7% (- 2,612,235 shares, January 18.3%)
Ruffer LLP 8.1% (+ 1,757,260 shares, January 2.5%)
Tom Kirby 6.7% (same)
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Ltd. 5.9% (- 1,034,782 shares, January 9.3%)
FIL Limited 5.5% (+ 953,900 shares, January 2.5%)

(Sold 4,292,876 , bought 2,711,160)

This is going on in May:
The Nomad Investment Partnership L.P. selling another 105,000 shares (9th may)
Ruffer LLP selling again 75,000 shares (17th may)
although in April:
Artemis Investment Management LLP bought 50,001shares.

The morningstar numbers seem totally off, not even listing the registered changes.

Just out of curiosity, but what is the possibility that a couple of those investment companies might merge?

I know it happens, but not how common it is.

If two of them merged it makes sense that the new entity would own more shares, but when would that have to be declared?

I was just thinking if someone wanted to take over GW, or any other company for that matter, without them knowing it was a takeover one way would be to take over the companies that hold the "money" as it were.

Pretty far fetched but I wouldn't doubt this happens, especially with a small-ish company like GW.

Buying controlling interest is not out of the real of possibility, those not listed (each owning under 3% of the shares) make up nearly 50% of the total shares, so there is always the possibility a company addressed that first and then approached one of the larger shareholders to complete controlling interest.

Having said that, i doubt they would not announce it and bask on it. So to me it is not impossible but highly unlikely.

They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

 Kroothawk wrote:
They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

I am sure they can find ways around it.

Well London markets have been open for a while now and no posting of change in controlling or ownership of stocks changing hands on GW's page. If anything is happening, it is still in the works.

The morningstar numbers are likely bunk as Kroot pointed out with his numbers. Though whoever may be buying them out is likely getting the major holders buy-in so that when they announce it, there are no hiccups.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

I am sure they can find ways around it.

Why would anyone bother? What anyone could possibly win there? If someone really is interested in buying out GW, why not be honest & upfront about it?

Something to remember is that talks can happen and arrangements can be made and negotiations can occur and deals can be agreed on without them having to announce a damn thing.

They only have to announce it and tell everyone once paperwork has actually been signed.