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.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
This thread needs killing. It seems to be just here for Kroot to go off on one of his usually anti-GW rants. More than half the comments he makes are just inaccurate and the ones that are to some degree accurate are laced with such biased language that it makes the information some what of dubious value.

Add in the personal attacks he makes against anyone with more knowledge than him and it makes this thread even more worthless.

Time to kill this. What exactly is it achieving?

I don't have to go round looking up how GW shares are trading. It's useful for that purpose at least. I mostly ignore everything else.

I'm quit enjoying it as a record of what's been going on. It's certainly interesting times for gwplc. I'm mostly just skimming the bickering between DA and kroot. Somewheres in here there's some useful discussion.

It's like an automatic bump.. you know the contents of the post anyways without reading.

I think it's been funny to watch them talk past each other.

On the one hand you've got the disillusioned GW hobbyist who sees falling stock prices as the long-due punishment for GW's sins. He revels in every new share price drop and large volume sale. He "knows" that GW's boneheaded moves over the past few years are finally catching up to them.

On the other hand you've got the finance guy sporting the stereotypical arrogance of the industry who looks at the stock price like a weather phenomenon. This thing here means it has more value to lose. That thing there means it is fairly stable. But there was a 50% off sale in a supermarket in Bangladesh so we're looking at another Great Depression within the next 12 months.

Well it gives insight in the share market status of GW and it shows the state of mind of some of the posters, one camp says this means the end of GW and the other goes "This is good news!"

PhantomViper wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:


It's already been established that you guys are looking at trailing indicators while I've been looking at leading indicators. Leading indicators like Goldman's Global Leading Index is showing the global economy in slowdown mode. You wont even hear on the news that we are in a recession till 3 quarters after you've already been in one. So what good does that do you? You can point to retail sales but I can point to disposable income. Unless you see a major spike up there, discretionary spending is going to go through the floor. An already indebted consumer has it's lowest income:debt ratio since 07. It's going to be bloody when it finally hits.

Fair enough, I agree with most of that. On a side note, when do you think the fan is getting covered

You do realise that he is talking about the same leading indicators that failed spectacularly in 2008 and plunged the world's economy in the gakky state that it is now, right?

I'd put as much faith in those as I do in the tarot reader in our public channel morning show...

Some of us were aware in 2007 of the impending crisis that broke in 2008. Rumours in the market, and so on.

However a recession is defined as two successive quarters of falling GDP, so it of course cannot be identified except in retrospect.

dereksatkinson is absolutely correct, though, about the various "special measures" that are propping up the different economies. Quantitative easing, the low interest rate, in the UK we have a huge amount of cash being pumped out to consumers through PPI mis-selling repayments, and the "have some free money to buy a house" scheme.

The real job market is very soft. Despite inflation easing, real incomes are well down from what they were before the crisis. Welfare payments are down for low earners, and taxes are up for medium to high earners.

Tom Kirby is on record saying that GW's business is not affected by the economic cycle. I think he is wrong, though, as GW are now in the price range of luxury goods compared to a lot of other wargames. For example a Knight Titan kit and the codex cost £110. That is a lot of money to put a single model on your tabletop.

 Kroothawk wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
It was NOT the most shares traded in a single day since the Jan 16th earnings. That is not factually correct.
Jan 29th over 1.25 million shares traded vs this 500k print you are so excited about.

So as a presumed professional you would say that 1.25 mio shares traded on January 29th are more than 2 mio shares traded 6th March (according to official notification on GW website)?
And that the biggest investor for years dropping from 9.8% to 1.59% or less in 2 days is peanuts?
I think that shows quite well on what basis all your personal insults against other posters in this thread are based.

You refered to Friday's print as "Biggest trade since avalanche".. It was most certainly not the most volume traded since the "avalanche". It's factually incorrect.

I also said that if a big investor unloaded, it would be in a block and would not drive the price down. Not coincidentally, the stock rallied rather impressively. I never said someone unloading 8% of a company would be peanuts.. Just that they wouldn't panic out and cause an avalanche like you and several other posters were claiming would happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Tom Kirby is on record saying that GW's business is not affected by the economic cycle. I think he is wrong, though, as GW are now in the price range of luxury goods compared to a lot of other wargames. For example a Knight Titan kit and the codex cost £110. That is a lot of money to put a single model on your tabletop.

I have no idea if Tom Kirby actually believes that or not since it could be CEO speak. I hope it's CEO talk because "luxury retail" is most certainly impacted by the global economy. Go to a resort town during a recession and then during a period of growth and the differences are staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Time to kill this. What exactly is it achieving?

Other than to show that kroothawk has no idea how the stock market trades? Nothing really.

Kroothawk wrote:Biggest trade since avalanche today:
Three sales listed within a minute, attributed to yesterday, for 11+10+1 Mio GBP (4.5 Mio shares)
One buy listed today for 2.5 Mio GBP (500k shares).

Background: Nomad, biggest Investor, sold almost all its shares, not found anymore on the list of shareholders above 3% of total shares (before it was above 9%). Sale began 5th and ended 6th, notified 6th and 7th March.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
It was NOT the most shares traded in a single day since the Jan 16th earnings. That is not factually correct.
Jan 29th over 1.25 million shares traded vs this 500k print you are so excited about.

So as a presumed professional you would say that 1.25 mio shares traded on January 29th are more than 2 mio shares traded 6th March (according to official notification on GW website)?
And that the biggest investor for years dropping from 9.8% to 1.59% or less in 2 days is peanuts?
I think that shows quite well on what basis all your personal insults against other posters in this thread are based.

You refered to Friday's print as "Biggest trade since avalanche".. It was most certainly not the most volume traded since the "avalanche". It's factually incorrect.
(...)

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Time to kill this. What exactly is it achieving?

Other than to show that kroothawk has no idea how the stock market trades? Nothing really.

The quote shows that I clearly referred to the 4.5 Mio shares sold, which is more than your quoted 1.25 Mio shares.
Esp. as the rest of the post details how the biggest GW investor dropped out almost completely within 2 days.
If you still claim that to every expert, 1.25 Mio shares are obviously more than 4.5 Mio shares, then I need no further credentials for your expertise.

BTW I collected some more info on this investor drop out in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/583671.page
Unfortunately, one moderator found this not news-worthy and I can't repeat the complicated formating in that first post which took me considerable time to compose.

What part of block trade do you not understand?

Seriously dude.. stop. This is getting kind of pathetic because you REALLY don't understand some very basic information here. This isn't Vietnam. There are rules.

dereksatkinson wrote:
What part of block trade do you not understand?

Seriously dude.. stop. This is getting kind of pathetic because you REALLY don't understand some very basic information here. This isn't Vietnam. There are rules.

I think the biggest thing he seems to miss is that if one big investor sold a bunch of shares, then someone had to buy them.

So how does someone go from 3,131,194 shares to less than 1,620,001 (really, less than a million) and not be more than 1.25 million shares sold?

I mean - the math seems pretty simple here.

Saldiven wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
What part of block trade do you not understand?

Seriously dude.. stop. This is getting kind of pathetic because you REALLY don't understand some very basic information here. This isn't Vietnam. There are rules.

I think the biggest thing he seems to miss is that if one big investor sold a bunch of shares, then someone had to buy them.

Or multiple people. Or a buyback.

rigeld2 wrote:
So how does someone go from 3,131,194 shares to less than 1,620,001 (really, less than a million) and not be more than 1.25 million shares sold?

I mean - the math seems pretty simple here.

The issue here is that we are talking apples and oranges. He doesn't understand the definitions and is in effect misrepresenting what happened.

It wasn't traded on the exchange. It was a block trade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:
I think the biggest thing he seems to miss is that if one big investor sold a bunch of shares, then someone had to buy them.

Indeed. Someone bought a very large % of the company all at once in one block. When you have someone come in with fresh capital, it's going to cause the stock to bounce, which it has.

Mind you.. I haven't changed my intermediate term outlook yet based on this. I think we probably bounce and revisit these levels again and will watch for divergences to develop on the weekly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Or multiple people. Or a buyback.

I doubt it was a share buyback. I don't recall GW having that kind of program announced and seeing how they do trade publicly on the london exchange, I think that would have been public knowledge.

Now.. you could have seen a broker shop the stock around to do a block and get various investors to do it at a discounted price, but that would have likely resulted in the stock dropping if they were just providing liquidity. Since we are talking about a relatively large % of the company changing hands, I think you are most likely getting people who actually want to own the stock and not lease/rent it. Someone who is wanting to just trade the stock wouldn't be doing it this way because of the SIZE of the trade. Whoever bought is likely stuck in it for 12-18 months.

dereksatkinson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So how does someone go from 3,131,194 shares to less than 1,620,001 (really, less than a million) and not be more than 1.25 million shares sold?

I mean - the math seems pretty simple here.

The issue here is that we are talking apples and oranges. He doesn't understand the definitions and is in effect misrepresenting what happened.

It wasn't traded on the exchange. It was a block trade.

I don't understand the relevance.
More than 2.5m shares changed hands. How is that not more than 1.25m?

dereksatkinson wrote:
Indeed. Someone bought a very large % of the company all at once in one block.

Actually, Nomad sold at least 8% of GW stock in 2 days. Such a major change has to be notified and published on the GW investor website. Until today, no other new investor reached the 3% threshold that has to be notified. And no current investor with more than 3% GW shares bought a single share in the last few weeks. Which proves that you are wrong.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/
Of course this doesn't rule out an army of strawmen buying shares for, say, HasBro, and made public when HasBro thinks it is time to buy from all strawmen.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't understand the relevance.
More than 2.5m shares changed hands. How is that not more than 1.25m?

You should have learned from the Cyprus desaster that he never admits a stupid mistake but rather answers with calling all posters in this thread stupid and incompetent again and again. Classic troll.

 Kroothawk wrote:
You should have learned from the Cyprus desaster that he never admits a stupid mistake but rather answers with calling all posters in this thread stupid and incompetent again and again. Classic troll.

That is not trolling when he is right more than wrong. Also, that behavior is something not unknown to you either - a tad pot and kettle - except you are often wrong. Some of the things you have said in this thread display such a lack of the fundamental knowledge needed that often your comments are worse than worthless as they divert time and energy away from the issues at hand.

The pair of you need to quit responding to each other as this is starting to get quite tiresome.

Derek: Any chance of explaining the difference between a block trade and trades on the exchange, and also how what the divergences are you talk about - idiot speak please, I'm not er, comfortable with money, unless I'm handing it to someone for toys.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
That is not trolling when he is right more than wrong. Also, that behavior is something not unknown to you either - a tad pot and kettle - except you are often wrong. Some of the things you have said in this thread display such a lack of the fundamental knowledge needed that often your comments are worse than worthless as they divert time and energy away from the issues at hand.

The pair of you need to quit responding to each other as this is starting to get quite tiresome.

Thanks for another of your "Hey you are so stupid and your posts worse than worthless please stop posting in the thread you started" posts.
They are a big help in adding content and politeness to this thread.

moogy wrote:
Having said that, if I was to invest a little bit of spare cash....how would you go about doing it? Is GW a safe option?

No. There's a serious risk that the share price will plummet again once the full year financial info comes out. Maybe it won't, but you need to remember that the 25% drop wasn't just someone spooking the horses, it was a response to what was happening in the concrete part of Games Workshop.

Two months to go, plus the time it takes to assemble the end of year report.

winterdyne wrote:
Derek: Any chance of explaining the difference between a block trade and trades on the exchange, and also how what the divergences are you talk about - idiot speak please, I'm not er, comfortable with money, unless I'm handing it to someone for toys.

When you have large trades where you are talking about a single entity needing to unload a % of a company, the seller will go to their broker and indicate that they intend on selling X number of shares. So the broker will go out over several days/weeks and talk to their clients looking for a bid (in other words a buyer). It's the broker's job is to NOT disclose who the seller is or how much they actually have to sell. Someone will indicate that they would be interested in owning X number of shares and the broker will mark them down. Once they have enough people lined up, they call around again with a price, the buyers confirm that they are willing to buy it and the trade is done. It is NOT done on the open market or on an exchange. The fact of the matter is, they couldn't have divested that large of a % of the company if they didn't shop it around like they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_trade




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
You should have learned from the Cyprus desaster that he never admits a stupid mistake but rather answers with calling all posters in this thread stupid and incompetent again and again. Classic troll.

That is not trolling when he is right more than wrong. Also, that behavior is something not unknown to you either - a tad pot and kettle - except you are often wrong. Some of the things you have said in this thread display such a lack of the fundamental knowledge needed that often your comments are worse than worthless as they divert time and energy away from the issues at hand.

The pair of you need to quit responding to each other as this is starting to get quite tiresome.

Wait... Have I been actually proven wrong on anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

moogy wrote:
Having said that, if I was to invest a little bit of spare cash....how would you go about doing it? Is GW a safe option?

No. There's a serious risk that the share price will plummet again once the full year financial info comes out. Maybe it won't, but you need to remember that the 25% drop wasn't just someone spooking the horses, it was a response to what was happening in the concrete part of Games Workshop.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict another drop like that. It's entirely possible but expectations are now much lower for the company and that definitely matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Indeed. Someone bought a very large % of the company all at once in one block.

Actually, Nomad sold at least 8% of GW stock in 2 days. Such a major change has to be notified and published on the GW investor website. Until today, no other new investor reached the 3% threshold that has to be notified. And no current investor with more than 3% GW shares bought a single share in the last few weeks. Which proves that you are wrong.

Ummm no.. What you are pointing to is the equivalent of a form 4 filing here in the USA. You simply don't understand some very basic concepts. Someone had to been on the other end of the deal.

To be abundantly clear. The only possible way the LSE could be showing only 700k shares traded over the past 3 days and a company to have divested 1.6 million+ shares is to have done a negotiated trade off the exchange. That is exactly what took place here. Look at the volume numbers for GAW. Nomad is reporting a trade that was done off the exchange most likely over a period of several weeks.

dereksatkinson wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
Derek: Any chance of explaining the difference between a block trade and trades on the exchange, and also how what the divergences are you talk about - idiot speak please, I'm not er, comfortable with money, unless I'm handing it to someone for toys.

When you have large trades where you are talking about a single entity needing to unload a % of a company, the seller will go to their broker and indicate that they intend on selling X number of shares. So the broker will go out over several days/weeks and talk to their clients looking for a bid (in other words a buyer). It's the broker's job is to NOT disclose who the seller is or how much they actually have to sell. Someone will indicate that they would be interested in owning X number of shares and the broker will mark them down. Once they have enough people lined up, they call around again with a price, the buyers confirm that they are willing to buy it and the trade is done. It is NOT done on the open market or on an exchange. The fact of the matter is, they couldn't have divested that large of a % of the company if they didn't shop it around like they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_trade

Sure - but does that change the size of the transaction? One investor dropped ~2m shares. That's larger than the 1.25m you said was the largest.
Hence my confusion.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
That is not trolling when he is right more than wrong. Also, that behavior is something not unknown to you either - a tad pot and kettle - except you are often wrong. Some of the things you have said in this thread display such a lack of the fundamental knowledge needed that often your comments are worse than worthless as they divert time and energy away from the issues at hand.

The pair of you need to quit responding to each other as this is starting to get quite tiresome.

Thanks for another of your "Hey you are so stupid and your posts worse than worthless please stop posting in the thread you started" posts.
They are a big help in adding content and politeness to this thread.

and, pray tell, what else are you supposed to say to someone who is consistently getting it wrong in their own thread?

I mean, come on Kroot, you didn't even know what "automatic" meant when you were looking at share transactions.

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - but does that change the size of the transaction? One investor dropped ~2m shares. That's larger than the 1.25m you said was the largest.
Hence my confusion.

It was a negotiated trade that never actually hit the exchange. If it had hit the exchange, you would see that kind of volume on the chart. The actual trade could have been done over 3-4 weeks. Hell.. The decision to sell could have been made on January 16th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

and, pray tell, what else are you supposed to say to someone who is consistently getting it wrong in their own thread?

If you have a trade that was bigger than the combined monthly volume for the past 2 months, that someone is reporting to have been done on a single day, you know it's a block trade. Block trades aren't done with retail clients so you know it was another institution or potentially several institutions taking down that block. I can understand there being confusion based on vocabulary but the basic concept is still plain as day. It's pretty much common sense to anyone who has a basic understanding of how the market functions.

dereksatkinson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - but does that change the size of the transaction? One investor dropped ~2m shares. That's larger than the 1.25m you said was the largest.
Hence my confusion.

It was a negotiated trade that never actually hit the exchange. If it had hit the exchange, you would see that kind of volume on the chart. The actual trade could have been done over 3-4 weeks. Hell.. The decision to sell could have been made on January 16th.

So essentially the trade could've happened over any period of time, so the volume is "diluted"?
I can see that. Thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - but does that change the size of the transaction? One investor dropped ~2m shares. That's larger than the 1.25m you said was the largest.
Hence my confusion.

It was a negotiated trade that never actually hit the exchange. If it had hit the exchange, you would see that kind of volume on the chart. The actual trade could have been done over 3-4 weeks. Hell.. The decision to sell could have been made on January 16th.

So essentially the trade could've happened over any period of time, so the volume is "diluted"?
I can see that. Thanks.

Oh.. without question this was done over weeks. As someone who has participated in these blocks, I can assure you that a piece that large was shopped for a while. It would have likely required a high level of due diligence on behalf of the purchasers and it wouldn't be someone that is just going to hold it for a bounce.

dereksatkinson wrote:
To be abundantly clear. The only possible way the LSE could be showing only 700k shares traded over the past 3 days and a company to have divested 1.6 million+ shares is to have done a negotiated trade off the exchange. That is exactly what took place here. Look at the volume numbers for GAW. Nomad is reporting a trade that was done off the exchange most likely over a period of several weeks.

As said, the LSE has actually shown a sale of 4.5 Mio shares in three parts within a minute on 6th March, that's why I checked the GW investors page to see what happened.

Three sales listed within a minute, attributed to yesterday, for 11+10+1 Mio GBP (4.5 Mio shares)

winterdyne wrote:
I'm quit enjoying it as a record of what's been going on. It's certainly interesting times for gwplc. I'm mostly just skimming the bickering between DA and kroot. Somewheres in here there's some useful discussion.

I imagine them locked in eternal conflict on a ruined world, like the Star Trek episode with the black / white and white / black aliens.

In the grim darkness of stock information there is only war.

 FacelessMage wrote:
In the grim darkness of stock information there is only war.

the difference is I have made $100k on talking with Derek and he is a professional in the industry. I currently own $50k in GW. Am I down? Yes. Am I selling? No. Their price will come up. Buy GW now and you will have more money at the end of the year. Most likely.