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.

 skkipper wrote:

 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.

I have seen Derek being caught up in irrelevancies, and ignoring evidence that contradicts his stance.

Sorry, but the Cypriot digression did not help Derek's aura of reliability. It seemed to be present to bolster an appeal to authority rather than having any bearing on GW's situation.

Frankly, I would trust neither Derek nor Kroot as my investment broker - but Kroot at least does not claim to have that skill set.

When I look and see that, yes, more than one and a half million has been sold off, while Derek is avoiding that portion of the topic, or claiming that, no, four million is the same as one and a half million... I have my doubts as to the validity of his claims. And when I see that stock was not purchased by a single entity (meaning that ownership of the stock has grown more diffuse) then I do suspect that the larger shareholders are selling off.

Kroot does have an ax to grind - but ignoring the numbers because of the source... not always a good decision.

I will agree that stock prices are a poor indicator of how a business is doing, and I will be interested in seeing how GW stock does when the next report comes out - but at this point I do not see GW taking measures to fix the problems that led to this situation.

Sales are down, and their reaction has been to cut back further on retail.

So, much of the price on the stock will ride on whether or not GW provides dividends - and if they do provide dividends, whether they have done so at the cost of development in the company. If it does impact upon development... then any gain in the stock prices will be temporary, but would make a good point to sell held stock.

I am certainly not making plans to buy into GW. I suspect the old sock underneath the mattress is a safer investment, at least in the short to midterm.

Mostly... I think that GW made a mistake in being publicly held.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
When I look and see that, yes, more than one and a half million has been sold off, while Derek is avoiding that portion of the topic, or claiming that, no, four million is the same as one and a half million... I have my doubts as to the validity of his claims. And when I see that stock was not purchased by a single entity (meaning that ownership of the stock has grown more diffuse) then I do suspect that the larger shareholders are selling off.

That's not what Derek is saying. Kroot is saying that shares have simply been sold, as if they're gone, because they're disappeared from the 3% owners list that GW have to report. Derek is saying that they haven't disappeared - for stocks to have been sold, someone has to have bought them. They're not gone, just that whoever bought wasn't one investor buying that huge chunk of shares, as then that person would be on the 3% owner list. The stock is still there, and will go up again if you look at GW's stock trends.

At least that's how I've been following it. I don't share Dereks outlook, as I believe like many GW has trimmed to the bone. There's nothing left to trim to raise profitability, and prices are at breaking point. But Kroot has been getting quite a lot wrong in his own thread, then calling anyone who disagrees a troll, which is pretty douchy behaviour.

I have no knowledge of the stock market.
However, if investment companies are selling the bulk of their shares in GW plc, , and they are being bought by smaller speculative investors.

Does this show a loss in confidence in GW plc in the market?

Has this happened, and does it mean a 'vote of no confidence' by the investment company in GW plc?

What has GW plc done to address the fall in sales volumes and profit?

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
When I look and see that, yes, more than one and a half million has been sold off, while Derek is avoiding that portion of the topic, or claiming that, no, four million is the same as one and a half million... I have my doubts as to the validity of his claims. And when I see that stock was not purchased by a single entity (meaning that ownership of the stock has grown more diffuse) then I do suspect that the larger shareholders are selling off.

That's not what Derek is saying. Kroot is saying that shares have simply been sold, as if they're gone, because they're disappeared from the 3% owners list that GW have to report. Derek is saying that they haven't disappeared - for stocks to have been sold, someone has to have bought them. They're not gone, just that whoever bought wasn't one investor buying that huge chunk of shares, as then that person would be on the 3% owner list. The stock is still there, and will go up again if you look at GW's stock trends.

No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

I'd be curious as to what rate those shares were sold at, since if it's done off exchange, the price is presumably negotiated between parties in private and they could have gone for anything. That number (which we'll never know) will probably tell us a lot more about investor confidence than the current public price. For instance did they get a buyer right away at the public price or did they need to slash the price drastically just to cut their losses? Did they get more than the expected?


As for the stock going back up; that depends on what you read into the trends. You can argue that it's gone with the markets (as Derek is doing) and that when the markets pick up then so will GW. But that theory only works if you ignore everything you know about GW as a company. Namely that most of the growth from the previous stock price correlate with partnerships with other companies and that GW themselves have said that they don't know what's wrong or how to fix it.

-Loki- wrote:That's not what Derek is saying. Kroot is saying that shares have simply been sold, as if they're gone, because they're disappeared from the 3% owners list that GW have to report.

Erm ... do you really believe what you are posting? Then you fell for an obvious strawman argument by Derek.

Herzlos wrote:No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

Thanks. Wasn't so difficult after all, was it?

Now get's back to a civil discussion of facts and not fall for trolling or strawman arguments. The topic is difficult and cladestine enough.

BTW if you want to see how experts can contribute to a thread without insulting everyone, see how weeble1000 contributes to the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread.

Lanrak wrote:
What has GW plc done to address the fall in sales volumes and profit?

Fired a lot of staff, closed a lot of HQs outside of the UK and consolidated pretty much everything for their worldwide stores there, pretty sure they closed down a ton of stores in non English speaking countries.

That is on top of the axing of Games Day and the tighter restrictions on trade sales.

So yeah, the have done a lot to address the falling sales, just not anything that will help. Regardless of the global economy or anything else I think that is what it comes down to, the current management are disconnected from reality and don't seem to have any idea how to stop sales falling. Which will mean the next report is just as awful as this one was, which means the stock price will fall again.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
What has GW plc done to address the fall in sales volumes and profit?

Fired a lot of staff, closed a lot of HQs outside of the UK and consolidated pretty much everything for their worldwide stores there, pretty sure they closed down a ton of stores in non English speaking countries.

That is on top of the axing of Games Day and the tighter restrictions on trade sales.

So yeah, the have done a lot to address the falling sales, just not anything that will help. Regardless of the global economy or anything else I think that is what it comes down to, the current management are disconnected from reality and don't seem to have any idea how to stop sales falling. Which will mean the next report is just as awful as this one was, which means the stock price will fall again.

I will be massively surprised if GW's full year financials are better than the half year. I expect they will be worse. The trend GW is on has nothing to do with stock price. Screw stock price. Take a look at a 30% drop in profits in the half year financials from a company that has be pushing product like never before and slashing costs to clean up the balance sheet. GW has arguably been spinning the numbers for a while now to make their financials look...not terrible...and pacifying its large investors with regular dividend payments (even to the extent of taking on debt to pay dividends).

Every financial report I have seen in the last 4 years has had GW constantly shifting around its reporting to make the numbers look good. The fact that GW can't make its half year financials look anything other than wretched and did not have the confidence to pay a dividend (knowing exactly what the repercussions would be), is a really bad sign in my opinion. If the stock price were rising like gangbusters I still wouldn't want to invest in GW because the company is obviously in decline. Is it dying...never before have I said yes, but now I would tentatively say "maybe."

GW is sadly following a pattern that game companies have followed in the past.

And one thing that Derek has not contemplated is what effect the GW v CHS appeal will have on perceptions of the company. That appeal will be wrapped up in a year at most. It could be done as soon as the next financial report, but probably not. GW losing the CHS trial was bad for the company, but not so obviously bad to have a direct impact on the investor perceptions of the company. But a favorable result for CHS in the appeal will not go unnoticed.

If CHS is successful in its appeal it will likely make broad new case law. It will hit mainstream legal media in a big way. It will percolate to mainstream media. It will put a seal on the case with a big W for CHS and trash GW's goodwill with customers. GW could possibly face further litigation from CHS with literally millions in potential damages that GW does not have money on hand to pay. Technically, could GW pay a 5 million dollar judgment...sure, but GW does not have the spare cash on hand for a judgment like that to not be a huge problem.

If CHS succeeds in its appeal, it will give the board clear cut reasons to force out Tom Kirby. Gill Stevenson has already been let go. GW can't fire her twice.

So screw what the stock market says. I look at what the FLGS and the 7th circuit says about GW. Only a fool would say that GW is not facing significant challenges at the moment that, if handled badly, could cause significant harm to the company. GW is walking around with a huge target on its face. It survives despite efforts of competitors to harm, maim, and kill it. GW showing weakness has only and will only inspire competitors to push harder.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Herzlos wrote:No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

Thanks. Wasn't so difficult after all, was it?

Now get's back to a civil discussion of facts and not fall for trolling or strawman arguments. The topic is difficult and cladestine enough.

BTW if you want to see how experts can contribute to a thread without insulting everyone, see how weeble1000 contributes to the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread.

Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

Saldiven wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Herzlos wrote:No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

Thanks. Wasn't so difficult after all, was it?

Now get's back to a civil discussion of facts and not fall for trolling or strawman arguments. The topic is difficult and cladestine enough.

BTW if you want to see how experts can contribute to a thread without insulting everyone, see how weeble1000 contributes to the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread.

Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

Which ones? It doesn't seem like the math works out on that.

weeble1000 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Herzlos wrote:No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

Thanks. Wasn't so difficult after all, was it?

Now get's back to a civil discussion of facts and not fall for trolling or strawman arguments. The topic is difficult and cladestine enough.

BTW if you want to see how experts can contribute to a thread without insulting everyone, see how weeble1000 contributes to the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread.

Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

Which ones? It doesn't seem like the math works out on that.

No idea. I was just asking if that were a possibility. I haven't analyzed any numbers or anything. How often do the major share holders update the percentage of a company's stock they own?

 Kroothawk wrote:

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)

Were they automatic? lol

It was a negotiated trade. You are just seeing the final print. That is why when you look at a chart, you don't see 4.5 million shares traded. You see 500k shares traded. Chart below.



Also.. Why have to stopped mentioning the share price kroot? Doesn't fit the narrative? I see 524.50 today. It's gone straight up since your doomsday prediction.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Sorry, but the Cypriot digression did not help Derek's aura of reliability. It seemed to be present to bolster an appeal to authority rather than having any bearing on GW's situation.

You didn't understand what I was saying then. That was a comment about the weakness of the European economy to help explain how sovereign debt has successfully brought down European banks. Problems in your debt market caused stocks to be sold off indiscriminately. And yes, Europe is not in the best shape right now economically despite the rosy narrative your politicians keep touting... http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk/poverty-is-driving-people-to-sell-their-internal-organs-on-the-black-market-1.260168

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Frankly, I would trust neither Derek nor Kroot as my investment broker - but Kroot at least does not claim to have that skill set.

I'm not a broker. I am also not making recommendations to purchase GW stock (I don't like the intermediate term outlook)

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Mostly... I think that GW made a mistake in being publicly held.

Why? It gives them access to capital they wouldn't normally have. Ever tried raising money for a private company? It's not easy.

Lanrak wrote:
I have no knowledge of the stock market.
However, if investment companies are selling the bulk of their shares in GW plc, , and they are being bought by smaller speculative investors.

Saldiven wrote:
Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

If this was a block (which it certainly looks like) it would have to be institutional clients.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:
No idea. I was just asking if that were a possibility. I haven't analyzed any numbers or anything. How often do the major share holders update the percentage of a company's stock they own?

I don't know about the UK but in the USA you have 3-4 business days from the initial transaction. We can say with a high level of certainty that they didn't shop this around to your grandma or other retail investors though. For something this size, they had to go to institutions.

Saldiven wrote:


No idea. I was just asking if that were a possibility. I haven't analyzed any numbers or anything. How often do the major share holders update the percentage of a company's stock they own?

I was hoping that would provoke someone to actually do the math.

That's how I get the probabilities for new rules in my Wargame. I tell players the rules are being changed to X and get a bunch of spreadsheets in response. Then I can really write the rules.

I think the future stock price will depend on if GW issues a dividend next time around. I assume that most of the institutional investors are holding the stock for the dividend payout, not for an expected rise in share price or love of toy soldiers.

If GW does not pay out their dividend then the institutional investors have little reason to hold onto the stock and will move their money elsewhere.

We wrote:
I think the future stock price will depend on if GW issues a dividend next time around. I assume that most of the institutional investors are holding the stock for the dividend payout, not for an expected rise in share price or love of toy soldiers.

If GW does not pay out their dividend then the institutional investors have little reason to hold onto the stock and will move their money elsewhere.

I suspect they'll pay a dividend in July, even if they have to mortgage away some of the company. What will be most telling is revenue, profit and volume. I suspect all those numbers will be down or flat. Smart investors will see those numbers, basically a year of flat or declining sales and get out. July to December 2013 saw Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Tyranids, portions of Eldar and Tau. January to June for 2014 is what, Titans, IG, Orks and maybe 7th edition. I'd venture to say that 2013 is stronger in releases than 2014?

We wrote:
I think the future stock price will depend on if GW issues a dividend next time around. I assume that most of the institutional investors are holding the stock for the dividend payout, not for an expected rise in share price or love of toy soldiers.

If GW does not pay out their dividend then the institutional investors have little reason to hold onto the stock and will move their money elsewhere.

I disagree. No one should be expecting a dividend. It was my understanding that the last dividend was supposed to be considered a one off.

Also.. The only analyst on the street that is covering the name has a 680.00 price target on the company so, capital appreciation seems to be the story here. I think that is a perfectly good reason to own a stock.

I also don't like to see so many blanket statements out there about what institutional investors should and shouldn't do. You have no idea what their goals are. Some funds want income and other want capital appreciation. It depends on who their clients are and what's best for them.

dereksatkinson wrote:

We wrote:
I think the future stock price will depend on if GW issues a dividend next time around. I assume that most of the institutional investors are holding the stock for the dividend payout, not for an expected rise in share price or love of toy soldiers.

If GW does not pay out their dividend then the institutional investors have little reason to hold onto the stock and will move their money elsewhere.

I disagree. No one should be expecting a dividend. It was my understanding that the last dividend was supposed to be considered a one off.

Also.. The only analyst on the street that is covering the name has a 680.00 price target on the company so, capital appreciation seems to be the story here. I think that is a perfectly good reason to own a stock.

I also don't like to see so many blanket statements out there about what institutional investors should and shouldn't do. You have no idea what their goals are. Some funds want income and other want capital appreciation. It depends on who their clients are and what's best for them.

Historically GW have paid good dividends: Overview of the last few years about an 8% yield, and I believe that it has been commented on in the past that a number of the instituational investors were pension funds etc and were attracted by the good steady pay outs. That's a memory rather than something I can immediately source though.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Also.. Why have to stopped mentioning the share price kroot? Doesn't fit the narrative? I see 524.50 today. It's gone straight up since your doomsday prediction.

It's picked back up a bit but it's still nowere near the 745 in January, or even reached the 547 after it tanked. at least it's somewhat levelled off though.

Hopefully that's it pretty stable until the next report.

richred_uk wrote:
......
Historically GW have paid good dividends: Overview of the last few years about an 8% yield, and I believe that it has been commented on in the past that a number of the instituational investors were pension funds etc and were attracted by the good steady pay outs. That's a memory rather than something I can immediately source though.

Recent history notes dividends but prior to that GW went relatively long periods without them IIRC. There was a Chairman's statement that also stated GW stock was for long term sustainable growth and specifically not to be seen as a quick return. Sorry I also don't have this to quote directly but I'm 99% certain my memory isn't failing me as well.

Most of the large investors have held GW stock for a long time.

Herzlos wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Also.. Why have to stopped mentioning the share price kroot? Doesn't fit the narrative? I see 524.50 today. It's gone straight up since your doomsday prediction.

It's picked back up a bit but it's still nowere near the 745 in January, or even reached the 547 after it tanked. at least it's somewhat levelled off though.

Hopefully that's it pretty stable until the next report.

You need to look at what I said in context.

If you go back and look at the predictions being made, certain members were saying that if one of the large holders decided to sell, it would cause the stock to plummet. I said that if someone was wanting to sell that much of the stock, you'd see a block trade followed by a bounce. That is exactly what's happened. Those shares never reached the exchange.

The reason why they had to do a large block is simple. If they sold shares on the open market, within a few days they would have to report those sales. Upon seeing that a large shareholder is now a seller, speculators would drive the price lower, knowing that a larger holder is having to sell. That would have given Nomad a worse price because it would scare away professionals from buying. So instead, they go to a broker who puts together a block trade over a period of several weeks. Then they close the deal, they reveal they are out to the general public and someone else now owns their shares and voting rights.

 notprop wrote:

richred_uk wrote:
......
Historically GW have paid good dividends: Overview of the last few years about an 8% yield, and I believe that it has been commented on in the past that a number of the instituational investors were pension funds etc and were attracted by the good steady pay outs. That's a memory rather than something I can immediately source though.

Recent history notes dividends but prior to that GW went relatively long periods without them IIRC. There was a Chairman's statement that also stated GW stock was for long term sustainable growth and specifically not to be seen as a quick return. Sorry I also don't have this to quote directly but I'm 99% certain my memory isn't failing me as well.

Most of the large investors have held GW stock for a long time.

Found a better source

Looks like we might both be right. They stopped paying out after 2007 (IIRC was this when LotR stopped selling) until 2010. Before that there were regular dividends, but I don't have the share prices to hand to calculate the relevant yields. My memory says that they were considered reasonably good yields.

richred_uk wrote:


Looks like we might both be right. They stopped paying out after 2007 (IIRC was this when LotR stopped selling) until 2010. Before that there were regular dividends, but I don't have the share prices to hand to calculate the relevant yields. My memory says that they were considered reasonably good yields.

You've also changed CEOs over that period. Mark Wells was there for 5 years prior to Kirby taking over last January. So it's not like Kirby has a history of having the company pay out dividends consistently.

Saldiven wrote:
Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

1.) I never said it has dispersed to the wind, it is just below the 3% threshold where it appears on the GW investor website. Probably on purpose, so that the hostile take over agent is hidden until the very last moment. Actually I expect a new investor to emerge one day, but I expect him to be actively involved in future GW decisions, trying to gather power before getting rid of Tom Kirby as CEO/chair. Also possible they wait for his retirement.
2.) All current investors above 3% shares total are listed on the GW investor page:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/
None of them has bought a single share in March.
There have been around 31 Mio shares for a long time, so they didn't disappear either.

Also CEO Tom Kirby is very eager to pay dividends (and chair Tom Kirby approves), because that way shareholder Tom Kirby gets an extra million GBP per year, more than double his salary. So not paying himself money and clearly risking the devaluation of his shares (as happened on 16th January) is done in dire need. In the last annual report he boasted that the 15-20 mio GBP dividends (no time to look up the exact numbers now) are "truely surplus" with no reasonable way to spend them within the company. Seems the condition of the company was not as good as he tried to make us believe. As many of us have predicted.

Just for the record: With standard management decisions and standard marketing, it would be quite easy to give GW a sustainable growth again within 2 years. Just not with Tom Kirby. Almost all problems GW has are homemade and artificial, caused by a continuing series of unprovoked WTF decisions. But as Kirby has systematically deleted all feedback loops within the company, firing brains and hiring yes-men, and because he is CEO AND chair AND third-biggest shareholder, such a change for the better can only come from an outside investor.

Also: Most of the investors have been there for a long time, see the 2011 chart in this thread (can't reproduce the complicated formating because the thread was sadly locked):
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/583671.page
or http://theback40k.blogspot.de/2011/05/who-owns-games-workshop.html
You will clearly see that all big investors reduced their shares:
Nomad: 23.8% in 2011 and years before, now 1.59% or less
Investec 18.5 in 2011 and years before, now 9.7%
Phoenix 13.5% in 2011 and years before, now 5.9%
Shroeder Investment 9.0% in 2011 and years before, now below 3%, probably gone (not the same as Schroders plc!)
Kirby became third largest shareholder because everything above him crumbled.
Most changes happened when Wells left about a year ago. Even some new minor investors appearing.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
Is it possible that rather than having been dispersed to the wind (ie., the masses of smaller investors) that the other existing large percentage owners bought up those shares?

1.) I never said it has dispersed to the wind, it is just below the 3% threshold where it appears on the GW investor website. Probably on purpose, so that the hostile take over agent is hidden until the very last moment.

mmmh - I am not sure I agree with this. The %age at which you have to put up or shut up when it comes to a take-over includes all shares in which you have a controlling or associated interest in. .

Generally, the accumulation of sufficient interest to take over a company without anyone knowing is the stuff of films and novels and very much the exception in the business world. Not only would you need to keep under the 3% but you would have to adhere to the rules of what constitutes a controlling or associated entity. That is waaaaay too much cloak and dagger stuff for a company the poxy size of GW.

Now, I haven't dealt with this is a long time (10+yrs at least) but if you go and look up the UK take-over rules before you post you will find out a lot more.

I am sorry but really you are talking total bollocks in the last 3 or 4 posts. With so much wrong it is getting harder to correct so much of it as it would require more research to be able to quote source and I have been out of this game for a while - uh, I see DA has already had a go at the main points.

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

Well played

Herzlos wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
When I look and see that, yes, more than one and a half million has been sold off, while Derek is avoiding that portion of the topic, or claiming that, no, four million is the same as one and a half million... I have my doubts as to the validity of his claims. And when I see that stock was not purchased by a single entity (meaning that ownership of the stock has grown more diffuse) then I do suspect that the larger shareholders are selling off.

That's not what Derek is saying. Kroot is saying that shares have simply been sold, as if they're gone, because they're disappeared from the 3% owners list that GW have to report. Derek is saying that they haven't disappeared - for stocks to have been sold, someone has to have bought them. They're not gone, just that whoever bought wasn't one investor buying that huge chunk of shares, as then that person would be on the 3% owner list. The stock is still there, and will go up again if you look at GW's stock trends.

No, I don't think Kroot is saying that they are gone, he's saying they've dispersed. This 8% of stock was sold and according to the owners list no other buyer has increased or gone above the 3% threshold, which means a single owner of 8% has been replaced by at least 3 owners of less than 3%, which is being taken to mean that there is less confidence in the stock.

I don't think anyone thinks the stock has vanished or been bought by GW, but the fact is that GW's biggest private investor has dumped a lot of stock and it's not been bought in a single chunk by a single investor, as the owners list doesn't show it.

I'd be curious as to what rate those shares were sold at, since if it's done off exchange, the price is presumably negotiated between parties in private and they could have gone for anything. That number (which we'll never know) will probably tell us a lot more about investor confidence than the current public price. For instance did they get a buyer right away at the public price or did they need to slash the price drastically just to cut their losses? Did they get more than the expected?

As for the stock going back up; that depends on what you read into the trends. You can argue that it's gone with the markets (as Derek is doing) and that when the markets pick up then so will GW. But that theory only works if you ignore everything you know about GW as a company. Namely that most of the growth from the previous stock price correlate with partnerships with other companies and that GW themselves have said that they don't know what's wrong or how to fix it.

This is how I read Kroot's statements as well.

It seems pretty obvious to me that if stock was sold then it needed a buyer, or, in this case, at least three buyers. The term 'should go without saying' is also pretty obvious - but some people really need to have it said.

Ah well... I guess that I will never qualify for my White Knight's membership card and decoder ring....

The Auld Grump, maybe the comic is The Snark Knight Returns?

*EDIT* I very much doubt that a hostile takeover is in the offing - I am not certain at this point if many companies would want to take it over.

I do think that Kirby would welcome a merger or takeover by a large enough entity to consider taking GW over, but I just do not see the attraction for a larger entity to do so.

The TSR takeover by WotC was an unusual occurrence - and had more to do with the fact that TSR was going bankrupt, and could be bought for pennies on the dollar and the fact that the upper management of WotC at the time were all gamers and game designers. (Even so, Dancey's description of the end of TSR is pretty sad reading. A warehouse full of unsellable product, that was still listed on the inventory sheets as though they held full value. Orders for production that far exceeded the projected sales of that product. *Cough* Dragon Dice. *cough, cough*)

Dancey blamed the failure of TSR on a failure to communicate, and, more importantly, to listen to the market.

The question may be - is Kirby any better than Lorraine Williams?

1.) Okay, difficult to track a company, that disappears from the investor chart and then reappears under a different name (even if it is just an error by GW). This leads to one less investor buying into GW and one more investor almost halfing its investment (9% in 2011 and years before, 5.3% now)
2.) I am not talking about a single company taking over GW. But obviously most investors are not happy with Wells leaving and Tom Kirby controlling Tom Kirby (as chair and CEO). Esp. as the numbers and outlook look terrible
3.) Thinking that Tom Kirby is just one unimportand pawn in the game of some investors is missing the real situation. Tom Kirby led GW for years, made it a public company, bought lots of shares himself, was able to take Wells job inspite the obvious negative response of almost all shareholders, fired or drove away more brains (Priestley, Calvatore, Thorpe, Chambers, Juan Diaz) and replaced them with yes-men not hired for skills. Its like Putin: He was in charge even when nominally Medvedev was presdent.

 Kroothawk wrote:
1.) Okay, difficult to track a company, that disappears from the investor chart and then reappears under a different name (even if it is just an error by GW). This leads to one less investor buying into GW and one more investor almost halfing its investment (9% in 2011 and years before, 5.3% now)
2.) I am not talking about a single company taking over GW. But obviously most investors are not happy with Wells leaving and Tom Kirby controlling Tom Kirby (as chair and CEO). Esp. as the numbers and outlook look terrible
3.) Thinking that Tom Kirby is just one unimportand pawn in the game of some investors is missing the real situation. Tom Kirby led GW for years, made it a public company, bought lots of shares himself, was able to take Wells job inspite the obvious negative response of almost all shareholders, fired or drove away more brains (Priestley, Calvatore, Thorpe, Chambers, Juan Diaz) and replaced them with yes-men not hired for skills. Its like Putin: He was in charge even when nominally Medvedev was presdent.

Give up dude, some other dude says he is right and you're wrong, and he personally knows Dobson. Freakin Michael Dobson man! Hilarious.

Joyboozer wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
1.) Okay, difficult to track a company, that disappears from the investor chart and then reappears under a different name (even if it is just an error by GW). This leads to one less investor buying into GW and one more investor almost halfing its investment (9% in 2011 and years before, 5.3% now)
2.) I am not talking about a single company taking over GW. But obviously most investors are not happy with Wells leaving and Tom Kirby controlling Tom Kirby (as chair and CEO). Esp. as the numbers and outlook look terrible
3.) Thinking that Tom Kirby is just one unimportand pawn in the game of some investors is missing the real situation. Tom Kirby led GW for years, made it a public company, bought lots of shares himself, was able to take Wells job inspite the obvious negative response of almost all shareholders, fired or drove away more brains (Priestley, Calvatore, Thorpe, Chambers, Juan Diaz) and replaced them with yes-men not hired for skills. Its like Putin: He was in charge even when nominally Medvedev was presdent.

Give up dude, some other dude says he is right and you're wrong, and he personally knows Dobson. Freakin Michael Dobson man! Hilarious.

No.. the problem is he is constantly making stuff up and portraying it as fact. Not understanding the the investment company and the plc are the same thing is a clear sign of ignorance. So was the automatic trades issue. He has not once admitted to have made a mistake.

Kroot, for your own good, take some time off discussing this topic. You aren't well versed enough to speak about it without having to resort to lying..

Ugh.

Seriously - everyone.

Here's a link to the rules of this site:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Please pay particular attention to RULE #1.

 RiTides wrote:

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

Well played

*bows*