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.
2014/12/03 21:19:11
Subject: Re:The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
And I´d still like to hear how you would rule flyers being hit, if not the current way.
Well, personally, I'd like so see them removed from the core game and put in Apocalypse or somesuch. But that's wishful thinking on my part.
Anyway, my suggestions for their rules would be twofold:
1) The snapshot mechanic is removed, but flyers have a permanent Jink save (that does not result in a loss of accuracy). You could perhaps make it a 3+ jink if they moved fast enough during their previous turn. Hovering flyers do not benefit from this, but can still jink like normal skimmers (suffering the penalties).
2) Not sure about this, but I was thinking of giving all fliers an effect like the old 'Night Shields' - where anyone firing at them counts as being 12" further away (unless the flier is hovering). This is intended to represent the flier's height off the battlefield (you talked before about it being strange that a bolt pistol could *hit* a flier, well I think it's a lot stranger that a short-ranged pistol could even *reach* a flier).
(Recost existing fliers where necessary)
Wait why is it your job to fix flyers/AA? Are you the professional in charge of developing the game?
It's Jervis and Co's JOBS to find solutions to problems the player base has with their product. Not yours. If a large enough portion of the customer base agrees with you then they need to fix this issue. If they cannot get feedback to identify and solve the issue then that is GW failing their paying customers.
I mean imagine if Dakka went down and we we're all told "FIX IT YOURSELF". That's not very reasonable is it? So why should fixing a potential issue with the game be the customers job?
I also imagine either by the time I've posted this or within the future Runic will have posted a response that picks apart your solution and uses choice words in an attempt to make you look foolish. Notice he's the one that asked you to fix it, you didn't state "I can fix it" before hand. Basically he's trying to assert control over the conversation by getting you to do unnecessary things for him.
My win rate while having my arms and legs tied behind by back while blindfolded and stuffed in a safe that is submerged underwater:
100%
2014/12/03 21:39:21
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
Bronzefists42 wrote: With all this arm chair economics it will only be a matter of time before these market geniuses trot out their charts.
No offence but I don't think anyone with super detailed knowledge of economics will be on dakkadakka.
Really?
So, there lawyers, authors, teachers, doctors..
But no possibility of any economists, accountants or people with first hand knowledge of running a business?
What a curious notion, please expand..
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
It is important to remember that the inner financial workings of GW are one of the few things we have nearly unprecedented levels of information on, they're legally compelled to disclose it, they don't get to play secret squirrel like they do with nearly everything else.
With that level of information, it is possible with even a moderate amount of knowledge to make some fairly solid conclusions.
There are armchair economists here, but that doesn't automatically preclude them from having valid insight, and there are enough people with enough knowledge to expose anyone who is just blowing smoke fairly quickly.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I don't know if I'd call Smaug a cry of desperation. Misguided perhaps, even delusional, but I don't think they're desperate yet.
A new edition of 40k in less than two years would be desperation for me. Smaug is likely a final attempt to milk their license while the Hobbit/Lotr is still relevant.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2014/12/03 22:14:07
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
Yeah, Smaug is THE icon for this story, he is (literally in some editions of the book) the cover model for the Hobbit.
I'd say it was a last ditch attempt to milk the cash from the gullible, which is a symptom of the same attitude that's propagated most of the discussion for the last few pages, that of trying to manipulate people out of their cash, rather than making something people are keen to buy.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
This doesn't make sense on any level.
First off, the stock price took a tumble in late January, after a horrible half-year report. 7th came out in late May. You're seriously trying to sell that it takes four months from shareholders saying "bring out a new edition, ya slackers!" to it happening? For Christ's sake, even White Dwarf has a three month lead time.
Secondly, there are no majority shareholders. The largest shareholder has about 10%. All major shareholders combined (i.e., holds more than 3% of the shares) only barely get over 50%, and one of those is Kirby himself.
Are you seriously under the impression that there was some kind of skype session between large hedgefunds about booting Kirby if he doesn't get a move on and push out 7th within four months?
You're living in fantasy land, mate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 22:45:20
"The Emporer is a rouge trader."
- Charlie Chaplain.
2014/12/03 22:57:54
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 22:59:13
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
This doesn't make sense on any level.
First off, the stock price took a tumble in late January, after a horrible half-year report. 7th came out in late May. You're seriously trying to sell that it takes four months from shareholders saying "bring out a new edition, ya slackers!" to it happening? For Christ's sake, even White Dwarf has a three month lead time.
Secondly, there are no majority shareholders. The largest shareholder has about 10%. All major shareholders combined (i.e., holds more than 3% of the shares) only barely get over 50%, and one of those is Kirby himself.
Are you seriously under the impression that there was some kind of skype session between large hedgefunds about booting Kirby if he doesn't get a move on and push out 7th within four months?
You're living in fantasy land, mate.
Exactly.
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Kirby is not gone.
That majority stockholder comment is technically correct but total irrelevant nonsense.
Reverse engineer this..
GW Investor Relations wrote:
The shareholders who hold over 3% of the total ordinary share capital of Games Workshop Group PLC, are as follows:
Shareholder Number of shares Percentage
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
Legal and General Group plc 1,683,901 5.3
Schroders plc 1,677,861 5.3
Aberforth Partners LLP 1,636,300 5.1
Artemis Investment Management LLP 1,620,001 5.1
Information correct at 10 March 2014
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:06:35
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:12:05
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Why should we believe you're any more qualified than Azrael?
Frankly, the arguments you're stringing together aren't really coherent or make a lot of sense. You just seem to be asserting how right you are because you say you're more qualified.
You haven't said anything compelling Jancoran. Maybe you should stop belittling people and actually put forth a well reasoned argument other than stating how much better you are than other people.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2014/12/03 23:20:42
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence?
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
J'accuse.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:29:00
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
RunicFIN wrote: Then again, you can just take sufficient anti-air inform of your own flyer or an actual AA-unit.
Dedicated AA units are a ridiculous waste of points unless you know for sure your opponent is going to be fielding flyers.
And even then, having to include a unit in your army specifically as a counter to a single unit in your opponent's list is more than a little ridiculous.
Flyers are hardly the only thing you need to gear up for, Imperial Knights are also quite metashifting.
The difference being that the units that are useful against knights are also useful against things that aren't knights.
Out of curiosity, how would you have ground units hit flyers?
For my money, Snap Shots would have been a modifier to BS, rather than a straight 6 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yeah, Smaug is THE icon for this story, he is (literally in some editions of the book) the cover model for the Hobbit.
I'd say it was a last ditch attempt to milk the cash from the gullible, which is a symptom of the same attitude that's propagated most of the discussion for the last few pages, that of trying to manipulate people out of their cash, rather than making something people are keen to buy.
Honestly, I find the 13 dwarves and a hobbit for just over $300 to be more ridiculous than the $500 limited edition dragon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:25:22
2014/12/03 23:27:35
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Yeah, I'm sure Investec totally has their top guy on a £20m investment, certainly not some City intern who's been given an equation and told to feed info into it and sell at certain points. They have a $116bn portfolio. GW isn't their main priority, and no one there knows what 40k is beyond what Kirby writes in his preambles. They see a company that has had a 25% growth in share price in the year leading up to Jan. 14, pays decent dividends, has had higher revenue in the past, but a good excuse for not being bigger now (luxury product in a global recession) which makes it a perfect investment for a hedgefund.
Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
"The Emporer is a rouge trader."
- Charlie Chaplain.
2014/12/03 23:31:47
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence.
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
J'accuse.
My profession is Insurance and financial services. I thought that was obvious.
and Ive clarified that you are misinterpreting what i was trying to say to you or reading it too narrowly. I JUST explained to you the full meaning of my short sale comment. Read it. Understand it. And then drop it if you still want some credibility.
I dont care what your credentials are when you go and google a definition to try and make THAT the point rather than THE point. The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Yeah, I'm sure Investec totally has their top guy on a £20m investment, certainly not some City intern who's been given an equation and told to feed info into it and sell at certain points. They have a $116bn portfolio. GW isn't their main priority, and no one there knows what 40k is beyond what Kirby writes in his preambles. They see a company that has had a 25% growth in share price in the year leading up to Jan. 14, pays decent dividends, has had higher revenue in the past, but a good excuse for not being bigger now (luxury product in a global recession) which makes it a perfect investment for a hedgefund.
Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
Doesnt matter WHO is watching it. It's being watched.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:33:00
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Thud wrote: Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
More specifically, he was already Chairman before he took the CEO reins back from Mark Wells. That was the problem... He could only hold both positions for a limited time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
Sure. But the stock plummeting wasn't the reason for 7th edition, as you originally claimed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:36:34
2014/12/03 23:36:40
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:38:18
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence.
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
J'accuse.
My profession is Insurance and financial services. I thought that was obvious.
and Ive clarified that you are misinterpreting what i was trying to say to you or reading it too narrowly. I JUST explained to you the full meaning of my short sale comment. Read it. Understand it. And then drop it if you still want some credibility.
I dont care what your credentials are when you go and google a definition to try and make THAT the point rather than THE point. The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
It really is simple, which it is why it's so surprising that an "insurance and financial services" professional is making such heavy going of it (we've only got your word for that, BTW )
I can only have misrepresented what you were saying if you suddenly started talking about short selling in the middle of your reply and had no intention of that being connected to everything else you were talking about, but if that's what happened, that's a little odd, but ok.
You don't seem to understand that stock doesn't plummet unless people sell the stock though, so who holds it and who buys it is of paramount importance.
Be honest, you're more insurance and less financial services aren't you?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You don't seem to understand that stock doesn't plummet unless people sell the stock though, so who holds it and who buys it is of paramount importance.
The stock changes prices when its sold or bought. Yes we know this. What does it have to do with anything? Who bought and sold it really isn't that important unless its some highly visible figure whose every move is scrutiinized (Buffet or a fund manager or what have you).
The point is no one would buy it for even close to its worth. It absolutely tanked. this is verifiable so I dont need to defend it. Its a matter of record.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:41:22
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
Right so the sequence of events, for your assertion to be true is..
- GW declare interim financials, and no dividend.
- the same day, many, many people decide to sell their shares, and the price plummets.
- shortly afterwards, a bunch of interns responsible for the management of the GW aspect of their company's portfolio (none of whom hold controlling stakes) either take it upon themselves or persuade their bosses to contact GW and threaten them to "sort things out or else."
- within 6 monthsGW decide that a new edition of 40K is the answer, develop it, get it to the printers (who GW don't own, so will be at their mercy as to when such a large run will be able to slot into the timetable) get it into warehouses and get it released.
- 7th fails to turn their year around and their full annual figures are just as bad as the interim report.
I'm sorry, economics knowledge or no, you only have to apply Occam's Razor to that to see how much of a stretch it is.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
RE: Flyers I would remove them from the game and have them be similar to Bolt Action, with a once per game or once per turn bombing/strafing run type of mechanic that you purchase for your army.
But what about my pretty (and expensive!) models, you might ask? Well I would also I have a dogfighting type of game for flyer combat, with rules on integrating it into campaign/narrative games. It would be short and sweet but exciting.
What a novel idea, have multiple games that support your products!
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2014/12/03 23:48:39
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
Jancoran wrote: Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
I did, as I mentioned.
When 6th edition dropped, the share price rose fairly sharply for about 3 months, sat fairly flat for 6 months or so before rising again. Towards the end of 2013 it lost a little ground, and then plummeted when the January financial report was released. That's 18 and a bit months after the release of 6th edition, and just under 5 months before 7th was released.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 23:49:01
2014/12/03 23:48:50
Subject: Re:The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
And, uhhh, I'm not seeing this big drop after 6th that would prompt 7th. It seems like GW experienced fairly steady stock increases following 6th until Jan 2014 when the financial report came out and they declared there would be no dividend.
Makes sense to me.
Seems like a crazy stretch to me to claim 7th was a response and creation of the financial report in 2014.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2014/12/04 00:10:52
Subject: The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
Right so the sequence of events, for your assertion to be true is..
- GW declare interim financials, and no dividend.
- the same day, many, many people decide to sell their shares, and the price plummets.
- shortly afterwards, a bunch of interns responsible for the management of the GW aspect of their company's portfolio (none of whom hold controlling stakes) either take it upon themselves or persuade their bosses to contact GW and threaten them to "sort things out or else."
- within 6 monthsGW decide that a new edition of 40K is the answer, develop it, get it to the printers (who GW don't own, so will be at their mercy as to when such a large run will be able to slot into the timetable) get it into warehouses and get it released.
- 7th fails to turn their year around and their full annual figures are just as bad as the interim report.
I'm sorry, economics knowledge or no, you only have to apply Occam's Razor to that to see how much of a stretch it is.
No.
Thats off on a few points. First, price. Price is what you CAN purchase stock for. value aside, that is the fundamental truth about price: it is what you actually CAN bu it for because someone proved it by selling for that amount.
Lets say for arguments sake you have 100 shareholders. $1 shares. One of them panics. 99 do not. the one sells his share for $0.50
As there are no other sales or purchases, this is the new share price. That is because it is the only price that it can be purchased at and supply is set at exactly 1 share. As there are no competing shares, that's that.
Now if another guy defects and says No, this guy has it right but sells it for $0.75, then that changes the price again. Now there are two shares, and they sold for a combined $1.25. The value of the company may not have changed (McDonalds isnt selling less Hamburgers just because someone sold a share of stock and the guys eating the Hamburger arent even likely to know it happened) but the going PRICE has, hasn't it? and the exchanges track these changes and summarize them in what is ultimately what you see reported. At end of day the stock price is reset.
And so it goes.
So if people are holding on to their shares, then they are not influencing the price other than insofar as the confidence that shows to people who might buy it at a set price. That is intangible but has no bearing on the price right? So when someone is LOOKING at this stock, their estimation of its value will be influenced by earnings, or dividends 9not the same thing BTW) or it could be influenced by a change in ownership or management (part of why Kirby's strategic "move" from his day to day position may have been good for stock) and so on.
BUT
The really important thing to focus on, and why Im telling you all this is that your assumption above assumes a massive dump (and therefore purchases simultaneously). That actually ISNT necessary for the price to fluctuate.
Second. The interns arent working for GW. They're working for the investors. and yes. The investors say, on the record or off: "Look. i bought stock at $1. it's now worth $0.63 cents. i dont like it. Find out why". and the interns do. And they tell their boss to LOOK at Dakkadakka or whatever resources they found and just LOOK at the vitriol of the players and therefore customers. And the investor, not NEEDING to know anything about games, sees clearly that the customer base is abandoning ship and its a niche customer base. THATS when the boss says "Hey Kirby, lets play golf". and they do. and Kirby gets the message and says "look Board, it's nothing you dont already know. 6E is killing our investors interest here and without a dividend i cant hold the wolves off. plus almost EVERYONE in that board room is likely a stock holder, including Kirby, with a very REAL reason to want to see the fix happen. Stock options are becoming worthless at this stage as well.
So then they say "7E it is". There might be some other ideas bandied about like... better website, better distribution, cut out the store owners from selling certain things... you know... the usual. but ultimately they realize that the core of the planet has a detonator and its ticking and no amount of finagling is ging to change it.
And thats pretty much it. So the dividend may well have triggered further sell offs at a discounted price. But the impetus would have come as the price slid which is what the INVESTORS know earliest. They may not know that a dividend isnt coming for three months but they can se the sales being made on the sly to get rid of those shares. and they start getting nervous and worrying that they wont be ABLE to sell them at a profit if they wait too long and 6E continues to receive virtiol... So a few more sell at a discount... and a few more. they start maybe not abandoning ship but hedging bets at this point.
none of this is rocket science to understand. GW WAS a growth stock. It became a value stock there for a w while and investors who favored that invested. And then when it failed to do that i am reasonably sure that affected some of the sales as the prize slid further.
The buyers are there scooping up the shares at the same time. They are looking and saying "you know, this was at 2X... Its a long standing company... If i buy at 1.5X now, and if we can influence the board to put out a 7E or change direction... and thats what they are thinking while they buy.
So more people sell and more people sell and eventually it gets to 1X. It just cant go much further. 1.5X guys are mad. The 2X guys are REALLY mad. and yeah... so it goes.
And, uhhh, I'm not seeing this big drop after 6th that would prompt 7th. It seems like GW experienced fairly steady stock increases following 6th until Jan 2014 when the financial report came out and they declared there would be no dividend.
Makes sense to me.
Seems like a crazy stretch to me to claim 7th was a response and creation of the financial report in 2014.
and i didnt say it was the 2014 report. Someone else injected that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/04 00:11:45
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Please don't tell me you gave me a lecture on supply and demand?
Besides, if it wasn't the 2014 report, what report was it? They were ticking along nicely up until that was released.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 00:14:02
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
)
