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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Not sure what that photo is supposed to prove, its clearly inside a shopping centre. Probably has heating and indoor parking.

It's for those who don't have M+S, so they know what we're on about. And it came with the story from BBC website.

Distractions. Anything else that gets in the way of us delivering our goals.

What a strange statement to have in a financial report especially as its in their top 5 threats
is it a reference to the CH debacle and online retailer sales battles?

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, inventory is stock on hand.

If a company lists inventory as just inventory it can include all number of things, if it were listed as 'merchandise inventory' it would be stock on hand ready to sale alone.

Seems a pretty darn good report to me with all the AoS releases (and so no new 40K) during the 6 month period,

With the amount of Sigmar that was released in the half-year (and lack of 40k releases), this is a fantastic half-year statement for GW.

On the other hand, the stock tumbled, probably on the forecast that Christmas sales (which aren't reflected in the statements) are apparently weak, which could mean, maybe: Calth didn't sell as well as we all thought it might; the new Sigmar releases don't have the type of sales potential as 40k, at least at this point (duh); the lack of 40k releases does have profit repercussions for the Christmas season; those Start Collecting sets might have been better released as Christmas gifts. Though my wife is free to buy me one or more of them as Valentine's gifts?

It make actually throw the stock into a weak buy in my opinion; the price will be adjusted for the lower December sales, and with Sigmar not trashing the half-year, the fundamentals for the business look good moving forward.

A few interesting little points that I picked up at a glance...

- EPS is up
- GW actually generated a lot more cash in this half year compared to the same period last year (8.5m vs 7.8m), and paid less taxes.
- Profit, compared with last year, is actually UP (though essentially flat)
- Revenues essentially flat
- Since prices of GW products didn't really go up (excluding single character clam packs that aren't huge sellers) in 2015, that infers that unit volumes are relatively stable
- The two regions with the largest drops are non-UK European retail and Australia
- Once again, they're just paying out their profits (meaning, they don't have anything constructive to do with cash)

- Smaug for the win?

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, inventory is stock on hand.

In financial statements of assets inventory are all assets owned, including facilities and equipment.

When a company's cash decreases equal it's inventory increase its not because they bought .6m of their own product and put it in an inventory room, it's because they purchased new equipment or facilities.

Azreal13 is correct. Current assets, which include Inventory, always refer to goods for resale, not capital assets. Facilities and equipment are non-current assets, which would fall under the entry of "Property, Plant, and Equipment - 22,588 Note 9".

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, inventory is stock on hand.

In financial statements of assets inventory are all assets owned, including facilities and equipment.

When a company's cash decreases equal it's inventory increase its not because they bought .6m of their own product and put it in an inventory room, it's because they purchased new equipment or facilities.

There's a couple of places where this is broken down but I was originally looking for how much they claim in inventory provisions, the write-off for obsolete inventory (non-sold or obsolete product). This amount was 286,000 pounds compared to last year's 163,000 pounds. (page 11) That is actual product either sitting idle or destroyed.

Interesting to note in the same area that closing stores cost them 377,000 pounds for the 1st 1/2 of the year, compared to 236,000 for the entirety of last year. How much money are they going to throw away on a losing enterprise? I look at it this way, the retail chain cost the company -2.535 million pounds after you look at operating profits (and that's before taxes). While their trade accounts generated an operating profit of +5.789 million.

@agnosto - we could debate it all day, but I think the retail stores are worth a lot more than their bottom line impact on the financial statements.

It's one of GW's biggest advantages of their competitors (if you want to play there, you must play GW games), it's a form of advertising, and it provides goodwill as a lot of people who don't have access to another hobby store within range will go to the GW. I my area for example, the GW store is in a high density suburb where there isn't another viable hobby shop within 20 minutes by car, and 45 minutes by bus (there is one closer with very bare gaming tables, but 95% of its inventory is CCGs,). Plus, GW gaming tables are pretty nice: they're good quality tables, not just folding things that you see in some stores, of the right size for games of 40k (6x4), and they have painted terrain boards and terrain pieces for patrons to use at no charge.

One could make an argument for making the retail chain much more efficient by deleting all the stores that aren't profitable -- some stores in high traffic areas are obviously going to be a lot more profitable than others -- but I think having a store where it might be difficult for an independent to stay in business (because it would only be marginally profitable, if at all) is a valuable service for people who live in that area. Remember, people may see something in the store, and later buy it online, or from an independent (at a discount) too.

The 377k for closing when divided by 13 stores is only 29k per store. That's really quite efficient, when you factor in things like paying out leases, transporting unsold inventory and furnishings, travel for a regional manager, and the costs associated with taking everything down and packing it up.

I went back and edited my post after reading the pdf and not just using the quoted info from this thread.

However as inventory is listed as all inventory and not just merchandise inventory it also includes all raw materials for production and packaging to make said merchandise. Not solely merchandise for sale.

The increase in obsolete product are most likely from release of AoS when they recalled all the wfb items which were not selling from retailers. this obsolete merchandise would also fall under inventory, unless stated otherwise.

Yes, inventory would most certainly include styrene and extra printed packaging. It would also include unmatched sprues -- for example, a product may require 3 sprues, and for whatever reason if there aren't enough of sprue #2 (quality control, for example, or damage post production), they will have fewer units of the finished product to box up.

I also don't believe that GW includes the costing method of their inventory, so you don't know how much actual inventory that number represents. Most likely, it will be a factor of raw materials and labor, but it's important to note that an Imperial Knight is probably worth barely more than a Razorback, since they cost about the same amount to produce (it's just polystyrene, a cardboard box, and a bit of time). However, all of it will be stuff that will ultimately move through sales channels, rather than fixed assets like molds or tools.

blaktoof wrote:
The increase in obsolete product are most likely from release of AoS when they recalled all the wfb items which were not selling from retailers. this obsolete merchandise would also fall under inventory, unless stated otherwise.

There was no recall of anything by GW. If it's not getting out of a stockist module, you won't send anything back and even so the amount of products you can send each year is limited, no matter how many you have.

Anyway changes to the stockist program were minimal with the release of AoS. Recently went out the Dragon Princes and DE Warlocks or whatever they're called, and before that the Phoenix and the Chaos Chariot from what I remember. Not much more for 2015. That reminds me how obsolete and useless the Fantasy part of the modules is...

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, inventory is stock on hand.

If a company lists inventory as just inventory it can include all number of things, if it were listed as 'merchandise inventory' it would be stock on hand ready to sale alone.

Inventory isn't capital equipment, though.

Anyway, if GW had to recall a load of unsuccessful WHFB kits they can either rework them as AoS, by repacking with circular bases, or write them off as a loss, and reduce their tax liability.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
"The greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have great people we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen."

Is this a snipe at King Kirby?

So do we still think Roundtree is Kirby's sock puppet?

Essentially GW was flat for the half year and given ICV2 was reporting the non-collectible market was flat earlier in the year, GW is performing with the market. Though with the comment of December being disappointing, that would indicate Calth was not the hit people expected it to be. But also, AoS was not the failure people proclaimed it to be either. With 3 months dedicated to AoS, there should have been a far larger drop.

 Talys wrote:
@agnosto - we could debate it all day, but I think the retail stores are worth a lot more than their bottom line impact on the financial statements.

It's one of GW's biggest advantages of their competitors (if you want to play there, you must play GW games), it's a form of advertising, and it provides goodwill as a lot of people who don't have access to another hobby store within range will go to the GW. I my area for example, the GW store is in a high density suburb where there isn't another viable hobby shop within 20 minutes by car, and 45 minutes by bus (there is one closer with very bare gaming tables, but 95% of its inventory is CCGs,). Plus, GW gaming tables are pretty nice: they're good quality tables, not just folding things that you see in some stores, of the right size for games of 40k (6x4), and they have painted terrain boards and terrain pieces for patrons to use at no charge.

One could make an argument for making the retail chain much more efficient by deleting all the stores that aren't profitable -- some stores in high traffic areas are obviously going to be a lot more profitable than others -- but I think having a store where it might be difficult for an independent to stay in business (because it would only be marginally profitable, if at all) is a valuable service for people who live in that area. Remember, people may see something in the store, and later buy it online, or from an independent (at a discount) too.

The 377k for closing when divided by 13 stores is only 29k per store. That's really quite efficient, when you factor in things like paying out leases, transporting unsold inventory and furnishings, travel for a regional manager, and the costs associated with taking everything down and packing it up.

I would argue that it's an inefficient model. I believe that a better model would be regional service and hobby centers like battle bunkers that could house regional sales reps to service and support independent stockists. The problem with the US is that the majority of the country isn't high-density enough, in my opinion, to support a GW; in such cases, it's better to have something like the old Outrider system to work with FLGSs and community members and to drive recruitment. The regional hubs could be places with large gaming space, showcase halls, etc in which GW could hold monthly/quarterly/whatever events to draw people from the surrounding area and show community support.

One man stores are not the answer. Opening 20 stores and closing 13 (not sure on numbers, just used as an example) is sporadic and shows lack of planning. What do they do when they pull out to support the people that they did draw in? Those people mind wind up with a bad customer experience and then become ex-customers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
"The greatest risk is the same one that we repeat each year, namely, management. So long as we have great people we will be fine. Problems will arise if the board allows egos and private agendas to rule. I will do my utmost to ensure that this does not happen."

Is this a snipe at King Kirby?

So do we still think Roundtree is Kirby's sock puppet?

Essentially GW was flat for the half year and given ICV2 was reporting the non-collectible market was flat earlier in the year, GW is performing with the market. Though with the comment of December being disappointing, that would indicate Calth was not the hit people expected it to be. But also, AoS was not the failure people proclaimed it to be either. With 3 months dedicated to AoS, there should have been a far larger drop.

It does look like Rountree is putting a different stamp on things.

It's hard to tell without comprehensive data. You could easily come to the conclusion that you did OR you could say that AoS was a great failure but that 40K picked up the slack. Without further data, it's hard to know.

 agnosto wrote:
I would argue that it's an inefficient model. I believe that a better model would be regional service and hobby centers like battle bunkers that could house regional sales reps to service and support independent stockists. The problem with the US is that the majority of the country isn't high-density enough, in my opinion, to support a GW; in such cases, it's better to have something like the old Outrider system to work with FLGSs and community members and to drive recruitment. The regional hubs could be places with large gaming space, showcase halls, etc in which GW could hold monthly/quarterly/whatever events to draw people from the surrounding area and show community support.

One man stores are not the answer. Opening 20 stores and closing 13 (not sure on numbers, just used as an example) is sporadic and shows lack of planning. What do they do when they pull out to support the people that they did draw in? Those people mind wind up with a bad customer experience and then be

Yup, I like I said, we could debate it all day. I do believe that there are reasonable and compelling arguments on both sides of the GW retail fence.

I think it was 22 and 13. A big part of it, I believe, is staffing the store (based on management's comments). I don't think it's a crazy high paying job, and getting someone to run the thing, especially the one-man deals, probably isn't the most rewarding experience in the universe and something that someone will want to stay at forever. I also don't think one-man stores are the greatest thing in the world; on the other hand, if I lived in an area with no hobby shop, a one man store would be certainly better than nothing. If only to buy paint and supplies, but also as somewhere to game, because those spots are probably sparse in some areas.

The GW stores aren't really dropped in the middle of nowhere in the US (or Canada). There seem to be a few in the high profile stores in top notch locations and the rest seem to be slightly off the beaten track. Probably cost of rent is a big factor. But you're not seeing them in Cannelton, Indiana, if you know what I mean (no offence to anyone who lives there -- just an example of a really small town).

At the end of the day, I think that if GW removed all its stores, it might see some profitability increases, but surely, there would be a decrease in revenue. That would probably mean less spending in hobby in total, but more money spent on companies other than GW, and I don't think that's would be a good thing for GW.

Being that the majority of those months didn't see 40k releases then you'd be hard pressed to support it.
How did sales compare to the year in which 8th edition was released?

 agnosto wrote:

Essentially GW was flat for the half year and given ICV2 was reporting the non-collectible market was flat earlier in the year, GW is performing with the market. Though with the comment of December being disappointing, that would indicate Calth was not the hit people expected it to be. But also, AoS was not the failure people proclaimed it to be either. With 3 months dedicated to AoS, there should have been a far larger drop.

It does look like Rountree is putting a different stamp on things.

It's hard to tell without comprehensive data. You could easily come to the conclusion that you did OR you could say that AoS was a great failure but that 40K picked up the slack. Without further data, it's hard to know.

agnosto wrote:
It does look like Rountree is putting a different stamp on things.

Signs look hopeful.

It's hard to tell without comprehensive data. You could easily come to the conclusion that you did OR you could say that AoS was a great failure but that 40K picked up the slack. Without further data, it's hard to know.

Yup. Folk were predicting a slight initial upswing from AoS, ages ago. But how much of it was from panic buying WFB, or the sales of the starter set (especially to SM players), or whatever, wasn't and isn't known. It'll need another few reports to see how things really go.

Wulfson_40K wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The increase in obsolete product are most likely from release of AoS when they recalled all the wfb items which were not selling from retailers. this obsolete merchandise would also fall under inventory, unless stated otherwise.

There was no recall of anything by GW. If it's not getting out of a stockist module, you won't send anything back and even so the amount of products you can send each year is limited, no matter how many you have.

Anyway changes to the stockist program were minimal with the release of AoS. Recently went out the Dragon Princes and DE Warlocks or whatever they're called, and before that the Phoenix and the Chaos Chariot from what I remember. Not much more for 2015. That reminds me how obsolete and useless the Fantasy part of the modules is...

It was a while ago but..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqhp_DkpvKAhUY7mMKHWRsCoEQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontlinegaming.org%2F2015%2F07%2F02%2Fwarhammer-fantasy-is-dead-long-live-warhammer-fantasy%2F&usg=AFQjCNG5hEBZBVYLLKwq5BAQDZvsyyAXdg&bvm=bv.111396085,bs.2,d.cGc

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/03/warhammer-fantasy-recalled-from-stores.html

the recall of product only happened at GW stores, not FLGS it seems. It also included a lot of finecast along with significant WFB product and other outdated items.

The word "recall" might have poor connotations. All GW was doing is moving all of its web-exclusive products from the shelves of (its own) retail stores back to their central warehouse -- presumably, so that they could be more efficient and not stock as much stuff that doesn't move very quickly.

From the GW retail store customer's standpoint, the impact is very minimal, because you can still order the web-exclusive product to that same store with no shipping or other costs, even if what you want is a single $5 pot of edge paint or web-only color. Plus, they ship extremely quickly.

blaktoof wrote:

It was a while ago but..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjqhp_DkpvKAhUY7mMKHWRsCoEQFgguMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontlinegaming.org%2F2015%2F07%2F02%2Fwarhammer-fantasy-is-dead-long-live-warhammer-fantasy%2F&usg=AFQjCNG5hEBZBVYLLKwq5BAQDZvsyyAXdg&bvm=bv.111396085,bs.2,d.cGc

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/03/warhammer-fantasy-recalled-from-stores.html

the recall of product only happened at GW stores, not FLGS it seems. It also included a lot of finecast along with significant WFB product and other outdated items.

Indeed that's true, I think at least once a year if not more they do recalls in their own stores. Thought in this case it shall be noted that whether the item is on a store shelves or back at the warehouse it's still part of the same inventory so it will not alter the report.

I've also heard the rumour that a few US stores took many AoS boxes at the condition they could send them back if they didn't sell. But, assuming this is true, AFAIK no similar deal was done in Europe.

 Talys wrote:
The word "recall" might have poor connotations. All GW was doing is moving all of its web-exclusive products from the shelves of (its own) retail stores back to their central warehouse

Nope, they will also send back current, non obsolete, kits. AFAIK everything is automatized so that each store will receive its specific list of items to send back depending on its own stocks and sales numbers.

Wulfson_40K wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But "retail" doesn't include mail order, when you add "mail order" and "retail" together, it was flat (or very slight increase).

From what I see Retail+Mail Order went from 34,536 to 32,841 so still quite a fall. I am amazed by how much they do via Mail Order thought, it's more than half Retail and I never realized that until today.

I was looking at constant currency, which went from 34.5 to 34.6.

@Wulfson - perhaps it's a bit of a regional thing. Here, "recall" implies that there's something wrong with the product, like an auto recall, where you bring the product back and they fix it, or a food recall, where you bring it back for a refund.

This is, "Product A isn't selling in Store B, so ship it back" -- which is more stock balancing than recalling product.

Even ignoring constant currency, I'm really surprised at how well GW did in the half-year. I was expecting much worse with all those months of Sigmar; even though I like the AoS models, games, terrain, etc. I've never thought them to be super exciting sellers in the hobby shop. Then again, I would not have guessed Smaug to be the top seller. Maybe AoS and 40k both bombed, and GW sold 100,000 units of Smaug!!

Hey KilKrazy, remember this, from a couple of pages ago:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In other words, the spin is obvious bs and I think most people are intelligent enough to see this sort of malarkey in any company report, including the GW one.

Well...

 Talys wrote:
With the amount of Sigmar that was released in the half-year (and lack of 40k releases), this is a fantastic half-year statement for GW.

AHAHAHAHAH!

@HBMC - Really? Did you expect this half-year statement to be better than it is? I mean, seriously, no matter what they did that was a focus on Fantasy, I would have expected a weaker half-year compared to last year's, not one that was essentially flat.

Note that KK also said:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I will wait for the full report, but personally (although I am not an investor) I am not worried about a small decline in profits. The important thing is that the decline in sales is slowing down.

I'm not trying to speak for Kilkrazy, but if I hear him correctly, I don't believe that he thinks this is a bad half-year report either.

 Talys wrote:
@HBMC - Really? Did you expect this half-year statement to be better than it was? I mean, seriously, no matter what they did that was a focus on Fantasy, I would have expected a weaker half-year, not one that was essentially flat.

That's not what was being pointed out at all.

Hum.

Well, back on topic, I thought AoS would sell well initially because it's an exciting new game and a good value amount of figures in the box. However there clearly was a bad reaction too. These half year results could reflect excellent sales of the starter, to be followed by the game bombing in the second half of the year that started in December. Obviously we won't know about that for another six months.

The real test is whether the new game can sustain and increase sales over the next 18 months. I always said GW would give it two years.

Another possibility is AoS sold terrible, Calth sold extremely well, but everyone bought their copy in the first 2 weeks (Nov) and didn't have any money left to spend on GW in December so sales were flat for Christmas

Comparing reaction on DakkaDakka to the two games, Battle of Cattle and 30K generally seemed to get a very enthusiastic reaction from a relatively small number of users. AoS seemed to get an enthusiastic reaction from a larger number of users but this was balanced by about equal numbers of users deriding it and switching from WHFB to KoW.

So on that basis my guess is that AoS sold a lot better during the six months than BofC did during the two weeks.

That's my guess as well, though it surprised me when nothing AoS made GW's top 28 list.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Another possibility is AoS sold terrible, Calth sold extremely well, but everyone bought their copy in the first 2 weeks (Nov) and didn't have any money left to spend on GW in December so sales were flat for Christmas

Putting aside the AoS vs Calth thing, it's entirely possible that you're correct about Calth stealing some sales from GW's Christmas window. I mean, it came out late enough that people could have bought it early to give as a gift, or as a gift to themselves.

Not that this means anything in the grand scheme (ie don't read too much into it), but the store I most often frequent bought 80 copies of Calth at launch and has sold most of them by the end of Boxing Week.