is there an april to april financial statement due?

[tu33y]

well, is there? i am keen to see its contents (as we all are no doubt)

[DarthSte]

Many companies announced their end of year figures a few months after the close of business.
The Investeror Relations link on the GW homepage appears to show that the end of year report for 2011 was published in July. Expect a similar time this year.

[Grimmeth]

GW's year end is June, not April, so we've got a couple of months yet.

[Reflex]

Skill keen no doubt. Although I am certainly interested to see how the company has fared considering its buisness model as of late.

[Autumn Leaves]

Their earnings from their IP have kept them in good stead on the balance sheet in the last financial year.
Take those earnings away and it starts to make serious reading.

[Gertjan]

I'll be a seriously interesting read this year regardless I would think. It might take some time and effort as GW is keen on camouflaging things they don't want anyone to see but still, I am curious what the effect of finecast has been so far. I m quite sad come to think of it, waiting for the figured of a company whose crap I buy

[EmperorNorton]

People have been saying "the next report is going to be interesting" for several years now. And it never showed the sharp decline they were expecting. I don't think it'll be there this year, either, but continue the trend of lower sales volumes masked by price increases and royalties.

[Jim30]

Apparently they are paying a 16p dividend, and expectations of profit are in excess of market expectations (whatever that means as no figures have been released yet).

[Gertjan]

People have been saying "the next report is going to be interesting" for several years now. And it never showed the sharp decline they were expecting. I don't think it'll be there this year, either, but continue the trend of lower sales volumes masked by price increases and royalties.

Ah, but it's not the sharp decline, that's never going to happen, at least not anytime soon I would think, it will most likely be a slow steady decline, such as has been happening for some time now. What is interesting about this one is what the effects of switching to finecast are. How much of a saving do they manage to get etc etc. I believe that GW is on a slippery slope downwards but it won't be the spectacular crash and burn style that people seem to be expecting for some reason.

[iamfanboy]

Ah, but it's not the sharp decline, that's never going to happen, at least not anytime soon I would think, it will most likely be a slow steady decline, such as has been happening for some time now. What is interesting about this one is what the effects of switching to finecast are. How much of a saving do they manage to get etc etc. I believe that GW is on a slippery slope downwards but it won't be the spectacular crash and burn style that people seem to be expecting for some reason.

I think the only people who talk about a crash and burn are the GW fans trying to dismiss the very idea that their beloved company will ever die....

Most folks with a lick of sense think that GW will die with a whimper, not a bang.

[tu33y]

as ever, these are interesting times... I am looking forward to those amoung us with smarts to explain the annual statement. those threads are ALWAYS fun...

[lanrak]

Look for the Gross Margin.
This is the amount of profit GW plc make on the RRP before logistics and retail costs are taken out.(Last year 76%)
(£95M profit before the costs of moving product around and selling it were taken out.)
Net operating profit, the clear profit the comapny made.
HOW much smaller than the 'gross margin?'

Most good companies with a good gross margin of over 70% , tend to make net operating profits of 30%+.

Also look at the comparative turn over from last year to this year.
Has this value increased by the amount GW plc has risent the retail prices?
If not GW plc are loosing sales volumes,(customers are buying less.)

[Reinholt]

I think the only people who talk about a crash and burn are the GW fans trying to dismiss the very idea that their beloved company will ever die....

Most folks with a lick of sense think that GW will die with a whimper, not a bang.

Or that it will die through being consumed by a vicious predator. Or was that competitor?

Companies rarely die a quick and explosive death, and when they do, they tend to be highly leveraged companies that rely on short-term financing to keep themselves alive (banks and hedge funds, I'm looking at you). It is rare that something like a production company dies rapidly. If they do, that's usually a result of fraud or dabbling in the sorts of financial contracts that turn them into proxy banks (or both... Enron).

Look at the slow spiral at firms like GM and Sears. These things take time.

If GW does experience a sharp falloff, it could kill them, but I think they have some time before they get there. I wouldn't predict that over the next five years, certainly, and maybe not the next ten. It's usually insidious; by the time they realize they have a problem, it's too late to fix it.

Continue watching the sales volumes to follow the trend. Anyone predicting a huge drop or huge gain is likely going to be disappointed. I expect flat to declining volumes and customer base, stable margins, good positive cash flow, and holding to the same strategy which is making them short-term profitable yet slowly killing their future. US is where they are most vulnerable; no homefield advantage here and Privateer actually seems serious about making waves.

[Mastodon]

Rumours going around that GW are going to make a point about them being in transaction count growth in the UK for the first time in 5 years in the report.

Very interesting if true, but still not an accurate representation of sales figures. Could just be less people going through the till more often after all.

[simonr1978]

Sorry, just for the non-business minded among us, do I take it that a "Transaction count" is, basically, one person making a non-specific number of purchases in one go? So in terms of a Transaction count, one person buying, say, £200 of stuff in one go is "1" whilst ten people buying £10 each is "10"?

If this is the case it sounds like a Transaction count is a basically meaningless statistic and it sounds to me, and I'll admit I'm being cynical here, that including such numbers might be an attempt to mask or distract from falling sales volumes by making it appear like more people are buying more stuff.

[jack da greenskin]

Rumours going around that GW are going to make a point about them being in transaction count growth in the UK for the first time in 5 years in the report.

Very interesting if true, but still not an accurate representation of sales figures. Could just be less people going through the till more often after all.

Sorry, just for the non-business minded among us, do I take it that a "Transaction count" is, basically, one person making a non-specific number of purchases in one go? So in terms of a Transaction count, one person buying, say, £200 of stuff in one go is "1" whilst ten people buying £10 each is "10"?

If this is the case it sounds like a Transaction count is a basically meaningless statistic and it sounds to me, and I'll admit I'm being cynical here, that including such numbers might be an attempt to mask or distract from falling sales volumes by making it appear like more people are buying more stuff.

Think this is it really. Mentionning it, but not an increase in total sales is a bit wtf, but I'm sure someone at lenton will be praised because of it.

Can anyone think of what we can attribute this to? I'm thinking the new paint range might be something, I bought two individual paints on two different occasions. "WWWOOO first £4 in a while out of a customer who spends £70ish a month on wargaming" is what it should be, not "WWWOOO increase in number of transactions!!!"

[Gertjan]

Well, to be honest it's something that would fit into a "Yessir" company's style. From what I have gathered (note, I'do not know if it's true or not, it just seems to have been brought up quite frequently, enough to start wondering) GW seems to at least fall somewhat under that heading. If you're at risk of losing your job you would also include as many statistics which support your boss' horrid decisions "See sir, the number of transactions have gone up, you're onto something here".

Note: I'm not saying it IS a yessir culture, it would simply be something that fits in perfectly well with a company culture where no one dares adress the problems out of fear of pissing of the Boss and getting sacked. We've seen quite a few rather odd ommisions from the financial statments last few years such as what percentage of the turnover comes from indies and what from GW stores so, one never knows.

[I3uLLioN]

Perhaps... God forbid, The company is actually doing quite well? I know that would dissapoint a lot of the members on Warseer. If the transaction count has increased, that is a good thing. Is it the be all and end all? No. Does it signal the fact that GW are using shifty tactics to conceal a dark truth? Certianly not.

[jack da greenskin]

Does it signal the fact that GW are using shifty tactics to conceal a dark truth? Certianly not.

It kind of does... If there was an increase in sales, as in, increase in the amount they'd taken in, that would be a positive thing they'd shout from the rooftops about. They fact they're not, means it hasnt, so saying an increase in transaction count is pretty stupid, it hasnt lead to an increase in the AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY TAKE IN.

[simonr1978]

If the transaction count has increased, that is a good thing.

No, the point is that a transaction count is essentially meaningless and as such whether it's gone up or down, or is high or low is also meaningless.

A high transaction count could just be lots of individuals making very small purchases, a low transaction count could be a small number of individuals splurging on a whole new army each. In one case you could have a very high transaction count but take very little money through the till, in the other you could have a low transaction count yet still be taking thousands of pounds. It doesn't even necessarily indicate anything about how big or small your customer base is, one customer making lots of small purchases separately could still give you an artificially high transaction count even if s/he's the only regular customer to your store. I do wonder how returns and replacements factor into this, is for example a sale, followed by a return and refund still a transaction?

As such, it does lead me to wonder why bother using statistics like this if they're of such limited value? If GW are going to make a big thing out of the "Transaction Count" (And it's worth pointing out here that it's only been mentioned as a rumour so far), what benefit are they going to get out of it in their annual report? Presumably they're going to want it to show something otherwise they'd just post the profits and expenses and let the investors work it out for themselves, so what's a transaction count going to show that, say, publishing the numbers of units sold wouldn't do better?

I admitted that I was being cynical earlier, but unless you can suggest what publishing a Transaction count might actually, usefully demonstrate I remain sceptical at best. And, no, this isn't just GW bashing, I would be just as suspicious regardless of what the company was.