# GW "Sold" / Major Shareholder changed?



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Whilst GW can't be "sold" as such an interesting development here :

Shareholder statistics | Games Workshop | Investor Relations

Shows that in May the Nomad Group was the major share holder.

Shareholder Overview for G7W Games Workshop Group PLC including Fund Owner Activity, Style, Equity & Debt Ownership, and Enterprise Value

Shows that they are no longer in the top 10 and there has been a considerable adjustment in the shares distribution.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Whilst GW can't be "sold" as such an interesting development here :
> 
> Shareholder statistics | Games Workshop | Investor Relations
> 
> ...


I will not pretend to know what all of this means. If someone could be so kind as to explain this I would greatly appreciate it, as I'm sure others would as well.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

In May the Nomad Group was the majority shareholder, a search on the majority shareholders today shows they aren't any more, they have sold their shares it seems.

That would mean the composition of the board is likely to change.


----------



## apoch1999 (May 7, 2011)

it already has changed if they are no longer majority shareholder...may now policy will change at GW..deffinately a step in the right direction if enough holders step up and listen to the players...stock ticker is GAW on london exchange. last close was 720 points...


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Interesting.

If this trend in threads I find interesting keeps happening then I'm going to have several of these threads "Bookmarked".


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

apoch1999 said:


> ..deffinately a step in the right direction if enough holders step up and listen to the players


I can't really see too much changing to be honest. All the top shareholders are investment groups and all they will be interested in is returns. 

I see AXA is in the top 10. That may mean that investment in GW is seen as a solid dependable return? That is good for stability.


----------



## apoch1999 (May 7, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I can't really see too much changing to be honest. All the top shareholders are investment groups and all they will be interested in is returns.
> 
> I see AXA is in the top 10. That may mean that investment in GW is seen as a solid dependable return? That is good for stability.


 
oh yeah if you take a long at teh chart they have gone up almost 100 bucks in the past year..when they sold they were probably profit taking....i personally think its a bit over priced at the moment, but it does look like a solid investment vehicle


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

apoch1999 said:


> ...may now policy will change at GW..deffinately a step in the right direction if enough holders step up and listen to the players...


I think you can safely assume more of the same, any investor is going to want games workshop to keep doing what they have been and not change direction. Whether you feel that this is "listening to the players" is your call.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Oooh - perhaps Gordon Gekko is now in charge?


----------



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

Investment groups only care about profit and return on investment. So expect little or no change from GW. They probably are a stable return on an investment so I can see why investment groups are into them. If I could I would invest in them because they provide a solid return every quarter which is what you want an investment to do.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Imma get me some shares :shok:


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Tawa said:


> Imma get me some shares :shok:


And, just how many do you think you'll get for your arm and leg?:shok:


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> And, just how many do you think you'll get for your arm and leg?:shok:


If my calculations are correct, about 0.000000001.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Tawa said:


> If my calculations are correct, about 0.000000001.


Oh, that's quite a lot.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Oh, that's quite a lot.


I sold off my stocks of Taffeit.....


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

To be honest I'm not too sure how accurate the morning star stats are. If I'm reading it correctly then that site suggests that in the total span of 18 days, then entire landscape of top shareholders has change. 

nvestec has moved to the top spot but have 1,499,442 fewer shares than they had 18 days ago. We also see that 5 of the top 7 aren't even present on the list. 

I find it even harder to believe that Kirby has sold at least 1,731,394 of his shares, so does not appear on the list (although the morningstar site could just be organisations that hold top spots, which makes it unreliable anyway)

Also, looking at the morningstar list, even the highest percentage shareholder doesn't have as much as the lowest on the GW site. So something, somewhere is long. 

If both sites are accurate, then to me it suggests a massive selling of stock, by pretty much all top shareholders, even the ones that are still around. Surely that cannot be a good thing if they are selling out?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Yeh I agree Reaper, it does look like quite a changing of the guard with no clear majority holding.


----------



## AwesomusPrime (Feb 24, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> In May the Nomad Group was the majority shareholder, a search on the majority shareholders today shows they aren't any more, they have sold their shares it seems.
> 
> That would mean the composition of the board is likely to change.


I guess you could say the Nomad Group...[puts on sunglasses] moved on...

YEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

<double post>


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Of course, it's a bit tricky to tell really since all the things that make a business look good to line up for a sale as the same things that businesses tend to want to do anyway... increase sales, widen profit margins, cut back on waste...

There's certainly been a change in release strategy from GW, but I think it's more of a response to the increased competition from PP etc (with them seemingly able to update all of their factions simultaneously when a new edition of the rules comes out - something GW hasn't done since they included the little white army lists book with the 1st 40k boxed set), than it is anything strange, secret or sinister going on re. building up to a sale etc.

Some big institutional investors have sold off, others have increased their holdings... well, that's what they do - without having a really good dig into what funds the GW stock was part of, or what else was bought and sold at the time, it's impossible to read anything into that. GW say in their results every year that they aim to be a reliable stock, paying a consistent dividend every year - the investors shouldn't be ones that are looking for a quick rise in the share price to get a quick profit, but are more likely to be income or slow growth funds. 

The previous largest share holder might have decided that they didn't want to be so exposed to one company, or might have backed away from UK companies with the economy still being slow, or might have just sold the stocks to free them up for another investment elsewhere. Big investment funds move around millions of pounds worth of shares every day, there are plenty of different reasons why they do it with a particular company.

EDIT: Another point... if the large shareholders were expecting someone to come in with a takeover offer sometime soon, they'd be unlikely to be selling up now - the offer price for a takeover is usually a little bit above the current trading price, so it would make very little sense for them to be selling up before an offer was made.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

EmbraCraig said:


> There's certainly been a change in release strategy from GW. I think it's more of a response to the increased competition from PP etc


It's partially down to GW managing to retain staff,
the current release strategy (or something like it) was planned to kick in several years ago
it was put back considerably when they lost several people who were in the middle of/about to start several codexes and army books


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Bindi Baji said:


> It's partially down to GW managing to retain staff,
> the current release strategy (or something like it) was planned to kick in several years ago
> it was put back considerably when they lost several people who were in the middle of/about to start several codexes and army books


That makes a bit of sense, and explains a few of the 'this is currently in the works' things taking a long while to appear


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

AwesomusPrime said:


> I guess you could say the Nomad Group...[puts on sunglasses] moved on...
> 
> YEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!


Buh-dum-tshhh!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

AwesomusPrime said:


> I guess you could say the Nomad Group...[puts on sunglasses] moved on...
> 
> YEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!


Well played Sir. I approve!


----------

