layoffs?

[Zil]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Well, if they could have invested the capital elsewhere and made more than $8 million, it is like they're losing money.

Ah, those opportunity costs. Note though that these are not real costs. The really important thing to look at is the ROI. If you meet an acceptable return on investment, you really should be fine.

If you are talking shifting capital elsewhere, you need to look at the cost of closing down whatever projects/product lines/plants you are shifting the capital away from.

You also should be considering what you are doing towards longer term profitability, but sadly the business world often does not look all that far into the future, especially if the main concern is maximizing short term shareholder profit (or manipulation of share prices which has been the downfall of a number of companies over the past decade).

I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.

When your fiscal year ends and begins and ends has a huge impact on all manner of decisions in any large corporate or government organization. You see all sorts of things ending at fiscal year end including employee terms, projects, etc. You also see very interesting spending patterns that are directly related to where you are in the year cycle.

In my organization, we typically have a spending flurry in January and February and then things get extremely tight from March through June. This is directly related to our fiscal year and the associated budgeting process. Contracts and projects almost always end March 31st. Our FY runs April through March. The cycle repeats itself over and over again at the same times, year after year.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Scribble

That would be kind of tough to do though. Aren't the pretty much universal accounting quarters? Wouldn't that mean all businesses would then have to change to account for Christmas?

Layoffs suck, and I agree it's a crappy way to make the numbers work, but I'm not sure changing the fiscal quarters would be all that easy...

I think most public companies have a March, June, September or December year-end, so their quarters align. But there's no rule dictating when the year-end will be. Picking one at random, Hewlett Packard has an October year-end.

Edit: Though actually changing your year-end once it's established can be difficult. In Canada at least, the tax authority has to approve it (and you need business reasons to do so, not just "I want to change it"), and presumably securities regulators would have to approve as well.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zil

Ah, those opportunity costs. Note though that these are not real costs. The really important thing to look at is the ROI. If you meet an acceptable return on investment, you really should be fine.

They're not real in the sense they're not cash payouts, but they are real costs. As for ROI, that's just a calculation based on profit and capital. So in SKR's example, in reality they wouldn't be saying "we expect $10 million profit", they'd be saying "we expect 15% ROI" or what have you. Falling short on the profit means you'll fall short on your ROI, unless it was accompanied by a reduction in capital as well.

Originally Posted by Zil

If you are talking shifting capital elsewhere, you need to look at the cost of closing down whatever projects/product lines/plants you are shifting the capital away from.

Indeed. I don't think we need to get into the details, I was just pointing out a basic idea of how business profits are evaluated.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by mlund

Violating the trust that thousands of people have put into your company - a trust that impacts their prospects for retirement, college for their children, and providing for their loved ones after they are deceased - is reprehensible when you misuse the funds for an over-seas junket and is likewise reprehensible when you misuse the funds to keep your friends and allies in employment past the time when the company could best employ their services.

I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.

Is that too cynical?

[scourger]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Tweet

Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.

That's a classy response denoting a very positive attitude.

[scourger]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

CEO of the Year.

That article is an interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[Roland55]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.

Is that too cynical?

No. No, it's not.

I've made the same observation many times over the decades.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase. Shareholders only become a concern if there is reason for a significant enough bloc of them to get together and vote on an issue in a way you don't want.

Is that too cynical?

Probably a bit.

But not much.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I may be an old cynic, but I don't think that comes into it for a second for most execs in publicly funded companies. I cynically think that most of them want to make sure their own job is safe and their earnings increase.

There is a reason why most executive packages contain an not inconsiderable proportion of stock (or options) in the company. Making what's good for the shareholders also good for the execs helps to limit this sort of behaviour...

[ruemere]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

CEO of the Year.

Please, do not draw conclusions from this article. The tone and content is typical for glowing marketing spiel, focusing on successes and avoiding any negativity.

For example, there is no mention of aggressive policy against smaller companies, severing ties with established business partners or relegating production to China.

Note the year please:

]Toys of Misery 2004
A Joint Report by National Labor Committee and China Labor Watch
February 2004
National Labor Committee

Note the year (bold) in Hasbro's own FAQ:

What is Hasbro’s response to claims of sweatshop conditions in toy factories?
Hasbro takes manufacturing ethics very seriously and we have had a program in place to monitor and improve workplace conditions since the early 1990s. [...]

Note the year again please: Increasing production costs

Hasbro's Chinese suppliers to shift inland
14 Feb 2008
As costs continue to increase, Hasbro, the world's second-largest toymaker, believes that its China-based suppliers are gradually moving inland from the coastal industrial regions.

Conclusion: Hasbro policy on using cheap labor did not change since 2004, while their ethics took a hit at least twice since implemented in 1990s.

If you google more, you'll find about factory workers in China rebelling, removal from the FTSE4Good Index series (which encourages investment in socially responsible companies, as a result of failing to satisfy supply chain labor standards), another report on worker conditions and possibly more.

I think I am going to agree with Sean K. Reynolds and Monte Cook on this.

Regards,
Ruemere

[mxyzplk]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Tweet

Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.

The next thing I plan to do is nothing, and when I'm through doing that I'll look around for something new. Maybe RPGs, maybe games of some other stripe, maybe something entirely different.

Good luck. Add me to the list of people who want to see you back and making more stuff like OtE!

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Zaruthustran

And he knows how to make things happen in Hollywood, apparently. Who knows? Maybe with him at the reins, we'll finally get a decent D&D movie.

"Thus sang Zarathustra."

But I think your singing may fall on deaf ears, or any script will be written to 4th edition and alienate many people that don't play 4th and give the movie bad reviews because it acts so little like D&D with Magic Missiles being thrown about at everything under the sun, and the status effects from the powers not translating well to an actual movie as the game tries to emulate a more cinematic experience.

I vote Dave Noonan to play the Rakshasa!

Originally Posted by ruemere

Conclusion: Hasbro policy on using cheap labor did not change since 2004, while their ethics took a hit at least twice since implemented in 1990s.

I am pretty sure they use sweatshop for Hasbro products, because that is pretty much all China has devolved into.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Some of this conversation has steered a little close to the "no politics" rule. So far, so good, but just keep that in mind when talking about the business aspects. That may make it tough in some ways to make your point, but them's the rules.

-Kid C, EN World Mod

[Delta]

Originally Posted by gribble

There is a reason why most executive packages contain an not inconsiderable proportion of stock (or options) in the company. Making what's good for the shareholders also good for the execs helps to limit this sort of behaviour...

That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite; i.e., that it further encourages short-term profits (until executives can sell stock) at the price of long-term corporate health. From the New Yorker "World of Business":

The most insidious aspect of executive stock options is that-especially in tough times-they give senior managers a strong incentive to mislead investors about the true condition of their companies...

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/09/23/020923fa_fact_cassidy

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Delta

That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite

Interesting read - thanks for the link.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Delta

That was the intent, but many current analysts see it as doing exactly the opposite; i.e., that it further encourages short-term profits (until executives can sell stock) at the price of long-term corporate health. From the New Yorker "World of Business":

This. Very much this. Nice in theory, but it doesn't work that way in reality.

[Harneloot]

Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne

Some of this conversation has steered a little close to the "no politics" rule. So far, so good, but just keep that in mind when talking about the business aspects. That may make it tough in some ways to make your point, but them's the rules.

-Kid C, EN World Mod

Or is this simply the ENWorld-in-bed-with-Wotc rule?

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Harneloot

Or is this simply the ENWorld-in-bed-with-Wotc rule?

For you, just the "saying something insulting as talkback to a mod" rule. You won't be posting to this thread anymore.

Please, folks. Chill.

[Hussar]

It's really a shame when a good thread, simply expressing care and concern for some of the notable names in the industry devolves into what got expressed above me.

[jinnetics]

Originally Posted by ruemere

If you google more, you'll find about factory workers in China rebelling, removal from the FTSE4Good Index series (which encourages investment in socially responsible companies, as a result of failing to satisfy supply chain labor standards), another report on worker conditions and possibly more.

Factory workers in China rebelling (AP)