72 posts / 0 new
Last post
John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23081
RE: Cods wallop ?

You believe or you know?

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

eggontoast's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 23/02/2011 - 15:21
Posts: 1448
RE: Cods wallop ?

The company accounts can be viewed online, but as we know from other companies, profits filed for the year don't always tell the full story eh Starbucks ;-).

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail. The part about problems with customer service is pure speculation on my part from the former information.

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23081
RE: Cods wallop ?

I'm not worried about the financial information, because that can be verified. Just don't want anybody making statements about lay offs etc which are rumour or speculation.

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

chebby's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16451
RE: Cods wallop ?

eggontoast wrote:

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

Andy Clough's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 27/04/2004 - 16:13
Posts: 6873
RE: Cods wallop ?

Well, I haven't got any more recent figures, but I suspect Arcam wasn't the only company in this sector (or any other) to suffer during the recession.

Editor-in-Chief of What Hi-Fi? and whathifi.com

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1461
RE: Cods wallop ?

chebby wrote:

eggontoast wrote:

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing.  As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

chebby's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16451
RE: Cods wallop ?

Covenanter wrote:

chebby wrote:

eggontoast wrote:

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing.  As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

The fact that it was published by a newspaper is bad enough surely?*

Anyway, please don't shoot the messenger.  I was merely trying to find the possible source of the Arcam job loss information that 'eggontoast' couldn't remember.

*I have no other opinion on the article's veracity (or otherwise) except the obvious fact that it was published in a newspaper and written by a journalist. So, by definition, it can only be (at best) partly truthful and/or partly accurate.

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1461
RE: Cods wallop ?

chebby wrote:

Covenanter wrote:

chebby wrote:

eggontoast wrote:

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing.  As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

The fact that it was published by a newspaper is bad enough surely?*

Anyway, please don't shoot the messenger.  I was merely trying to find the possible source of the Arcam job loss information that 'eggontoast' couldn't remember.

*I have no other opinion on the article's veracity (or otherwise) except the obvious fact that it was published in a newspaper and written by a journalist. So, by definition, it can only be (at best) partly truthful and/or partly accurate.

I wasn't shooting the messenger!  Just making the point that P&L means nothing.  To explain, every company has the ability to make "provisions" both specific and general and these can affect the P&L figure by as much as you choose.  I was Finance Director of a group of companies and the P&L number was always what I wanted it to be.  An accountant looks at the Balance Sheet and the Cash Flow not the P&L.  The public looks at P&L and is deceived!

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

lindsayt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 08/04/2011 - 01:18
Posts: 1258
RE: Cods wallop ?

When I worked for a medium sized manufacturing company, the profit or loss was always the figure that the main computer system said it was. This was the total amount of income minus the total amount of expenditure. The Finance Director only had limited control over what this figure was. The Managing Director had more control as he had overall say in how the company spent its' money and in the general direction of the company. But even then, by far the biggest influence was the inertia of how the company was run in terms of what it could sell and what it cost to run the company - which was not particularly under the control of any individual.

 

In terms of cooking the books to arrive at a profit and loss figure desired by the Finance Director? No way. It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3035
RE: Cods wallop ?

lindsayt wrote:
It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

 

Straight face...? really? 

 

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1461
RE: Cods wallop ? RE: Cods wallop ?

lindsayt wrote:

When I worked for a medium sized manufacturing company, the profit or loss was always the figure that the main computer system said it was. This was the total amount of income minus the total amount of expenditure. The Finance Director only had limited control over what this figure was. The Managing Director had more control as he had overall say in how the company spent its' money and in the general direction of the company. But even then, by far the biggest influence was the inertia of how the company was run in terms of what it could sell and what it cost to run the company - which was not particularly under the control of any individual.

 

In terms of cooking the books to arrive at a profit and loss figure desired by the Finance Director? No way. It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

I'm sorry but this is not sensible.  The UK accounting standards require certain things and nobody inside the company can do anything about that!  It's nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with taking a view.  For example, suppose a client owes you £x at year end.  You can take a view that they won't pay, will pay or there is a y% likelihood of them paying.  You are required to make a judgment about this.  If you assume they won't pay your profit is diminished by £y because you are required by law to make a provision to that effect.  Your FD would have been making such decisions and if he/she wasn't then they were acting illegally.

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

matt49's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 07/04/2013 - 12:07
Posts: 2234
RE: Cods wallop ? RE: Cods wallop ?

Covenanter wrote:

It's nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with taking a view.

That certainly corresponds to my (vicarious) experience. I'm very close to an FD of a FTSE100 company (can't be more specific), and I see that an awful lot does depend on judgements and on negotiations with the auditors. It's a very fluid process.

This train … carries saints and sinners / This train … carries losers and winners / This train … carries whores and gamblers / This train … carries lost souls.

ID.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 22/02/2010 - 13:12
Posts: 1688
RE: Cods wallop ?

CnoEvil wrote:

I'm with Abacus.

Personally I'm glad that the likes of Arcam put outright performance at the heart of their AVRs......and try ringing the likes of Yamaha or Pioneer, and asking to speak to one of the designing engineers, to see where it gets you.

I've heard a fair number of AVRs, and Arcam are (imo) easily the best at 2 channel (in their price range)....which is often an important attribute.

But I don't agree that it is a race to the bottom and that sound quality is suffering. Yes, you can make products with better sound quality, but you then pay for it. I'm glad that Arcam and others do create products with a greater focus on sound (especially stereo playback).

 

Let me know if you want an interpreter next time you try calling Yamaha or Pioneer, etc. to speak to their designing engineers, I can offer you a discount on my services or put you in touch with someone  Wink

Stuff.

MakkaPakka's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 5 days ago
Joined: 25/05/2013 - 16:44
Posts: 501
RE: Cods wallop ?

Who says Pioneer and Yamaha aren't focusing on great sound? They may have fifty times as many engineers who are just as capable if not more so. I can't see the how their accessibility affects that. 

You're buying into the idea that because a company is small it puts more effort in and cares more (which may or may not be true).

 

 

CnoEvil's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 min 39 sec ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12837
RE: Cods wallop ?

ID. wrote:

But I don't agree that it is a race to the bottom and that sound quality is suffering. Yes, you can make products with better sound quality, but you then pay for it. I'm glad that Arcam and others do create products with a greater focus on sound (especially stereo playback).

It becomes a "race to the bottom" if you take on the giant "VFM companies" at their own game......this is because it then all becomes about price. Unless the smaller company can give added value in other areas (improved SQ, better customer service, nicer aesthetics etc), and differentiate themselves by offering something unique, they can easily get swallowed up.

I have a Pioneer TV, but hopefully your services won't be needed....... :pray:

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Pages

Log in or register to post comments