I agree that the change in stock holding is a tad oddball in it's manner, but do you think it might reflect a change in style at the helm, as much as anything else? Personally I think it is a combination of policy and personnel changes, coupled with market influence; the market will return, as mother and human nature make that inevitable, what might not is their dominance. I am still curious about his customers being his competitors, as I think he may mix up other distribution channels with rival manufacturers (a different matter altogether), we all know he has never been particularly accurate in what he says.
This takes you to the products they sell. It more than implies they subcontract to the major generator supplies. They keep a high level of stock to enable a high turnaround. As you said a fairly decent business strategy. It stops those bigger than him trying to drive him out of the market and when demand is high he supplies his competitors so they don't have to turn down orders. http://www.allam.com/tempest.htm
Brackets not directed at anyone in particular It is possible that it is a straightforward policy change, but there's no notice that I've seen in the written pieces of the accounts saying there'd been a change in approach like that. It may be mistakenly left out, or they don't consider it a material matter and as the only shareholders there's no obligation to have specificly stated it, it's a question investors and lenders can ask them if it's relevent to their decisions at a later date. My reading of it could be partly confirmation bias as well. I've questionned for a while how much more cash they could put in to the club before it impacted on other things. It may be loans, but the cash has to come from somewhere to be loaned, and there's only so much cash available to a family worth £300M. Having that idea, seeing us relegated, and then in a few months seeing "expected" things like reducing debt through things which are contrary to previous practices would reinforce it. I'll have a look back over previous accounts as well at some point. It may be that the 200 was an anomolous figure caused by having a greater proportion of finished generators vs raw materials compared to normal. 200 days of finished goods shows up as more value than 100 days of finished goods and 100 days of material awaiting working but is the same for sales if the material will be worked by the time the finished units are sold.
Perhaps they do sell to their competitors, other major generator manufacturers, but I find it a strange concept. I could see them selling to a company who sells their products under another brand name, but in a specific market arrangement, that's quite common. I could see a national or local authority of a region/country branding it to reflect their status in the market and selling them as their own. I could see a manufacturer of other products (but not the same) filling out their catalogue with these generators and selling them as their own brand, not having something similar themselves- again, that is far from unusual. We live and learn, but I'm not convinced of the true nature of their supplier-distributor-license structure. It's academic, but I will try and find out more as I am interested, nothing more.
You don't need a PhD in business with your dissertation being based on the research of the international generator market to know the basics of it.
