Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

Hello DIB:

The essence of prudent Gov't regulation/oversight is balance.  Too much and/or too little are problematic.   Too much and you stymie private sector innovation.  Too little and you risk having no ethical/moral business boundaries.  Recent case in point.  Sarbanes Oxley.  For years, accounting firms were allowed to police themselves.  Result:  Oftentimes, the accounting firms were in bed with their clients, who paid them, and reported what their customers told them.  Hence: Enron, Global Crossing and host of other firms that went belly up with investors and stakeholders taking it on the chin.  All the while being audited/reviewed by accounting firms giving them clean [unqualified] opinions.  The best grade.  Gov't answer: Sarbanes/Oxley:  Over regulation.  Way too costly and time consuming.   Almost impossible to practically perform within the time constraints.  No better than having no regulation/oversight at all. 

Carmine D. 

Dyson turnover increased by 100m GBP during 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/3469159/Dyson-hoovers-up-as-profits-jump.html

Hello M00seUK:

Why is dyson posting financial results, tho cryptic and limited, for 2007 almost one year after the calendar year closed?  Generally this info is released within 90 days of the close of the calendar year, if not earlier.  This data is 325 days after the business year closed: December 31, 2007.  Long after most businesses reported for 2007 and paid out dividends.  Most businesses now are reporting interim results for 2008.  Why is James behind the curve and reporting so late? 

When it came to the UK capital gains tax increase, dyson had an emergency midnight Board of Directors meeting on March 31, 2008 right before the new tax law was to take effect.  James got board approval to make a hasty cash withdrawal [and avoid the new higher tax law rates].   What was it?  $260 MILLION.  He can act quickly when he wants.  Not so quickly otherwise. 

Dyson dividends cut in half in 2007 over 2006 by over 30 million GBP.  James reduced his salary by 60 percent in 2007 over 2006.  These are not the actions of a business that did well.  In fact, just the opposite.   This is not the full disclosure of financial results for dyson for 2007.  Just a few numbers tossed out to "paint" a rosie scenario.  Along with some other numbers, including extremely late year reporting, that raise alot of questions.   

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
 Take it easy Tom Clancy. First your HSN/Dyson conspiracy of selling 10,000 units of the DC07 in one day, now the above rubbish. Time to switch to decaf.        DIB

Hello DIB:

Rubbish?  Since you brought up HSN, I'll update you on some recent developments.  On October 31 when I posted the HSN common stock info, it was available on the HSN Web Site.  No more.  No stock quote info available.  Why?   If you recall it was trading at $6.15.  Here's the latest, just 2 plus weeks later:

Last Sale:	$ 4.92		Net Change:	0.25 5.35%
Share Volume:	267,283		Previous Close:	$ 4.67
Today's High:	$ 5.21		Today's Low:	$ 4.31
Best Bid:	$ 4.91		Best Ask:	$ 4.92
52 Week High:	$ 16.54		52 Week Low:	$ 3.06
P/E Ratio:	N/A		Shares Outstanding:	56,145,000
Earnings Per Share (EPS):	N/A		Market Value:	$ 276,233,400
NASDAQ Official Open Price:	$ 4.80		Date of Open Price:	Nov. 17, 2008
NASDAQ Official Close Price:	$ 4.67

Down, down, down.  How low will HSN go? 

If dyson follows the same pattern in 2008, and reports its financial results one year late, I suspect it just may be too little too late.

You're a smart man.  How does a company with 1700 employees add over 500 new hires on the wake of what all experts call the worse global economic downturn in over 70 years?   What is James thinking?  And more importantly, is he thinking? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, there's nothing here at all to suggest Dyson is being allusive. Dyson is a private limited company which (as you know) unlike a public listed company doesn't have to revel anything beyond the figures contained in the news article, which was taken from the accounts filed at companies house.

Dyson filed the year ending 31 Dec 2007 on 31 Oct 2008 - exactly the same requirement as any other limited company that chooses to use this accounting period.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7c555f817319dcf2dcfc450748155ff3/compdetails

The comparisons you make with performance to dividend payments are largely irrelevant for a company owned 100% by one family.

Whilst the future certainly will be challenging for them, diversifying in to international markets and indeed in to non-floorcare sectors they look better set to weather the storm than most. They sell functional, as apposed to luxury goods, with high added value.

CarmineD wrote:
 Carmine,
So much concern for Mr. Dyson? Is Dyson the only corporation affected by the world's economies? I applaud the man! He keeps doing and keeps putting faith in what has worked for him and the civilized worlds past too... he keeps inventing! Yes he will have a harder time with all the knockoffs including Miele's and others entering James' category -- steerable's.

 I have not read of Dyson doing any hiring, in fact just the opposite, I've read he might let go of some 69 jobs in Malmesbury which made a stink in some of the British press. Carmen you must remember that competing manufacturers are nothing without Dyson inventing first and showing these competing manufacturing numbskulls the way to more profits via innovation. :-)

DIB

Hello M00seUK:

I beg to differ with you on several points.  Dyson sells functional products but does so at luxury prices.  Bad for business in poor economic times when consumers are not spending. 

A formal submission on a timely basis is always a matter of routine.  In the past, dyson "leaked" sales and profit information to the press well in advance of the regulatory requirements for reporting.  Dyson fans posted the news here for all to read.   Dyson made no early releases of financial data for 2007.  Instead, filing the obligatory data in accordance with the time requirements by October 31.  And news entities reading/reporting about the filings weeks later. 

Cost and expense increases, the number of new hires, and a company's dividend payouts have the same meanings and implications for privately held firms [controlled by one family] as publicly held ones with varied and sundry investors and stakeholders.  When times are good, dividend payouts and salaries are good.  When times are bad, they are not.   Increasing operating costs with an 18 percent increase in new hires, on the eve of the worse global economic downturn in over 70 years, worsens the adverse impact on operations.  The way to hide the negative impact of increasing costs is cutting back dividend payouts and owners' [read family] salaries.   The article mentions James' salary as the highest cut by over 60 percent.  I suspect other salaries were cut too.  Why?  To sure up the net profit and paint a "rosie scanario."

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I won't debate opinions with you.  You're entitled to put James on a pedestal.  But you must remember, the higher you put him up there, the harder the fall.

Here is an excerpt from the article that M00se posted from the UK Telegraph.  It's my source for the new dyson hires.  I don't make this stuff up.  I read what you and others post here.  And quote it back to you.

"The company’s highest-paid director, believed to be Mr Dyson, took a 60pc pay cut to £12.6m in 2007 while staff numbers grew by 18pc to 2,203. "

I don't know if 2,203 is before and/or after the 69 person cut. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

The concept is pretty simple to understand...  the world craves innovations that make life better.  Dyson is the kind of fella that delivers such innovations, certainly not all his ideas are winners and he is in good company...  many prolific inventors of past believed in stinkers too.  I do put innovation in a place of prominence (pedestal if you prefer) and not humans.  I do applaud and laugh when Dyson walks into a 100 year old industry and turns it upside down do the NIH/"Not Invented Here" beliefs of vacuum manufacturing Suits.  Like I said in the past the "NIH Suits" give license for Dyson to print money even if it is a paltry $25m annually or as high as $124m annually. What do you think David Oreck or Mark Bissell profit off their namesakes? Certainly nothing like what Dyson does. Between Oreck and Bissell there's 200 years of vacuum manufacturing, certainly and in the spirit of fairness it's time for you to throw rocks at these guys too. - Start with Oreck, since he is the biggest American vacuum manufacturer-whiner of Dyson.

DIB