Sometimes people not in the know will ask me how I’m comfortable with the instability of working for a small company. I think it’s a ridiculous question, but in the face of ongoing mass layoffs I...
Sometimes people not in the know will ask me how I’m comfortable with the instability of working for a small company. I think it’s a ridiculous question, but in the face of ongoing mass layoffs I think it’s even crazier. I actually know the CEO of the company I work at. He sits next to me at work. And there are only 4 people. I can’t get laid off, that would harm the company too much.
Whereas my ass is never, ever going to get out of the public sector. My job needs to be legally done by someone, so unless civilisation collapses, I should be fine.
Whereas my ass is never, ever going to get out of the public sector. My job needs to be legally done by someone, so unless civilisation collapses, I should be fine.
Unlikely. It's a fairly large piece of legislation last changed in 1984, with the other law that affects my job just having been changed in 2020, to increase government obligations. There's no...
Unlikely. It's a fairly large piece of legislation last changed in 1984, with the other law that affects my job just having been changed in 2020, to increase government obligations. There's no political will to change either act right now, and if there were, I'd have many many many months of advance warning, since it couldn't happen overnight. If they were to change, they'd likely have to change in a way that requires more from my department, not less.
Bigger risk is that everyone is "laid off" if things take a downturn. I suppose that's the downside. But i am jealous. From my experience, interviewing for smaller studios in this market isn't...
And there are only 4 people. I can’t get laid off, that would harm the company too much.
Bigger risk is that everyone is "laid off" if things take a downturn. I suppose that's the downside.
But i am jealous. From my experience, interviewing for smaller studios in this market isn't really much better than AAA studios. IME it's less interview rounds but more tests, which is hard to do while balancing other interviews or work. Sadly I'm in that awkward middle ground where I'm not some new fish they expect to train but also not some 20 year vet they grab in with little hesitation.
So they made $4 Billion dollars last year but decided to restructure and fire / package the thousands of people who made them successful and profitable And this is to project success AND will be...
So they made $4 Billion dollars last year but decided to restructure and fire / package the thousands of people who made them successful and profitable
And this is to project success AND will be perceived as a fantastic thing for the company so they can be even more profitable
That's why I hate reading these kinds of things..... It's written to sound good and then no they're doing terrible. It's like I'm actually literate: I can read the alphabets but I can not...
That's why I hate reading these kinds of things..... It's written to sound good and then no they're doing terrible.
It's like I'm actually literate: I can read the alphabets but I can not understand the table in their actual statement. Help me out?
"Q4, January-March 2024: Adjusted EBIT increased by 56% to SEK 1,426 million"
they were barely profitable at EBIT margin 1 % during 22-23. Then they had 42.2B sales, but had an EBIT1) of (20.5b). So they made 42.2B revenue but their profit was negative 20.5.
In one year they spent 62.72B SEK????? An equivalent of 5.77B USD, google says. Their headcount was 16601. And they're saying they're going to be super profitable now that they'd slashed jobs? If they had no expenses other than salaries, that's nearly $350k per person. Were they paying $350k per person? Of course not of course they had other spendings. But this article is reporting that their solution to the huge loss, despite a huge REVENUE is to slash 27% of the staff that earned them this revenue, who had no ability to decide where else is money is being spent.
If I'm reading the report right, then their losses stem from them selling and reassessing the value of assets: Their adjusted EBIT margin, which excludes these one time expenses, show a consistent...
If I'm reading the report right, then their losses stem from them selling and reassessing the value of assets:
A range of items not affecting cash flow had a SEK 20 billion impact on our reported EBIT in Q4, mainly relating to the actions we have recently taken. Approximately SEK 11.4 billion is related to the divestments of assets from Saber and Gearbox, and SEK 1.0 billion is related to the restructuring program. The annual impairment test also resulted in a SEK 6.7 billion impairment for Asmodee, which equates to around 20% of the SEK 34.4 billion consideration in 2021.
Sometimes people not in the know will ask me how I’m comfortable with the instability of working for a small company. I think it’s a ridiculous question, but in the face of ongoing mass layoffs I think it’s even crazier. I actually know the CEO of the company I work at. He sits next to me at work. And there are only 4 people. I can’t get laid off, that would harm the company too much.
Whereas my ass is never, ever going to get out of the public sector. My job needs to be legally done by someone, so unless civilisation collapses, I should be fine.
Without giving too much information, is there no possibility your job could be obsoleted by a change in legislation? I'm just curious.
Unlikely. It's a fairly large piece of legislation last changed in 1984, with the other law that affects my job just having been changed in 2020, to increase government obligations. There's no political will to change either act right now, and if there were, I'd have many many many months of advance warning, since it couldn't happen overnight. If they were to change, they'd likely have to change in a way that requires more from my department, not less.
Bigger risk is that everyone is "laid off" if things take a downturn. I suppose that's the downside.
But i am jealous. From my experience, interviewing for smaller studios in this market isn't really much better than AAA studios. IME it's less interview rounds but more tests, which is hard to do while balancing other interviews or work. Sadly I'm in that awkward middle ground where I'm not some new fish they expect to train but also not some 20 year vet they grab in with little hesitation.
So they made $4 Billion dollars last year but decided to restructure and fire / package the thousands of people who made them successful and profitable
And this is to project success AND will be perceived as a fantastic thing for the company so they can be even more profitable
So sick of this anti human way of doing business
No, they made -$1.7b. Revenue != profit. So given that they’re unsuccessful and losing money hand over fist, not surprised they had layoffs.
That's why I hate reading these kinds of things..... It's written to sound good and then no they're doing terrible.
It's like I'm actually literate: I can read the alphabets but I can not understand the table in their actual statement. Help me out?
"Q4, January-March 2024: Adjusted EBIT increased by 56% to SEK 1,426 million"
https://embracer.com/releases/embracer-group-publishes-interim-report-q4-january-march-2024-adjusted-ebit-increased-by-56-to-sek-1426-million/
they were barely profitable at EBIT margin 1 % during 22-23. Then they had 42.2B sales, but had an EBIT1) of (20.5b). So they made 42.2B revenue but their profit was negative 20.5.
In one year they spent 62.72B SEK????? An equivalent of 5.77B USD, google says. Their headcount was 16601. And they're saying they're going to be super profitable now that they'd slashed jobs? If they had no expenses other than salaries, that's nearly $350k per person. Were they paying $350k per person? Of course not of course they had other spendings. But this article is reporting that their solution to the huge loss, despite a huge REVENUE is to slash 27% of the staff that earned them this revenue, who had no ability to decide where else is money is being spent.
Am I reading this right?
If I'm reading the report right, then their losses stem from them selling and reassessing the value of assets:
Their adjusted EBIT margin, which excludes these one time expenses, show a consistent profit of 17%. Also, part of the sold assets facilitate their exit from the Russian market by selling Saber Interactive and with it 2150 employees.
https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/03/14/embracer-sells-saber-247-million-exit-from-russia-details
I think most employees weren't laid off, but instead part of the divested assets (Saber Interactive and Gearbox).
Wonderful, thank-you. It seems I have a long way to go reading these kinds of things
In socialism we’d instead see everyone getting a bonus and extra vacation days.