The True Cost Of A Driver

[ChetlovesMer]

9 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Yeah. that makes sense.

Corporate income tax as opposed to employment taxes (aka Payroll tax).  Two entirely different types of tax, but expense to a company either way.

Oh yeah, I didn't even realize I put employment tax in my original post. Thanks. Easy mistake for me, I was thinking about how it affected the employment at my company. Sorry for the confusion. 

Anyway, back on topic. As you say the company has a ton of expenses. 

[mcanadiens]

Acushnet's 2019 financials. (In thousands)

Cost of Goods Sold                                               809,122

Selling, General and Administrative expenses      627,503

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $15.6 million to $627.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $611.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. This increase was primarily due to increases of $10.0 million in selling expenses across all segments, $2.1 million in acquisition related transaction fees, $1.1 million in advertising and promotion, and the impact of the acquisition of KJUS. This increase was partially offset by a decrease of $7.4 million in share-based compensation expense. Overall SG&A included a favorable impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates across all expense categories and segments of $8.2 million.

https://s21.q4cdn.com/797008351/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/Acushnet-Holdings-Annual-Report-2019.pdf

Edited August 20, 2020 by mcanadiens

[ChetlovesMer]

6 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Acushnet's 2019 financials. (In thousands)

Cost of Goods Sold                                               809,122

Selling, General and Administrative expenses      627,503

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $15.6 million to $627.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $611.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. This increase was primarily due to increases of $10.0 million in selling expenses across all segments, $2.1 million in acquisition related transaction fees, $1.1 million in advertising and promotion, and the impact of the acquisition of KJUS. This increase was partially offset by a decrease of $7.4 million in share-based compensation expense. Overall SG&A included a favorable impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates across all expense categories and segments of $8.2 million.

https://s21.q4cdn.com/797008351/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/Acushnet-Holdings-Annual-Report-2019.pdf

I would have liked to see the MyGolfSpy podcast at least quote one or two of the publicly traded companies financials. They make these statements about "costs" but then they don't present any of the "evidence" which is readily available from any publicly traded company. I quickly looked up Callaway's it took me about 8 seconds to find very similar numbers (by percentage) to what you are showing for Acushnet. 

I enjoy the MGS podcasts and I listen to just about every one of them. But, I "feel" like they spout a lot of information which we are supposed to take as gospel and they don't site their sources and/or data set. It "feels" like they used to do that really well when they first started. I know @iacas has mentioned this type of thing in the past. Maybe they "feel" its boring to tell everyone how and where they get their information, but time and time again, I find myself wondering "Where'd they get that information?" "How did they calculate that?" "How was that test conducted?" 

[ncates00]

4 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I would have liked to see the MyGolfSpy podcast at least quote one or two of the publicly traded companies financials. They make these statements about "costs" but then they don't present any of the "evidence" which is readily available from any publicly traded company. I quickly looked up Callaway's it took me about 8 seconds to find very similar numbers (by percentage) to what you are showing for Acushnet. 

I enjoy the MGS podcasts and I listen to just about every one of them. But, I "feel" like they spout a lot of information which we are supposed to take as gospel and they don't site their sources and/or data set. It "feels" like they used to do that really well when they first started. I know @iacas has mentioned this type of thing in the past. Maybe they "feel" its boring to tell everyone how and where they get their information, but time and time again, I find myself wondering "Where'd they get that information?" "How did they calculate that?" "How was that test conducted?" 

Used to be a fan of theirs, but I have gotten to where I don't enjoy their stuff much these days.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I enjoy the MGS podcasts and I listen to just about every one of them. But, I "feel" like they spout a lot of information which we are supposed to take as gospel and they don't site their sources and/or data set. It "feels" like they used to do that really well when they first started. I know @iacas has mentioned this type of thing in the past. Maybe they "feel" its boring to tell everyone how and where they get their information, but time and time again, I find myself wondering "Where'd they get that information?" "How did they calculate that?" "How was that test conducted?" 

They're the king of the bad test and the pre-built conclusion. Oh, look, the Snell is the best ball! I love Snell, but c'mon. Doesn't remotely pass the sniff test at all. I don't know of any of their tests in the past many years that have been all that scientifically sound.

[saevel25]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

They're the king of the bad test and the pre-built conclusion. Oh, look, the Snell is the best ball! I love Snell, but c'mon. Doesn't remotely pass the sniff test at all. I don't know of any of their tests in the past many years that have been all that scientifically sound.

To me they just want to make blatant heavy handed decisions to not write reviews based the data. They somehow had this "Callaway" driver ranked lower in strokes gained when it was in the top 10 in ball speed and top 10 in shot area. I mean, that means it should equal higher strokes gained than were it was at. It makes no sense at all. 

I believe they had issue with dealing with Callaway in the past. So might as well kill their reputation for running test with no bias. 

Edited August 21, 2020 by saevel25

[Release]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

They're the king of the bad test and the pre-built conclusion. Oh, look, the Snell is the best ball! I love Snell, but c'mon. Doesn't remotely pass the sniff test at all. I don't know of any of their tests in the past many years that have been all that scientifically sound.

You know that the $$$ makes the world go around ?

Sponsorship and donations keep the site afloat.  Of course the test results could be bend either way depending on how it's written up and how the data was presented , preconditioned.

What I don't like about certain forums, they only allow their opinion to exist.  I can understand the motives behind the actions but, I just can't stand bunch of smarties influencing the crowd with their agenda.

I lost respect for anyone who would use a biased influence to lead the people who put trust in them.  As for the Snell, I was thinking really hard of getting a few boxes before I found one on the golf course and test drove it for 10 holes.... ended up wondering where the rave of this golf ball came from.  It's not long, not spinning, felt like a dud ... maybe it's pretty durable , that's it.

Anyway, some do not like to hear the truth, if the truth is against what they're preaching.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Release

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Release said:

I lost respect for anyone who would use a biased influence to lead the people who put trust in them.  As for the Snell, I was thinking really hard of getting a few boxes before I found one on the golf course and test drove it for 10 holes.... ended up wondering where the rave of this golf ball came from.  It's not long, not spinning, felt like a dud ... maybe it's pretty durable , that's it.

 

Which golf ball? The Snell MTB are as good as a Pro V. 

Also, I have no issue with someone accepting money for a product they believe is a good product. Just because they accept money doesn't mean they are a sell out. 

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, Release said:

What I don't like about certain forums, they only allow their opinion to exist.

…

Anyway, some do not like to hear the truth, if the truth is against what they're preaching.

Truth ≠ opinions.

Truth is about facts.

23 minutes ago, Release said:

As for the Snell, I was thinking really hard of getting a few boxes before I found one on the golf course and test drove it for 10 holes.... ended up wondering where the rave of this golf ball came from.  It's not long, not spinning, felt like a dud ... maybe it's pretty durable , that's it.

It's all I play. Great ball.

P.S. That's an opinion, as it can't possibly be a "fact" or a "truth." 😄

[Hardspoon]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's all I play. Great ball.

P.S. That's an opinion, as it can't possibly be a "fact" or a "truth." 😄

I mean..."it's all I play" is a fact.  

[Release]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Which golf ball? The Snell MTB are as good as a Pro V. 

Also, I have no issue with someone accepting money for a product they believe is a good product. Just because they accept money doesn't mean they are a sell out. 

Can't remember which one I had fond, it was quite a few years ago.   I did check on the model later and it was the most expensive they had to offer.  Sorry, did not take notes because it was not something I wish to pursue further.  That found golf ball basically killed my desire to test drive the brand.  

Promoting a product or service while being compensated is not a sin.  However, if the promotion was obligated and bias or worse, fudged, then I will not trust that source, ever.  Same scenario like a consumer goes to the same restaurant every week for years, then one day the ordered dishes were not up to expectation, guess what, the consumer will probably never return to the restaurant.

Trust is a commodity difficult to win over, and hard to maintain.  It'll be foolish to promote anything using exaggerated description to generate excitement.  How long will it take for a golfer to find out the expectation based on the promotion will not be met in practice ?  And you'll think this disappointment will not be broadcasted in the sphere of influence by this disappointed consumer ?   

If the product is great or present a good value, then it'll definitely "fly off the shelf" , right ?   I'll stop right there.

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, Release said:

Can't remember which one I had fond, it was quite a few years ago.   I did check on the model later and it was the most expensive they had to offer.  Sorry, did not take notes because it was not something I wish to pursue further.  That found golf ball basically killed my desire to test drive the brand.  

Promoting a product or service while being compensated is not a sin.  However, if the promotion was obligated and bias or worse, fudged, then I will not trust that source, ever.  Same scenario like a consumer goes to the same restaurant every week for years, then one day the ordered dishes were not up to expectation, guess what, the consumer will probably never return to the restaurant.

Trust is a commodity difficult to win over, and hard to maintain.  It'll be foolish to promote anything using exaggerated description to generate excitement.  How long will it take for a golfer to find out the expectation based on the promotion will not be met in practice ?  And you'll think this disappointment will not be broadcasted in the sphere of influence by this disappointed consumer ?   

If the product is great or present a good value, then it'll definitely "fly off the shelf" , right ?   I'll stop right there.

Let’s try and not stray off topic too much. The OP is about cost of manufacturing and not reviews of individual products.

[ChetlovesMer]

40 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Let’s try and not stray off topic too much. The OP is about cost of manufacturing and not reviews of individual products.

I think the topic they are looking for is here:

 

[WillieT]

On 8/19/2020 at 5:13 PM, Bonvivant said:

If there's one thing I've learned about working for larger companies, it's that having employees costs WAAAAY more than their salaries. Between UE and health benefits, it's surprising businesses actually exist.

I recall in my "corporate days" the HR manager telling me about the "hidden" costs of employment.  Basically it boils down to this - for every dollar in wages paid, there is it least 35-50cents added for benefits, etc.  It all adds up.  That is why I don't complain as I know that every business has to deal with this factor.  

[RFKFREAK]

On 8/19/2020 at 5:04 PM, mcanadiens said:

21%? Damn. That's vicious. 

 

I always complain bitterly when I have to clean up after myself at home.

"This is the last time I eat at this creep joint."

Somehow the proprietor never listens to me and I come back anyway.