A long term hold. The only NZ bank I can invest in with good management and divs. I have a lot,voting for the new structure.
Printable View
A long term hold. The only NZ bank I can invest in with good management and divs. I have a lot,voting for the new structure.
Yes, the Chairman would have been insulted by the comment. However Ray Dalio from Bridgewater Capital gets this diversity stuff and invites feedback from his employees about his performance at meetings, and on this TED talk gives an example of employee giving him feedback “Ray, you deserve a D- for your performance today in the meeting because...”
Rather than thinking I am right he started to ask himself “How do I know I am right.” And he uses algorithms to this. This is a good example of how AI can be used for better decision-making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXbsVbFAczg
How to build a company where the best ideas win | Ray Dalio
Learn more about how these strategies helped Dalio create one of the world's most successful hedge funds and how you might harness the power of data-driven group decision-making.
I am leaning towards voting against the new structure,
As I have mentioned before, risk manager resigned AND sold his complete shareholding, 2 directors do not own any shares in HBL and as far as I understand only 1 of the remaining directors took the opportunity to increase his shareholding in the April 18 DRP.
My impression is that management is not uniform in their enthusiasm for this major change in direction.
I like companies in general to grow relatively slowly (10 to 20%), this reduces a lot of risk. HBL is able to grow under the present structure in a controlled way and it was not that long ago that the present structure was created.
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...712/286553.pdf
Fitch affirms rating, worth a read.
Not sure if its my greatest decision. But I'm back in at $1.66 after selling out at $1.75 and missing out on the 5.5 c divi. Lets see where we are after the vote. (Divi yield vs risk of SP dropping significantly got the better of me)
Keen to get punters to vote .....just got a text as Heartland ‘needs me to vote’
I felt important
I read it and this paragraph caught my eye and I did some research on Open Bank Resolution. I knew a bail-in existed but didn’t know it was called OBR.
“We believe the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) framework reduces the propensity of the sovereign to support its banks. The OBR framework allows for the imposition of losses on depositors and senior debt holders to make up capital shortfalls if a deposit-taking institution fails.”
So what I learned was
- as a depositor I’m expected to assess a bank’s liquidity and risk. Sorry Snoopy my eyes glaze over when I read the calculations in your posts.
- I may need to consult a registered financial adviser (not one employed by the bank) to help me decide whether to continue banking with ASB. Yeah right!
- I am an unsecured creditor with the bank, not a depositor. I have made an unsecured loan to the bank, and if it fails I am treated just like an unsecured creditor is with any other failed business.
- I am happy to accept risk in the sharemarket but I didn’t realise that I need to assess risk with my bank. I accept that finance companies are risky but my reading of the OBR policy is that a bank is now in the same category as finance companies = assess risk.
- It’s my responsibility to assess risk and make choices. If my bank fails I made a bad choice - tough.
- The Australian banking inquiry title says it all - Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Risky lending, liar loans, bribes, involved in multiple scandals- the same behaviour that led to the GFC is being repeated. No lessons learned or restraints put in place.
- Where can I put my money that is safe?
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/faqs/open-b...on-policy-faqs
Why should depositors bail-out banks?
The OBR policy is designed to ensure that first losses are borne by the bank’s existing shareholders. In addition, a portion of depositors’ and other unsecured creditors’ funds will be frozen to bear any remaining losses. …….. The primary advantage of the OBR scheme, however, is that depositors would have access to a large proportion of their balances throughout the process. This contrasts with what would happen under a normal liquidation, where depositors might not have access to any of their funds for a significant period.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-...ank-resolution
This ‘OBR Made Simple’ fact-sheet (PDF 1.4MB) explains OBR and how it works.
Where is the safest place for my money?
Every financial decision carries risk. You may need to consult a registered fnancial adviser to match your investments to your willingness to take risk. To assist in assessing potential risks, the Reserve Bank publishes a Financial Stability Report twice a year, in May and November.
From memory thsi came in after the GFC and after the Tax Payer bailed out South Canterbury Finance - and allowed deposits secured by the tax payer.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/...nancial-system
11 March 2011
"The Government is considering options for maintaining confidence in the financial system when the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme expires at the end of this year, Finance Minister Bill English says.
The Government does not favour compulsory deposit insurance. This is difficult to price and blunts incentives for both financial institutionsand depositors to monitor and manage risks properly.
“One option for minimising disruption of the financial system and maintaining investor confidence is referred to as Open Bank Resolution. This aims to provide continuity of core banking services, allow the banking system to get back to normal and limit the costs to taxpayers."
moka - Yes I'm afraid you are quite correct and many people are unaware of the risks. Australian banks are paying a scandalously low call rate on funds, many standard call accounts from the Australian owned banks only pay 0.1% (that is not a typo) and there are real risks in earning this "phenomenal" return. In Australia by comparison the Govt guarantees the first $250K of depositors personal deposits.
As close to risk free as it gets here is N.Z. Govt stock with various maturities that you can buy on market through your broker around 2-2.7% depending upon maturity date or invest in Kiwi Bonds https://www.nzdmo.govt.nz/individual...interest-rates Interest rates are VERY low but these are not subject to the OBR.
Senior ranked corporate bonds issued by major corporates are another option but are higher risk in as much as the company itself is a risk but again these are not subject to the OBR.
Some people (myself included) are using REIT's like ARG and power companies like GNE to achieve effective rates of return of about 8% gross which in my view is a far better risk adjusted return for one's funds than any of the above and again are not subject to the OBR.
P.S. At least Heartland give you some return for the risk with their on call interest rate of 2.75%. Using that account for one's funds that one wants to keep on call is a no brainer compared to the Australian owned banks in my opinion.
All good points. Taking another look at those RBNZ restrictions on Oz wholesale borrowing, I think the answer about timing reveals itself.
Against total assets of 4,496M as at 30 June '18, HBL is able to borrow a max. of 20% or 899M. Current Oz borrowing (at that date) was at 615M.
A very rough and ready assessment shows that one year of 39% growth in existing borrowing takes HBL up to the limit (assuming no asset growth).
Those figures were as at June so, if we follow that timeline, HBL could be seen to be doing this 6ish months before hitting that upper cap.
Cash flow, certainly an issue, but the Scheme booklet suggests that CBA are happy to lend to support HBL's REL growth.
NJ
Thanks for you post 11315 Hamish. Very appreciative of you sharing your thoughs from the presentation.
P.S. it has gone XD so you´ve got your DRP. If you start selling at a good price, I´ll probably buy them off you :-)
Rather than just a mention I think that this needs to be emphasised. The expert in risk management has just left and sold down his complete holding. Probably because management has chosen to see the opportunities and has ignored the threats. I’d be gone too if I was the risk manager because of the overvalued Australian housing market.
Risk managers work with companies to assess and identify the potential risks that may hinder the reputation, safety, security and financial prosperity of their organisation.
The risk manager might have also had a mortgage or needed to build a deck or decided to go to Europe or maybe buy his kids a house or build a bach....
Google search reveals his work records are with finance institutions but each job he only stays
3 years 10 months
3 years 4 months
3 years 3 months (heartland)
1 year 3 months
he achieves all he can then moves on to his next challenge ....or he gets itchy feet, either way heartland wasn,t out of the ordinary
im voting for the restructure , big opportunities coming and growth
As I have said several times now nothing sinister with the Risk Officer leaving and selling his shares.
Three years seemed to be his attention span and then does a bit of travelling. He’s left the office and taken his bonus (the shares he sold) with him. Nothing more than that
Wasn’t one of Heartlands best hires and maybe the new guy strengthens the organisation .
A good thing — they are truly independent and can make decisions without considering what’s in it for me and my bank account (no vested interest)
Directors not holding shares not a sign of lacking commitment, rather they can keep a rein on directors who think it’s their company.
Seriously.
HBL's lack of exposure to Sydney,Melbourne,and Auckland property market via large mortgages,means to me the large banks have greater exposure through any credit cycle.A 10% to 20% fall in property values, would see no ,or very little effect on HBL,while the major banks would most probably need Australian and NZ government assistance..
HBL for the main part have a great number of smaller loans,and these are more of a lot safer shorter term,ie the likes of motorvehicle lending and livestock.These loans have low default rates.
It is my opinion these "high risk" loans are in fact "low risk" loans going through any credit cycle.
This should be acknowledged.
Although they mentioned HBL's high NIM,maybe they should have pointed out more, how helpful this is to HBL.
New rules now Percy. The government is saying no financial assistance from taxpayers. The shareholders and depositors carry the cost with Open Bank Resolution.
Can you imagine what it would do to business confidence if there was a bail-in and depositor’s funds were confiscated? The economy would tank. This would affect businesses as well as savers. Putting funds in finance companies was a choice and it was savings. With a bank there is no choice - you have to have a bank for your day to day transactions, especially for businesses.
Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is a long-standing Reserve Bank policy aimed at allowing a distressed bank to be kept open for business, while placing the cost of a bank failure primarily on the bank’s shareholders and creditors, rather than the taxpayer.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-and-supervision/banks/open-bank-resolution
For me this changes the rules of commerce. Now the money owed to an unsecured creditor remains as a debt until the business is wound up. With OBR the bank continues in business and the creditor doesn’t get all their money back, because some is confiscated. I accept that the government can confiscate assets but I don’t think a private business should be able to even with government approval. With OBR depositors get punished for bank’s bad behaviour.
Vast numbers of older folks have money in term deposits with banks, (because they think the sharemarket is too high risk) so they get really low returns and are blissfully unaware of the risks. They think their money is really safe. It is a VERY sad state of affairs.
I was really meaning the Australian banks,however the NZ banks with Australian parents would also be under pressure.
Yes you are right,however I can not see either the Australian or NZ government,letting the likes of ANZ,CBA or Westpac fail.There would be some sort of arrangement.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is not your friend. Its job is to protect the banks. It would not hesitate to impose a haircut on depositors of a minor deposit taking institution like Heartland to teach people a lesson.
The systemic risk of a major bank imposing a cram down on depositors would make the Reserve Bank hesitate and make politicians eager to fix it.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
PS. Mid Canterbury where Heartland does its major deposit taking business is so staunchly National they could put up a cockies dog as a candidate and it would still get elected. Thus there is no political risk to either of the main parties from cutting Mid Canterbury depositors adrift.
Voted for , lets get this done and keep this company growing!.
That post made my day....lol.
Long term reader of this forum. Many thanks to all the long term posters.
Investor in HBL from the beginning - DRP and capital raising participant.
Voted Yes - Growth should be pursued - Low risk growth - even better
You are referring to this quote in the 'small print' on p6 of the scheme of arrangement book?
"1/ The Reserve Bank expects Heartland Bank to limit the extent to which its loans (both in New Zealand and Australia) are secured to wholesale funders to not more than 20%." ?
I think this note is referring to what are normally termed 'securitized loans'. These are loans packaged up and sold to third parties. The reason I think this is that other interpretations seem to me to make little sense.
I think your suggestion that 'borrowings' should not exceed 20% of the total balance sheet assets is an incorrect interpretation of what this note means. If you look at the balance sheet just down from where you took the $4,496m total asset figure from, you will see that borrowings already total $3,796m. This is way over your calculated ceiling of $899m.
Not sure where you get your Oz borrowing figure of $615m. Under note 13 of AR2018 we learn that $A562m has been drawn on the CBA facility in Australia of $A600m. Maybe you have converted this to $NZ at the following exchange rate?
$A562/$NZ615 => $NZ1 = $A0.9138
'Securitized Loans' involve a compromise. The parent bank will charge Heartland a lower than market interest rate. In return Heartland will swallow a larger than normal amount of lost capital should the loan ever go bad. This implied capital guarantee to the buyer of those loans is an extra risk to Heartland and the reason why the 'sold' loans must still appear on the Heartland balance sheet. But how much of a burden will the securitized loan guarantee be? Heartland aren't saying. But the Reserve Bank are saying:
"Don't securitize more than 20% of your loan portfolio."
or that risk becomes too great. This is how I interpret the foot note on p6.
SNOOPY
Yes, but if what you say is true MM, and I think it is, then: What we shareholders need is a higher standard of protection than the Reserve Bank oversight gives. The argument that Reserve Bank oversight has let shareholders down (e.g. CBL Insurance), and so we should not be concerned about the loss of Reserve Bank oversight with Heartland seems a perverse one.
The 'good riddance to Reserve Bank oversight' attitude is akin to saying that one cop is not enough of a police presence to keep order in a small town, so let's get rid of the one cop we have and that will be better! Yet all the while the actual solution to small town unrest is that you need two cops, not just one. What we shareholders need is a more stringent application of Reserve Bank standards, if we shareholders are to avoid a loss of shareholder capital. We don't want Reserve bank oversight to be abolished. At least that is the way I see it.
SNOOPY
Maybe we talked cross purpose ... just in case you are referring to my posts. I absolutely agree that NZ would need a financial authority overseeing banks, insurance business and actually all listed companies. NZ seems still to be the wild west - too many crooked and incompetent boards (not referring to HBL here) and no authority seems to be seriously concerned to sort the mess out.
Whoever thinks that the RBNZ will protect them as shareholders is wrong.
So, yes - lets get some financial authority properly resourced (with teeth) and tasked to keep our boardrooms crook free and our companies playing to the rule book.
However - whoever thinks that the RBNZ is this authority in its current state is mistaken - at the moment the RBNZ is not doing more for shareholders than a "she'll be right" bumper sticker at the car. Only difference - the bumper sticker might be more funny and less damaging (remember - the RBNZ even prevented the CBL board to comply with the continuous disclosure regime). I am not sure whether RBNZ are the good guys. In my view they should be investigated by themselves before they are assumed to protect others.
From discussions I have had with HBL directors/management, they speak highly of their close working relationship with The Reserve Bank of NZ.
Started well before the granting of HBL's banking licence, and continues today, with their current corporate restructure.
I am sure the CBL board would have spoken as well highly about their working relationship with the RBNZ .... maybe they did?
Probably a discussion for some other thread. The point for this thread is: It is not the role of the RBNZ to protect shareholder interests. Whatever the RBNZ oversight might be good for - share holders would be mistaken if they rely on it in any shape or form. If there are problems with HBL (hypothetical - I don't assume there are ...) than the RBNZ will be the last authority to inform shareholders or protect their interest. They even might be instrumental in keeping any problems under cover as they did in the case of CBL.
can watch the annual meeting via webcast , cool i wont need to leave the house.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/323858
if you have a question let them know by the 18th
My thoughts.
Market was disappointed with just 2% EPS growth this year.
Market was disappointed with no dividend growth this year
Market has some trepidation about the whole restructuring thing.
Current PE is 13.2. FY19 PE is 12.7, FY20 PE is 11.8 and FY21 PE is 11.2 (based on average analyst forecasts as recorded on market screener) so there is decent growth in EPS forecast in future years with EPS of 14.8 cps forecast in FY21 which suggests 18% total growth in earnings over the next 3 years or just on 5.7% compound average EPS growth.
Unlike Ben Graham's model which priced shares based on historical EPS and applied a multiple of 8.5 for a no growth company and 2 x g (where g is estimated long term growth for the next 7-10 years) I apply a multiple of 1 to ensure I am buying value but use current year earnings.
This suggests to me a fair PE is 8.5 + 5.7 (yes I think with HBL's unique business model they can grow earnings sustainably at that rate with their very high NIM and very strong growth in reverse equity loans) = 14.2. Current year earnings are forecast at 13.1 cps so to me the shares have an intrinsic value of 14.2 x 13.1 = $1.86 and are underpriced.
I looked this morning at the average PE of the six major Australian banks I follow, NAB, ANZ, BEN, CBA, WBC and BOQ. Their current average FY18 PE is 12.37 compared to HBL of 13.2 however forecasted PE based on earnings growth in the FY20 year sees the Australian peer group average decline to just a PE of 12 (showing quite moderate average EPS growth in the next 2 years), whereas HBL declines to a PE of 11.8 in FY20 and just 11.2 in FY21.
We can see that HBL's forecasted EPS growth is materially higher than its peer group in the years ahead which I think warrants the PE mentioned above.
My Conclusion. The current SP of HBL is being affected by factors mentioned at the beginning of this post and is not fairly representative of the future earnings potential and earnings growth of the company.
I think its underpriced by about 20 cps at present and I expect relative outperformance in the year ahead from the current level of $1.66.
I correctly called this a SELL at $2.14 in December 2017 when it got well ahead of itself. I now rank it as a BUY and have been doing exactly that. Presently my #1 investment position even ahead of SUM !
Thanks too Beagle. Question, I see they raised capital in 2017 so that would explain why eps is 2% when they increased their profit by 11%... sneaky... didn't explain that too well in the quick announcement summary.
So is it unlikely they will be able to increase profits by say 8-11% going forward?
You're most welcome guys. Profits will grow in that order NG but shares issued by the dividend reinvestment scheme and possibly more capital to be raised at some point to fund more organic growth will suppress EPS growth a bit. Nothing wrong with 5-6% EPS growth going forward on an average basis and as mentioned this certainly puts them well ahead of average Australian bank EPS growth.
I am forecasting 9.5 cps dividends this year fully imputed. 9.5 / 0.72 = 13.194 cps gross. 13.194 / 166 = 7.95% gross yield.
Interestingly some of the Australian banks are on a net yield of just over 7% so with Australians being able to avail themselves of franking credits and unable to claim our imputation credits and vice versa the investment landscape from an effective net yield perspective is heavily tilted towards backing banks in one's own country.
You can email questions to them Percy and if its anything like the AIR AGM they answer them publicly during the meeting. Shall we leave that one for you to ask ?
Quote:
Please note that you will not be able to ask questions during the webcast and
conference call, but you are invited to submit a question in advance of the
meeting at the time of registering for the webcast. Please submit your
questions by 5pm Tuesday 18 September.
Thats taken a while. Just got my txt message urging me to vote.
Yes fair comment. After yet another email reminder I just voted online in favor of the restructure. The minimum vote size (type of quorum), is 50% of all issued shares and of those that vote 75% or more must vote in favor for this special resolution (to pass muster).
Yes , all hands on deck, rattle your dags, swab the decks, get down off the poop deck, go below, pull out the laptop and vote, its never been easier, whether on sealegs or queasier, DYB, DYB, DYB, DOBBIDY DYB DOB, be proactive on the good ship Heartland, turn that wheel and steer her through charted waters, like you oughter. Weigh the anchor, for the would be banker.VOTE!:sleep:
Received my FIN number today in the post, after I rang Link for it on Monday,so voted online.
Wife was able to vote via post the other day.
So we have done our bit.
I voted in favor a couple of days ago was very easy to do online.:)
Was going to go along to the AGM as well, although the thought of watching it in the comfort of ones home also appeals!
Would be a bugger will miss out on the free savories though .... oh decisions decisions! :scared:
No my FIN number,and the wife's,are encrypted in Craigs' system.Craigs' can not tell me what it is. I had to ring the share registry to get it,and they only post it.
I get my correspondence via email,to save waste,and get hard/printed copy for the wife,so she had no trouble voting..
They kindly emailed my FIN to me percy as long as i promised to delete the email.
Maybe like me 777, i forgot FIN and where i recorded it.
You must have a better phone manner than me.....lol.
Crazy but it was the same number I tried, that did not work on Sunday.
I put ours in a safe place,only trouble it was years ago and now I can't remember where that safe place was.Early or late stages of Alzheimers,I forget which.?
I don't think I was clear about what I had in mind by doubling down on what the Reserve Bank of New Zealand do in overseeing Heartland Bank.
There is a section in the annual report titled 'Capital Adequacy' with a subsection on 'Capital Ratios'. The 'Minimum Total Capital as Condition of Registration' for Heartland is listed as 8%.
While the Reserve Bank consider this restriction:
1/ Appropriate for the stability of the banking system.
they also consider it fair game to ...
2/ Give shareholders and deposit holders a haircut in pursuit of the stability of the banking system.
I am all for 1/ but not so keen on 2/. So to protect my interests as a shareholder and/or debenture holder I see that it will only be in my interest to invest in Heartland if:
'Minimum Total Capital as a Condition of Snoopy Investment' is >> 8% (That means much much greater than 8%).
Employing more people in the Reserve Bank compliance/regulation department won't do this. You have to make your own calculation taking into account what level of total backing capital that you think is acceptable. There is no reinvention of the wheel here. I would advocate exactly the same registration test that the Reserve Bank does, but with a suitably higher acceptable threshold.
SNOOPY
well set out Beagle.
As one great poster on this forum used to say every action sees a reaction. A sort of Newtons 3rd Law for the markets
I see this phase of HBL as undergoing a 'reaction' as a direct response to the 'action' of the last year.
Currently this is manifesting itself as a descending triangle , crudely shown here
Attachment 9932
which raises a possible target of $1.55. Indeed this matches a previous support/resistance zone in late 2016.
I am also seeing some divergence in the RSI which may point to a turnaround but its somehow not that convincing
Attachment 9935
What worries me is that right leaning H+S where we just gapped through the shoulder line. Even if the gap gets filled in a 'back to test' scenario its likely the downwards gap is portending lower prices.
Attachment 9934
I'll wait for clearer evidence of a reversal but will totally keep looking for it
My Mum has a reverse mortgage with CBA , quite possibly funded by HBL, its safe as houses I reckon, the limit is small compared to value, but it keeps her flush in cash which I reckon is nice.
Go for a dividend adjusted chart or use weekly bars and you have no gap to worry about :)
Peat - scary charts mate
The H&S pattern particulary scary ..... looks we heading to $1.40 or lower if it plays out and has a bit of bling added. That should send the shivers up Beagles spine
Beautiful eh
Just as well I sold right at the head...gives me more wiggle room around the shoulders now I'm back in eh Winner. TA does not look flash but FA does ! Might be a while before you get your $2.50 though :)
I have started to buy. Have close to 1M shares. This is a good co and is in niche markets .,but i take risk and do not often sell,just hold. Lucky the shares are for the kids.
Heartlands much touted NIM (more than double its peers) doesn’t seem to translate into superior ROE. Heartland’s ROE is just average and nothing special.
Using Beagles peer group and tabling their ROE and Price Book ratios gives interesting insights as below.
Appears as if a Heartland share price of $1.66 is neither cheap or expensive.
Price/Book for me a better measure than PE ratios etc ....note higher the ROE the more it’s rewarded with a higher multiple
Numbers from Morningstar so don’t blame me if wrong
I thought that OBR was for the too-big-to-fail banks but you may be right that it could be used with a smaller bank like HBL. I assumed that because HBL wouldn’t have got a taxpayer bailout and would have been left to fail under the old rules that it wouldn’t fit into the OBR rules. Hopefully we will never know what the intentions are with OBR.
Should one of the big 4 (ASB, ANZ, BNZ, WBC) or Kiwibank get into difficulty, they will be bailed out by the government.
If more than one is in trouble, then it's a moot point. If anyone else is in trouble, the OBR will be down on them like a ton of bricks.
Looking at what happened to the finance companies a decade or so ago, you might say that "size does matter" - did anyone other than SCF get bailed?
Strike price for the shares in lieu of dividend has been announced and for those canny investors participating they enjoy a 2.5% discount to the VWAP ex divvy trading price over recent days ($1.625). Participation is actually a good way to boost one's effective yield. For example I am forecasting 7.95% gross yield as recently posted in the year ahead but for those taking the shares in lieu their gross yield becomes 7.95 / 0.975 = 8.154%.
Just on 5.3m shares are being issued for this dividend and I am modelling 10.6m shares issued for the year or 1.9% increase in the number on issue. Provided they don't do a capital raise the vast majority of this year's profit growth should translate to EPS growth but I agree with Percy that asking whether this years forecast profit growth will be reflected in an ostensibly similar EPS growth is an excellent question for the annual meeting. After only 2% EPS growth last year I will be seeking some comfort the company hasn't lost focus on the importance of EPS growth.
Discount is what it is @ 2.5% and many investors have done well over the years using this approach. I can assure you mate you're not the only investor disappointed with the present SP.
Dividend stripping :- I think 8-9 times out of ten shares recover the dividend paid in the SP within a month of going ex. There will always be exceptions but the odds or relative SP outperformance in the month after going ex divvy are very good in my opinion.
Don’t complain about the DRP ...punters are getting more shares for their buck than the previous payout (for the second time in a row)
That must be good ...isn’t it?
dont forget about the 1% of shares which have to be sold because they are not allowed to participate in the restructure.
Good to see diversity means equal treatment under the law: (something for all directors to think about) https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...ng-allegations
Good point the reminder about weighted average number of shares on issue. Forecast at mid point is $76m. Shares currently on issue are 560.14m. Add estimated 5.3m to be issued shortly for this dividend, (on issue for approx. 9 months in FY19) and another estimated 5.3m shares to be issued 6 months hence which will be on issue for just 3 months gives weighted average shares on issue for the year of ~ 566m.
$76m / 566m = EPS of 13.43 cps up 7% on last years 12.54 cps. Average analyst view is EPS of 13.1 cps so it would appear analysts are anticipating a small capital raise at some point in FY19.
13.1 cps / 12.54% EPS is still 4.5% EPS growth.
Might ask an awkward question about EPS growth at the annual meeting and throw the directors a curved ball and bleat about last year's very modest 2% EPS growth.
85-90% chance this is back into the mid $1.70's by late next month (despite the ugly head and shoulders TA, "thanks" Peat), in my opinion.
Fvck me. Heres me not tuning into the AGM
"E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rau rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa
Greetings to all of you, all voices, all authorities and leaders
Ki ngā iwi o te whenua nei, ki a Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Paoa, me Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, tēnākoutou
To you the local iwi, I acknowledge your role as tangata whenua
Ki Te Wai o Taiki kei waho nei, tēnā koe
To the Tamaki estuary we see outside, I acknowledge you and your history, its strands and pathways, bringing us all here today
Tēnā koutou ki a koutou katoa kua hui mai nei i tēnei rā, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, keite mihi
To each and every one of you, welcome and thank you for your supportKi ngā kaumātua o te kāhui nei, ki a Chris kōrua ko Geoff, tēnā kōrua"
C'mon jeff - how many shareholders are fluent in Maori. How About a bit of Chinese or Indian for the "Diversity" Virtue Badge
They must do a lot of Iwi business on both sides of the ledger eh minimoke.
Pleased to see they are looking to wind back their exposure on big dairy relationship lending and concentrate on more profitable area's of the business.
All looks good, didn't have time today to attend. Hope someone else asks them the hard question about concentration on EPS growth but overall I think they have a pretty good handle on where they going and I am happy with my XXXL holding...biggest I've ever had.
More female leaders on the way Mini ...the mediocre men better start worrying
In terms of gender diversity, we are actively working to develop and attract females into senior leadership positions to promote diversity of thought. Our Strategic Management Group has been 50% female and 50% male for over a year now. The wider Senior Leadership Team is now 33% female and 67% male and we recognise there is more work to be done here. Initiatives are underway to ensure we have a strong pipeline of female talent in the business.
Diary problems are quite widespread these days
Jeff says 'Good Afternoon" ...hope he turns up
I wouldnt have thought so. In an MBIE report, the strategic direction appears to be
"Iwi and government should work together to facilitatethe development of a template for iwi-led savingsschemes capable of being tailored to suit iwi priorities(e.g. iwi with a particular focus on whänau homeownership could design a scheme allowing for earlywithdrawal of retirement savings for the purposes ofhome ownership);
• Iwi and government should work together to drivethe development and utilisation of infrastructuresupporting iwi-led savings schemes, to be brandedand promoted by individual iwi"
Then there is the risk of security - that being shared title ownership of land
As for REL's, 28.2% of Maori own, or part own their own home - compared to 49.8% of the total population.
HBL might want to clarify theri strategy with Whai Rawa and their Kiwisaver plans for theri Maori stakeholders.
Lets move on mate...just part of the crazy PC world we live in there days. Before departure from Queenstown airport Tuesday night last week the captain came out and gave a long welcome and dissertation on flight proceedings in Maori before doing the English translation. Maybe because it was the very late flight or Maori language week or simply because I was happy and rested from a great holiday but it didn't bother me. This PC nonsense started way back when for reason unknown we started singing the national anthem in Te Reo before singing it in English. No stopping this mate, just go with the flow otherwise it does your head in. (Free psychology 101 advice just for you)
Percy, I think the whole restructuring thing is aimed at growth without new share issuance and the wind back of lower margin resource intensive large business and dairy lending to concentrate on higher areas of NIM lending where they have a unique competitive advantage gives me comfort that mid single digit EPS growth going forward is highly likely.
webcasts a bit poor got background music going over the talking
We should not move on. There is an insidious drift where the loonies are taking over, bit by bit the asylum. We now have the Vice Chancellor of Massey lying, and blocking "racist" don Brash from speaking.
People in positions of authority need to be held to task. The directors, and management responsibility is to look after shareholder interests. The best way they can signal their virtue is to grow the company which would then empower individual shareholders to pursue whatever personal social agendas they choose.
If HBL are pursuing Marori related financial opportunities then they should be declared - they are opportunities that come with greater risk than your bog standard REL.
(with the stated aim of pushing into Australia I look forward to an AGM introduction in Aborigine next year). Heres a draft for them. https://about.curtin.edu.au/who/aboriginal-welcome/
anyone watching webcast? problems with background music over talking?