The "Looking forward" statements tell the true story - a banking license is not even on the horizon, and they have little chance of meeting forecasts
watch out for the sub-underwriters and underwriters bailing......
Printable View
The "Looking forward" statements tell the true story - a banking license is not even on the horizon, and they have little chance of meeting forecasts
watch out for the sub-underwriters and underwriters bailing......
I have been puzzled by Heartlands desire to become a registered bank.
As a cynical person I wondered if the bank registration was just a story told to win over those voting on the merger. The real driver was to shelter MARAC beneath CBS Canterburys balance sheet.
Now that the "Mission Accomplished" banner has been unfurled in the boardroom will we see bank registration quietly fade away?
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Well I am un decided.HNZ appear to be like Mainland Cheese;"Good things take time."HNZ have achieved a merger,and seem to be sticking to their agenda.I think they have been over careful with everything they do ,so they don't risk putting "The Bank" licence at risk.They have got through the govt guarantee ,and hopefully the have laid solid foundations for the future.I continue to hold and expect it will take time.The NTA at 85 cents is reassuring.
Whatever the motivation(s) underlying the quest for a banking licence, I think the outcome - either way - will have a big impact on the fortunes of HNZ. The more so if it comes sooner, not later.
I suppose the NTA is reassuring, hadn't really thought about it. Until HNZ puts decent and sustained profits together and pays solid dividends the NTA has an academic quality? HNZ is trading at 0.55 times NTA. With decent profits and dividends, or increasing promise of same, the HNZ price will move towards the 1.8 times NTA of ANZ and the 2.0 times NTA of WBC. Getting there will take much more time than Mainland cheese, and a few more old boys on the Mainland commercials will have popped their clogs along the way, but loyal HNZ holders will wallow in good port and vintage tasty.
Great post Under surveillance.
A bit ignorant here - why would they want to enter into a lockup agreement with Harrogate Trustee for 5% of share capital till FY result?
Nice chart !
best wishes
Paper Tiger (wearing a Technical hat) :blush:
Got to love it ..... George getting all grumpy and saying Heartland is under perfoming and they better get their act together .... and George holding onto the shares in HNZ
George talks tough
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...rr-talks-tough
That lock up deal with Harrogate a 'defensive move' to make a full takeover by somebody a bit harder .... me thinks George has had some influence in this action .... see Belg your mate looking after you after all
About the share lock-up agreement.
Imagine yourself to be an Aussie banker sitting in your plush office in Melbourne. You have a problem. You have been trying to grow your customer base at your subsidiary across the ditch by spending megabucks on advertising. The trouble is all your fellow Ocker Banker mates are doing the same, so all you are doing is churning customers.
You think, why not simply buy these customers by making a cash bid for a struggling small bank with a tidy number of customers and a sinking share price.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
Odd... he was selling his own indirect holdings via Pyne Holdings and can be presumed to be still selling (now below 5%), so may well be him pushing the price down... while saying it is badly performing and speculation he might have something to do with a lock-up to stop others getting it...
Such cynicism in one so young.
Seriously - wouldn't you just be buying customers who, by their actions, have shown that they don't want a relationship with an Aussie bank ? And who have already voted with their feet.
Or customers who have already been rejected by the Aussie banks ?
I don't think it's a defensive move at all - the lock-up agreement specifically gives Tomlinson the right to sell into a full takeover - end of story. And anyway, such moves are illegal if my memory is correct (frustration of T/O?)
If you accept that Tomlinson was fitted into doing the underwrite, and I am led to believe thats correct (sweet talking Georgie Porgie says no chance of you being called upon old son, the mugs will all take up their rights, and if you are called, leave the arrangement of the funding to me), then its got to the point where Tomlinson wants out and to cut his losses (see last weeks curious SSH, where there was a 'rearrangement' of who tells who what to do with the running of Harrowgate)
He is after all down 30% less underwriting fees collected, plus funding costs in a market that simply does not like HNZ and it's prospects.
So who has who over a barrel?
I suspect the lock-up buys HNZ and their 'advisors' a bit of time to find a home (acceptable to PGC and HNZ) for the 19m, with some sort of side deal done to 'alleviate' the costs to Tomlinson
So it begs the question, who funded the underwrite ? Hmmm, only need one guess at that - perhaps that secretive slush fund owned by PGC?
As for Kerr/PGC deciding the HNZ's aren't for sale, well surprise surprise, given he's so far out of the money it's become a joke, long at 78, more at 75 and even more again at 65, when at the time of the split-off, everyone was looking up.
Despite this huge overhang of 'reluctant' holders, it's hard to see much further downside, so they will just have to hold the line and wait for the improvements, meantime sweating on unrealised losses
"curiouser and curiouser" said Alice.....
AIMHOO and please do your own research