the vendor will buy $38m HNZ shares at 90cps,that's capital injection.
Printable View
Sorry perhaps I should have said "Acquistion is a swap of cash and new shares for other assets possibly including some goodwill?"
I doubt whether the new shares are getting more than $0.90 of new net tangible assets each and with 65M new shares adding to the existing 392M it is not going to drop the overall NTA much (hopefully!)
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Wasn't NTA June 13 only 85 cents
Damn! They did say that didn't they? - so knock 4c off all my NTA numbers then: instead of $0.93 to $0.94 lets us say $0.88 to $0.90.
Update: amended original calculation post. I am so ashamed at myself for getting it wrong - I will never be sarcastic to Snoopy ever again this week. ;)
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
I am happy with NTA of 88cents to 90 cents.
So for those who believe NTA drives the share price the acquisition does nothing
So hope becomes the strategy .....hope that hnz will trade at a decent premium to NTA ...is hope a strategy?
Yes certainly on track.
Interestingly enough, director Bruce Irvine told me he paid about $5 for some PGC shares.So he has a lot of skin in the game to.Must admit I am well in the money by buying the majority of my shares at about 53 cents.My average cost is quickly increasing with more recent purchases.I find adding to my winners is paying off really well.
Come on perc.. You remember the 87 fiasco.. To go again in 08 !!!... Hmmmm..
Piling money into " Winners ".. ( Sorry 69 ) is not the best strategy...
When are you going to get out of Xero :--))
there are Newbies watching this very good site..
I think you mean .. Placing more into Proven Companies .. Al HNZ..
Oops Snoopy is now going to say that they have not Proven themselves..
But they are a far better long term bet than Equity Corp :-)
Disc.. Burnt by Equity Corp et al.. Learnt a little from that..
All looks good but struggling to see how this reduction in bad property debt ties in with the credit risk grading segmentation shown in the annual report (note 37d).
The Heartland press release dated 14th February 2014 (page 5) has reclassified assets into "specialized and low contestability", "bank overlap" and "non-core property". The notes at the bottom of the graph define "bank overlap" as "residential mortgages and 50% of business and rural".
The "non-core property" includes "investment properties". But in the annual report the investment properties are separated out and the remainder are mixed into the 'judgement portfolio' in an unspecified way.
I am always suspicious when the basis of comparison is changed between reporting periods. You can't help wondering what whoever did it might be trying to hide.
Move on to page 6 and we can see the 'bad rump' has reduced by $1.9m as at December 31st and the 'for sale group' has reduced by $21.4m, all since the 30th June balance date. That is good but what does it mean? Has $21.4m + $1.9m of underlying equity been freed up for new investments? Or has one form of income stream potentially made way for another? Many questions, but that will do for now.
SNOOPY
I like to do my research before buying any company.Saves any nasty surprises.
Once I have a holding, I then watch the company to make sure they are doing what I thought they would do.If they do something I don't like I sell.Should they do what I thought they would do,I hold.Should they perform better than I thought they would do,I buy more.!!
.