I hope you will be declaring all of those five stars that Heartland's current business account has been awarded on your tax return next year Percy.....
SNOOPY
Printable View
I can't claim a record as good as yours Percy. Got an extension for filing my IR3 a couple of years back, because a UK bank where I hold a small account hadn't given me my statement before IRD filing date. Didn't realise the extension to my filing did not include an extension to my first provisional tax payment (all the tax due dates changed that year). I was meant to cobble up some estimate based on my previous years return or something. Anyway all got sorted in the end but was a bit of trap for young (and old) players.
I might have to employ you Percy as my tax consultant this year. Try as a I might, I just couldn't figure out where to declare those stars on my income tax form last year.
SNOOPY
[QUOTE=Snoopy;426468].
I might have to employ you Percy as my tax consultant this year. Try as a I might, I just couldn't figure out where to declare those stars on my income tax form last year.
Would be glad to help.!!! lol.
Exiting non-core portfolio;
Approx 10% was realised in the first 2 months.HNZ expects to realise over $40mil in the next 10months,reducing the portfolio to $60mil.
So HNZ is doing what they said they would.*****[five stars]
I am missing Sparky The Clown already.!!
Heartland see growth coming from the following areas;motor vehicle finance,livestock finance,invoice finance,working capital finance,and rural seasonal finance.
I discovered today that Heartland are offering a Business Call Account paying 4.25% with interest paid monthly. The account can be operated online and should prove pretty attractive for businesses with short term cash surpluses to gain some interest on their funds.
My current business bank pays 1% for funds on call and to get 4.2% I need to lock the dollars away for two years! Not a practical option.
This would be a great way for Heartland to attract new business customers and give them a database to work on to gradually grow their customer base. I'm opening a Heartland Business Call account as soon as I get all the paperwork sorted. Opening any kind of bank account is a nightmare these days with all the ID hoops you have to jump through.
The offering to personal clients ain't too shabby either. Heartland offers an on-call cash pie account with interest of 4.1%. This compares to 2.6% I am getting with the ANZ PIE Fund (Call). Ratings agencies have assigned greater risk to Heartland compared with ANZ...however would that justify such a difference in the rates offered?
Craig's a bit slow of the mark ...... I'm sure Snoopy pointed out that on their forecast npat that was going to be close to 10% ROE
But spouse guru analysts can work out from the public info of 37 mill profit and 370 mill equity is about 10%
Hnz **********
Craig's ********************
Wonder if jeff and his management team sit down and have a moa on Friday nights and say 'weren't we dorks making the announcement about 5 stars?
The risk man says hopefully punters won't associate us with a failed finance company that 5 stars in its name
The marketing guru says no a great marketing activity ....free, not like those stupid hoardings that cost us a small fortune at the rugby
But jeff is a good guy and says no it really those people on sharetrader who keeping putting plenty of stars who are the dorks ....we are god people and they don't just get that
Here is what I wrote on the Dorchester thread, about Dorchester ROE
-----
Profit forecast for the year ended March 2014 is $6m, with probably 80% of that figure coming from business development and 20% from a reduction in underlying debt. That represents an ROE of:
$6m/ $67.4m = 8.9% or $6m/ ($67.4m-$26.2m) = 14.6% if you take out projected intangible assets at the time of the recapitalization. I am not sure which is the most appropriate figure of the two to use. Any views?
----
The Dorchester CEOs address said they were slightly above budget. So it looks like ROE at Dorchester is tracking along at a similar clip to HNZ, but much better if you only include tangible assets.
Meanwhile over at TUA, my favourite NZ finance company , ROE last year was 23.6%. I expect that to come back a bit this year, but it is still double what Heartland are projecting.
The undeniable fact is that compared to any other finance institution in New Zealand, Heartland compares poorly in terms of ROE. I would give Heartland only 1.5 stars out of 5 on this measure.
SNOOPY
Snoopy
Half stars not allowed
My iPad doesn't do half stars ....only whole stars
So is. * or ** for HNZ
Heartland needs to raise a lot of new cash in the next 12 months to balance up their loan book. Offering such a high rate is good for customers but bad for shareholders. Heartland must be generous to get the money in the doors, but since that money is effectively already out on loan this must put a squeeze on their FY2014 profits. Heartland have been working hard to derisk their loan portfolio over the last 12 months. So I think it is less likely this year than last that Heartland will get into trouble.
However, there many keen shareholders out there with fat cheque books biting at the bit to put more money into new shares to shore up Heartland bank if required
SNOOPY
There are 388.703m HNZ shares on issue.
The total number of ""Monitor+" loans on the books add to $265.683m. That works out at 68cps. So assuming all of those loans are as bad as Heartland assume, Heartlands equity will be 3/4 wiped out (assuming NTA of 86c now). That means the sky is the limit as far as future ROE is concerned. There is potential here for Heartland to go to the top of the ROE class!
SNOOPY
Total number of shares is 388,703,975.You can't even work that out correctly.
No surprises there.!
We have answered your liquidity post earlier.refer zerof's post on treasury function.HNZ have never had problems of liquidity [ie getting through Govt guarantee] and have a very happy band of loyal depositors.Remember HNZ borrow long and lend short ie livestock,seasonal loans ,factoring etc.
I give up, it has been totally wasted exercise trying to educate you on this sort of stuff.
If I set a test with the one question "What is the value of a NZ $10 bank note" I am not sure you would pass.
So assuming all of those loans are as bad as Heartland assume then they will 'lose' the $15,961,000 that they have "Provisioned for collectively impaired assets" (2013 Full Year Financial Statements 37(d) 1st table), and which is already written out of the assets.
Paper Tiger
Hey guys- a little advice for a newbie please? Im not sure if HNZ's buy back notice today applies to me.... I purchased sub 10 000 shares last month. If my shares might be bought by Washington Securities should I have recieved mail contact? Or is anyone with under 10k shares liable to have their shares bought back for 55c? ? That would be gutting! Im guessing ive missed something here but if I havent please let me know if I should take the 86c offer!
You have to sign over your shares to Washington Securities (send him a form selling your shares to him) and HNZ are telling you not to do that as he (scum) is trying to buy them off you at way below market price. It is a scam to prey on the poor and vulnerable and trick them into selling this guy shares. So you are fine, as long as you don't decide to sell him your shares!
All right Paper Tiger, I will say that if you take all the figures in that Heartland FY2013 report at face value then your answer of $15.961m of loans [provided and already written off, category 10 on the judgement scale, is strictly correct. However this is not the point that I was addressing. These judgements change over time. Indeed if you look at the equivalent figure one year earlier you can see that nearly $8m worth of loans were written off during FY2013. You as a shareholder believe that $15.961m is the end of it. I as a non shareholder do not have the same baggage as you do which I think is entrenching your position. What I claim is that there are other clues as to what might happen in that risk table 37d. Risks that you are choosing to ignore.
If you take your table 37d then add up all of the loans in grade 6 and above for FY2013, a summation I have termed 'Monitor +' , being all grade 6 loans and worse, you get:
$198.370m + $18.034m + $21.518m + $27.761m = $265.683m
Now do the same exercise on the comparative table set one year earlier
$185.315m+ $53.360m + $14.096m+ $13.471m = $266.242m
The reduction in 'Monitor +' loans after a whole year of working on them is under $1m! That is a plain fact Paper Tiger, that can't be ignored by anyone taking an independent look at table 37d. You need to take stock of what that means.
Despite writing off an additional $8m in bad debts over FY2013, the "monitor +" plus loan position has barely changed. That means over a whole year, rounded down to the nearest million Heartland has made no progress at all at dealing to their problem loan book
Now I admit that grade 8 and 9 loans, those judged the most vulnerable, have reduced over the year. But what does this really mean? It means that someone sitting behind a desk at Heartland has deemed them less risky. This person has a powerful incentive to satisfy his superiors. He is hardly going to keep his job if he reports to his boss that things have not improved. So how do we know if his judgement is right? Ultimately we will find out when this 'non core' land is sold. But since those figures in 37d tell me that at net no land had been sold by balance date, I don't accept that this regrading of monitor + loan status is credible.
Your view is that all bad loans have now been sorted and the net asset backing is 'as quoted'. I am saying that if all of those monitor plus loans go bad then asset backing will reduce by 68c per share, the other extreme position. How about we com[promise and meet in the middle? That would see the real underlying asset backing of HNZ 34cps less than quoted.
SNOOPY
As I said: I have given up.
Never has the adage "You can not teach an old dog new tricks" been more true.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Paper Tiger, your patience and attitude towards others is to be applauded...................................perhap s now normal service will be resumed .............................that is, once the shareprice gets over its present resistance at 86cents.
Whatever it is, thank goodness we do not smoke.!!
You still enjoying a good red?
Significant changes have occurred over the past year. Canterbury loans are down quite a bit from $584m at YE2012 to $532m YE2013 (note 36b YE2013). That should help with the geographic re-balancing of the loan portfolio. It all ties up with the equivalent figures listed in the annual report last year (note 32biii AR2012).
However some of the other figures don't tally so well. Auckland region loans have gone up from $654m (YE2012) to $706m (YE2013) as listed in the 2013 accounts. Yet if you go back to the accounts declared in AR2012, the total Auckland business was only $548m. That is a discrepancy of over $100m. Very strange, yet the Canterbury figures are in agreement between the two reports.
Also noted is a big jump in Heartland loans to the Wellington region. From $120m to $220m (YE2013 note 36b). This gain is leaving aside the mysterious gain from the $102 listed for the Wellington region in the FY2012 report.
I think all of these mismatches may have something to do with the RECL (Real Estate Credit Limited) agreement that was terminated during the year. Suddenly some $200m more loans in total came back on the books. Either that or the management has decided that Heartland really does mean Auckland and Wellington.
The good thing about this is that regional balance is looking better than last year.
SNOOPY
Dare I say this.. Sooner or later .. Given the amount of time spent by snoopy on HNZ..
He will be right !.
While Snoopy is fixated on the
$198.370m + $18.034m + $21.518m + $27.761m = $265.683m
in the mistaken belief that this represents HNZ's 'bad loans' he has no chance whatsoever.
Perhaps you could send him to my post on the subject and tell him to come back when he understands it.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
" The good thing about this is that regional balance is looking better than last year.
SNOOPY !..
GOOD Gawd !!.. A positive !!.. Pile in folks !!..
I don't hold HNZ but follow the thread, largely because of my interests in a couple of the big, bad Aussie banks!
I just think that it would be a pity if the concerted rebuttals of the contrary view on HNZ were to stifle discussion in any way. We need to hear all sides of debates.
:cool:
All very well PT except for one thing.
You claim that the provision for impaired assets has gone up by a net $23.1m because of the increase in category 8 and 9 Judgement loans from FY2012 to FY2013.
The grade 8 and 9 loans in the judgement portfolio from FY2013 are $21.518m and $27.761m respectively. That adds to $49.279m.
The grade 8 and 9 loans from the judgement portfolio for FY2012 were $14.096m and $13.471m respectively. That adds up to $27.567m
That means the increase of grade 8 and grade 9 loans year on year is $21.712m.
Over the same period the provision on all of those judgement loans has risen from $8.032m to $15.561m. A rise of $7.521m. That means the rise in judgement grade provisions is only around one third of the rise in grade 8 and 9 loans. Of course these grade 8 and grade 9 loans are not guaranteed to go bad. But these provisions are calls based on historical experience. Does HNZ have records that go back to the 1930s to make these 'historical loss experience' judgements from?
SNOOPY
If you look at page 21 of the shareholder presentation, Heartland were planning to reduce their $107m non-core profit portfolio by 7% by the time July 2014 rolls around. So if come the end of August 10% has already been removed from the books this is good progress. However, there really isn't enough information in this announcement to know if Heartland's non-core property sales are going to plan or not.
1/ Did they on sell the properties at book value or at a discount, or a premium?
2/ Were the properties sold Category 6, 7, 8 or 9? Why is that important? Because there would be pressure from management to get the non core property sell down done, and show progress. Human nature would suggest that to fulfill this the low hanging fruit would. be on sold first. So just because they are ahead of their sell down target now, does not mean they will continue to track in front of their targets.
But let's say the value of outstanding properties on the books is now $90m.
$90m/388m = 23cps
That is still quite a large potential write down still hanging over the shares which at 30th June had an NTA 0f 85c
SNOOPY
FY2012 Report Total Loans by Geographic Region (Note 32iii)
Auckland: $548.451m
Wellington: $101.791m
Rest of NI: $480.287m
Canterbury: $583.848m
Rest of SI: $363.899m
FY2013 Result Filing, FY2012 Comparative figures (Note 36b)
Auckland: $653.517m
Wellington: $120.469m
Rest of NI: $482.342m
Canterbury: $584.086m
Rest of SI: $365.112m
Difference
Auckland: $105.066m
Wellington: $18.678m
Rest of NI: $2.055m
Canterbury: $0.238m
Rest of SI: $1.213m
The difference I would suggest are the loans bought back after the Real Estate Credit Limited (RECL) debt buyback deal. (from Note 36e: For the year ended 30th June 2013, the benefit of the RECL agreement was included in and the analysis of risk gradings and the classification of individually impaired assets")
SNOOPY
Now the second half of the year on year 'reporting' comparison. The 'individually impaired assets'.
From table 32aii on the FY2012 annual report: The credit impairment provision for individually impaired assets
----
Opening $68.537m
Additions $40.376m
Deletions ($53.939)m
Assumed on acquisition $1.871m
Closing gross individually impaired assets $56.825m.
-----
Now we have ostensibly the same information as reprised in the FY2013 report for FY2012 (table 37c)
----
Opening $68.537m
Additions $40.376m
Deletions ($39.323)m
Assumed on acquisition $1.871m
Write Offs ($14.636)m
Closing gross individually impaired assets $56.825m.
-----
As you can see the tables are the same with the exception that with the benefit of one years hindsight $14.636m of what were deleted assets have actually been written off.
SNOOPY
Attachment 4826
Fig 1. From the Heartland New Zealand 2012 Full Year Report
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
As this thread seems to be highlighting finding information in company accounts, even those who are not trying to hide something, is a difficult task.
It requires that you read the entire accounts and hunt around for what you are looking for.
That the accountants change the format from year to year does not help.
This is primarily because because accounting is easy, anybody who can do basic maths in their head can do it. (You need to be able to this stuff mentally so that when your calculator tells you that 2 X 3 = 5, you assume that you pressed a wrong button instead of believing it).
So in order to justify working for actual money they feel the need to obfuscate the whole business.
But we can beat them and understand if we put the effort in.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Disc: I know several accountants and they are all nice people who hopefully will never read this post.
There is no accounting for the stupidty of some people, that is accounted for by the fact that all of us are different , but by all accounts you would think we would learn from our mistakes. There I hope that clears that all up , it certainly helped me.
The hunt to pin down those more doubtful loans on the books continues. In the FY2013 accounts the retrospective comparative figure for concentration of credit risk by industry sector adds to $2.197billion (note 36c).
Now if we go back to the FY2012 report this same figure is listed in 32bii, but here it only adds to $2.078b. Is the difference due to those retrospectively reabsorbed RECL loans?
From the YE2013 results the industry breakdown of receivables is as follows: (note 36c again)
------
Agriculture $530.440m
Forestry & Fishing $35.698m
Mining $14.325m
Manufacturing $56.304m
Finance & Insurance $134.630m
Wholesale Trade $38.669m
Retail Trade $144.608m
Households $678.508m
Property & Business Services $297.944m
Transport & Storage $57.709m
Other Services $189.208m
(Total $2,078.276m)
------
Now what will happen when we try to extract ostensibly the same figures from the FY2012 report? The full year report for FY2012 as listed under note 32c has different (more) categories. Nevertheless I will try to align those numbers with the FY2013 headings as listed above
------
Agriculture $382.578m
Forestry & Fishing $1.615m + $0.551m = $2.166m
Mining $16.022m
Manufacturing $71.432m +$4.479m = $75.911m
Finance & Insurance $27.013m +$3.157m= $30.170m
Wholesale Trade $42.257m
Retail Trade $117.100m
Households $838.492m
Property & Business Services $195.143m +$154.435m+ $10.016m= $359.594m
Transport & Storage $88.210m
Other Services $44.368m + $28.627m +$23.661m +$12.847m + $16.273m= $125.776m
(Total $2,078.276m)
-----
I am sure I have put some of those reclassified loans into the wrong box, although when classifying loans 'wrong' may be a a matter of opinion. As PT says, it is very frustrating when reporting standards are changed for seemingly no reason from year to year. I however, am always suspicious when I see this, as I wonder what he company hoped to hide by doing so!
SNOOPY
So. So. True PT..
Hence my long time drive for an Expenditure Tax.. Not Income Tax..
Income Tax has been added to and subtracted from for years and years..
At last I am able to say... Thinking in the controlling places is changing.. Yes !!.. headway is being made..
Everybody spends.. Even a beggar !!..
Snoopy and the Temple of the Doom?
You have $50M5 of impairments of which $41M5 is Corporate Property [FY2013 37(e)] you quest is complete.
The difference of approx $120m does fit well with the size of the RECL stuff at EOY, but this is a pure co-incidence!
36(a) from this years accounts gives the game away:
Attachment 4827
Fig 2 From the Heartland New Zealand 2013 Full Year Financial Statements.
So whereas in the 2012 Accounts, credit risk exposure covers only Finance receivables this has been extended to all financial assets including cash in banks, bonds etc.
The only question is why were these not included last year, after all they do have some risk attached to them?
You are not going to get anywhere with this approach, honestly.
Let me also say here that HNZ is the largest single investment I ever had in a publicly listed company and as such I have been through these accounts very carefully, if there is something dodgy I want to know about it, quick.
I am happy with the risk/reward ratio they provide, and I am hoping for good long term capital appreciation and dividends.
However this is not a recommendation to invest, or not, without doing your own research.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Let me also say here that HNZ is the largest single investment I ever had in a publicly listed company and as such I have been through these accounts very carefully, if there is something dodgy I want to know about it, quick.
Is HNZ your largest holding tiger?
I have just reread Heartland profit announcement Percy, and remembered your 12th May post 1724 (quoted above).
"There was a $76.1m increase in the “core” business net finance receivables (Rural, Business and Consumer channels). However, due to a reduction in non-core assets of legacy Property and Retail Mortgages, net finance receivables reduced in total by $67.9m (from $2.1bn at 30 June 2012 to $2.0bn at 30 June 2013)." (my bold emphasis)
I knew that HNZ were quitting legacy property assets, but it had escaped me that they were quitting retail mortgages as well. But I guess your post suggesting retail mortgages were being passed on to Kiwibank with a finders fee is consistent with this. My previous impression was that Heartland were trying to get better balance in their loan book by going after seasonal financing, loaning more to business etc. I hadn't appreciated there was an active plan to exit retail mortgages. Is this still your understanding of Heartland's current outlook?
SNOOPY
Retail mortgages not a HERO product ..not niche enough
My interest in Heartland is quite different. I have been a PGW shareholder, and as a consequence PGW finance shareholder, from as long ago as when they sold their 'first' finance division to Rabobank. Realising their mistake PGW created a new finance division which they then gave away to Heartland. As part of that gifting PGW took up a modest holding in Heartland shares. This then went south in value until the rebound over the last year that saw PGW sell out of Heartland at a modest profit.
This means that as of last week, or thereabouts, this is the first time I haven't had a direct or indirect interest in rural sector financing for a long time. My question then is should I perhaps sell some of my holding in existing 'finance' company, Turner's Auctions, and put that money into Heartland? One argument for that is that Heartland are trading near net asset backing and some see that as a good springboard from which Heartland can trade on higher price to NTA ratios as enjoyed by other finance companies and banks (the glass half full argument). The glass half empty argument is that Heartland are already performing at the level of other financial companies, and the relatively high NTA value that the company trades at is because some of those assets are overvalued on the books. Hence my fascination with digging into the quality of Heartland assets that are on the books.
For those who came in late, I hope this gives some context to my postings on Heartland.
SNOOPY
That $41.512m of corporate property provision for impairment that is the large part of the sum of the grand total of $50.491m of the overall provision for impairment is management's assessment at balance sheet time of then current risks based on the then current state of the market.
$15.961m of that total figure can be read, from note 37d, as the provision for collectively impaired assets from the 'Judgement Portfolio' and $34.771m can be read, from note 37c as the impairment from the individually impaired asset portfolio. Those two figures add to $50.732m which is close enough to the previously declared total in 37e for me ($50.491m, note 37e).
For the 'Judgement Assets' the provisions are based on the assigned grade of the loan and done to a formula (except for grade 9 that for those loans are individually assessed). For individually assessed loans the classification process looks to be more 'yay' or 'nay'. My point in all this is that these impairments are variables. They may be captured at balance sheet time but an investor should not regard these figures as 'cast in stone'.
SNOOPY
Heartland see their future in areas the big banks are not concentrating on,so retail mortgages they are staying out of.[ie deal with Kiwi Bank].In an earlier post I stated the areas HNZ were concentrating.Livestock,seasonal.factoring are very short term lending.etc.
I have often said one should look at HNZ as a finance company with a banking licence.I think this is the correct way to view HNZ.
I too have TUA shares.Very pleaded with them too.My wife and I have 9 times as much invested in HNZ as we have in TUA.
So you can see where our money is.
We all laughed at HNZ achieving 4% ROE.Greenslade said at last agm they were aiming at 10% plus.I thought they would go from 4% 2013 to say 6.5% 2014 and 10% 2015,so I am very excited that they will achieve it [10%] a year early ie 2014 year ending 30/6/2014.
Heartland have a record of achieving what they set out to do.
To better understand HNZ one must attend the agm,to be held at Addington Raceway at 3pm on Friday 1st November.2013.
I received a lot of PMs thanking me for my posts after last years agm.The presntations are full and are excellent.Even more so when you can be certain they will do what they say they will.Last year I offered to take you to ths year's as I thought it would be in Ashburton again.With it being in ChCh I think you should attend.The business is being improved all the time,and you will get to understand how they are achieving such splendid results.
SNOOPY;
Loan book balances ,funding.
First of all HNZ have no funding issues.None.Xerof explained this.
Do not look for issue here as there are none.
Changing balances in lending.This is and will continue to change as HNZ concentrate on more profitable niches.
What we will see is better ROE and EPS figures.
Property loans.Again HNZ have faced up to them.Making huge progress.Arguing over this is a waste of time. Whether they realise the $60mil at 30/6/2114 or $70mil or $50mil will alter the momentum not one bit.I am more interested if/when/ they are opening a Timaru office.I have not entered your discussions with Paper Tiger as you are wasting his and your own time.
What I will be looking to hear at the agm is what the target ROE will be for the year ended 30/6/2015. 12.5% 15 % ?????And what they feel the ROE will be in future years.
I do find it ironic that now that Heartland have earned themselves the right to be called a bank, and aggregated other financial entities into a more balanced whole, the underlying entity is looking less and less like a bank and more like a finance company, as I believe you have correctly observed Percy!
SNOOPY
Just starting to digest the very comprehensive Heartland Bank Disclosure Statement that Heartland released with their annual results. Perhaps more important than this are the underlying Reserve bank of New Zealand references on banking both drafted in the first half of FY2013
First there is the 'Connected Exposures Policy'
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation_a...ok/3272069.pdf
and the 'Capital Adequacy Framework'
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation_a...ok/3272068.pdf
SNOOPY
They were quite open (if saying it aloud and being quoted in the press etc is open) that they only wanted to become a BANK for marketing purposes. In other words give them credibility because banks are less risky than finance companies in the minds of their depositors (and maybe borrowers).
Any other advantages were secondary to the main cause.
Question, what is the difference between a bank and a finance house anyway
Percy, there is a mismatch in the maturity of term deposits and the underlying loans. PT has batted this away by saying all banks operate in this way. But I put it to you and PT that to say there is no effect from this mismatch is not true.
If you look at section 4.48 of my reference,
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation_a...ok/3272068.pdf
there is even a formula to calculate the amount of extra capital Heartland must hold because of this.
More information is in the ensuing 4.115 and 4.116 sections
SNOOPY
I see Fisher Funds don't seem to have any HNZ shares
Although I could get slightly annoyed that I keep getting misquoted and that useful information appears to be often ignored. I am basically amused by this whole thing.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/d2d69c...fe001dd8b71c47
However like Calvin above I find myself with a dilemma: Do I tell Snoopy that the document he references does not apply to Heartland or do I not bother?
On one of the bits of this planet that I lived on they have an expression:
"He can not see the woods for the trees".
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Good link PT - should I say that or not?
WARNING; Should you be buying HNZ shares today I think you will miss the 2.5cents dividend.
Check before you buy.Selling check that you receive the dividend.
Yip - it has gone ex dividend today. Given the comments/strategies on the dividend thread, it will be interesting to see what the shareprice does.
Edit: on a related note, the strike price for the Drip is set on the average price 5 days after the record date (which will be next weeks trading?):
Can anyone confirm there is no discount on the strike price.Quote:
P is the volume weighted average sale price in New Zealand
dollars (expressed in cents and fractions of cents) for a
Share calculated on all trades of Shares which took place
through the NZX Main Board over the period of 5 trading
days immediately following the Record Date.
Sorry I can not confirm it,but I am sure there is no discount.
There is a 2.5% discount applicable to the DRP, see below from announcement:
"The Dividend Reinvestment Plan announced on 23 April 2013 (DRP) will be
available, and a discount of 2.5% will apply (that is, the strike price under
the DRP will be 97.5% of the volume weighted average sale price of Heartland
shares over the 5 trading days following the Record Date)(7). Participation
in the DRP is entirely optional, and shareholders wishing to participate
should make a participation election in one of the ways specified in the DRP
offer document. The last date of receipt for a participation election from a
shareholder who wishes to participate in the DRP is 20 September 2013. "
Its really easy to do it on Link Market Services website CJ. I did it there in a couple of minutes after creating a login account with them online.
http://www.linkmarketservices.co.nz/...-Services.html
Thanks - but because of the nominee account, ownership is in their name so they have to do - otherwise, I would have done myself. eg. any forms that need signing, I complete, then send to them for signing or for IPO etc, I just email them and they complete the form on my behalf since they sign.
Note: Nominee account is a requirement for margin lending.
Didn't read your first post carefully enough and missed you saying you had a nominee account. Thanks for the explanation.
Percy I see Tainui has appointed Craig Stephen as Chief Investment Officer. I wish him well in his new job.
I will take my pad and pen to the agm,and try to give you a good account of what is said.
Hopefully there will be plenty of us sharetraders there.
Washington Securities now targeting more than just those holding under 10,000 shares. I received an offer for 73k shares held in one of our accounts today, for the lovely price of $ 0.55 per share. Just a shame they didn't send me a freepost envelope so I could send it back to them empty !
Wonder how long it is before we see a" becoming a substantial holder" from Tainui?
Hope mr Stephens hadn't been reading snoopy's posts and realised that it was better to either 1) leave the sinking ship or 2) cursing that somebody had found what they were hiding
He a good bloke anyway - good luck to him
Obviously made the right friends with all the tainui/ PGW / heartland connections
Interesting that Heartland are now classifying credit risk of financial assets (including cash in banks and bonds etc.) on a geographical basis too.
If we look at the FY2013 results the comparative geographic credit risk for FY2012 (note 36b) is listed as follows:
-----
Auckland: $653.517m
Wellington: $120.469m
Rest of North Island: $482.342m
Canterbury: $584.086m
Rest of South Island: $365.112m
(Total = $2,205.116m)
-----
Now go back to the FY2012 Full Year report where ostensibly the same information is displayed in Note 32aiii
------
Auckland: $548.451m
Wellington: $101.791m
Rest of North Island: $480.287m
Canterbury: $583.848m
Rest of South Island: $363.899m
(Total = $2,078.276m)
------
That comparison highlights the following differences:
Auckland: $105.066m
Wellington: $18.678m
Rest of North Island: $2.055m
Canterbury: $0.238m
Rest of South Island: $1.213m
------
As PT has highlighted in the quoted post, the difference is because the definition of "Finance receivables" from FY2013 has been extended to all financial assets including cash in banks, bonds etc.
What this actually means is that for FY2013, HNZ have distorted the actual geographic spread of their risk by including financial assets in bank accounts that could reside in any geographic centre they choose. That I think is a backward step for informing shareholders where the real geographic risks lie.
SNOOPY
The problem with you and HNZ Percy, is that you now have so much skin in the game of HNZ, that you can no longer discern that anything going on at HNZ is less than 100% perfect. You are correct that the timing and amount of repayment of bad loans will not affect the ongoing new business momentum of HNZ. But that is not the main issue of concern to me anyway. Personally I do not take the projections of HNZ management as given, until they can build a track record through a business cycle, as the likes of TUA have done with their finance division. To me the main issue with HNZ has always been capital liquidity.
If the company falls into a liquidity trap over the next six months, then earnings do not matter. HNZ will be forced to stop trading until it is recapitalised, no matter what the underlying earnings trend.
Back in 2008 there were many finance companies with positive underlying earnings trends. Those finance companies were lending into the exact same markets as Heartland does now. But many shareholders and depositors lost all their capital invested in those companies just the same. The lesson from the GFC for finance companies was that liquidity was king. It still is.
SNOOPY
PERCY!!!!
That d*** yapping dog is in the yard again!
Yes I agree with you Heartland's track record is 100% perfect.
Yes I have overweighted our portfolios because I see them being undervalued.
Yes I see them achieving over 15% growth rate per annum for the next few years.
Yes I see them increasing their dividends.
Yes I see them expanding their motor vehicle loan book.
Yes I am pleased with the make up of their loan book and think the areas they are expanding into will be worth while.
Yes I am pleased with their sources and spread of funding.There are no liquidity issues.
Yes I am pleased with the extra security and safety supplied to shareholders that HNZ having a banking licence means HNZ has to answer to the Reserve Bank banking requirements.
Yes I expect our HNZ investment to out perform our TUA investment.
No I do not take your concerns seriously.Unfortunately your record on this thread is hopeless.,Time and again you have woken up to this yourself,or else other posters have had to correct you.
Well....I have a few Heartland as well. I can swing from either very happy on reading Percy's posts...to being quite concerned after reading Snoopy's ones . Must admit, pleased overall to have both perspectives argued. There are risks in everything, I wonder who is more correct, Percy or Snoopy ? Time will tell I guess. I'm not inclined to sell what I have, neither am I inclined to add. I do feel there must be a place in the NZ market for a glorified finance company doing the kind of lending that Heartland does. Right ?
Cheers for the mood swings Snoopy and Percy, might watch a replay of last race to cheers me up. Go TNZ
Yes there is definitely a place for a finance company called Heartland, RTM. The learners banking mask that the Reserve bank has loaned to Heartland should help bring in the much needed new supply of customer deposits. Whether Heartland succeed over the next five years, well let's just say that the next six months will be the most difficult time from a cashflow perspective.
Heartland look to be ahead of their own game plan selling down their troubled non-core profit portfolio. But are they just selling off the easy stuff first? There is no way to know.
Meanwhile governor Wheeler is saying interest rate rises are on the way. That means that Heartland will have to start paying more for new deposits while they are unable to pass on those higher costs into their existing longer term loans. That squeeze effect has to hurt Heartland shareholders in the short term. And we have to remember that Heartland are only just holding onto an investment grade credit rating, and the rating agencies have given them a negative outlook. If Heartland slip just one notch to C+, will they still be able to call themselves a bank?
The question is not who will be 'right' about the fate of Heartland because the fate of Heartland is not predetermined. The question is who is better at assessing the potential risks and rewards and making an informed investment decision based on all possible future outcomes right now. Since Percy doesn't believe there are any risks he has already lost that battle by default. Of course that doesn't mean that Percy won't win the war and sail off into the distance on his Heartland retirement yacht. But just because Captain Percy in his bliss doesn't see any icebergs, that doesn't mean they aren't there.
SNOOPY