Thanks for posting the link.
MTF have to pay $25,000 plus,towards CCC costs.
The case only covered 39 loans from 2006,to 2008.
This will cost under $10,000 in total..
Case over,liability known.
Game on.?
Printable View
PT. This is from my post of 2772 dated 27-02-2014 titled:
"Heartland's Acceptable Operating Leverage Ratio"
------
We can work backwards and see from a 'reserve bank' pair of eyes (wheels?) to deduce what is considered an acceptable operating leverage ratio for the rest of the business (excluding reverse mortgages just purchased).
Apparently, just before the purchase of the reverse mortgages, Heartland had 'surplus' cash of $28.3m -
(Explanatory Note: Total Heartland cash contribution to this deal was $48.3m, made up of the $28.3m 'surplus cash' on the balance sheet at 31st December 2013 plus $20m yet to be raised from shareholders at the time the half yearly report was published.)
- on the balance sheet. If we look at the 31st December 2013 HY2014 balance sheet $178.5m in cash was there. So we can deduce that:
$178.5m - $28.3m = $150.2m
of cash is required , as part of a more comprehensive asset package, to fund all the rest of the Heartland business. Put another way, the 'total equity' (again from the balance sheet) needed to fund the rest of the Heartland business is:
$382.5m - $28.3m = $354.2m
The size of the loan book at balance date was $2,077.0m
So the equity to loan book ratio for the rest of the business, as judged acceptable under the watchful eye of Mr Wheeler, is:
$354.2m/$2,077m = 17.0%
-------
The background to those that have forgotten (I had!) goes like this.
Heartland's purchase of the Seniors reverse mortgage business was financed by the issue of new shares and borrowings. "In theory", Heartland could have purchased the business with:
a/ 100% new shares and no more borrowings OR
b/ 100% new borrowings and no new shares issued.
Instead Heartland management struck a balance between these two extremes.
Heartland issued 43m new shares worth around $NZ38.7m and used $NZ28.3m worth of cash to make up the Seniors purchase price of $NZ60m. This cash/share balance was a judgement call made by Heartland management under the watching brief of satisfying reserve bank capital reqiurements, [i]taking into account the much larger existing businesses already under the Heartland umbrella[i/] IOW Heartland management had to be cogniscent of the total business when the Seniors acquisition was made.
Thus the Seniors purchase gave shareholders a snapshot on management's judgement on the amount of capital needed to support the 'regular' Heartland business relative to the size of the loan book.
SNOOPY
Re: Dairy, I remember at debt briefing last year the CFO when asked about the dairy risk compared to car loans said something along the lines of "well we can always shoot the cows", got a decent chuckle out of the audience
Thanks Jantar. I know very little about farming. But I am insured with Farmers Mutual, FMG. We, it is a Mutual, had a problem a couple of years ago with irrigators toppling over. Quite a number in Canterbury. Some of the centre spigot ones are a Kilometer long. There is now the question of 'what is a safe design length for irrigators?' It seems the American maximum design length is 400 metres. However, this design cannot be simply transferred to NZ. It would depend on local conditions here of maximum windage etc. It takes some time to move a centre spigot so it faces 'down wind.' So pivoting them round is normally not an option.
FMG and Lincoln College, University, are trying to get design guidelines for irrigators.
Now, to the punchline. FMG, I think, are still insuring irrigators. But at some point they will only insure 'complying' irrigators that conform to the new design requirements.
Come a big blow, a lot of the irrigators could fall over and not be insured, or not be adequately insured. This will impact on farming, FMG and Heartland. How much have we loaned on irrigators?
My view is Banks need plenty of actual shareholder capital so that if things go a bit wrong we still meet capital requirements.
"Of these, some have converted farms in areas that are not suitable for dairying (like Central Otago or mid Canterbury) and these are the ones who will really struggle to make the conversion pay"............. (Jantar)
"Now, to the punchline. FMG, I think, are still insuring irrigators. But at some point they will only insure 'complying' irrigators that conform to the new design requirements...................................... .........(Mouse)
Come a big blow, a lot of the irrigators could fall over and not be insured, or not be adequately insured. This will impact on farming, FMG and Heartland."
A couple of comments attributed to Mouse and Jantar I would be happy to debate, Blockhead gets around a lot of Mid Canterbury dairy farms and sees what is going on, Jantars comment re Mid Canterbury farms being not suitable for dairying imho are completely wrong, some of the best farms I have seen are in this area, free draining soils, flat land, easy to irrigate, close to services, what else could you want ?
And Mouse I think you will find many (most) of the cockies with centre pivots now have plans for securing the irrigators when wind is coming, I see many concrete blocks either dug into the ground or able to be put in a line running away from the wind when wind is forecast, and forecasts are generally 2-3 days in advance so plenty of time to get the irrigator in the right place. I imagine Insurance Co's will insure them if they can show they have planned for the wind
How about aquifers that are not drying up and so allowing for that "easy to irrigate" part? At the last 2 years Hydrological society conferences there have been a number of papers presented on Mid Canterbury irrigation and the over allocation of water. At last year's conference there was a presentation on an experiment to take flood water from the rivers and to attempt to recharge the aquifers.
Yes that is happening Jantar but perhaps the biggest proportion of Mid Canterbury water is coming from the Rangitata not the aquifiers (I don't know the proportion from one or the other) The Rangitata South irrigation scheme is already taking water based on the "flood" system you mention and is only just providing what is required, all the reservoirs have been empty more than once in this last season.
My point is, Mid Canterbury is a great dairying location.....with water !
My read of the Supreme court's decision is that finance companies and banks are going to have to be extremely careful going forward that they can justify their loan application fees based on the cost of the process, not as a separate revenue stream. The supreme court has effectively said interest charges are where banks and finance companies should make their profits not loan application fees. I think we all know that with standardised loan application procedures and credit and employment checking processes the banks and finance companies have been doing very nicely thank you very much out of loan application fees in the past. Harmoney has had to modify there's recently, tip of the iceberg in terms of what's coming ? The Supreme court's decision is very much focused on protecting the consumer and forcing finance companies to make their profit out of the interest rate as opposed to currying the real cost of credit through expensive loan application fees and therefore enhances the transparency of the cost of the loan from the consumers viewpoint. Many consumers will cross shop to get the best interest rate.
Greater transparency in my opinion reduces the opportunity to make unusually high profits, especially from small loans. Is it a coincidence that the SP is down the day after the Supreme court's decision or are we in a slightly different credit environment now where profits on loans going forward could be slightly lower ?...you folks be the judge.
The case was based on 39 MTF-Sportzone loans written between 2006 and 2008.
So the industry has watched this case with interest for a good number of years..
What has not been qualified is whether this is where MTF's liability ends,or will CCC chase them for other loans written during this period.
The judgement affects all lenders,whether they are banks or finance companies.Level playing fields for everyone.
I guess banks have had to adapt to changing regulations, since the first bank was formed in 1327.
689 years of change???
PT, I have reviewed my calculation. The Seniors acquisition, early in CY2014, was the last time Heartland issued a serious number of new shares to fund an acquisition. So I think it is stilll the best guide we have to that window in management's mind as to what constitutes 'sufficient shareholder capital' for Heartland to keep on the books.
However, this Senior's transaction was before the 14th January 2015 easing in reserve bank capital requirements. From that date Heartland had their 'introductory' 12% of loan book requirement reduced to:
(a)the Total capital ratio of the banking group is not less than 8% (10.5% incl 2.5% buffer ratio);
(b)the Tier 1 capital ratio of the banking group is not less than 6% (8.5% incl 2.5% buffer ratio);
(c)the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of the banking group is not less than 4.5% (7.0% incl 2.5% buffer ratio).
Prior to 14th January 2015, there was no separate 'buffer ratio' requirement for Heartland.
The most streched covenant that Heartland currently must comply with is (a). This means that Heartland have been given an extra 1.5% (12% - 10.5% = 1.5%) "wriggle room" to remain in compliance with their debt covenants. IOW while my calculation I believe was correct at the time it was done, I now need to revise it becasue I am using it as a forecasting tool for today. Specifically I need to take into account the lesser amount of capital that the reserve bank now dictates Heartland must hold.
SNOOPY
The folks on the Harmoney thread are grappling with a few issues, recently the fraud case and now an unexpected significant hike in fees. Worth a read. Not sure whether this is weighing on Heartland, it might be just small beer.
Surely the answer to the question what "window in management's mind as to what constitutes 'sufficient shareholder capital'" is answered simply by reading the capital adequacy section from the disclosure statements?
Or am I missing the point here?
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
PS With regard to the Post Title: See this video clip from the original "The Italian Job" movie, which I watched last night.
ANZ Half Year Disclosure Statement is out and on page 15 their current Capital Adequacy Ratios are down to:
12.8% for the group (appears to be the one that matters) and
11.8% for the bank.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
What you are telling me is part of the picture PT. But no bank would be foolish enough to run their actual loan to equity ratio as low as the minimum reserve bank requirements. Otherwise a customer like young Percy could go into Heartland to withdraw $100 to buy a bunch of flowers for his good wife. But he would be kept waiting until Joe Driver from the coin arcade, puts in the morning coin take to make the balancing $100 deposit required to avoid tipping Heartland into administration!
The question is, what level of buffer over and above the reserve bank requirements do management regard as acceptable? To answer that you would have to
1/ Do a 'scenario analysis' based on less likely withdrawal and deposit scenarios.
2/ Look at the asset loan base and assess the prospect of what quantum of loans going bad is required to degrade company equity to unacceptable levels.
Shareholders are not in possession of enough information to answer those questions. But bank management are. So I say the best way to look out for what equity to loan ratio is 'acceptable' is to look at what Heartland's chief bank manager does in practice. And the window of buying Seniors was one opportunity to do just that.
Now going back to the raw data we have from that transaction:
-----
'Total equity' (from the balance sheet) needed to fund the rest of the Heartland business is:
$382.5m - $28.3m = $354.2m
The size of the loan book at balance date was $2,077.0m
So the equity to loan book ratio for the rest of the business, as judged acceptable under the watchful eye of Mr Wheeler, was:
$354.2m/$2,077m = 17.0%
------
However, that transaction was under the old equity to loan book rules (12% ratio required). The current limiting factor is a 10.5% requirement.
So the lesser 'management acceptable' equity required to manage the same sized loan book today would be:
$354.2 x ( 10.5/12 ) = $309.9m
and the adjusted 'management acceptable' equity to loan portfolio value ratio is now:
$309.9m / $2,077m = 14.9%
Note: This figure includes an extra margin of 14.9 -10.5 = 4.4 percenatge points above the minimum reserve bank guidelines.
SNOOPY
Refer to the interim report of FY2016 for the latest audited Heartland information. Time has rolled on and the total loan portfolio at the latest balance date (31-12-2015) was: $2,928.621m (Interim Statement of Financial Position)
Home equity release loans, which apparently have separate capital requirements total $422.706m (note 18c).
So the loan portfolio, less home equity release loans, was:
$2,928.621m - $422.706m = $2,505.915m
Balance date shareholder equity was: $485.688m
(Explanation: I know that assessable Tier capital is reduced to $428.539m as outlined in note 19a. But this is a recent report disclosure. So I need to use the 'slightly incorrect' earlier quoted higher number to maintain compatability with my previous calculation).
So firstly, I can calculate the 'equity' to support the Reverse Mortgage Business as:
0.114 x $422.706m = $48.188m
And that measn the equity left to support the rest of the business is:
$485.688m - $48.188m = $437.5m
So the equity to loan book ratio, with the reverse mortgage business taken out of the equation, at balance date was:
$437.5m / $2,505.915m = 17.4%
Now let's imagine for a moment that Heartland only had share capital of $373.4m
$373.4m / $2,505.915m = 14.9% (the same value that mangement were comfortable with before).
By this measure then, Heartland currently has:
$437.5m - $373.4m = $64.1m of 'surplus capital' on the books.
The total of individually impaired and restructured assets still on the books amount to just over $30m (note 6). So if the impairment people have done their job correctly, you would have to conclude that Heartland, relative to their position of a year ago, is getting stronger in terms of balance sheet strength. And in absolute terms, if you take management's past judgement as 'reasonable', they are now in 'more than reasonable' shape.
SNOOPY
So HBL have $64.1mil of "surplus capital" on the books.
I am not surprised,as they said they had "surplus capital."
Yet all the Australian Banks have been raising capital.
Big difference,