LOL Percy No surprise you mentioned your favorite words... "Well Positioned" indeed :)
Printable View
LOL Percy No surprise you mentioned your favorite words... "Well Positioned" indeed :)
exactly what I was wondering- might be better to take the DRiP and subscribe SPP assuming its scaled back....???
Pig in Poke.!
With the SPP price set at $1.46 I would expect massive scaling.
An off the top of my head figure would be, apply for $15,000 worth and be lucky to get $5,000.
I really don't know.
Last one I did not bother with was TIL.Mistake as their allocations were generous.
Your guess is as good as anybodys! Think I'd better go for the $15k then...
Harmoney confirms launching in Australia (Brisbane) https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/harmon...on-cs-p-199747
From memory there were just over 10,000 shareholders stated in the last Annual Report. They will be fighting for the $20M. If 50% of them applied for the full $15k, each would get 4k. I would not be surprised to see it scaled back to that level or even bigger scaling. These SPP are always difficult to decide on as one has a lot of money tied up for a long time just to have most of it returned without interest. At least this time we know the price so that's a bonus :-)
No email received to participate in the SPP, but on NZX there is an offer document, with a link to apply online at www.heartlandshareoffer.co.nz.
Unfortunately, heading to this link brings up a page stating "This form is currently unavailable" and asks for a password to view the website ... not a good start. :mad ;:
Smaller small shareholders are perhaps less likely to have $15,000 available for the SPP application, so in a way there is a hit-and-miss inbuilt scaling factor in these SPPs.
The fairest way to raise equity capital would be via renounceable rights issues, so that those shareholders who do not have readily available funds can sell their rights. However unfortunately it must be quicker and cheaper to drop a placement with the big participants and give crumbs to small shareholders via a lolly scramble.
Agree with that although to be fair I remember as a kid that lolly scrambles can be a lot of fun and at least they've doubled the amount of lollies :)
Share purchase plan details here https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/253364.pdf
EPS growth (period on period) less than 11%
On current profit guidance of up to $60M - FY EPS growth would be less than 5%. We need an upgrade ($63M please) .
So going to do a small A$15M Tier 2 thing with the Aussie's then!
Dividend of 3.5c and a plea to take the DRiP.
Bank obviously struggling what with the constant need to find real money :t_up:.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
I am surprised they have not done a decent Tier 2 in NZ. Say $60 to $80 mil.
Yes the growth has to be real eps growth.I don't see why it can't be.
Strong Digital loan origination should tranlate into solid eps growth.
Roger I understand that the DRP is to retain earnings and this goes partly towards increasing profits on retained earnings.
I also understand that the purpose of share investing is dividend collecting.
What I like to see however if a company expect to be able to make good returns on retained earnings it should retain those earnings.
If not pay a (large) dividend and use up the imputation credits.
But what is happening now does not seem to be fair to all share holders or cost efficient to HBL.
Not fair because some larger share holders get a first dip at a discounted price and the very small share holders are getting a disproportional increase in their holding.
Not cost efficient because the cost of contracting the transfer agent to pay out the dividend and organising the share purchase plan can both be eliminated / reduced.
Its not about what you or I want forest, in my opinion its about respecting individual shareholders rights to chose whether they want dividends or shares in lieu of dividend.
I am sure you would have noticed the sea of grey hair at many companies annual shareholders meetings. In my opinion many small shareholders are relying of dividend income to support their retirement lifestyle.
I think keeping the dividend at 3.5 cps, (rather than increasing it in line with the 14% earnings growth to 4.0 cps) strikes a good balance this year considering the company is experiencing such strong organic lending growth across all divisions. Regarding the share purchase plan in my opinion a renounceable rights issue would have been fairer to all parties but it would appear on the face of it this option may be more expensive. I guess its only natural that holders of (for example), a six figure number of shares feel a bit miffed that someone holding as few as say 1000 shares enjoy the same rights under the share purchase plan. It is what it is, life isn't fair all the time but I think the terms of the SPP for smaller shareholders are very fair considering institutions paid $1.46 back in December when the share price was quite a bit less.
I agree with you, as far that the way capital raising is carried out and dividend is paid could well be the most pragmatic way of doing it.
But as far as that every share holder is treated the same as it should, this is definitely not the case.
And this not being the case were are the boundaries?
You are right ... a renounceable rights issue would have been much fairer. I think it as well appropriate to communicate this to the board. Feel free to send them a friendly message - or tell them next AGM. I am trying to get the NZSA interested to raise this with HBL ... and definitely intend to raise it at the next AGM (which is however still 9 months away ..).
I think all of this dates back a few years when the law was changed to allow fast track capital raising. The Restaurant Brands capital raising last year was also fast track. However in that instance the non tradable rights were issued pro-rata. While it was not possible to trade the rights, any rights not taken up were bundled up and sold by tender to the institutions. Any premium above the strike price was then passed back to the shareholders who had not taken up their rights, in proportion to their pre-rights shareholding. This seems to be a much fairer way to do things, and it was still fast track.
While the way Heartland did their capital raising was good for small shareholders, I reckon those of you with a medium size parcel that will see your shareholding diluted as a result of the coming capital raising have a genuine grievance with Heartland management.
SNOOPY
I have discussed HBL type of capital raising with directors of different companies in the past, and they would acknowledge the unfairness of a raise like HBL. There reosoning was usually as you said 'but it saves time'. I would have thought that in this case HBL and indeed most companies if they are organised have sufficient time to carry out a capital raising fair to all share holders.