Good point - all the 'after the event' Wage Subsidy dribble concentrated in one thread, rather than than interdispersed across many is
probably not a bad call IMO
Printable View
KMD and HLG ..
now really i like both these stocks and H&M
to be fair i did not say that KMD outperforms HLG or that KMD was superior as they cater for different markets and i do see that the performance numbers for HLG do outperform by some fair margin and then some.
But these stocks are the major retailers on the market and since there lows they have both doubled there price.
DISC: we both hold and trade both at various times and have made some nice profits in the last 6 months for which we are gratefully respectful of the wonders of the public listed market models of capitalism..or as Sir Ken Clark said as he was transported on a Amsterdam canal ferry in "Civilisation"
C a P i T a l i s m.
I contend they are both successful retailer stocks and KMD deserves as much attention as HLG due to its global brand potential.
Vol today KMD over 600,000 , HLG 25000. I am sure liquidity in HLG would improve if it made the NZX 50 and here is hoping for that.
It's not about opinions of irrelevant internet sources (per your later post) or morals; it is about what is lawful. Who gets decide morality? That is a question fraught with difficulty as indicated by other posters who mention a certain hijab-wearing politician.
HLG did not "take advantage of a high trust system". The Government imposed lockdown resulted in a fall in sales for HLG well in excess of the threshold required to apply. That funding was used to support employees who were paid to not come into work at a time revenues had collapsed. They were definitely not profitable at the time of the lockdown when they applied for the subsidy, but you are saying they were profitable when they applied which is incorrect. Which part of that are you not understanding?
I'm curious - do you think shareholders should pay employees to sit at home based on a Government imposed lockdown? If so, on what basis? IMO if the Government imposes the lockdown then they pay either though subsidies or through higher dole payments, and I think we all agree mass layoffs was not a good option.
If you think a business can be profitable with no sales and fixed overheads then please share with us your magical recipe for business success. Subsequent dividends were paid from earnings earned after the lockdown was removed, not while they were applying for the subsidy as you are implying. You do understand a business is capable of making losses in one period and then profits in another...do you?
You can claim victim hood and being chased out of this thread all you like, but if you stay on topic and relevant then this won't happen. As others have said, start a thread in the appropriate place for a debate on the wage subsidy - it does not belong here.
Here is an appropriate off market thread to discuss the moral issue of companies paying back the wage subsidy and my initial thoughts are contained in my opening post.
You can expect a very robust debate on this subject from me in that thread.
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...336#post856336
I believe the majority have clearly spoken and would like the moral discussion taken to its own separate thread
These "toxic" threads share many similarities and are quite easily identified. Here are a few pointers :-
Watch for a preponderance of overly loyal extremely positive contributions.
Any negative posters are "run off the thread".
When negative posters are accused of "downramping" you can be sure that all objectivity has been lost.
Look out for multitudinous "cut and paste" entries of scarcely relevant articles from the net.
Beware of threads where anyone posting a negative comment is personally attacked.
Dissenting views should be encouraged, not rubbished. We learn nothing from those that agree with us.
Watch for comments on "ignorant" selling by institutions, techies etc - by people that think they know better.
wise words from mr p thx for sharing moka