Unfortunately,too true.
Printable View
Its just that the ASX has roughly 8 times more listings than the NZX. If their regulatory oversight and governance would be as bad as ours, they would need 8 defaulters for every CBL ...
And CBL is just the most recent example for NZX companies with apparent governance problems, they are certainly not alone - but don't get me started ...
One can argue that CBL was doing the right thing - it was trying to raise new capital and any disclosures about how shallow its reserves were would have led to a 'run' and collapse.
Any sympathy however disappeared after they made the unauthorised $55m payments to the offshore entities.
A fine debate that was too at that time. At the time HBL was growing its EPS faster than its Australian peer group so the theory then as espoused by this author was that a slight PE premium was fair and reasonable. The issue now is that with recent share issuance I don't see a superior rate of growth anymore so at least in my mind this begs the question of whether a PE premium is currently justified. Time will tell but I agree with posters above all this cloak and dagger stuff with RBNZ does not help confidence or transparency.
In a behind the paywall article on NBR today apparently the FMA knew about the RBNZ investigation into CBL from mid 2017. The only ones who didn't know about the unfolding fiasco were Joe public investors. How this is possibly acceptable in the context of continuous disclosure obligations of the NZX I have no idea ???? Perhaps there should have been a trading halt in August last year ?
Erosion of confidence in RBNZ's transparency will not help confidence in other companies they have a mandate to oversee which of course includes HBL.
Some people on this forum reckon we should all take great comfort from the fact that HBL has the oversight of RBNZ. How much comfort you really can now draw from that I have no idea.