I liked the announcement until i got to"She is a passionate advocate of women in business, being a member of Global Womenand previously a Director and Treasurer for Dress for Success in Auckland." That is not a credential for being a CFO.
Printable View
I wouldn't think so. Or certainly no more so than any other competent Board member. That she belongs to a "Womens Club" (Global Women) should enable her to hold no opposition if someone wants to join a Mens Club.
As for being treasurer of DFS Auckland thats somewhat akin to being treasurer of the local scouts group so I dont put much value on that.
Would have much preferred to see "Cherise is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is currently the Chief Financial Officer of Aotal Limited.She has also held the role of Chief Financial Officer at Sovereign and Acting Chief Financial Officer and Financial Controller at Westpac. Prior to this she was in senior roles with ANZ National Bank in both Finance and the Financial Markets business. Her professional services experience was gained working with Pricewaterhouse, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG. Cherise is a director on Sovereigns subsidiary company Boards and previously was on the board of a number of Westpac subsidiaries including Westpac Life. Cherise has broad experience engaging at the Board level developed across her career.
From a professional point of view, Cherise focusses on improving the performance of the company and creating high performing engaged teams whereby people develop themselves and their skillsets and in doing so setting themselves up for future positions.
Cherise is passionate about seeing people achieve their career aspirations and invests her spare time in mentoring individuals as well as facilitating a networking forum at Sovereign.
If by that you mean washing out the old pale male, then yes. Other than that we should have confidence that at board level they already are professional. And if not the un-professional ones should be moved on.
Maybe the forward looking PEs are worth considering (estimations after all) but what about the credit ratings? HGH is on BBB from Fitch while ANZ, BNZ, ASB/CBA, WBC are on AA- or equivalent from S&P, Fitch and Moodys. In case you think this does not matter, I still smart from losing on South Canterbury with a BBB rating (investment grade, remember).
Good post Beagle. No question in my view that HGH is and has been for a long time, a very good long term investment. Probably quite fully priced at the moment but a good steady dividend payer.
Having said that, I am a little intrigued that HGH is relying quite a lot on SH taking up the DRIP with regard to the expected capital ratio. Would it not be more prudent to simply lower the dividend payout ? I realise this would not go down well with many SH but how will the deal with it if SH do not take up the DRIP ?
Thanks Iceman. DRIP current level of take-up is sufficient to achieve the current RBNZ's target capital rate of 15% but I expect the RBNZ will lower that rate.
DRIP take-up rates can be encouraged if necessary, as I am sure you appreciate, through varying the discount level of new shares in lieu of dividend.
I think a lot of retired and semi retired folk rely on the dividend income from high yielding stocks like HGH to support a comfortable lifestyle and its likely that the directors of HGH are cognisant of that. I don't think they need to do anything. Shares currently right about fair value in my opinion.
Interesting article
Nothing to do with Heartland but interesting
https://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...04-p51k1i.html
A cabbage would not increase the 'diversity of thinking' so you'll need to be a little more inventive and try to reduce the number of angry-old-man rant farts
Quite frankly - it still makes me nervous how David Mackrell came and went so quickly
Is there any particular reason why you put this article about BS'ers into the HGH thread?
re that article though I'd be much more interested in the results from an older sample of people. Teenagers are notorious BS'ers , and I note that I would've claimed expertise in at least two of those three fictitious areas of maths. And I dont consider myself a BS'er (though self evaluation is often flawed).