The objective of this post is to consider cashflow, both in and out over the subsequent one year period after reporting date. This will help evaluate the ability of Heartland to repay debentures due for repayment in the 12 months following the end of year account reporting date.
The following information for FY2017 is derived from note 20 in AR2017 on 'Liquidity Risk'.
1/ Contractual information is extracted from the table titled 'Contractual Liquidity Profile of Financial Assets and Liabilities.
2/ Expected information is calculated by multiplying the 'Contracted' risk by the Expected Behaviour Multiple.
3/ The Expected Behaviour Multiple is dervied from Heartlands own results, back in the day they printed both 'Contracted' and 'Expected' behaviour.
Loan Maturity |
Expected Behaviour Multiple |
FY2014 Financial Receivables Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2015 Financial Receivables Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2016 Financial Receivables Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2017 Financial Receivables Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
On Demand |
100% |
$50.254m / $50.254m |
$37.012m / $37.012m |
$84.154m / $84.154m |
$57.040m / $57.040m |
0-6 months |
132% |
$477.190m / $629.445m |
$664.557m / $877.215m |
$743.389m / $961.274m |
$618.271m / $816.118m |
6-12 months |
132% |
$367.564m / $483.727m |
$450.638m / $594.842m |
$484.420m / $639.962m |
$521.215m / $688.004m |
Note that in the above table, a 'loan maturity' represents an expected
inflow of cash from a Heartland bank perspective.
Deposit Maturity |
Expected Behaviour Multiple |
FY2014 Financial Liabilities Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2015 Financial Liabilities Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2016 Financial Liabilities Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
FY2017 Financial Liabilities Maturity: Contracted/ Expected |
On Demand |
3.01% |
$629.125m / $18.922m |
$748.332m / $22.450m |
$718.587m / $21.630m |
$836.829m / $25.189m |
0-6 months |
32.4% |
$748.129m / $242.431m |
$1,213.450m / $395.102m |
$892.944m / $289.314m |
$1,191.957m / $386.194m |
6-12 months |
36.4% |
$538.050m / $195.682m |
$686.159m / $249.762m |
$837.844m / $304.975m |
$729.145m / $265.409m |
Note that in the above table, a 'financial liability (debenture) maturity' represents an expected
outflow of cash from a Heartland bank perspective.
If we now take the expected cash inflows and subtract from those the expected cash outflows we can examine the expected net cashflow from a 'one year in advance' perspective.
Deposit Maturity |
FY2014: 'Expected' combined Loan and Deposit Cashflow |
FY2015: 'Expected' combined Loan and Deposit Cashflow |
FY2016: 'Expected' combined Loan and Deposit Cashflow |
FY2017: 'Expected' combined Loan and Deposit Cashflow |
On Demand |
$31.332m |
$14.562m |
$62.524m |
$31.851m |
0-6 months |
$387.014m |
$482.113m |
$691.960m |
$429.924m |
6-12 months |
$288.045m |
$345.080m |
$334.987m |
$422.595m |
Total |
$706.391m |
$841.755m |
$1,089.471m |
$884.370m |
Once again lots of numbers here. Now there are four years of consecutive data on display, we can start to get a view on what 'normal' numbers should look like. So what numbers in the above table(s) are worthy of further attention?
The purpose of this exercise is to work out if Heartland has an identifiable chance of running out of cash. A customer might not be happy if Heartland decides not to offer them a loan. But they will likely be even more unhappy if they have loaned Heartland money, be it in a short term debenture or a cash account, and Heartland does not have the cash to pay them back. Whether cash is available depends on the balance between cash coming into the company and cash going out. This 'balance' is reflected in the bottom table, and this is the table that deserves our attention.
If a cash depositing customer is denied their cash on maturity, this would be equally annoying whether it happened on a 6-12 month term deposiit a 3-6 month term deposit or a cash deposit. So it is the individual figures in the tables that are important, not the totals. Even if an individual figure comes out negative (which none have), it is not certain that Heartland will default. It is not certain because 'expected' behaviour can be changed with incentives: Incentives like offering a higher than market interest rate for a defined period of management concern, for example.
From an historical perspective, the 'On Demand' net position outlook for FY2015 looked a little weak. IIRC there was serious promotion of Heartland's 'on call' account at the time and new money flowed in. Some of this money belonged to members of this forum who responded to the incentive of Heartland offering 3% at the time (? - please correct me forum members if I have remember this figure incorrectly) on their call money just as the big banks were reducing their on call deposit rates to near zero (ANZ, BNZ and Westpac now offer just 0.1% on 'at call' deposit money). By EOFY2016 there was a relative abundance of 'net on call cash available' ($62.5m) and that nearly halved to a still acceptable (beacuse Heartland hasn't seen fit to boost it) $31.9m at EOFY2017. I see that the 'on deposit' rate at Heartland was reduced to 2.75% last year, which no doubt took a lot of the froth out of the cash market from those seeing stars when the rate was 3% and above.
Another anomaly was the 0-6 month maturity outlook from EOFY2016 (30th June 2016). IIRC this was a period when there was real uncertainty about the milk price and Heartland may have shied away from short term loan deals to dairy customers over this time, and thus created a higher than originally planned for net maturity of 0-6 month debentures. That 'bump' also looks to be ironed out in the FY2017 figures.
I see Percy is once again 'on the ball' and has replied to this post before I have finished it. You are right about us having this discussion before Percy, this is at least the fourth time. But that doesn't mean it is a waste of time. Short term cash flow is an issue that never goes away. And an imbalance in these figures is an indicator that Heartland might need to offer higher interest rates in the future to fix any upcoming cashflow situation. Offering above market interest rates, if only for a time, means lower profits for shareholders. And that is something that shareholders should know about! Given all of this information is now historical, we can compare what was indicated with what actually happened. It looks like Heartland was not forecasting any unusual cash shortfall on the 'net' existing loan book for FY2018, so no unusually high interest rate deals would be on offer to customers over the 30th June 2017 to 30th June 2018 period. Is that what happened (I haven't kept close tabs of Heartland deposit rates over the year)?