Wonder if the punters will show idiotic behaviour today and sell hnz shares for ridiculous prices
Must be those stupid mum and dad investors ..... The retail investors as opposed to the pros eh
I guess hnz 75 by end of day .... Up 1 cent really
Printable View
Wonder if the punters will show idiotic behaviour today and sell hnz shares for ridiculous prices
Must be those stupid mum and dad investors ..... The retail investors as opposed to the pros eh
I guess hnz 75 by end of day .... Up 1 cent really
A couple of other points to consider in assessing the value of a banking licence to HNZ:
- Their retail deposit rates won't necessarily change much. For example ANZ's v UDC's carded rates for deposits $10k+ are currently:
6mths ANZ 3.75% UDC 4.0%
12mths 4.0 4.2
2yrs 4.2 4.2
5yrs 5 4.9
It frequently happens that ANZ - the parent - offers more than its finance co offspring!
- Having a banking licence will enable HNZ to participate in more better secured lending than it could as a finance co., eg 1st mortgage lender rather than seasonal/top -up lending with lower ranked security. But the security comes at the price of lower lending rates, squeezing the margin a little.
The biggest advantage of the licence, IMO, is that it improves HNZ's access to wholesale funding markets, when/if this is necessary, and, in theory, allows borrowing there at a better rate than would be possible as a finance company. But I think it's an exercise in futility to try to put a "value" on it in terms of a funding cost percentage.
Robbo24, perhaps I have been a little loose with my english here, and that has not left a clear impression of what I was trying to say. You say that "Doubtful" (when used to describe a loan) does not mean unenforceable, invalid or a liability. I agree with you 100% on this. I certainly never mentioned 'doubtful' in relation to a loan implying that I think it will not be recovered.
The term 'doubtful' always implies a matter of opinion. The loans were doubtful for Heartland because they refused to accept them. However PGW did not regard them as doubtful and have subsequently recovered almost all of them. With hindsight you can say Heartland were wrong in calling them doubtful, but that doesn't mesan they didn't have an honestly held opinion that the $90.9m worth of loans were doubtful at the time.
Your point of view has been vindicated in that the $90.9m of loans that I referred to as 'doubtful' were in fact retained by PGW and paperwork from that side of the operation suggests that all of these loans either have been recovered, or are on track for recovery.
I reject your implication of 'scaremongering' as based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying. The $90.9m worth of doubtful loans were never owned by Heartland. Even in the highly theoretical case of all of these 'doubtful' loans had all going bad, the effect on Heartland would have been nil because they never owned them or had any responsibility for them. How could I be scaremongering if the loans in question were never even owned by Heartland?
Your tone suggests that you think I was implying that the $243m of loans acquired by Heartland from PGW were also doubtful. This is the opposite of what I meant. In fact, the reason I highlighted $90.9m worth of loans as doubtful was meant to imply that the remainder were not doubtful. Although admittedly I didn't explicitly state this.
I hope that clears things up.
SNOOPY
Given it was a trade of a round 100k of shares, no. People are reading to much into this. Someone dumped a 100k holding and the last 4k odd settled at 71.
Should they have sold it in a couple of lots over a few days? maybe? but maybe they decided to go for the AMG version and needed a bit of extra change for the weekend.
I hear Phil Goff is calling for a Commission of Enquiry into this particular trade. It appears to have all the hallmarks of manipulation by terrorist organisations based in Ashburton.
I'll keep you posted.......