I don't understand - why would anyone accept such an offer? I mean, I guess they're targetting people who aren't that well-informed, but even so, it's not like a quick cash offer or anything that would tempt someone who's desperate.
Printable View
This has already been quite well mentioned/discussed on the forum, I believe someone worked it out to be $1.07 in "today's" prices... they are hoping several hundred uninformed heartland shareholders who may only hold a couple hundred or couple thousand shares will sell and thing "gee I thought they were 90 cents, $1.40 sounds great!!!" Not sure how many small shareholders will fall for it, especially with the 10 year installments and the fact you won't get any dividends... and we're at $1.40 right now! :t_up: (if you include next 2 dividend payment estimates which I think will amount to around 9 cents)
Ah but what a cunning plan! We give them our shares and they pay you back with the dividends you would have received.
I know there are some realllly stupid and gullible people around, but surely even the most gullible person would check the current market price before selling anything? The only thing I can think of is that they're hoping people will miss the 10-year thing - I didn't receive the offer, was it in small print or something?
https://www.nzx.com/companies/HBL/announcements/283700
More information for those who are interested
I like the idea that was thrown around last time there was a low ball offer like this - everybody takes the postage paid envelope and fills it with newspaper, completely unrelated paperwork or pictures of cats etc and sends it back. That way they end up with a very large postage bill and a lot of time wasted sorting these letters, hopefully convincing them not to bother doing it again. Or better yet, fill the form out with completely wrong details sending them on a completely unproductive wild goose chase.
Agree on that strategy NB. Sadly there are some SH that fall for these scams and these guys have been making millions by running them. It is a shame it can not be stopped somehow but so fa publicly shaming them and responding to them with rubbish to increase their work and costs, is all we can do.
Hi guys, is anyone an interest.co.nz member and has access to this subscriber-only article they could share on the web somehow? Thanks!
http://www.interest.co.nz/business/8...d-says-reverse
I got the offer letter the other day. The information is clearly stated in the letter, so it doesn't seem like a scam. I honestly don't know why anyone would accept the offer though, it clearly states the difference between the offer price and market price (at time of printing), and the fact that it will be paid over 10 years. It's a cheeky offer, but there's nothing deceptive about it. Possibly it's a very basic intelligence test, and those that accept it fail?
If the article lives up to the headline given it by interest.co.nz, one might ask why it was not covered by an HBL announcement to the market:
Heartland Bank CFO details how any big purchase such as UDC could be funded, says reverse mortgage book picking up momentum
If HBL could pick up UDC it would be an amazing purchase for them,but I seriously doubt with the competition out there that they would pay enough for it.Plus I think ANZ just toying with the marketplace to see what they MAY be able to get for it,I don't know whether they would seriously let it go.
Then there's MTF...
But.. They could sell for short term profit and start another finance company...
HBL CEO Jeff Greenslade was on the board of UDC.A couple of senior HBL staff members are ex UDC.So HBL know UDC.UDC would be a great fit with HBL.HBL would have to raise capital to buy UDC,,while they could buy MTF with their existing surplus capital.
REL is just another sector HBL are doing well in.I believe new online "open for business" is tracking very well too.Concentrating on new channels customers want will see more customer driven product being offered.The momentum is building.
I don't know where the sp will be at Christmas,but with "consensus forecast of 9 cents fully imputed in year 2017", I know future growing dividends will go down very nicely every Christmas.
If we go back to the 2/6/2016 Heartland presentation we can see why this momentum is building.
page 6 Heartland Strategy.
Priorities;
Market leadership in digital distribution and digital marketing, to deliver a radically better customer experience based on ease and speed.
Strong systems infrastructures to support Heartland's ambition for growth.
And I seriously doubt that ANZ is just toying with the marketplace here. Esanda, the (much bigger) Australian equivalent of UDC was "let go" recently in what was a clear indication of ANZ's intentions regarding finance company subsidiaries. Certainly, they will be in no hurry if offers don't meet their expectations but a full price from HBL, or others, would see a deal made. IMO.
Not quite a murder, but certainly a 'Where did the money go?' mystery, now revised and updated into a less than exciting second edition!
Date 'Stressed' Loans on the books (X) Net Financial Receivables (Impairments deducted) (Y) (X)/(Y) Impaired Asset Expense (V) Write Off (W) Gross Financial Receivables (Z) (V)/(Z) (W)/(Z) EOHY2012 $87.728m $2,075.211m 4.23% $1.854m $13.823m $2,104.591m 0.09% 0.66% EO2HY2012 $90.489m $2,078.276m 4.35% $3.788m $3.993m $2,105.702m 0.18% 0.19% EOHY2013 $80.383m $2,044.793m 3.93% $5.254m $4.824m $2,072.270m 0.25% 0.23% EO2HY2013 $48.975m $2,010.393m 2.43% $17.313m $8.836m $2,060.867m 0.84% 0.43% EOHY2014 $42.498m $1,905.850m 2.23% $3.325m $19.046m $1,940.064m 0.17% 0.98% EO2HY2014 $41.354m $2,566.039m 1.59% $2.570m $19.472m $2,631.754m 0.10% 0.74% EOHY2015 $33.469m $2,722.433m 1.23% $5.102m $1.426m $2,749.232m 0.19% 0.05% EO2HY2015 $32.824m $2,862.070m 1.15% $7.003m $3.465m $2,893.724m 0.24% 0.12% EOHY2016 $29.147m $2,928.601m 1.00% $5.610m $14.272m $2,951.075m 0.19% 0.48% Total $51.819m $89.157m Average 0.25% 0.43%
I have made this tale less exciting by slowing down the story. It is now told exclusively in bite sized half yearly chunks.
Critically acclaimed by two well known Heartlanders
Percy: "This is the story that no-one wanted to hear, let alone rehear."
Paper Tiger: "Conceived at the bottom of a P G Wodehouse pond. Should have remained there."
Lot's of numbers here. So what does it all mean?
SNOOPY
Just to confuse readers, I will start in the middle of the story and ask them to look at column V and column W.
Column V is a measure of what management decide they want to do to adjust the size of the impaired balance bucket, to keep things running smoothly.
Column W is a measure over the same period of what is leaking out of the impaired balance bucket, actual loans written off over that period.
We can expect Column W to be far more lumpy that Column V. This is because actual right offs and the timing of those would not be expected to follow a regular pattern. OTOH taking a longer timeframe and a portfolio view of the loans, we might expect the proportion of loans that become impaired to converge around a steady figure. The impairment provisions are there to bring everything back to this management predicted 'steady state':
Smaller adjustments are needed on average, than actual write offs over the same period.
So if this is what we might expect, what do the numbers actually tell us?
On a half yearly period basis, what I see is pretty much what I expect. But the two totals tell a different story.
Over time I would expect the impairment expenses (what is adding to the bucket) and the write off expenses (what is leaking out of the bucket) to balance out. That doesn't seem to be happening here though. This sort of imbalance can happen over the short to medium term with a healthy total impairment provision (big bucket size). However, over the longer term even the biggest bucket will run dry.
Normalising the results tell a similar story. In proportional terms too, a lot more is flowing out of the impairment bucket than is flowing into it. There are at least a couple of different ways to explain this:
1/ The quality of loans could be getting ever increasingly better.
2/ The annual loan provisioning on average is being underdone, and consequently profit on average is being overstated.
Depending on whether you are a 'fan' or not, that will decide which explanation you choose to accept.
SNOOPY