sharetrader
Page 351 of 351 FirstFirst ... 251301341347348349350351
Results 7,001 to 7,018 of 7018
  1. #7001
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobby41 View Post
    Interesting - Xero says small businesses around the country were doing better last month than they were before the Covid-19 pandemic hit New Zealand
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...espite-covid19
    Maybe a catch up on preceding months? What’s the overall financial year shaping up like?

  2. #7002
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Very true
    I heard Elms on radio this morning
    My impression is that Immigration NZ have either bungled it all up-this has nothing to do with protecting the Health of the NZ population and they have only just stated their policy on yachts-the Germans set sail over 2 months ago and at this time would have thought their was no reason not to have been allowed entry-or they are being made scapegoats.
    There is no health reason why they are being treated as they are and it is untrue for Elms to insinuate this .
    I don’t think Immigration NZ bungled it up. It sounds quite reasonable me that yachts or people arriving by sea are subject to the same restrictions as those arriving by plane. Policies have been in place for months.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...r-restrictions
    Non-New Zealand citizens and returning residents must either be exempt from the border restrictions or have been approved a border exception, regardless of whether they are travelling by air or sea.

    They had requested an exception to the Covid-19 marine border restrictions for their vessel, but chose to set off on their voyage before receiving approval.
    “They applied for exemptions on two grounds, humanitarian and bringing the vessel to New Zealand for repair,” she said.
    “Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required for either of these exemptions.”

    Exemptions to New Zealand’s closed maritime border must be sought before a vessel embarks on its journey to New Zealand and obtained before it arrives, she said.
    “The Ministry has previously provided guidance to potential applicants that ‘humanitarian reasons’ would be unlikely to include situations relating solely to financial loss, or to vessels travelling primarily for pleasure or convenience such as tourists or ‘wintering over’.”

  3. #7003
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    [QUOTE=moka;846780]I don’t think Immigration NZ bungled it up. It sounds quite reasonable me that yachts or people arriving by sea are subject to the same restrictions as those arriving by plane. Policies have been in place for months.

    The reality is different .
    Corvid has been spread around the globe by plane .
    We need quarantine for anyone arriving by plane and testing
    Ships with large crews need quarantine.
    Small yachts with small crews that take over 2 months to arrive here have no risk-and do not not really need quarantine-but quarantine facilities at ports of entry have been set up to be doubly sure.
    We have an annual migration of 300 to 500 yachts from pacific Islands to NZ in order to escape the dangers of the cyclone season .
    They are now stuck in the likely paths of cyclones this summer .Many of them have young families and will be fearful of what awaits.
    It is a cruel and heartless Health Department that denies them entry for no valid health reason .
    They are not in the same circumstances as passengers on planes.
    Additionally they are low or no risk and have been sailing around the pacific with other countries welcoming them and finding it easy for quarantine on a yacht-it is their home-there are no hotel bills etc .
    In contrast if you are rich,have a superyacht and arrange repairs and maintainance here you can be allowed in .
    It is sick that the threshold our health department uses is money and not Covid risk
    Last edited by fish; 30-09-2020 at 04:24 PM.

  4. #7004
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    The reality is different .
    Corvid has been spread around the globe by plane .
    We need quarantine for anyone arriving by plane and testing
    Ships with large crews need quarantine.
    Small yachts with small crews that take over 2 months to arrive here have no risk-and do not not really need quarantine-but quarantine facilities at ports of entry have been set up to be doubly sure.
    We have an annual migration of 300 to 500 yachts from pacific Islands to NZ in order to escape the dangers of the cyclone season .
    They are now stuck in the likely paths of cyclones this summer .Many of them have young families and will be fearful of what awaits.
    It is a cruel and heartless Health Department that denies them entry for no valid health reason .
    They are not in the same circumstances as passengers on planes.
    Additionally they are low or no risk and have been sailing around the pacific with other countries welcoming them and finding it easy for quarantine on a yacht-it is their home-there are no hotel bills etc .
    In contrast if you are rich,have a superyacht and arrange repairs and maintainance here you can be allowed in .
    It is sick that the threshold our health department uses is money and not Covid risk
    Seems that the yacht crew would have had the same outcome pre-covid.
    They broke the rules.
    Didn't have the visas that they required.
    Seems arrogant on their part.

  5. #7005
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobby41 View Post
    Seems that the yacht crew would have had the same outcome pre-covid.
    They broke the rules.
    Didn't have the visas that they required.
    Seems arrogant on their part.
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12368920

    This happened because of nonsensical and unfair Covid rules .
    They were denied exemption visa s because they did not meet an unknown high threshold (in the main financial but if you wait until your life is at risk at Sea in a cyclone you might be allowed in)

  6. #7006
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/grievi...T4OXZQAV64QI4/

    Another example of how inept and lacking in humanity our Covid rules are being applied.
    A superyacht can come here if they spend $50,000 at a boatyard.
    A grieving family cannot if they spend more than 50,000 on brokerage,haul out etc in order to get back to the UK to resume their lives

  7. #7007
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/grievi...T4OXZQAV64QI4/

    Another example of how inept and lacking in humanity our Covid rules are being applied.
    A superyacht can come here if they spend $50,000 at a boatyard.
    A grieving family cannot if they spend more than 50,000 on brokerage,haul out etc in order to get back to the UK to resume their lives
    The rich and powerful can always pull a few extra strings.

    However it is a a risky enterprise to travel around the World in yacht with children even when there is not a global epidemic.

  8. #7008
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    hamilton
    Posts
    691

    Default

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/10/a...dst/index.html

    not sure the same officials deal with super yacht owners then with less well off travellers?

    all round the world passports can be bought for large sums. Try Malta but dont write a blog or you might find you get blown up in your car.

    Lock downs are going out of fashion.
    Last edited by Waltzingironmansinlgescul; 11-10-2020 at 10:28 PM.

  9. #7009
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/grievi...T4OXZQAV64QI4/

    Another example of how inept and lacking in humanity our Covid rules are being applied.
    A superyacht can come here if they spend $50,000 at a boatyard.
    A grieving family cannot if they spend more than 50,000 on brokerage,haul out etc in order to get back to the UK to resume their lives
    Good article pulling on heart strings.
    Why aren't they just going to Aussie instead - much bigger market for $1mil+ yachts?

  10. #7010
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/24...bsidy-avenger/
    The tale of Ian Swney: The spray-can-wielding wage subsidy avenger.
    An interview with an Auckland academic, who had said that out of the thousands of businesses that took the government’s Covid-19 wage subsidy, there were three companies in particular that didn’t need it. Summerset Villages, Hallensteins and Briscoe Group. This was based on the fact that, in the months after receiving the subsidy, they’d reported large profits and paid out shareholder dividends. None of the three companies indicated they were intending to pay it back.

    Swney was incensed. For the past few years, he’d become more aware about corporate privilege, wealth inequality and the perpetual advantage enjoyed by a few. He’d concluded that, because wealth breeds wealth, the decks of prosperity are typically stacked in favour of individuals and organisations who already have lots of money.

    Knowing that the almost $26m taken by those three big companies would need to be paid back by younger generations, he texted his grandchildren to find out their thoughts.

    Now was the time, Swney decided. He went to the Mitre 10 and purchased two cans of spray paint for $17.99 each – one red and one green.
    He then rode across the carpark to the Briscoes, got off his bike, and, having never done anything like it before in his life, tagged on the outside wall in foot-high words: “Wage subsidy not shareholder dividend give it back.”

    A few days later, Briscoe Group announced it would be repaying its $11.5m wage subsidy after a period of strong sales. Although CEO Rod Duke didn’t comment on Swney’s act of corporate vandalism, one can’t resist thinking the timing of the announcement wasn’t purely coincidental.

  11. #7011
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/24...bsidy-avenger/
    The tale of Ian Swney: The spray-can-wielding wage subsidy avenger.
    An interview with an Auckland academic, who had said that out of the thousands of businesses that took the government’s Covid-19 wage subsidy, there were three companies in particular that didn’t need it. Summerset Villages, Hallensteins and Briscoe Group. This was based on the fact that, in the months after receiving the subsidy, they’d reported large profits and paid out shareholder dividends. None of the three companies indicated they were intending to pay it back.

    Swney was incensed. For the past few years, he’d become more aware about corporate privilege, wealth inequality and the perpetual advantage enjoyed by a few. He’d concluded that, because wealth breeds wealth, the decks of prosperity are typically stacked in favour of individuals and organisations who already have lots of money.

    Knowing that the almost $26m taken by those three big companies would need to be paid back by younger generations, he texted his grandchildren to find out their thoughts.

    Now was the time, Swney decided. He went to the Mitre 10 and purchased two cans of spray paint for $17.99 each – one red and one green.
    He then rode across the carpark to the Briscoes, got off his bike, and, having never done anything like it before in his life, tagged on the outside wall in foot-high words: “Wage subsidy not shareholder dividend give it back.”

    A few days later, Briscoe Group announced it would be repaying its $11.5m wage subsidy after a period of strong sales. Although CEO Rod Duke didn’t comment on Swney’s act of corporate vandalism, one can’t resist thinking the timing of the announcement wasn’t purely coincidental.
    Ian Swney sounds like a fckwit. What an idiot to take matters into his own hands. Why target some companies that must report (due to NZX requirements) What about all the companies that do not report yet fall into the same category. Mob mentality at its worst.

    Btw, I never ever read that dividends and or profit was a criteria for receiving the wage subsidy. The govt spelled it out quite nicely, it was a revenue decline of 30% or more in any one month period. If you qualify you qualify. Never once was there a mention of profit or dividend.
    Last edited by blackcap; 25-10-2020 at 07:44 AM.

  12. #7012
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Ian Swney sounds like a fckwit. What an idiot to take matters into his own hands. Why target some companies that must report (due to NZX requirements) What about all the companies that do not report yet fall into the same category. Mob mentality at its worst.

    Btw, I never ever read that dividends and or profit was a criteria for receiving the wage subsidy. The govt spelled it out quite nicely, it was a revenue decline of 30% or more in any one month period. If you qualify you qualify. Never once was there a mention of profit or dividend.
    I think the wording has since changed, but there always was the obligation to use your own resources such as cash reserves before applying for the wage subsidy. The wage subsidy was a Hardship grant, not Compensation for being locked down, as many called it, including Judith Collins. If a business could still pay a dividend then perhaps it was not in hardship, and not deserving of the wage subsidy. Many businesses conveniently ignored the criteria of using their resources. Some businesses didn’t apply because they read the criteria and had resources they could use and were astounded when businesses in a similar comfortable financial position received the subsidy.

    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/co...ions.html#null

    • you have taken active steps to mitigate the financial impact of COVID-19 on their business activities, including proactively engaging with your bank and calling on your internal cash reserves (where appropriate)


    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/...lf-year-profit
    8 September 2020
    Briscoes profit for the six months ended July was $28 million compared with $28.3m the year before, while revenue fell 3.5 percent.

    The company received $11.5m in wage subsidies, which ensured all staff were retained on full pay.
    "If I hadn't had the $11.5m in subsidy I would have had to take 11 and a half million off my profit and would have had to settle for a significantly lower profit and the temptation, of course, is to lay people off," Duke said.
    He said the company was in a strong financial position and needed no strengthening of its balance sheet. It has increased its interim dividend by half a cent to 9 cents a share.
    Duke said its new trading year had started strongly and revenue was ahead of last year despite the return to partial lockdowns, and said he was hoping to match or beat last year's full year profit.

  13. #7013
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I think the wording has since changed, but there always was the obligation to use your own resources such as cash reserves before applying for the wage subsidy.
    The wording of that section does not stipulate an obligation that you must use your own resources such as cash reserves before applying for the wage subsidy.

    It does require a business to mitigate the [overall] financial impact of COVID-19, which includes drawing on cash reserves and engaging with the bank. Remember that this subsidy did not cover any opex, nor any other costs associated with continued employment (e.g. ACC etc.) This would obviously need to be covered by engaging with the bank and/or drawing on cash reserves, thereby meeting the eligibility criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    The wage subsidy was a Hardship grant, not Compensation for being locked down, as many called it, including Judith Collins. If a business could still pay a dividend then perhaps it was not in hardship, and not deserving of the wage subsidy. Many businesses conveniently ignored the criteria of using their resources. Some businesses didn’t apply because they read the criteria and had resources they could use and were astounded when businesses in a similar comfortable financial position received the subsidy.
    Do you have a cite for the reference to it being a hardship grant? Notwithstanding this, there are no references to businesses needing to prove hardship, only that they must prove the 30% or 40% reduction in revenue (plus other misc. standard criteria such as NZ company, employee NZer's etc.), therefore these other businesses you refer to either 1) did not meet the criteria in some other way, 2) actively chose to keep staff employed fully using their own funds, 3) misunderstood the criteria.
    Last edited by Zaphod; 26-10-2020 at 07:41 PM.

  14. #7014
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    Do you have a cite for the reference to it being a hardship grant? Notwithstanding this, there are no references to businesses needing to prove hardship, only that they must prove the 30% or 40% reduction in revenue (plus other misc. standard criteria such as NZ company, employee NZer's etc.), therefore these other businesses you refer to either 1) did not meet the criteria in some other way, 2) actively chose to keep staff employed fully using their own funds, 3) misunderstood the criteria.
    I use the word hardship because financial assistance from Work and Income is based on hardship. Generally if you can provide for yourself from other sources you do not get a benefit etc.
    The factsheet uses significantly impacted and struggling etc. which for me is similar to hardship.

    Wage subsidy scheme - Beehive.govt.nz
    www.beehive.govt.nz › sites › default › files › Wage su...

    PDF
    Wage subsidies will be available for all employers that are significantly impacted by COVID-19 and are struggling to retain employees as a result

    The businesses I was talking about actively chose to keep staff employed fully using their own funds, after reading the criteria re take active steps to mitigate the effects by engaging with their bank or using cash reserves etc. They had other resources they could use, and applying for the wage subsidy was a last resort when other avenues were exhausted.

  15. #7015
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    The wording of that section does not stipulate an obligation that you must use your own resources such as cash reserves before applying for the wage subsidy.

    It does require a business to mitigate the [overall] financial impact of COVID-19, which includes drawing on cash reserves and engaging with the bank. Remember that this subsidy did not cover any opex, nor any other costs associated with continued employment (e.g. ACC etc.) This would obviously need to be covered by engaging with the bank and/or drawing on cash reserves, thereby meeting the eligibility criteria.
    The wording does not say you must use your own resources but it does say you must have taken active steps to mitigate the impact of Covid. To me that implies that the wage subsidy is a last resort after you have exhausted other possibilities.
    It is an obligation when you apply for the wage subsidy and by submitting the form you are declaring you have taken active steps to mitigate.

    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-services/covid-19/declaration-wage-subsidy-extension.html

    By submitting this form, you are declaring that:
    You must meet the eligibility criteria
    You meet the eligibility criteria for the Wage Subsidy (subsidy):

    • you operate a business ….. in New Zealand that employs and pays the employees named in your application; and
    • your business has experienced a minimum 40% decline in revenue …… and that revenue loss is attributable to the COVID-19 outbreak; and
    • before making your application for the subsidy, you have taken active steps to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on your business activities (including but not limited to engaging with your bank, drawing on your cash reserves as appropriate, making an insurance claim); and


    • Your obligations to use the subsidy to retain and pay your employees.

  16. #7016
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Before making your application for the subsidy, you have taken “active steps” to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on your business activities; and

    What are active steps? An employer should have taken active steps to mitigate the financial impact of COVID-19 before applying for the Wage Subsidy. There are a range of activities which businesses should be considering and these can include:
    • Engaging with your accountant
    • Activating your business continuity plan
    • Drawing on cash reserves (as appropriate)
    • Making an insurance claim
    • Proactively engaging with your bank
    • Seeking advice from the Chamber of Commerce, a relevant industry association, or the Regional Business Partner programme


    https://www2.deloitte.com/nz/en/pages/tax/articles/summary-of-the-wage-subsidy-scheme-and-essential-workers-leave-s.html

  17. #7017
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I use the word hardship because financial assistance from Work and Income is based on hardship. Generally if you can provide for yourself from other sources you do not get a benefit etc.
    The factsheet uses significantly impacted and struggling etc. which for me is similar to hardship.
    The issue is by calling it a hardship grant, it is then implied that the company must be suffering hardship and therefore it should have exhausted internal cash reserves (for example) before applying, when this is orthogonal to the criteria whose primary eligibility criteria is that a 30%-40% (dependent upon which round) drop in revenue is reported.


    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    The wording does not say you must use your own resources but it does say you must have taken active steps to mitigate the impact of Covid.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    To me that implies that the wage subsidy is a last resort after you have exhausted other possibilities.
    It is an obligation when you apply for the wage subsidy and by submitting the form you are declaring you have taken active steps to mitigate.
    I disagree here. If the intention was that all other options were to be exhausted before taking the subsidy, this would have been clearly stipulated in the criteria. Instead, the statement is very generalised, asking applicants to have "taken steps to mitigate" which leads to a rather nebulous interpretation.

    This is probably quite deliberate, as forcing companies to exhaust all other options would delay uptake of the subsidy and lead to the very outcome that the government were seeking to avoid, namely a short sharp & massive increase to the unemployment rate.
    Last edited by Zaphod; 28-10-2020 at 06:07 AM.

  18. #7018
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    hamilton
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Im surprised only now is the press going back over the steps taken by the incumbents and finding just how fast and loose the facts have been dealt with.

    it also clear that the incumbents did not go over to the RBNZ and go over the option for funding that the MR O offered.

    Basically they were simply overwhelmed on all fronts which is understandable as the government showed they were in all cases well out of the depth. My sources in government simply said it was a panic at the top that had no idea and dusting off all plans that hadnt been updated or gamed.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ugust-outbreak

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •