sharetrader
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 139
  1. #21
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Actually investing in real estate is pushed behind investing in businesses. e.g. the bright line test on residential property.
    What percentage of property investors pay tax on the capital gains on their equity invested by virtue of the bright line test?

    Which banks lend money to shareholders at the same interest rate and LTV to invest in shares in businesses, with the shares as security for the loan as they would to investors in real estate?
    Last edited by Bjauck; 13-11-2020 at 12:08 PM.

  2. #22
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    There does appear to be some (misdirected ?) moral outrage at the so called disease of rampant capitalism that would dare allow companies to participate in a lawfully endorsed Govt subsidy scheme to keep employees employed in the middle of the worst pandemic in over a century with serious economic consequences. How dare companies avail themselves of Govt resources to cover just a modest fraction of their overall costs during lockdown ? Lets have a witch hunt of these morally bankrupt companies shall we and start boycotts and protests for their morally repugnant behavior. (Where's my vomit bag ?).

    How disgusting...surely it would have been far better for these companies to engage in mass redundancies...opps, maybe not...that would have cost the Government more with unemployment costs and mental health issues. How many more would have committed suicide ? I know one who did and trace that back to Covid pressure...how many more people made redundant would have committed suicide if it were not for the Govt's wage subsidy scheme saving hundreds of thousands of jobs ?

    Many are polluting other threads with their repetitive sanctimonious cries for social justice. Such an easy thing to do with other people's money isn't it I just thought when you have a circus you have it in one place rather than polluting every thread with the musings of these so called socialist expert guru's.

    Have you got something to contribute to this debate other than to speculate on my motivation and intentions for starting it ?
    The issue here is the dog's breakfast of a scheme, not companies taking advantage of it.

    Happy to be corrected, but weren't the funds paid in a bulk sum at the start? For the sake of the simple step of paying it weekly or fortnightly as budgeted by the applicant, the government could have saved itself hundreds of millions. Ardern has no high horse to climb on. She and her cohort cocked this up. This is Ardern politics 101. Talk big, spend big, and throw others under the bus when it turns to custard. And people wonder why I think she's cynical.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    LA/ChCh/AKL
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonu View Post
    The issue here is the dog's breakfast of a scheme, not companies taking advantage of it.

    Happy to be corrected, but weren't the funds paid in a bulk sum at the start? For the sake of the simple step of paying it weekly or fortnightly as budgeted by the applicant, the government could have saved itself hundreds of millions. Ardern has no high horse to climb on. She and her cohort cocked this up. This is Ardern politics 101. Talk big, spend big, and throw others under the bus when it turns to custard. And people wonder why I think she's cynical.
    It was paid up front to pass the administration burden and responsibility over to the business/organisation.

  4. #24
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    I don't see why as a shareholder of HLG I should be compelled to be part of repaying a subsidy that the company legitimately received to assist with some of the costs of employing staff during the lockdown. What part of "some of the costs" of employing staff and none of the other overheads of the company is so hard for people to understand ? Its the staff that have benefited from this subsidy, not me as a shareholder. Blind Freddy can see that HLG made a lot less money in the second half of FY20. Why should I as a shareholder of HLG repay a share of the subsidy that benefited employees ? I received no benefit, the company has received no net benefit so what the heck is the issue ? Why is it so morally repugnant for a company to pay a reduced dividend for the year from profits they made when the stores were not in lockdown ?
    If you really believe you received no benefit from the wage subsidy to HLG workers Beagle, then I invite you consider what the late interim dividend payment of 15c might have been had the wage subsidy not been paid. The wage subsidy went into the wage bucket and it was all paid out to employees. No-one is disputing that. But if the wage subsidy had not been paid, then HLG would have had to take money out of their unallocated cash bucket and put that into wages, Come board meeting time, that unallocated cash bucket was exactly the same cash bucket that your dividend to be declared came from.

    From a cash bucket perspective, you could say that the government only paid lock-down wages. Or you could say the wage subsidy paid your dividend while the company paid all the wages right through the lock down. From a cash bucket perspective there is no difference between those two statements, But one of those statements sounds a lot more responsible. The government paying the wages allowed HLG to move money that otherwise would have been used to pay wages to be spent on other things entirely at HLG management's discretion. And you don't consider that a shareholder benefit?

    I am not saying that HLG did the wrong thing taking the wage subsidy. At the time no-one knew how bad the Covid-19 hit would be. But with the initial Covid-19 shock over, it has become clear with hindsight that HLG did not need it. There was no claw back clause in the wage subsidy deal if things did not turn out as badly as expected. If the government had started worrying about details like that at the time it would have delayed the roll out of the scheme which may have had drastic consequences for weaker market players. So I don't blame the government for 'keeping things simple' and not putting in various down the road conditions under which these business loans need to be repaid.

    What I am saying here is that HLG quite legally applied for a wage subsidy from a flawed scheme, which was flawed for good reasons. There is no legal requirement to pay anything back. Possibly HLG made an error of judgement in agreeing to pay out that delayed interim dividend. If shareholders had received nothing up to now this financial year, then they would be seen as 'sharing the pain'. A couple of years down the track a special dividend could have been declared for the same amount once the heat had died down. That would have been good PR. But better PR would be to pay the wage subsidy back.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 13-11-2020 at 01:13 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  5. #25
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raz View Post
    It was paid up front to pass the administration burden and responsibility over to the business/organisation.
    How much harder to have made it paid in instalment? It still falls upon the recipient to distribute it. Madness.

  6. #26
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    If you really believe you received no benefit from the wage subsidy to HLG workers Beagle, then I invite you consider what the late interim dividend payment of 15c might have been had the wage subsidy not been paid. The wage subsidy went into the wage bucket and it was all paid out to employees. No-one is disputing that. But if the wage subsidy had not been paid, then HLG would have had to take money out of their unallocated cash bucket and put that into wages, Come board meeting time, that unallocated cash bucket was exactly the same cash bucket that your dividend to be declared came from.
    The point which you are missing is that companies like HLG would have had no choice but to lay off staff to save on wages during the lockdown - so companies were simply passing on the wage subsidies to staff with no benefit to them. In fact, their position were net negative as they still had to pay ACC and Kiwisaver. That is the long and short of it.

  7. #27
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    The point which you are missing is that companies like HLG would have had no choice but to lay off staff to save on wages during the lockdown - so companies were simply passing on the wage subsidies to staff with no benefit to them. In fact, their position were net negative as they still had to pay ACC and Kiwisaver. That is the long and short of it.
    No I am not missing that point. I agree with what you have said Balance and that is why HLG should have applied for the subsidy, and why they did apply for the subsidy. The fact that HLG didn't 'need' the subsidy only emerged later.

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  8. #28
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    No I am not missing that point. I agree with what you have said Balance and that is why HLG should have applied for the subsidy, and why they did apply for the subsidy. The fact that HLG didn't 'need' the subsidy only emerged later.

    SNOOPY
    Your point about PR is taken.

    Good companies should be held up as examples to follow.

    Take out the wage subsidy and HLGís profit was lower than last year by slightly more than the subsidy.

    All that the subsidy did was to cover what HLG have actually lost due to the lockdown.

    On what basis is the judgement made that HLG or Fulton Hogan does not need the subsidy?

    As for sharing the pain, tell that to the supermarkets who were given monopolistic license to profiteer & did so, and to all the government officials & civil servants who enjoyed job security, had time off during the lockdown and received in full their salaries. There is definitely a moral issue there.
    Last edited by Balance; 13-11-2020 at 02:52 PM.

  9. #29
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bolivia.
    Posts
    2,260

    Default

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123...s-wage-subsidy

    No doubt that there are loads of different situations companies found themselves in. Some completely shutdown, maybe trading on the web, working from home, essential service etc etc. Some companies will make the decision, and some of it will be driven by consumer perception and reaction (although often quickly forgotten with the next sale).

    The above case they still made a very substantial profit, made substantially more than the prior year (by circa $50m), paid back about $1m, and paid out substantial dividends to shareholders. They also get much of their income from local/central government, who have incurred significant loss of income/debt with Covid.

    These guys are also ******* hopeless - I've been watching them build a pretty simple roundabout and pedestrian underpass in town, which was started before Christmas last year. Not. Yet. Finished. Hate to think how much it has cost taxpayers & local ratepayers.

  10. #30
    Hunting for more dog food Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    17,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    No I am not missing that point. I agree with what you have said Balance and that is why HLG should have applied for the subsidy, and why they did apply for the subsidy. The fact that HLG didn't 'need' the subsidy only emerged later.

    SNOOPY
    HLG had a clearly defined lockdown period where they entirely shuttered operations including online. The wage subsidy enabled the company to avoid mass layoffs, I think this much is crystal clear. Arguments about whether they needed the subsidy are less clear but to the best of my knowledge they have never deferred a dividend before so clearly the directors thought at the time the situation was extremely serious. HLG's profit for the year with subsidies was lower than the previous year as was the dividend.

    I think its a storm in a teacup stirred vigorously by the two protagonists I named earlier for their own attempted financial benefit, (quite possibly they are / were short on HLG shares). Thing is its very hard to keep a good company down and if they are still short I predict they are going to get burnt and justice will be very sweet

    If they can't have the wherewithal to at least come onto this thread and explain their position and debate the issue...well that tells me all I need to know about their complete lack of character and credibility and this issue doesn't even deserve any more bandwidth.

    The subsidy scheme was a complete dog's breakfast, I don't think there's any doubt about that but it has stimulated the economy and I think that's benefited us all.
    Last edited by Beagle; 13-11-2020 at 02:53 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  11. #31
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,310

    Default

    Fulton Hogan is in the essential sectors and allowed to operate during the lockdown.

    Some in the contracting business have been laughing their heads off with the structure of the wage subsidy - money for jam.

    Their work were simply deferred and they more than made up by working extra hours after the lockdown - call it deferred rather than lost revenues. But they got the subsidies.

    Then there were those who deferred invoicing for work already done so they could claim their revenues were down 30%.

    The stories go on and on.

  12. #32
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    1,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    HLG had a clearly defined lockdown period where they entirely shuttered operations including online. The wage subsidy enabled the company to avoid mass layoffs, I think this much is crystal clear. Arguments about whether they needed the subsidy are less clear but to the best of my knowledge they have never deferred a dividend before so clearly the directors thought at the time the situation was extremely serious. HLG's profit for the year with subsidies was lower than the previous year as was the dividend.

    I think its a storm in a teacup stirred vigorously by the two protagonists I named earlier for their own attempted financial benefit, (quite possibly they are / were short on HLG shares). Thing is its very hard to keep a good company down and if they are still short I predict they are going to get burnt and justice will be very sweet

    If they can't have the wherewithal to at least come onto this thread and explain their position and debate the issue...well that tells me all I need to know about their complete lack of character and credibility and this issue doesn't even deserve any more bandwidth.

    The subsidy scheme was a complete dog's breakfast, I don't think there's any doubt about that but it has stimulated the economy and I think that's benefited us all.
    WOW! I have to agree with Couta and Iceman, this thread was started with a very clear agenda, to provoke a response from Bull and Moka who you have accused of “getting high and mighty on their moral sanctimonious horse” by saying some companies should pay back the wage subsidy. Both Bull and Moka are entitled to their opinion as are you. Just because they havnt jumped to respond to your posts does not mean they completely lack character and credibility. WOW judgemental much! ��

    While I know very little about Bull I have read many of Mokas posts. He/she comes across as very well researched person and most certainly not someone who is attempting to financially benefit themselves by posting on here. That is a pretty offensive accusation and thinking justice would be sweet from them getting burned is shameful. So much for having Christian values eh.

  13. #33
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    28,030

    Default

    When the wage subsidy scheme was first floated it was target at small to medium size businesses. The limit that could be claimed wasnít very high.

    Reasoning being that SMEs did not generally have access to capital like big companies. The big companies were likely to have substantial cash reserves, easier access to lending and could always call on shareholders for more cash.

    The big end of town got to the PM and Finance Minister and it was open slather ...a free for all now matter what size you were

    Maybe we wouldnít be having this discussion if the Govt had stuck to its original idea and let the big end of town mitigate any damage themselves in line with their business continuity plans
    Last edited by winner69; 13-11-2020 at 08:01 PM.

  14. #34
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,310

    Default

    Would have lost the election then, W69. Surely the open slather is worth every vote obtained using taxpayersí funds.

  15. #35
    Hunting for more dog food Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    17,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
    WOW! I have to agree with Couta and Iceman, this thread was started with a very clear agenda, to provoke a response from Bull and Moka who you have accused of “getting high and mighty on their moral sanctimonious horse” by saying some companies should pay back the wage subsidy. Both Bull and Moka are entitled to their opinion as are you. Just because they havnt jumped to respond to your posts does not mean they completely lack character and credibility. WOW judgemental much! ��

    While I know very little about Bull I have read many of Mokas posts. He/she comes across as very well researched person and most certainly not someone who is attempting to financially benefit themselves by posting on here. That is a pretty offensive accusation and thinking justice would be sweet from them getting burned is shameful. So much for having Christian values eh.
    Wow judgmental much right back at you. You haven't even commented on the subject matter of this thread for goodness sake so you know what that makes you !

    I won't even dignify your post with a proper response but I WILL give you some homework for the weekend. Come back and tell me why God destroyed all he created apart from Noah and his family and the animals, why Jesus overturned the money changers tables in the Synagogue and why he killed off so many of his own kind the Israelites in the desert while they walked around in circles for 40 years. If you can answer that riddle you'll have the answer to why I took such an aggressive stance towards those you mentioned.

    You might also want to consider post 19 by Ferg. Have you read the last 15 pages of the HLG thread and seen how they repeatedly made their calls to boycott the company ? Has it occurred to you the reason they haven't come on here is that they are incapable of articulating a solid argument for their attempted price manipulation of HLG ?

    Bull has a long history of shorting shares and repeatedly trying to talk the price down. Are you aware of that before you handed down your judgement on me ? Obviously not.

    In Genesis 19 v 24 what did God reign down on Sodam and Gomorroh ?

    Shorters who repeatedly try and manipulate shares down through repeated false and disingenuous claims of attacking the integrity of a company, (especially the oldest company on the NZX which HLG is) deserve to have fire reigned on them so yes I hope this weeks 23 cent share price increase hurt them and I helped do it with plenty of buying and I am very pleased I did.

    Sometimes expending righteous anger is a healthy thing. I would have thought someone with your training would know that.
    Last edited by Beagle; 13-11-2020 at 08:42 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  16. #36
    ... Ferg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Hawkes Bay
    Posts
    63

    Default

    This right here is the answer. It was politicised, because the alternative was wholesale carnage due to closing down the economy. Carnage for people, jobs, businesses and Labour.

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    Would have lost the election then, W69. Surely the open slather is worth every vote obtained using taxpayers’ funds.

  17. #37
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wandering Free
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Wow judgmental much right back at you. You haven't even commented on the subject matter of this thread so I won't even dignify your post with a proper response but I WILL give you some homework for the weekend. Come back and tell me why God destroyed all he created apart from Noah and his family and the animals, why Jesus overturned the money changers tables in the Synagogue and why he killed off so many of his own kind the Israelites in the desert while they walked around in circles for 40 years. If you can answer that riddle you'll have the answer to why I took such an aggressive stance towards those you mentioned.
    sanctimonious narrow-minded right-wing pseudo-religious psychopathic twaddle
    om mani peme hum

  18. #38
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    1,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    sanctimonious narrow-minded right-wing pseudo-religious psychopathic twaddle
    I couldnt have said it better myself Snow Leopard

  19. #39
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    sanctimonious narrow-minded right-wing pseudo-religious psychopathic twaddle
    Iím not sure thatís going to help much, but bringing godly into it doesnít help much either, Bull**** and moka are entitled to their opinionís imo. As is beagle.

    This might take a deep breath to restore civility and discussion. Hopefully a few days over the weekend, a walk on the beach, give your life partner a hug and tell them you love her/him, have a nice dinner somewhere with a decent wine. Whatever it takes to calm down.

    Our lives are too short to get upset by something someone posted on an internet discussion group.

  20. #40
    Hunting for more dog food Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    17,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    sanctimonious narrow-minded right-wing pseudo-religious psychopathic twaddle
    Quote Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
    I couldnt have said it better myself Snow Leopard
    It doesn't take any intelligence to sit on the sidelines, contribute nothing but throw stones at those that do. I think that puts you two in the same category as bull and moka. Unless someone actually wants to debate the issue and take the opposing side of the argument about the subject matter it seems pointless to continue giving this subject and thread any more oxygen.
    Last edited by Beagle; 13-11-2020 at 09:06 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

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
  •