sharetrader
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 139
  1. #41
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    1,236

    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 for goodness sake so you know what that makes you !

    “Nope what does that make me?”

    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 mentione

    “No thanks”


    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 no

    “Yes I am, but I do not believe that is true of Moka”


    In Genesis 19 v 24 what did God reign down on Sodam and Gomorroh ? “Dont care”

    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.

    “No one deserves to have fire reigned on them”

    Sometimes expending righteous anger is a healthy thing. I would have thought someone with your training would know that.
    “Rubbish. All it does is raise your blood pressure”

  2. #42
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    1,236

    Default

    Thanks for the negative reputation comment Beagle, thought you were better than that

  3. #43
    Hunting for more dog food Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    17,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
    “Rubbish. All it does is raise your blood pressure”
    No I'm good. My doctor checked it earlier this week. Must be all those wonderful PAZ supplements.
    You've had plenty of positive rep from me before when you've contributed things of value. If you sit in judgement of me without knowing all the facts and without adding a single thing on topic about this debate what did you expect ? I think we're done for this evening. Good night mate.
    Last edited by Beagle; 13-11-2020 at 09:31 PM.
    No butts, hold no mutts, (unless they're the furry variety).

  4. #44
    Trying to get outta here
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,729

    Default

    I'd like to see this thread chucked in the trash can where it belongs, its toxic/depressing and embarrassing to read.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    462

    Default

    To add to this discussion, the COVID Subsidy audit team has contacted me last week. Since the beginning I filed application for the subsidy on behalf of my father's 'self employed' partner of our business that was greatly affected by the shutdown of overseas tourists. My accountant at the time advised to make the application but what I learned was despite the application was for "SELF EMPLOYED" ; I did not learn until after that it's ONLY eligible to NZ residents. I argued to the auditor that my father for all these years has paid HIS portion of income tax in the business yet you're denying the subsidy because he's resident in another country (but routinely comes to NZ to do the business run each year). At the end I had to refund his subsidy payment. Should not the COVID 'Self Employed' subsidy be for ALL those that pay income taxes?

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by couta1 View Post
    I dont think your looking for anyone else's opinion Beagle, your simply stating your own strong views on the matter.
    I agree with you Couta1. To me it seems that the purpose of this thread is to defend their position and justify HLG not paying the subsidy back rather than to actually discuss the issue and see both sides.
    I was surprised at how aggressive the response was from both Beagle and Ferg was to my comments on the HLG thread. When people are that aggressive and emotional they are not open to hearing different views.

  7. #47
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by couta1 View Post
    I'd like to see this thread chucked in the trash can where it belongs, its toxic/depressing and embarrassing to read.
    Ditto from me. The thread started by Beagle was on a topic worthy of a good discussion instead of a slanging match among posters, who have been great contributors to this forum.

    Do companies have environmental, moral and social obligations that extend beyond their legal duties and requirements? Should the burden of government mandated lockdowns be shouldered by shareholders without compensation whilst employees are compensated? It does seem that questions of that type are increasingly being asked.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 13-11-2020 at 10:42 PM.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    When the wage subsidy scheme was first floated it was target at small to medium size businesses. The limit that could be claimed wasn’t 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 wouldn’t 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
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ge-subsidy-cap

    A wage subsidy cap of $150,000 for businesses affected by the coronavirus has been removed, increasing the expected cost of the scheme from $5.1 billion to $9.3 billion.
    Previously, the Government had said companies that experienced a 30 per cent drop in business in any one month before July as a result of the coronavirus would be paid a wage subsidy of $7029 per full-time worker, capped at $150,000 per company.
    That gave businesses an extra incentive to keep on up to 21 staff, so was of most use to small firms.
    Finance Minister Grant Robertson has now lifted the $150,000 cap, which means larger firms will be able to claim it for all their staff if they experience a 30 per cent monthly sales drop.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    I’m not sure that’s going to help much, but bringing godly into it doesn’t help much either, Bull**** and moka are entitled to their opinion’s 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.
    This issue is a lot bigger than an internet discussion and I think views should be aired and shared. While it is about the wage subsidy, it goes much deeper than that into fairness, morals, values and what sort of society we want. What are our expectations about the role of business and government? It very clear from the discussions that people have very different views. It is okay to have strongly held views but it is not okay to use name-calling and put-downs when you disagree with people. And that is one problem – attacking the person rather than the issue.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
    Regarding questioning people's motivation. This is actually a bad faith argument technique rather than offensive. In the HLG thread where I put up a post explaining the rationale as to why I thought morality did not come into it, a poster there questioned my motivation. Their entire argument was along the lines of "you would say that because you have a vested interest" without actually addressing any of the points I raised. It is bordering on an ad hominem attack in that you question the person and their motivation, rather than address their points. So I gave it the treatment it deserved and simply ignored it, but I certainly did not take offence at someone questioning my motivations in that instance (but I digress).
    You do have a conflict of interest as a shareholder of HLG, so your objectivity or impartiality can be called into question. When a person benefits their sense of what is fair or moral can be influenced.
    The wage subsidy was a high trust model and businesses were expected to act morally.
    Many businesses paid the subsidy back because they found they did not need it, and that is acting morally. Returning the subsidy was the right thing to do.
    You think morality did not come into it and I think it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
    So it's good to see that HLG abided by the rules and is none of those things. No morals or rules were broken, so there is nothing for HLG to repay. If this applies to other businesses, then I suggest you post that in the appropriate thread because it doesn't belong here.
    I don't know whether HLG took active steps to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 (cash reserves, loans etc). Do you know whether they did when you say they abided by the rules?

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    LA/ChCh/AKL
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I agree with you Couta1. To me it seems that the purpose of this thread is to defend their position and justify HLG not paying the subsidy back rather than to actually discuss the issue and see both sides.
    I was surprised at how aggressive the response was from both Beagle and Ferg was to my comments on the HLG thread. When people are that aggressive and emotional they are not open to hearing different views.
    This is starting to look like NZ society, here comes the cancel culture mentality, don't like a couple of contributors comments and this does not work well with my feelings so damn anyone else who may have contributed, get ride of it now! lol

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
    @iceman I wouldn't call that offensive; I would use other words to describe what you have quoted.

    There are three parts to that being the sanctimonious horse, questioning the motivation and hypocrisy.

    Regarding the sanctimonious horse comment, that is more inflammatory rather than offensive and IMO was designed to provoke a reaction. And whilst it is blunt, accusatory and somewhat cutting, it is no way offensive and it partly achieved what it was designed to do, which was to get a reaction. It is not offensive. If you choose to find it offensive then that is on you, not Beagle. In addition, IMO it was aimed at two rather vocal individuals from the HLG thread, and not you. So there is no reason for you to personally find it offensive.
    I found the sanctimonious comment here and the similar one on the HLG thread offensive and it was addressed to me. I don’t like it when people are so quick to insult me or other people, when they disagree with what I say. Offensive comments do not have to be addressed to me personally to be distasteful. I don’t like seeing other people abused. Other people are upset by some of the comments here. But although I find it offensive I will not let it stop me expressing my views.
    If the comment was designed to get a reaction and was inflammatory, i.e. designed to inflame that does nothing to contribute to a healthy discussion, which needs to be done in a calm considered way.

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    My opinion as clearly espoused on the HLG thread is that the Govt imposed a lockdown and some companies had to completely shutter their operations.
    The wage subsidy reimbursed SOME of the costs of companies keeping their staff employed and this was a far better option for everyone than mass layoff's.

    Some people are getting very high and mighty on their moral sanctimonious horse and saying these companies should now pay this wage subsidy back because its the right thing to do.
    They use the (in my opinion) perverse logic that a company who pays a dividend for the FY20 year should replay this subsidy but somehow they completely overlook the fact that this dividend is very likely to have come out of the profits from the other months when Covid wasn't in effect and its very likely that the affected companies lost serious money while the lockdown was in effect, only recovering some of the costs of keeping employees on the payroll and none of the multitude of other overheads and costs.

    I would go further and say words are cheap. Its very easy to take the moral high ground with other people's money. One wonders what altruistic programs / worthy charities these people run with their own money if any ? Maybe its their guilt speaking that they do nothing for charities of their own volition ? Who knows.

    For mine, the wage support system wasn't perfect but it has been a major support for many employees who have kept their jobs. This benefits them primarily and their mental health in what has been an extraordinarily tough year for almost everyone.

    Maybe those crying foul should put up or shut up. Write a cheque for a few thousand dollars from their own money to a worthy charity...do something to make a difference. "Deeds not words"
    I have edited the above post taking out the inflammatory and loaded language, which makes it easier to discuss the issue.

    My opinion (= Beagle's) as clearly espoused on the HLG thread is that the Govt imposed a lockdown and some companies had to completely shutter their operations.
    The wage subsidy reimbursed SOME of the costs of companies keeping their staff employed and this was a far better option for everyone than mass layoff's.

    Some people are saying these companies should now pay this wage subsidy back because its the right thing to do.
    They use the logic that a company who pays a dividend for the FY20 year should replay this subsidy but somehow they completely overlook the fact that this dividend is very likely to have come out of the profits from the other months when Covid wasn't in effect and its very likely that the affected companies lost serious money while the lockdown was in effect, only recovering some of the costs of keeping employees on the payroll and none of the multitude of other overheads and costs.

    For mine, the wage support system wasn't perfect but it has been a major support for many employees who have kept their jobs. This benefits them primarily and their mental health in what has been an extraordinarily tough year for almost everyone.
    Last edited by moka; 14-11-2020 at 02:09 AM.

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raz View Post
    I think people lose sight of what was an implicit social contract. In the past we had it as tax payers and business were just another entity with the same social contract. Debt broke this contract, tax became less relevant for funding and this relationship was broken. Business consolidated and became international, community business died. Although became all about "me" in this country for a generation or two we now have the blow back, we have the social justice BS.

    Back to the question, if legally you meet the legal criteria then you are entitled. Any social contract was broken long ago. Any other basis is open for bias, bashing of different groups and making victims of a cancel culture.
    I don't understand what you mean by we had an implicit social contract, and that debt broke that social contract. Could you explain what was the social contract and how and when debt changed that? And what it changed from and to?

  15. #55
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    You do have a conflict of interest as a shareholder of HLG, so your objectivity or impartiality can be called into question. When a person benefits their sense of what is fair or moral can be influenced.
    The wage subsidy was a high trust model and businesses were expected to act morally.
    ...
    Businesses are expected to act lawfully - within the law. When you step into uncodified "morals" to whose moral code are you referring, what are the relevant details and where are the boundaries drawn?

    Non-shareholders' impartiality may also be questioned.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 14-11-2020 at 05:59 AM.

  16. #56
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    28,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RupertBear View Post
    Thanks for the negative reputation comment Beagle, thought you were better than that
    Hi Rupert, been meaning to say well done on your placing in the stock picking competition

    Consistently in top 10 great effort
    “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end”

  17. #57
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
    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.
    Yup - and now we have a government which is using ‘morals’ to attack companies which successfully navigated the lockdown, kept their staff using the wage subsidies and emerged from the crisis to provide continuing employment, provide growth, pay GST & taxes.

    Companies which failed - just too bad as far as the government is concerned. More reason to throw money at the losers from the crisis and make them dependent on the state.

    As cynical & hypocritical as you are ever going to get from any government.

  18. #58
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,338

    Default

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-...WQBGRSTSFGPPI/

    Since we are discussing ‘morals’, how moral is it for the government via Chris Hipkins to shift the blame from yet another hole in the virus response to a hapless student & her employer?

    Publicly shaming the student & her employer without making very sure of the facts, refusing to acknowledge and correct the mistake and not retracting the false accusation - this government is in no position to take the moral high ground.

    Repugnant & appallingly disgraceful behaviour.

    ‘Be kind’ - as cynical as you are ever going to get from this government of incompetents.
    Last edited by Balance; 14-11-2020 at 06:45 AM.

  19. #59
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    3,695

    Default

    OK Beagle I will not sit "unintelligent" on the sidelines.
    Firstly let me make it clear, that I am not in favour of any boycotts and my comments are not at all aimed at HLG in particular, as there seems to be much reference here to HLG (but my HLG dividend has been earmarked for the Nelson Community Foodbank in December).

    I totally understand how the wage subsidy works and that all the companies that took it, were entitled to it, largely due to very loose rules. But I do not blame the Government for that. We were and are in extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances and they were trying their best to avoid an economic shutdown. So the companies that took the wage subsidy did so mostly in good faith to ensure they could continue operating without mass layoffs.
    That means the intent of the wage subsidy was achieved.

    But since then, many companies have found that they have picked up activity very quickly and made substantial profits this year. In many cases the profits have been similar or even higher than last year. They have only been able to do this because they had the staff to do this. If they had been through mass layoffs in April, it is highly unlikely they could have picked up experienced staff again quickly when they realised the downturn in their industries was almost insignificant.

    So again the wage subsidy worked, but was too loose. **** happens.

    Due to the huge Government expenditure related to COVID (and many other factors but I do not want to make a political point on this thread), we as a country are now borrowing something like $1.2 BILLION per week. This is not sustainable and will cause serious issues for decades to come.

    Therefore, companies that operate and make their profits in our country under the rules we as a society have set, should feel a willingness and obligation to help pull NZ out of the mess we are in (as is the rest of the World). I find it simply wrong to pay huge dividends to shareholders while accepting emergency Government handouts. It gives capitalism a bad name and we certainly don't need it. The example Sideshow Bob gave on here of Fulton Hogan is simply disgraceful.

    At the same time, I have been very critical on political threads (incl here on ST) that we have lots of able people on benefits while many industries are screaming out for workers. Same applies to them in my view. They should work hard to help get NZ out of the ****.

    I can not think of a better time in my lifetime to repeat John F Kennedy's wise words: "Ask not what your country can do for you- ask what you can do for your country"
    Last edited by iceman; 14-11-2020 at 07:47 AM.

  20. #60
    Hunting for more dog food Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    17,583

    Default

    Maybe some people (for reasons unknown), would have been happier with mass layoffs ? The fact that the Govt only paid part of the staff's wages during lockdown and HLG paid the rest of their normal wages while all their business operations were completely closed seems completely lost on some people. Go figure ?

    With a vast array of other corporate overheads and costs as well as topping up people's wages it should be perfectly obvious to "Blind Freddy" that HLG lost serious money during the lockdown. Why this fact is not understood or recognized by all, who knows but the old cliché "there are none so blind as those that will not see" springs readily to mind !

    The Govt initiated the scheme to avoid mass layoff's. It really is that simple but some people are drawing a very long bow with their anti business and anti capitalist rhetoric for reasons unknown.

    Yes Iceman the company derived some benefit from being able to continue operations with they reopened with trained staff but they also expended substantial resources of their own to cover staff wages while in lockdown so they paid for that benefit.
    Our debt : GDP is amongst the lowest in the OECD and debt servicing costs are the lowest they have ever been so the burden going forward is nowhere near as dire as you infer.

    Ultimately Tim Glasson and the board will decide or have already decided so my time to be quite frank about it is better spent letting them know my opinion so I'm done with this thread.

    The amount of judgement handed out without discussing the subject has been quite memorable to say the very least !
    Last edited by Beagle; 14-11-2020 at 08:06 AM.
    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
  •