sharetrader
Page 6 of 109 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656106 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 1086
  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Bricks , are you saying that AWF (or subsidiary) were not the subject of the DOL raids earlier this week , refered to in the news article above?
    Misc

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Timaru, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    39

    Default

    This Happy Camper thinks that this is one of those situations whereby they are damned if they do, and they are damned if they don't.

    I keenly hope that they aren't at the centre of the investigation. Assuming they are innocent, they are unlikely to make friends or encourage investment in their company by drawing additional attention to the slimy under-belly that obviously exists within their industry.

    Cheers

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    anzac
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by Misc

    Bricks , are you saying that AWF (or subsidiary) were not the subject of the DOL raids earlier this week , refered to in the news article above?
    Misc
    Misc you are doing all the saying so prove IT.. [8D]

  4. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Bricks , there is strong 'speculation' that AWF or subsidiary were the target of the raids. If that is the case then the company should inform the market. If it is not the case (as you clearly imply) then the company should also inform the market to quash the speculation.

    You can probably find the answer with a couple of phonecalls , thats what I would have done last week if I held the stock.

    Misc

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    anzac
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by Misc

    Bricks , there is strong 'speculation' that AWF or subsidiary were the target of the raids. If that is the case then the company should inform the market. If it is not the case (as you clearly imply) then the company should also inform the market to quash the speculation.

    You can probably find the answer with a couple of phonecalls , thats what I would have done last week if I held the stock.

    Misc
    Misc,, you are a proven babies rattle with NO guts so you would have rung up but you could NOT.. [8D] WELL bugger ME..[8D]

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    No need for childish name caling Bricks.

    I dont need to call anyone , I know exactly what is going down , as do most in the Hort sector in HB and Malborough ..

    Good Luck to you anyway.

    Misc

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    anzac
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by Misc

    No need for childish name caling Bricks.

    I dont need to call anyone , I know exactly what is going down , as do most in the Hort sector in HB and Malborough ..

    Good Luck to you anyway.

    Misc
    HERE is the CALL,, BUGGER OFF.. [8D]

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    I see NZO got a 'please explain' over non disclosure today .... and they were only 24hrs late with their price sensitive info regarding a subsidiary LOL

    "We write with respect to the NZSX Listing Rules on continuous disclosure.

    Listing Rule 10.1.1 is set out in the Schedule to this letter. In summary,
    this rule requires issuers to immediately disclose any Material Information
    to NZX. The rule provides limited exceptions to this obligation. Material
    Information does not need to be disclosed where a reasonable person would not
    expect the information to be disclosed and where the information is
    confidential and its confidentiality is maintained and where one of five safe harbours applies."

  9. #59
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Immigrations “largest operation” of its type has to mean to the affected business:

    - Loss of clients using dodgy labour
    - Loss of large numbers of illegal / underpaid workers contributing to income
    - Significant increase in Labour costs to meet legal requirements
    - Loss of other clients due to dodgy dealings
    - Impact on value of goodwill
    - Increased legal costs to defend / plead charges and any subsequent fines
    - cost to repair reputation

    I would have thought these things would have impacted a share value no matter who the company is. A small company would probably go under, a medium sized one might have to retrench a large one might recover – either way it can’t be good for the affected business.

    On the flip side the other labour contractors (including AWF?) could do very well as they move in to soak up the hole left in the labour supply – and this too could materially affect the share price

  10. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Good balanced post mini-moke , I have no idea what all this will mean for the AWF shareprice either way. I simply cannot believe the company has not addressed the 'speculation' but should the 'speculation' prove correct Im sure the NZX will be asking more than a few questions of the Directors.
    Poor old Bricks though , as it is obvious English is not his first langauge , I wonder if he's tied up in all this LOL
    Misc

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
  •