HLG - Hallenstein Glasson

[couta1]

Next review of NZX50 next month isn't it?

Hmm

The Liquidity test will continue to be the main problem here and of course the index can remain unchanged.

[Beagle]

The Liquidity test will continue to be the main problem here and of course the index can remain unchanged.

We need you back on board trading it mate

[couta1]

We need you back on board trading it mate

Lol for over 2 yrs I never sold a single share of my large holding but thats past now and its highly unlikely I will ever be in the same position again unfortunately.

[Beagle]

Lol for over 2 yrs I never sold a single share of my large holding but thats past now and its highly unlikely I will ever be in the same position again unfortunately.

Yeah mate...unfortunately those were dark days in March-April...some old dogs found themselves in an unfortunate position...this probably says it best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYmtEQiG18

From the latest annual report...Only 114 people with 50,000 shares or more, maybe a new target to aim for ?...whereas over at OCA 406 people own 100K shares or more...crikey...they let any old Tom Dick or Dog into their top club.

[Ferg]

The Liquidity test will continue to be the main problem here and of course the index can remain unchanged.

Are you referring to the relative liquidity test? A back of the fag packet calculation suggests the absolute liquidity test is ok for the past 6 months at ~9% , but I haven't looked at the 2 prior periods of 6 months (I believe you need to pass 3 consecutive periods to be considered). I'm not sure I fully understand the relative liquidity test and/or how to calculate that figure.

I see 2 other major hurdles for HLG making it into the NZX50 - being they may not be first in line and they have to make it to position 44* (and not 50) to be included.

Delegats would be ahead of HLG on IWF, assuming DGL can pass their liquidity tests (which I have not examined). I believe the IWF for Delegats is higher than HLG (i.e. 24m shares @ $14.85 > 48m shares @ $6.12). Keep in mind strategic/founder holdings have been removed from my BOTFP calc's.

*The second major hurdle, assuming I'm reading/interpreting the rules correctly is that HLG would need to not only pass the liquidity tests above (over 3 consecutive periods), and beat DGL, but also have a higher IWF than #44 on the list being FSF. The IWF for FSF looks to be about $482m vs HLG IWF of ~$292m. This would require a share price for HLG over $10 to have a higher IWF.

I too would like to see this happen, but I'm not holding my breath.....unless I have completely misunderstood how this works. Happy to be corrected.

[Jantar]

Has been a remarkably resilient retailer during covid but where is the growth going to come from? They are already in every mall. Steady as she goes but a good divvy?

I have said it before, but still worth repeating.

Even in a depression people need clothes. Some retail clothing shops did not make it through the lockdown. A few others who tried to enter the NZ market found it too tough and pulled out even before the crisis. That leaves fewer and fewer shops for people to buy their clothes from, and not everyone is happy with shopping at the red shed. So as shops close that leaves HLG picking up a larger percentage of the trade without having to open more stores.

Add to that their quick reaction at building their on line trade, and its easy to see where that growth comes from.

[kiora]

Physical stores vs on line
https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wire...-avoid-in-2021

[Beagle]

I have said it before, but still worth repeating.

Even in a depression people need clothes. Some retail clothing shops did not make it through the lockdown. A few others who tried to enter the NZ market found it too tough and pulled out even before the crisis. That leaves fewer and fewer shops for people to buy their clothes from, and not everyone is happy with shopping at the red shed. So as shops close that leaves HLG picking up a larger percentage of the trade without having to open more stores.

Add to that their quick reaction at building their on line trade, and its easy to see where that growth comes from.

Add to that the fact that Glassons has less stores in Australia (32) than N.Z. (36) despite there being more than 5 times the dressable market in Australia and Blind Freddy should be able to see where the growth is going to come from, exactly that sentiment is stated clearly in the annual report.

I wish people would do at least some basic reading before making ill considered remarks. The annual report is here http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...283/333885.pdf

[BlackPeter]

I have said it before, but still worth repeating.

Even in a depression people need clothes. Some retail clothing shops did not make it through the lockdown. A few others who tried to enter the NZ market found it too tough and pulled out even before the crisis. That leaves fewer and fewer shops for people to buy their clothes from, and not everyone is happy with shopping at the red shed. So as shops close that leaves HLG picking up a larger percentage of the trade without having to open more stores.

Add to that their quick reaction at building their on line trade, and its easy to see where that growth comes from.

I hear you ... and I agree that people will always need clothing, even in a depression. However - do they really need new and fashionable (i.e. fast outdated) clothing and do they really need to replace their wardrobe every season?

I am pretty sure that most of us could well survive for the next decade without the need to buy any (or hardly any) new clothes (well, maybe with the exception of replacing from time to time underwear and socks) - well, we could. And even if the fashion freaks under us choose to replace their stuff only every other year instead of every season, revenue will drastically drop.

I don't want to rain onto the parade, but linear extrapolations are always dangerous, given that most things in life move in circles. We well might have reached peak cloth buying season for some time.

Yes, if HLG keeps growing as it did the recent years, and if it manages to keep the margins as it did the recent years, it is still reasonable priced, but didn't we think the same thing with many other shares short before they reached their peaks?

This share clearly has a place in any income portfolio, but not quite sure whether now is really the time to buy or accumulate ...

Discl: used to hold in the past, but not now.

[couta1]

I hear you ... and I agree that people will always need clothing, even in a depression. However - do they really need new and fashionable (i.e. fast outdated) clothing and do they really need to replace their wardrobe every season?

I am pretty sure that most of us could well survive for the next decade without the need to buy any (or hardly any) new clothes (well, maybe with the exception of replacing from time to time underwear and socks) - well, we could. And even if the fashion freaks under us choose to replace their stuff only every other year instead of every season, revenue will drastically drop.

I don't want to rain onto the parade, but linear extrapolations are always dangerous, given that most things in life move in circles. We well might have reached peak cloth buying season for some time.

Yes, if HLG keeps growing as it did the recent years, and if it manages to keep the margins as it did the recent years, it is still reasonable priced, but didn't we think the same thing with many other shares short before they reached their peaks?

This share clearly has a place in any income portfolio, but not quite sure whether now is really the time to buy or accumulate ...

Discl: used to hold in the past, but not now.

Going by some of your comments I don't think you understand the female species too well. PS-My wife buys most of my clothes for my one wardrobe as well as all of her own for her three wardrobes.