WHS - Warehouse Group

[Antipodean]

Paying a higher base wage so that people can live will take time to show it's rewards. It has been less than a year since WHS adopted the living wage so wouldn't expect huge difference as of yet - also good to note overall staff expenditure has not increased as drastically as opponents of the living wage would have you believe.

Over time the malcontents will be weeded out as they always are, because even those people that don't like the job but stay for the wage will eventually stumble and be cut loose. However increased demand for new staff wanting to work for a higher wage will allow WHS to be more selective in hiring better workers in the future.

Not to mention the workers on the higher base wage who will be more productive knowing that if they do slip up they are not likely to achieve a comparable wage in the next employment.

[tim23]

T\I think you miss my point Percy - it might appeal to peoples sense of fair play, living wage etc

[Grimy]

Over time the malcontents will be weeded out as they always are, because even those people that don't like the job but stay for the wage will eventually stumble and be cut loose. However increased demand for new staff wanting to work for a higher wage will allow WHS to be more selective in hiring better workers in the future.

Unfortunately I must live in a slightly different world. I've seen "malcontents" not get weeded out after more than 20 years of not giving a s**t about the quality of their work, or their bosses & co-workers. I don't necessarily blame them-they are allowed to get away with it. I blame bosses without the guts to say this is what is expected, and when it doesn't happen to take some action.
I take pride in my work and follow one of the best bits of advice my mum gave me when I first entered the workforce-"no matter what your job or position, always give your employer good value for their money". Often all I see is "take what you can get and if you can screw over the company at the same time it's a bonus".
Luckily these people are in the minority, but can be so disruptive to those around them. And the company as a whole when it's a small operation.
Don't want to get into a never-ending debate on it-just saying what I've seen.

[percy]

T\I think you miss my point Percy - it might appeal to peoples sense of fair play, living wage etc

Nice theory.
For some fun google ;showrooming.
Then you may wish to comment on fair play a little more.!!!

[BlackPeter]

Mark Powell this morning on National radio. Pretty uninspiring:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...ng-as-expected

Sounded for me like ... not sure, whether the current strategy works, but if we don't see a change over the next 12 to 18 months, than we might change it ...

Glad I sold out (still well above the $3 mark ...)

[BIRMANBOY]

What's the point of trying to draw an analogy with your "experience" when it has very little to do with WHS. WHS is definitely NOT a small company so forget that. Now managers are mostly well trained and have the resources of a large HR Dept. to sort out "malcontents" without it being forgotten or ignored for 20 years. Its got nothing to do with guts..its having an employment contract that protects companies from having to put up with disruptive employees and its about protecting employees rights....the world has moved on from the experience you have detailed...at least with large corporations. As you say its still visible in small operations with family fiefdoms but not with large companies.

Unfortunately I must live in a slightly different world. I've seen "malcontents" not get weeded out after more than 20 years of not giving a s**t about the quality of their work, or their bosses & co-workers. I don't necessarily blame them-they are allowed to get away with it. I blame bosses without the guts to say this is what is expected, and when it doesn't happen to take some action.
I take pride in my work and follow one of the best bits of advice my mum gave me when I first entered the workforce-"no matter what your job or position, always give your employer good value for their money". Often all I see is "take what you can get and if you can screw over the company at the same time it's a bonus".
Luckily these people are in the minority, but can be so disruptive to those around them. And the company as a whole when it's a small operation.
Don't want to get into a never-ending debate on it-just saying what I've seen.

[kiwitrev]

For what it's worth Morningstar have raised their recommendation to accumulate with a price target of $3.40 (maintaing previous price target).

[kiwitrev]

THE WAREHOUSE GROUP LIMITED
("Company")
DISCLOSURE TO SHAREHOLDERS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
(Pursuant to sections 78(5) and 79 of the Companies Act 1993)
To // All shareholders of the Company
Introduction
This document ("Disclosure Document") is sent to you pursuant to sections 78(5) and 79 of the Companies Act 1993
which require the Company to disclose to you certain information relating to any proposal by the Company to provide
financial assistance to any person.
Proposed Financial Assistance
The Directors have authorised the Company to provide financial assistance to The Warehouse Management Trustee
Company No.2 Limited ("Trustee"), the trustee of The Warehouse Group Limited Executive Share Scheme ("Scheme"),
by way of an advance of $8,500,000 under the loan agreement between the Company and the Trustee dated 26
September 2005 (as amended) ("Loan Agreement").
The text of the Resolution of Directors is disclosed on the reverse of this document. The advance will be used by the
Trustee to purchase ordinary shares ("Shares") in the Company in accordance with the terms of the Scheme.
Explanatory Statement
The shareholders of the Company approved the establishment of the Scheme at the annual meeting of the Company on
26 November 2004. Pursuant to the Scheme, selected executive employees ("Executive Employees") of the Company
or of any subsidiary of the Company, who have been nominated as participants of the Scheme are issued rights to be
allocated and transferred Shares upon the satisfaction of certain conditions ("Conditional Rights").
The Directors have determined that a maximum of $8,500,000 will be advanced to the Trustee in respect of the purchase
of Shares in connection with the issue of Conditional Rights in the 2014/2015 financial year of the Company.
The Loan Agreement sets out the terms of the advances by the Company to the Trustee, the substantive terms of which
are as follows:
(a) each advance will be interest-free and repayable on demand by the Company;
(b) on transfer of Shares to an Executive Employee, the Company will reimburse the Trustee for the original
purchase price of the transferred Shares. The Trustee must use the reimbursement proceeds to repay each
relevant advance from the Company; and
(c) the recourse of the Company under each relevant advance will be limited to the Shares held by the Trustee,
as well as the proceeds of any accumulated dividends and other income derived by the Trustee on the Shares
that it holds or has previously held.
Ted van Arkel // Chairman
9 March 2015
The Warehouse Group Limited
26 The Warehouse Way
Northcote, Auckland
PO Box 33470 Takapuna
Auckland, New Zealand
Phone +64 9 489 7000
fax +64 9 489 7444
web www.thewarehousegroup.co.nzTHE WAREHOUSE GROUP LIMITED
EXTRACT from the Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Directors of The Warehouse Group Limi

[alistar_mid]

For what it's worth Morningstar have raised their recommendation to accumulate with a price target of $3.40 (maintaing previous price target).

doesn't that mean run from it then?

as far as I know craigs doesn't have a very positive view on WHS

[Beagle]

Consensus analyst view among the respected analysts is SELL. Follow Moaningstar at your financial peril