sharetrader
Page 42 of 139 FirstFirst ... 323839404142434445465292 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 1381

Thread: SKC - Sky City

  1. #411
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    rural canterbury
    Posts
    1,357

    Default

    We all have to draw our own lines on this one. Personally, I am happy to invest in NZ companies doing unethical things in New Zealand if I can make a dollar out of it and its legal. I've invested in companies undertaking activities that I certainly don't support and that in the past I have protested about. I've always taken the view that if someone is going to make a dollar out of it, it might as well be me. If you think something is unethical - change the law, its your country. I draw the line where companies are clearly taking advantage of poor regulation in other countries.

  2. #412
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    AIR - every flight spews pollution - even the latest engines on the latest planes. I have SKC and AIR shareholdings. I own a car as I recognise that all legal human activity has a cost/benefit.

    HNZ - Loan sharks they are not. However they loan money to others for interest -whether it is a "sin" depends on your ethical, religious and moral judgment. For you and me, it is presumably acceptable. Inability of borrowers to meet loan obligations is a great cause of family stress and personal suffering.

    For me, rather than my SKC shares, I would be more likely to sell my RBD holding on my (personal) ethical grounds. I think processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat can be addictive and can cause very broad and severe suffering to families when consumed to excess. Processed foods, confectionery and takeaways and those people who supply them should be government controlled and taxed in the same way as the petrochemicals, gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries. Is it ethical to have sugary snacks at child height sometimes near cash registers? In pretty colourful wrappers advertised by celebrities and glamorous people? The display in shops is designed to be appealing so you come back for your next sugar rush or fatty satisfaction and buy the high margin treats that become necessities for some.

    Anyway I do not wish to fall out with you and other posters. So I hope we can agree to disagree.

    I enjoy a good debate mate so no drama as far as I'm concerned and I take your point on some of the dubious sales tactics employed by the supermarkets. The fat thing is a difficult one...where do you draw the line, shall we ban V8 cars because they're no good for the environment ? The main issue I have with SKC is are they playing fair ? I think we can easily show that AIR's pollution is fair and reasonable for the aircraft services they provide and that HNZ's interest rates under generally accepted N.Z. consumer law are more than fair and reasonable for the loans they make and that they wouldn't knowing do business with any party if they thought that party couldn't reasonably comfortably afford the repayments. OTOH according to a recent investigation (not sure if it was run by Internal Affairs or not), SKC are only paying lip service to their official harm minimisation policies. Hmmm, is that fair and reasonable ????
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/10...-non-existent/
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA141...nimisation.htm
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/more...casino-5712238
    Last edited by Beagle; 16-02-2015 at 05:37 PM.

  3. #413
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,766

    Default

    I like a good debate too. I think if there are harm minimisation requirements there should be a procedure to oversee and enforce them. The requirements should be clear and enforced for the period of their licence. TBH I don't know if SKC is any better or worse than my other holdings at sticking to its operational rules, fairness, company law and NZX requirements. Some holdings have been quite creative!

  4. #414
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    rural canterbury
    Posts
    1,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    according to a recent investigation (not sure if it was run by Internal Affairs or not), SKC are only paying lip service to their official harm minimisation policies. Hmmm, is that fair and reasonable ????
    Internal Affairs did run a mystery shopper investigation of casinos and pubs etc and they concluded (with regard to casinos):


    • Improvement is needed by the casinos to monitor behavioural indicators of potential problem gambling.
    • Casino staff may be using casual conversations to establish a rapport which can build an environment in which customers are more willing to ask for help if they’re experiencing gambling problems.


    So not really saying that casinos are only paying lip service to their host responsibility.

  5. #415
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    People interested can judge for themselves if we're talking about lip service or not. I've read the PowerPoint summary and I'm not impressed.
    http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.ns...enDocument#one
    Last edited by Beagle; 17-02-2015 at 02:25 PM.

  6. #416
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    rural canterbury
    Posts
    1,357

    Default

    I guess the main risk to SKC in that perception of sin and lip service is that it might attract more compliance or regulation. On the upside though, the moat that protects SKC is further entrenched by the same negative perception. More compliance and regulation is likely to more negatively effect the competition, so its hard to see how they can lose.

  7. #417
    Senior Member pierre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hawkes Bay, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,105

    Default

    Well - what do we think of the result announced today. Pretty ho-hum judging by the lack of comment on here this morning.

    NP up 30.2% and EPS at 22.0 compared with 17.0 last year seems pretty damn good to me. The benefits of the additional gaming concessions in Auckland haven't started yet either.

  8. #418
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    Well - what do we think of the result announced today. Pretty ho-hum judging by the lack of comment on here this morning.

    NP up 30.2% and EPS at 22.0 compared with 17.0 last year seems pretty damn good to me. The benefits of the additional gaming concessions in Auckland haven't started yet either.
    It's ho hum because you need to look at normalised numbers. That's what Sky City want you to do.
    U
    NPAT up 8% and eps from 21.3 to 23.9

    Not as exciting as the numbers you quoted eh
    Last edited by winner69; 12-08-2015 at 10:45 AM.
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  9. #419
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    64

    Default

    I think it's a pretty average report.
    Auckland is doing great and i think it will continue to grow in 2016: additional gaming concessions
    Adelaide's EBITDA recuded by 19%!! But at least in 2015H2 it's revenue increased by 4m. I hope it will do better next year as the refurbishment works is complete.

  10. #420
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,885

    Default

    The high rollers didn't do as well this year after cleaning up last year.

    The den of iniquity must have sussed them out and played the card / rolled the dice a bit better this year
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

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
  •