HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[bull....]

Cameron's did disclose what they knew about the Heartland Financial Compliance Limits. It is in table 8, and 13 items were listed together with their limits. This presents a very complete picture of the constraints on Heartland. But the 14th item in that table (the amount of business that could have been done outside of NZ) was listed as 'not disclosed'. Heartland knew what it was, but it seems they didn't tell Camerons. They told them in great detail of the 13 other restrictions. But they did 'not disclose' the fourteenth restriction, seemingly by their own choosing. This is not guess work on my part. You have to ask yourself why?

SNOOPY



Requirement for Substantial portion of business in New Zealand (Total Assets Maximum): Not disclosed

are you sure this is not the current arrangement and that the new structure will negate these footnotes as to the new structure will not fall under the rbnz rules as far as aus operations go

[Snoopy]

are you sure this is not the current arrangement and that the new structure will negate these footnotes as to the new structure will not fall under the rbnz rules as far as aus operations go

Yes I am talking about the current arrangement.

Yes the new rules will negate the 'no more than 33% of business outside of NZ' restriction, as well as removing oversight by RBNZ of the Australian assets.

But the current level of Reverse Mortgage business in Australia represents only 9.5% of total Heartland receivables, plus an unspecified, but small, amount of business lending 'on line'. It is way below 33% in total. I would guess well under half. So there is no need to make this change. The only thing the change will achieve in the short term is to remove the oversight of the Reserve Bank of NZ, a protection for shareholders. Why would you as a shareholder vote to remove the Reserve Bank of NZ oversight, when there is no short or medium term need to do so?

SNOOPY

[bull....]

Yes I am talking about the current arrangement.

Yes the new rules will negate the 'no more than 33% of business outside of NZ' restriction, as well as removing oversight by RBNZ of the Australian assets.

But the current level of Reverse Mortgage business in Australia represents only 9.5% of total Heartland receivables, plus an unspecified, but small, amount of business lending 'on line'. It is way below 33% in total. I would guess well under half. So there is no need to make this change. The only thing the change will achieve in the short term is to remove the oversight of the Reserve Bank of NZ, a protection for shareholders. Why would you as a shareholder vote to remove the Reserve Bank of NZ oversight, when there is no short or medium term need to do so?

SNOOPY

its probably already mentioned , but if you had an opportunity to expand the aus business rapidly and by listing in aus gave you better access to the funds , that would be why you would do the restructure now.

Even if a quick purchase wasnt on the cards the aus business is growing fast so would have to do the same at some stage anyway. doing it sooner i guess gives you flexibilty to move on opportunity.

[BlackPeter]

Yes I am talking about the current arrangement.

Yes the new rules will negate the 'no more than 33% of business outside of NZ' restriction, as well as removing oversight by RBNZ of the Australian assets.

But the current level of Reverse Mortgage business in Australia represents only 9.5% of total Heartland receivables, plus an unspecified, but small, amount of business lending 'on line'. It is way below 33% in total. I would guess well under half. So there is no need to make this change. The only thing the change will achieve in the short term is to remove the oversight of the Reserve Bank of NZ, a protection for shareholders. Why would you as a shareholder vote to remove the Reserve Bank of NZ oversight, when there is no short or medium term need to do so?

SNOOPY

Snoopy,

you make a lot out of RBNZ's oversight as protection for shareholders. Maybe you should talk with some CBL shareholders to find out how little regard the Reserve Bank has for shareholders of the organisations they oversee.

They said themselves during the still unfolding CBL disaster that it is not their role to protect shareholders. And that's exactly how they operate. I don't know whether they added so far any value to the CBL story, but certainly not for CBL share holders. Apparently they even forced the board to break continuous disclosure rules (quite funny that ...) which resulted in shareholders being kept in the dark for 6 months about the companies situation. Well, that's what the board is saying anyway. Worthy of an unregulated third world economy ... but New Zealand? Forget the RBNZ.

Why do you think their oversight would add value for HBL shareholders? I guess, sure RBNZ might know whether they go down the river, but they would not tell anybody ... certainly not the shareholders - and they would make sure that the board keeps this knowledge confidential as well.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-...ectid=12009623

.

[percy]

its probably already mentioned , but if you had an opportunity to expand the aus business rapidly and by listing in aus gave you better access to the funds , that would be why you would do the restructure now.

Even if a quick purchase wasnt on the cards the aus business is growing fast so would have to do the same at some stage anyway. doing it sooner i guess gives you flexibilty to move on opportunity.

Most probably Australian banks,institutions,wholesale investor,trusts etc will be freer to invest in an Australian listed vehicle.

[Snoopy]

its probably already mentioned , but if you had an opportunity to expand the aus business rapidly and by listing in aus gave you better access to the funds , that would be why you would do the restructure now.

Even if a quick purchase wasnt on the cards the aus business is growing fast so would have to do the same at some stage anyway. doing it sooner i guess gives you flexibilty to move on opportunity.

The bit have have emboldened may be the key point. If there is a deal on table that Heartland are not telling us about, then what they are doing makes perfect sense. But if there is a deal on the table, why not tell us about it? Commercial sensitivity? There don't seem to be people lining up to buy REL portfolios in Australia though.

Most probably Australian banks,institutions,wholesale investor,trusts etc will be freer to invest in an Australian listed vehicle.

That is absolutely right Percy. There are many Australian pension funds that are greatly restricted on what they can invest in by where it is listed.

SNOOPY

[Snoopy]

its probably already mentioned , but if you had an opportunity to expand the aus business rapidly and by listing in aus gave you better access to the funds , that would be why you would do the restructure now.

Even if a quick purchase wasnt on the cards the aus business is growing fast so would have to do the same at some stage anyway. doing it sooner i guess gives you flexibilty to move on opportunity.

Snoopy,

you make a lot out of RBNZ's oversight as protection for shareholders. Maybe you should talk with some CBL shareholders to find out how little regard the Reserve Bank has for shareholders of the organisations they oversee.

They said themselves during the still unfolding CBL disaster that it is not their role to protect shareholders. And that's exactly how they operate. I don't know whether they added so far any value to the CBL story, but certainly not for CBL share holders. Apparently they even forced the board to break continuous disclosure rules (quite funny that ...) which resulted in shareholders being kept in the dark for 6 months about the companies situation. Well, that's what the board is saying anyway. Worthy of an unregulated third world economy ... but New Zealand? Forget the RBNZ.

Why do you think their oversight would add value for HBL shareholders? I guess, sure RBNZ might know whether they go down the river, but they would not tell anybody ... certainly not the shareholders - and they would make sure that the board keeps this knowledge confidential as well.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-...ectid=12009623

I have read the referenced article and I do feel for all you CBL shareholders. I see there has been a three part series on the demise of CBL in the NBR over the last three weeks (starting in that 'Rich List' issue) . Well worth a trip to the library to read it all if you aren't a subscriber.

While we can't bring CBL back, it does seems lessons have be learned though. A 40% jump in numbers on the presently 10-person team managing regulation of the industry is a start. It looks like the reason that the July orders against capital movements from CBL accounts were kept secret because there were plans to possibly sell of pieces of CBL. And they didn't want the value of the company to affected during these sales negotiations. I would say that indirectly all this would have been in shareholders interests, had a partial sale of some business assets gone through. It is really only with hindsight that you can look back and say this was not in the interest of shareholders - because nothing ended up being sold.

Back to HBL and the RBNZ. I believe one of the things that the Resreve Bank follows is cashflows, or expected cashflows. This is particualrly important in the context of the historical collapse of the NZ finance industry during the GFC. If cashflows were not a problem then a company like Hanover would still be 'solid as'. The REL business is generally highly negative in cashflow while it is still growing. Cutting the arm of the business loose that is most likely to bleed cash is a real worry for me as a potential Heartland shareholder. As the debt cycle tightens it seems to be excatly the wrong thing to do at the wrong time from a risk perspective. If the reserve bank are happy for the REL business in Australia to grow by 100% without any capital restructuring (for that is what can happen by doing no restructuring) what is wrong with that? Why does Heartland want it to grow larger than this? I am not sure that shareholders fully understand the potential risks that Heartland will be exposing them to by wanting to grow the reverse mortgage business at a faster rate than the rest of the business.

SNOOPY

[ziggy415]

Record date is 7th, when is last day to buy to get divvy plz

[Beagle]

Wednesday 5th Sept.

[ziggy415]

Wednesday 5th Sept.

Many thanks