HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[iceman]

The risk manager might have also had a mortgage or needed to build a deck or decided to go to Europe or maybe buy his kids a house or build a bach....

That guess is as good as any. Unless we know for sure why he left, it is just speculation, which of course is fine on this forum :-) But that´s all it is.

[ziggy415]

That guess is as good as any. Unless we know for sure why he left, it is just speculation, which of course is fine on this forum :-) But that´s all it is.

Google search reveals his work records are with finance institutions but each job he only stays
3 years 10 months
3 years 4 months
3 years 3 months (heartland)
1 year 3 months
he achieves all he can then moves on to his next challenge ....or he gets itchy feet, either way heartland wasn,t out of the ordinary

[bull....]

im voting for the restructure , big opportunities coming and growth

[winner69]

As I have said several times now nothing sinister with the Risk Officer leaving and selling his shares.

Three years seemed to be his attention span and then does a bit of travelling. He’s left the office and taken his bonus (the shares he sold) with him. Nothing more than that

Wasn’t one of Heartlands best hires and maybe the new guy strengthens the organisation .

[winner69]

I thought it was a disgrace.

Seriously ........

[winner69]

.....
Also there are 2 other directors Ellen Comerford and Venessa Stoddart without a share holding in HBL.

Your thoughts?

A good thing — they are truly independent and can make decisions without considering what’s in it for me and my bank account (no vested interest)

Directors not holding shares not a sign of lacking commitment, rather they can keep a rein on directors who think it’s their company.

[percy]

Seriously ........

Seriously.
HBL's lack of exposure to Sydney,Melbourne,and Auckland property market via large mortgages,means to me the large banks have greater exposure through any credit cycle.A 10% to 20% fall in property values, would see no ,or very little effect on HBL,while the major banks would most probably need Australian and NZ government assistance..
HBL for the main part have a great number of smaller loans,and these are more of a lot safer shorter term,ie the likes of motorvehicle lending and livestock.These loans have low default rates.
It is my opinion these "high risk" loans are in fact "low risk" loans going through any credit cycle.
This should be acknowledged.
Although they mentioned HBL's high NIM,maybe they should have pointed out more, how helpful this is to HBL.

[moka]

,while the major banks would most probably need Australian and NZ government assistance..

New rules now Percy. The government is saying no financial assistance from taxpayers. The shareholders and depositors carry the cost with Open Bank Resolution.
Can you imagine what it would do to business confidence if there was a bail-in and depositor’s funds were confiscated? The economy would tank. This would affect businesses as well as savers. Putting funds in finance companies was a choice and it was savings. With a bank there is no choice - you have to have a bank for your day to day transactions, especially for businesses.

Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is a long-standing Reserve Bank policy aimed at allowing a distressed bank to be kept open for business, while placing the cost of a bank failure primarily on the bank’s shareholders and creditors, rather than the taxpayer.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-and-supervision/banks/open-bank-resolution

For me this changes the rules of commerce. Now the money owed to an unsecured creditor remains as a debt until the business is wound up. With OBR the bank continues in business and the creditor doesn’t get all their money back, because some is confiscated. I accept that the government can confiscate assets but I don’t think a private business should be able to even with government approval. With OBR depositors get punished for bank’s bad behaviour.

[minimoke]

New rules now Percy. The government is saying no financial assistance from taxpayers. .

I think, that if it comes to it again (which I'm sure it will), the old mantra Privatise Profits and Socialise Losses will come into play. The government of the day will do what it can to shore up votes which means minimising impact on bank depositors.

[Beagle]

New rules now Percy. The government is saying no financial assistance from taxpayers. The shareholders and depositors carry the cost with Open Bank Resolution.
Can you imagine what it would do to business confidence if there was a bail-in and depositor’s funds were confiscated? The economy would tank. This would affect businesses as well as savers. Putting funds in finance companies was a choice and it was savings. With a bank there is no choice - you have to have a bank for your day to day transactions, especially for businesses.

Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is a long-standing Reserve Bank policy aimed at allowing a distressed bank to be kept open for business, while placing the cost of a bank failure primarily on the bank’s shareholders and creditors, rather than the taxpayer.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation-and-supervision/banks/open-bank-resolution

For me this changes the rules of commerce. Now the money owed to an unsecured creditor remains as a debt until the business is wound up. With OBR the bank continues in business and the creditor doesn’t get all their money back, because some is confiscated. I accept that the government can confiscate assets but I don’t think a private business should be able to even with government approval. With OBR depositors get punished for bank’s bad behaviour.

Vast numbers of older folks have money in term deposits with banks, (because they think the sharemarket is too high risk) so they get really low returns and are blissfully unaware of the risks. They think their money is really safe. It is a VERY sad state of affairs.