HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[K1W1G0LD]

Or they've achieved their aim and bought as many as they want and are now having a good sit back and a glass of Chablis ...

I get the impression some of them might be Ale drinkers too , Belgarion..................would'nt know what Chablis is!!

[mouse]

Thanks for the explanation belgarion - that makes sense. I was looking at it for the wrong angle .

The same system can be used to artifically ramp up the price of a share. At close of trade, buy enough to push the share up by a cent. So it is difficult to know what is happening. Investors are a bit funny, as in they cannot see what the other chap is doing. So making wrong decisions on the right information.

[robbo24]

Significant off-market sale of shares through Graham Russell Kennedy @0.76. If I was buying in that would be my target price now

I'm not so sure this is a transaction which alienates him from the shares - looking at the date of the off-market trade (15 March 2013) it could just be a standard market value on the date transaction to the trust mentioned in the disclosure.

Trust accounting is a weird and wonderful beast and this transaction may not be indicative of an entry price.

[Snoopy]

Percy wrote on the PGW thread:
>
> I think it is just a case of manners .
> I always apologise when I have been wrong.
> The personal attack was very much against me on HNZ thread.
>

I think someone is mixing up a clash of opinions as a personal attack.

>
> HNZ directors and management told us they were engaging with The Reserve Bank for a banking licence,and it was not too far >away,while Snoopy would not listen,but chose to post that according to Reserve Bank Banking Licence application form it would be 3 >years.One phone call was all it would have taken him to check that out.Analyst ? Come on!
>

Percy, I took the reserve bank website at face value. If they said they required three years of accounts before they could confer a banking licence then who am I not to believe them? The fact that they seemingly ignored their own rules and granted Heartland a banking licence is up to them, and was an unexpected outcome to me. But I don't owe anyone an apology for the reserve bank changing their own rules!

If you want an apology you should ask the reserve bank to apologize to Heartland shareholders for having misleading information on their website.

>
> Much the same with HNZ's equity ratio.Analyst? No.
>

What you conveniently forget to mention Percy is that Heartland while having a satisfactory equity ratio in the strict sense compared to other banks it does not have the other tier one capital that the major banks have. On a full tier one capital comparative basis Heartland does not come out well. They are currently shrinking their loan book which is helping. But Heartland are far from safe from needing new capital. Indeed they will certainly take a hit to their capital if they sell off some more of their troubled loan portfolio at a discount as planned.

Furthermore the seasonal lending favoured by Heartland requires a higher capital ration than the mainstream banks. Another fact you keep forgetting to mention.

Thus the equity issues for Heartland are very much alive. It is head in the sand analysis to claim otherwise IMO

>
>Both of these grave errors of judgement could have influenced any one reading his posts.
>

And I hope they did. The position of Heartland is far more precarious than you claim it is. But I see little point in commenting further until more information is in the public domain. The half year report did not contain the information to make a judgment on how satisfactory the capital position of HNZ is. The full year report will tell the story. Frankly I would not put a dollar of my own investment capital into Heartland until either:

1/ A cash issue is announced

OR

2/ The full year accounts are announced

This always has been and remains my position.

SNOOPY

[winner69]

Just as well heartland BANK is a NZ bank ...like that Coop Bank .....they may need to wind up the NZ thing a bit soon as that other new BANK the Indian one apparently is about to wind up their presence in NZ

Do we overlook the competition ....or find out what they are up to?

[percy]

Percy wrote on the PGW thread:
>
> I think it is just a case of manners .
> I always apologise when I have been wrong.
> The personal attack was very much against me on HNZ thread.
>

I think someone is mixing up a clash of opinions as a personal attack.

>
> HNZ directors and management told us they were engaging with The Reserve Bank for a banking licence,and it was not too far >away,while Snoopy would not listen,but chose to post that according to Reserve Bank Banking Licence application form it would be 3 >years.One phone call was all it would have taken him to check that out.Analyst ? Come on!
>

Percy, I took the reserve bank website at face value. If they said they required three years of accounts before they could confer a banking licence then who am I not to believe them? The fact that they seemingly ignored their own rules and granted Heartland a banking licence is up to them, and was an unexpected outcome to me. But I don't owe anyone an apology for the reserve bank changing their own rules!

If you want an apology you should ask the reserve bank to apologize to Heartland shareholders for having misleading information on their website.

>
> Much the same with HNZ's equity ratio.Analyst? No.
>

What you conveniently forget to mention Percy is that Heartland while having a satisfactory equity ratio in the strict sense compared to other banks it does not have the other tier one capital that the major banks have. On a full tier one capital comparative basis Heartland does not come out well. They are currently shrinking their loan book which is helping. But Heartland are far from safe from needing new capital. Indeed they will certainly take a hit to their capital if they sell off some more of their troubled loan portfolio at a discount as planned.

Furthermore the seasonal lending favoured by Heartland requires a higher capital ration than the mainstream banks. Another fact you keep forgetting to mention.

Thus the equity issues for Heartland are very much alive. It is head in the sand analysis to claim otherwise IMO

>
>Both of these grave errors of judgement could have influenced any one reading his posts.
>

And I hope they did. The position of Heartland is far more precarious than you claim it is. But I see little point in commenting further until more information is in the public domain. The half year report did not contain the information to make a judgment on how satisfactory the capital position of HNZ is. The full year report will tell the story. Frankly I would not put a dollar of my own investment capital into Heartland until either:

1/ A cash issue is announced

OR

2/ The full year accounts are announced

This always has been and remains my position.

SNOOPY

You were wrong to take the Reserve Bank website at face value,without checking.One phone call was all that was needed.
Equity ratio was easy to check out.
Capital Raising.I think I will go with Sparky The Clown's view on this as he has spoken to the company.

[K1W1G0LD]

Percy wrote on the PGW thread:
>
> I think it is just a case of manners .
> I always apologise when I have been wrong.
> The personal attack was very much against me on HNZ thread.
>

I think someone is mixing up a clash of opinions as a personal attack.

>
> HNZ directors and management told us they were engaging with The Reserve Bank for a banking licence,and it was not too far >away,while Snoopy would not listen,but chose to post that according to Reserve Bank Banking Licence application form it would be 3 >years.One phone call was all it would have taken him to check that out.Analyst ? Come on!
>

Percy, I took the reserve bank website at face value. If they said they required three years of accounts before they could confer a banking licence then who am I not to believe them? The fact that they seemingly ignored their own rules and granted Heartland a banking licence is up to them, and was an unexpected outcome to me. But I don't owe anyone an apology for the reserve bank changing their own rules!

If you want an apology you should ask the reserve bank to apologize to Heartland shareholders for having misleading information on their website.

>
> Much the same with HNZ's equity ratio.Analyst? No.
>

What you conveniently forget to mention Percy is that Heartland while having a satisfactory equity ratio in the strict sense compared to other banks it does not have the other tier one capital that the major banks have. On a full tier one capital comparative basis Heartland does not come out well. They are currently shrinking their loan book which is helping. But Heartland are far from safe from needing new capital. Indeed they will certainly take a hit to their capital if they sell off some more of their troubled loan portfolio at a discount as planned.

Furthermore the seasonal lending favoured by Heartland requires a higher capital ration than the mainstream banks. Another fact you keep forgetting to mention.

Thus the equity issues for Heartland are very much alive. It is head in the sand analysis to claim otherwise IMO

>
>Both of these grave errors of judgement could have influenced any one reading his posts.
>

And I hope they did. The position of Heartland is far more precarious than you claim it is. But I see little point in commenting further until more information is in the public domain. The half year report did not contain the information to make a judgment on how satisfactory the capital position of HNZ is. The full year report will tell the story. Frankly I would not put a dollar of my own investment capital into Heartland until either:

1/ A cash issue is announced

OR

2/ The full year accounts are announced

This always has been and remains my position.

SNOOPY

Snoopy this is getting REALLY BORING.

[futurist]

Snoopy this is getting REALLY BORING.

Agreed! We have another attack in the States, a crazy dictator in North Korea declaring war, and a collapse of gold. Then we have this ongoing discussion in both the threads of HNZ and PGW.

Enough...

[winner69]

Without wanting to promote further argument, it seems we have two schools of thought here. Much as we have fundamentalist vs technicians, we have two kinds of fundamentalists, being "homeworkists" vs "balance sheetists".

I am a homeworkist, Snoopy is a sheetist.

Homeworkists use the balance sheet information, annual report information and other external data as "screeners", but don't see this as the be all and end all. We use earnings/revenue/growth/debt data to confirm that this is a company we wish to consider investing in. However, it is not the only tool we use. We like to ring and email the company, perhaps even visit them in person to ask questions about the company, management style, industry challenges and any other reasons to exclude or encourage investment. Homeworkists wouldn't visit a company without reading the balance sheet or other external data. They would normally weed out bad investments by using the data to screen out hopeless cases. What the homeworkist does is seek to find value in a company where things are getting better than the historical data available lets on, or not proceed further because behind the positive data are aspects of the company or industry that unimpresses the homeworkist.

Balance Sheetists predominately or solely rely on the historical information available. Asking questions of management or others is hopeless because people are too self interested to give honest answers. Management lie or can be evasive, and brokers are keen to push their own book which they profit from. They are only too happy to hurt smaller investors. External research like that issued from brokers rely too much on assumptive data and from people whose ethics or motives should be questioned. The only information that can be trusted is that which is published and audited. Therefore the only way to understand a company is to apply various metrics that are used to identify risk or reward. These metrics of course can be criticised as backwards looking, arbitrary, misleading and confusing. Equally, they help build a level of safety for the investor because unless the fiscals stack up, you'll never take the risk using news or information that isn't verifiable.

So who is right? Well, that's the thing about investing. You decide with what you are more comfortable with.

Maybe snoops is a bit of both .... a generalist

On other threads (as well as on this thread) he has done both the homework and the balance sheet stuff. The SCT thread is a great example

As part of your homeworkists style do you ever talk to the competitors / suppliers / customers .... you get some interesting insights that way .... and sometimes make you wonder what planet the man in the c-suite is on which is a worry but then on the other hand if the feedback is in line with what the c-suite says maybe the c-suite is being reasonably honest and not just saying the good stuff

I asked my contact at Cooperative Bank what they thought of Heartland .... sorry percy I won't say because you told me off the other day

[percy]

Why don't you start a Co-Op thread,so as any one who is interested can read about them.
May find yourself back to sending memos to yourself,again.!!! lol.