HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[percy]

Whatever it is, thank goodness we do not smoke.!!
You still enjoying a good red?

[SCOTTY]

Whatever it is, thank goodness we do not smoke.!!
You still enjoying a good red?

Yes Percy, the red medicine works for me thanks with driving the only worry

[Snoopy]

The half year report last year did not provide the same level of disclosure as the full year report. This has proved to be the case again in HY2013.

Under note 12 and as of 31st December 2012, the percentage of deposits from the Canterbury region has reduced from 42% six months previously down to 36%. Overall I see this as a good thing, even if some market share in Canterbury must continue to be sacrificed to improve the overall term deposit risk profile.

Note 17c re-emphasises that the credit provision as reached with RECL (the real estate credit limit mangement agreement) has been fully utilised. This in turn means any further writedowns will directly hit the HNZ balance sheet.

I get the impression that rebalancing the account risk is still a work in progress.

Significant changes have occurred over the past year. Canterbury loans are down quite a bit from $584m at YE2012 to $532m YE2013 (note 36b YE2013). That should help with the geographic re-balancing of the loan portfolio. It all ties up with the equivalent figures listed in the annual report last year (note 32biii AR2012).

However some of the other figures don't tally so well. Auckland region loans have gone up from $654m (YE2012) to $706m (YE2013) as listed in the 2013 accounts. Yet if you go back to the accounts declared in AR2012, the total Auckland business was only $548m. That is a discrepancy of over $100m. Very strange, yet the Canterbury figures are in agreement between the two reports.

Also noted is a big jump in Heartland loans to the Wellington region. From $120m to $220m (YE2013 note 36b). This gain is leaving aside the mysterious gain from the $102 listed for the Wellington region in the FY2012 report.

I think all of these mismatches may have something to do with the RECL (Real Estate Credit Limited) agreement that was terminated during the year. Suddenly some $200m more loans in total came back on the books. Either that or the management has decided that Heartland really does mean Auckland and Wellington.

The good thing about this is that regional balance is looking better than last year.

SNOOPY

[janner]

Dare I say this.. Sooner or later .. Given the amount of time spent by snoopy on HNZ..

He will be right !.

[percy]

Dare I say this.. Sooner or later .. Given the amount of time spent by snoopy on HNZ..

He will be right !.

Make a nice change.! lol

[Snow Leopard]

Dare I say this.. Sooner or later .. Given the amount of time spent by snoopy on HNZ..

He will be right !.

While Snoopy is fixated on the

$198.370m + $18.034m + $21.518m + $27.761m = $265.683m

in the mistaken belief that this represents HNZ's 'bad loans' he has no chance whatsoever.
Perhaps you could send him to my post on the subject and tell him to come back when he understands it.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[janner]

" The good thing about this is that regional balance is looking better than last year.

SNOOPY !..

GOOD Gawd !!.. A positive !!.. Pile in folks !!..

[macduffy]

I don't hold HNZ but follow the thread, largely because of my interests in a couple of the big, bad Aussie banks!

I just think that it would be a pity if the concerted rebuttals of the contrary view on HNZ were to stifle discussion in any way. We need to hear all sides of debates.

[percy]

I don't hold HNZ but follow the thread, largely because of my interests in a couple of the big, bad Aussie banks!

I just think that it would be a pity if the concerted rebuttals of the contrary view on HNZ were to stifle discussion in any way. We need to hear all sides of debates.

The facts are as the record shows.
SNOOPY 100% wrong.
Those taking the contrary view 100% right.
Simple, read the whole thread .>!!!

[Snoopy]

Let us try.
One of the ways that HNZ divides it's financial assets is into two broad portfolios:

The Judgement Portfolio: where loans are assessed into one of 9 different risk ratings: 1 having the least risk of the loan going bad and 9 the most. Provision for risk impairment for each of 1-8 is based on a % of loan value (based on years of experience), each loan in 9 is individually assessed (Impaired loans from this portfolio are called Collective Impaired Assets);

The Behavioural Portfolio: where each loan is risk assessed individually (Impaired loans from this portfolio are called Individually Impaired Assets).


Reading Note 37(e) of the accounts shows that the Total Provision for Impaired Assets as jumped from $27M4 in 2012 to $50M5 in 2013, net +$23M1, and that this is almost entirely from Property divided between an increase of $9M3 in the Judgement Portfolio (Collective Impaired Assets) and $14M3 (Individually Impaired Assets).

Now remember how in the Judgement Portfolio as the category number gets higher the perceived risk % rises and the greater the impairment provision, so although the gross amount of loans across 6-9 is essentially unchanged the increase in the 2 highest risks categories results in an higher overall impairment provision.

All very well PT except for one thing.

You claim that the provision for impaired assets has gone up by a net $23.1m because of the increase in category 8 and 9 Judgement loans from FY2012 to FY2013.

The grade 8 and 9 loans in the judgement portfolio from FY2013 are $21.518m and $27.761m respectively. That adds to $49.279m.
The grade 8 and 9 loans from the judgement portfolio for FY2012 were $14.096m and $13.471m respectively. That adds up to $27.567m

That means the increase of grade 8 and grade 9 loans year on year is $21.712m.

Over the same period the provision on all of those judgement loans has risen from $8.032m to $15.561m. A rise of $7.521m. That means the rise in judgement grade provisions is only around one third of the rise in grade 8 and 9 loans. Of course these grade 8 and grade 9 loans are not guaranteed to go bad. But these provisions are calls based on historical experience. Does HNZ have records that go back to the 1930s to make these 'historical loss experience' judgements from?

SNOOPY