HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[Xerof]

Speak for yourself w69...I shall continue to challenge the spin coming out of this FINANCE COMPANY as I see fit.


Still of the view that Kerr remains an embarassment to HNZ, and will be a stumbling block to them being granted a banking license.

BTW, when was Craig appointed CFO percy? Last I saw was an announcement saying a recruitment company was to be appointed to fill the vacancy. Perhaps you mean 'acting CFO'?

[K1W1G0LD]

Craig Stephen , toe's the company line, you'll get nothing sensitive or revealing from him. His title when I contacted him a few weeks ago was "Group treasurer" he may have had a promotion since then??.

[percy]

Craig Stephen , toe's the company line, you'll get nothing sensitive or revealing from him. His title when I contacted him a few weeks ago was "Group treasurer" he may have had a promotion since then??.

I noticed when I looked up HNZ web page to check the spelling of Stephen he was listed as "Group Treasurer",so error may be mine.
Although against posting here,I found him easy to speak to.He made a genuine offer to discuss HNZ with anyone who cared to phone him.He then gave me his phone number,which I posted.

[percy]

[QUOTE=Xerof;372971]


Still of the view that Kerr remains an embarassment to HNZ, and will be a stumbling block to them being granted a banking license.

Hope not.Any loose talk/actions by Kerr will only result in him shooting himself in the foot.

[winner69]

Speak for yourself w69...I shall continue to challenge the spin coming out of this FINANCE COMPANY as I see fit.


Still of the view that Kerr remains an embarassment to HNZ, and will be a stumbling block to them being granted a banking license.

BTW, when was Craig appointed CFO percy? Last I saw was an announcement saying a recruitment company was to be appointed to fill the vacancy. Perhaps you mean 'acting CFO'?

Of course it was toungue in cheek .... like you Xerof I would never apologise for saying what I think .... and I take heart that it might hurt those who passionately 'toe the company line' as percy puts it

But then again their eyes we are ignorant nobodys anyway

Love the way you say FINANCE COMPANY

[percy]

Your thinking has got me thinking again Percy. I have to admit the equity ratio of Heartland looks good compared to all of those bank statistics you have rolled out. The question in my mind is, what is the difference in Reserve Bank thinking on banks vs NBDTS (Non bank deposit takers) ?

SNOOPY

In todays "The Press" NZ Post [kiwi bank] chairman Michael Cullen said "NZ Post had 'some small capacity" to supply more capital,Kiwi-bank's needs-which included new capital levels required by the Reserve Bank-could not be met by NZ Post alone."
So would appear to me the day of banks having 5.5% equity ratios may becoming to an end.

[Snoopy]

Still of the view that Kerr remains an embarassment to HNZ, and will be a stumbling block to them being granted a banking licence.

But Xerof, Kerr has sold all of shares in HNZ. Granted there is still an attachment there because Kerr has a large stake in PGC which holds HNZ shares. But whatever anyone thinks of Kerr one thing he is not is stupid. Do you suppose that Kerr has realised that HNZ is unlikely to get a banking licence when he is so closely associated with the company? And that pulling back one step behind the PGC mask is a way to overcome this?

SNOOPY

[winner69]

But Xerof, Kerr has sold all of shares in HNZ. Granted there is still an attachment there because Kerr has a large stake in PGC which holds HNZ shares. But whatever anyone thinks of Kerr one thing he is not is stupid. Do you suppose that Kerr has realised that HNZ is unlikely to get a banking licence when he is so closely associated with the company? And that pulling back one step behind the PGC mask is a way to overcome this?

SNOOPY

But with todays announcement from PGC (maybe it was boardroom turmoil) one would have to say that mask has become very transparent

[Marilyn Munroe]

What is the current relationship between Heartland, Pyne Gould Corp, and Torchlight.

Given the current PGC turmoil with the auditor leaving, it is hard to imagine that the Reserve Bank will look favourably on issuing a banking licence if there is a relationship between these parties.

Boop boop de do

Marilyn

[Snoopy]

Only just getting the chance to read through your analysis - possibly someone else has commented, as yet to finish reading. My calc for the EBIT ratio would be 1.08. However, we knew they would not be running at top return in first half as they still had a considerable quantity of debentures that they were having to allow for possible repayment on close to end of period - that meant holding lots of cash while also paying interest to the debenture holders. Once the last of the guarantee debentures had expired, they would either not have the interest payments to make on them OR they would have been renewed and HNZ could then reduce the amount of cash on hand through lending once they no longer needed to allow for a bulge of maturing deposits.

As expected, the third quarter is said to have lower funding costs and it could be expected that this would be maintainable. Therefore, we could probably comfortably multiply the 3rd quarter NPAT of $5.3m by 4x, divide by 0.7 to allow for tax and add to funding costs (doubling first half funding costs of $62m). That would give an EBIT ratio of 1.24 by my calc - and given the funding costs have likely reduced somewhat, conceivably higher.

Hi Lizard, just going over your calculation again.

If I annualize 3rd quarterly profits while annualizing first half funding costs, while assuming a 30% income tax rate, this gives an "EBIT to interest expense ratio" of:

[4($5.3m/0.7) + 2x$62m]/ 2($62m) =1.24

I agree with you on the mathematics. However the HNZ third quarter results are a bit lacking in detail for me on exactly what is meant by 'operating profit', and whether this is truly an equivalent figure to the 'operating profit' disclosed in the more finely detailed previous half year report.

Generally though I think your calculation method is better than the one I was using, so I was wondering if you could detail how you came to your figure of 1.08 for that previous half year period.

Keeping all figures six monthly this time and working from p10 of the HNZ interim financial statements I get:

[$5.426m + $62m]/ ($62m) =1.09

But that $5.426m is after an impaired asset expense of $3.788m which is not a cashflow item (or is it in this instance?).

Sorry to be so pedantic about this. I realise it is all historical, but I want to make sure I have my methods right for the future.

SNOOPY