HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[percy]

When i get home i shall have a look:-) You really not very precise or generalities is you game to deflect what you don't like? Leading brokers defined as...define excellent results....if you do your own research why not share, we can all read broker reports:-) You will not even say who you quote from. Will also look at PT figure myself and see if i can agree and then come back with a query..seems a more honest approach.

I do have an excellent 7 year record of sharing my thoughts with others.
Reading this thread from the start will confirm this.
To other posters..Researching and posting was taking too much of my time,so I now post limited research and more generalities.Conculsions will remain spot on as per usual.

[Leftfield]

I do have an excellent 7 year record of sharing my thoughts with others.
Reading this thread from the start will confirm this.
To other posters..Researching and posting was taking too much of my time,so I now post limited research and more generalities.Conculsions will remain spot on as per usual.

Keep up the good work Percy, I for one appreciate your wisdom.

[Snow Leopard]

Paper Tiger.
Not sure you are correct.
It appears I along with two major brokerage houses, whose updated research I read yesterday, do not see what you are seeing.
Both research papers noted the very small % increase in impairements,although one research paper expected the final quarters will be the one to watch.
Both research papers had HBL as a buy,one with a target price of $1.30 ,the other $1.34.
Both were most impressed with HBL's margin and control of costs.

Percy, I am absolutely mortified that someone of your standing on this forum should even entertain the least glimmer of doubt as to my ability to copy and paste numbers.
I offer this image from the latest Disclosure Statement as proof of my accuracy:
My distress is deep and my partner is going to have cope with the ramifications of this when they get home tonight AND I will almost certainly exceed my weekly recommended alcohol consumption before the day is out.

I have half a mind to never here post ever again.

Exit stage left.

[percy]

And too think I thought your post was because of excess alcohol consumption.
I will have to try to wade through figures when I have a lot clearer mind, as I am of the understanding impairments have not increased more than normal.I can not blame alcohol .

[winner69]

Percy, I am absolutely mortified that someone of your standing on this forum should even entertain the least glimmer of doubt as to my ability to copy and paste numbers.
I offer this image from the latest Disclosure Statement as proof of my accuracy:

Attachment 8054

My distress is deep and my partner is going to have cope with the ramifications of this when they get home tonight AND I will almost certainly exceed my weekly recommended alcohol consumption before the day is out.

I have half a mind to never here post ever again.

Exit stage left.

Yes, Definitely says $23.5m rural debt is individually impaired as at March 31st - a lot higher than the $1.6m at end of last financial year.

[Snow Leopard]

So I was on the way to the river (or Sungai as we say round here) to throw myself in and end it all, when I got sidetracked by a stall selling Burger Ramly Daging Spesial (where the pattie is wrapped in a fried egg), and by the time I had eaten a few I thought that maybe I should hang around a bit longer as you lot obviously need my help.

There seems to be some confusion between 'Impaired Assets', 'Provision For Impaired Assets' and 'Impaired Asset Expense'.

So go back to my farewell post and look at the numbers in the Rural Column.

Individually Impaired [Assets] ($23,489) is the total value of loans which are (almost certainly) behind in their repayments and for which Heartland is determining the amount of future expected loss individually for each loan.

Provision for Individually Impaired Assets ($1,180) is the total value that they do not currently expect to recover across all of those Individually Impaired Assets.

Individually Impaired Asset Expense ($1,021) is the net amount (there are complications) of new provisions [for individually impaired assets] in this financial year and this gets knocked off (or if negative, added on) the earnings before the tax is calculated.

To complicate the issue there are collectively impaired assets as well - which are the same but different.

As a light relief from going up and down the columns you can also move left and right across the rows and see that whilst Rural Individually Impaired Assets are $23,489 they are not the same thing as the Total Impaired Asset Expense of $8,652.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

PS I hope I have got this right

[percy]

So I was on the way to the river (or Sungai as we say round here) to throw myself in and end it all, when I got sidetracked by a stall selling Burger Ramly Daging Spesial (where the pattie is wrapped in a fried egg), and by the time I had eaten a few I thought that maybe I should hang around a bit longer as you lot obviously need my help.

There seems to be some confusion between 'Impaired Assets', 'Provision For Impaired Assets' and 'Impaired Asset Expense'.

So go back to my farewell post and look at the numbers in the Rural Column.

Individually Impaired [Assets] ($23,489) is the total value of loans which are (almost certainly) behind in their repayments and for which Heartland is determining the amount of future expected loss individually for each loan.

Provision for Individually Impaired Assets ($1,180) is the total value that they do not currently expect to recover across all of those Individually Impaired Assets.

Individually Impaired Asset Expense ($1,021) is the net amount (there are complications) of new provisions [for individually impaired assets] in this financial year and this gets knocked off (or if negative, added on) the earnings before the tax is calculated.

To complicate the issue there are collectively impaired assets as well - which are the same but different.

As a light relief from going up and down the columns you can also move left and right across the rows and see that whilst Rural Individually Impaired Assets are $23,489 they are not the same thing as the Total Impaired Asset Expense of $8,652.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

PS I hope I have got this right

I ended up totally confused,so thank you [as always] for your clarity.
This now ties in with the brokers' research of between $12.9mil and $13.2 mil for Impaired "asset expenses" for FY16 and between $14.2 mil and $15mil for FY17.
So the comment "impairment ratio was surprisingly benign" is correct.
So we can look forward to target NPAT projections of between $52.1 mil and $54 mil for FY16, and between $55.6 mil and $57.4 mil for FY 17.
We remain "well positioned".

[King1212]

So I was on the way to the river (or Sungai as we say round here) to throw myself in and end it all, when I got sidetracked by a stall selling Burger Ramly Daging Spesial (where the pattie is wrapped in a fried egg), and by the time I had eaten a few I thought that maybe I should hang around a bit longer as you lot obviously need my help.

There seems to be some confusion between 'Impaired Assets', 'Provision For Impaired Assets' and 'Impaired Asset Expense'.

So go back to my farewell post and look at the numbers in the Rural Column.

Individually Impaired [Assets] ($23,489) is the total value of loans which are (almost certainly) behind in their repayments and for which Heartland is determining the amount of future expected loss individually for each loan.

Provision for Individually Impaired Assets ($1,180) is the total value that they do not currently expect to recover across all of those Individually Impaired Assets.

Individually Impaired Asset Expense ($1,021) is the net amount (there are complications) of new provisions [for individually impaired assets] in this financial year and this gets knocked off (or if negative, added on) the earnings before the tax is calculated.

To complicate the issue there are collectively impaired assets as well - which are the same but different.

As a light relief from going up and down the columns you can also move left and right across the rows and see that whilst Rural Individually Impaired Assets are $23,489 they are not the same thing as the Total Impaired Asset Expense of $8,652.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

PS I hope I have got this right

i like the daging PT...obviously it enlightened u. Luckily u did not jump...we will miss u PT...tak payah mati lah

[winner69]

I ended up totally confused,so thank you [as always] for your clarity.
This now ties in with the brokers' research of between $12.9mil and $13.2 mil for Impaired "asset expenses" for FY16 and between $14.2 mil and $15mil for FY17.
So the comment "impairment ratio was surprisingly benign" is correct.
So we can look forward to target NPAT projections of between $52.1 mil and $54 mil for FY16, and between $55.6 mil and $57.4 mil for FY 17.
We remain "well positioned".

Go back a year and Craigs were forecasting impairments of $9.1m in F16 and $9.7m in F17. So they obviously see impairments being a drag on profit growth

Wonder what they be forecasting impairment expense to be this time next year?

[percy]

Go back a year and Craigs were forecasting impairments of $9.1m in F16 and $9.7m in F17. So they obviously see impairments being a drag on profit growth

Wonder what they be forecasting impairment expense to be this time next year?

Not next year's,but looking closer at this year's;
"Whether full year NPAT will end up at top-end or above guidance range will depend on 4Q impairment provisions [so far benign]".
They also noted the improved asset quality.