At least Flood et al aren't cashing in their huge bonuses
Now that's a real vote of confidence in the future
Certainly is.
The directors of Heartland Bank are major shareholders,so I think we can be assured "management bonuses" are very much aligned with shareholders interests.
Oldtech.
Google The Zulu Principle by Jim Slater.A good place to start.
Thanks percy! I'll have a look at getting hold of that - looks like the local library has a copy, or failing that $40 on Fishpond shouldn't break the bank.
Thanks percy! I'll have a look at getting hold of that - looks like the local library has a copy, or failing that $40 on Fishpond shouldn't break the bank.
Thanks percy! I'll have a look at getting hold of that - looks like the local library has a copy, or failing that $40 on Fishpond shouldn't break the bank.
You want to complain, look at these shoes, I've only had them 3 weeks and the heels..
Originally Posted by SCOTTY
From the NZX notice- consideration divided by number of shares =
What am I missing here?
Strictly speaking you are correct in that new shares have been issued at a price above the NTA per share and thus the NTA per share of the company has risen.
However - and this is my being a little annoyed that this sort of thing goes on to the extent that it does (and that no one gives me a million dollars bonus):
the cost of those shares has been an expense to the company over the last few years and this 'debt for equity swap' just gives us our money back by diluting the equity with new shares at the same time.
Strictly speaking you are correct in that new shares have been issued at a price above the NTA per share and thus the NTA per share of the company has risen.
However - and this is my being a little annoyed that this sort of thing goes on to the extent that it does (and that no one gives me a million dollars bonus):
the cost of those shares has been an expense to the company over the last few years and this 'debt for equity swap' just gives us our money back by diluting the equity with new shares at the same time.
And now for something completely different...
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Thanks for your reply PT
At least at the time of issue the options would have been issued well out of the money as an incentive to perform. $1.49 would have looked like a big step back then. At least they were not giving away shareholders funds as freebies like a lot of US and Aussie Companies have been so good at over the years.
Thanks for your reply PT
At least at the time of issue the options would have been issued well out of the money as an incentive to perform. $1.49 would have looked like a big step back then. At least they were not giving away shareholders funds as freebies like a lot of US and Aussie Companies have been so good at over the years.
I think PT was pointing out these were 'freebies' (to Flood and Greensleeves that is essentially paid for by the company)
Maybe PT can explain in plain English?
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
Bookmarks