HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[Beagle]

Even @ 168c still a solid gross 7.11% yield (5.06% fully imputed)

Agree or perhaps more technically correctly at the theoretical ex divvy price on Thursday (8.5 / 0.72) / 164.5 = 7.18% gross and that's only for the year ahead and of course we know that dividends grow with earnings

[janner]

Seems to me that still trading cum a fully imputed 3.5 cent dividend up to and including this Wednesday nobody with any meaningful volume seems to want to sell. Seems they broadly agree with this hounds assessment of fair value. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see $1.70 today, ($1.69 when I looked a minute ago). Hold.

Go on celebrate .. You can now afford that side order of fries..

[Beagle]

Go on celebrate .. You can now afford that side order of fries..

Saturday was cheat day and I did exactly that and neither of the grandkids could eat all their fries...how sad never mind, so I fixed that too

[winner69]

This is just such a beutiful chart I needed to update - certainly exciting

Never before have I seen a bank rerated so fast and by so much by the market as now - awesome

[janner]

This is just such a beutiful chart I needed to update - certainly exciting

Never before have I seen a bank rerated so fast and by so much by the market as now - awesome

Too good to be true perhaps.. Expect a pull back..

Happy holder.

[Beagle]

Too good to be true perhaps.. Expect a pull back..

Happy holder.

Still below fair value on a comparative basis with its peer group so I am expecting only a temporary pullback of 3.5 cents per share when it goes ex dividend on Thursday.

I suspect Percy has a few more than me and is probably enjoying Lobster for dinner some evenings with his chips

[see weed]

In these euphoric times and the market loving Heartland why not $1.75 today and $1.80 by end of week and $2.00 by Easter

After all Percy says the breakout is on the upside

Don't get too excited....My first HLG post? Thinking of selling some on ex div day over here.

[winner69]

That fall from 169 to 166 today - just 'profit taking' as they say in in the trade

A good sign I reckon

[Baa_Baa]

That fall from 169 to 166 today - just 'profit taking' as they say in in the trade

A good sign I reckon

Flat for the day not a bad thing, found a short term new top at 169, you reckon? Some poor punters down 1-3 cents already, but just a temporary blip on the way to the moon, as they say in the trade.

Stunning chart, nice breakout through previous highs at 160, probably want to back test that solid support, then moon-ward again eh. No worries, dead cert for sure.

[Snoopy]

Interesting. I guess all investors have different criteria by which they assign fair value. I considered Snoopy's method to be good for a cyclical stock, but didn't consider long term trends.

Actually, my laziness at just using unadjusted 'dividend per share' figures, while the number of shares continues to increase does build a growth rate into my Dividend Capitalization Modelling. To work out what that is, I have constructed a table below.

I have chosen to use the last three years of operation as indicative, as these years include the full contribution of the Reverse Mortgage Portfolio, a critical component of Heartland going forwards.

Year	Dividends Paid 'per share' (dps)	No. Shares EOFY2017 {A}	No. Shares EOFY {B}	{A} - {B} {C}	Actual Dividend [dps x {B}]	Modelled Dividend Growth [dps x {C}]
FY2015	3.5cps + 3.0cps	512.902m (f)	469.480m	43.422m	$30.516m	$2.822m
FY2016	4.5cps + 3.5cps	512.902m (f)	476.469m	36.433m	$38.118m	$2.915m
FY2017(f)	5.0cps + 3.5cps(f)	512.902m (f)	512.902m (f)	0m	$43.597m	$0m
Three Year Total					$112.231m	$5.737m

(f) indicates forecast result.

Now we can calculate the incremental profit growth percentage:

$5.732m / $112.233m = 5.112%

All this modelled growth happened over a three year period, with two incremental years from the base year. The average annual growth rate, lets call it 'g', must multiply together to obtain the 5.112% total.

g x g = 1.05112

Solving for 'g' yields an annual growth rate of 2.524%

The extra earnings that I have modelled are because I am assuming that it would have been possible to earn more in the past if the share capital of today had been available 'back then'. It is implicit in what I have done that I am assuming constant 'earnings per share' on this theoretically enlarged capital base. It may not have been possible to achieve this constant 'eps growth' had the extra capital been available at the time. Any theoretical extra growth could have been more or less. But becasue this whole incremental growth modelling is only a 'what if' exercise, I will stick with the constant 'eps' estimate, andthe derived annual growth rate of 2.524% that I calculated.

SNOOPY