HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[Joshuatree]

Our board has been brilliant imo and run this company nearly faultlessly hence the current s/p strength atpit. Its a fact of business/investing life that The big boys have much more clout and much bigger pockets and so they should be rewarded accordingly imo compared to us tiny tiddlers. Its a balancing act trying to keep everyone happy and it makes sense to keep the Instos on side. All atpit; if a big dump happens it wouldn't look good but i think the HBL s/p would recover fairly quickly.

[mfd]

Well, you seem to be easy to please. They could have achieved the same capital rising without donating the discount of $20 million worth of shares to unrelated institutional investors. As a HBL shareholder I would have preferred to have this money in my pocket (and getting e.g. 2/3 rds instead of just 1/3rd of my allocation.

I would have liked to see our board to work for us instead of for "institutional investors", but each to their own. I guess somebody must speak for the poor "institutionals", do they?

Speaking as a (very) small time shareholder I'm happy with how things have gone. I got as many shares as I wanted (although I had to temporarily stump up extra cash), and we ended up with a significantly better discount than the initial institutional round.

I can see why you might be upset as a larger holder with a smaller allocation proportional to your holding, but it's actually worked out quite nicely for me. With hindsight it's easy to say the money could have come from the spp, but I'm not sure that was obvious from the outset. Would have been embarrassing to fall short of the target, surely?

[winner69]

Well, you seem to be easy to please. They could have achieved the same capital rising without donating the discount of $20 million worth of shares to unrelated institutional investors. As a HBL shareholder I would have preferred to have this money in my pocket (and getting e.g. 2/3 rds instead of just 1/3rd of my allocation.

I would have liked to see our board to work for us instead of for "institutional investors", but each to their own. I guess somebody must speak for the poor "institutionals", do they?

BP - One of those 'institutional investors' was a Director (or at least his trustee Company) - took nearly 10% of the 'discounted' shares in the December raising.

But then if you a big shareholder you sort of get first dibs

[Food4Thought]

Hi HBL shareholders

FYI - Last couple hours to get your DRP information in if you want your divi reinvested.

Happy weekend

[BlackPeter]

BP - One of those 'institutional investors' was a Director (or at least his trustee Company) - took nearly 10% of the 'discounted' shares in the December raising.

But then if you a big shareholder you sort of get first dibs

I guess this clearly shows that it was a good deal for the institutional investors

[iceman]

Speaking as a (very) small time shareholder I'm happy with how things have gone. I got as many shares as I wanted (although I had to temporarily stump up extra cash), and we ended up with a significantly better discount than the initial institutional round.

I can see why you might be upset as a larger holder with a smaller allocation proportional to your holding, but it's actually worked out quite nicely for me. With hindsight it's easy to say the money could have come from the spp, but I'm not sure that was obvious from the outset. Would have been embarrassing to fall short of the target, surely?

It isn't really about whether you, BlackPeter or I are happy with what we personally got. I am quite satisfied as I got pretty much what I expected and MarketLink Services did it very efficiently for me with money being returned very quickly. I am also very happy with the Board and Management of HBL and a very happy long term SH.

I look at the NZSA action not as being against HBL at all, simply using it as an example of how they believe these capital raisings could be done differently and more fairly to smaller SH. I agree with them. I hope HBL management take the NZSA'a criticism/discussion well and discuss with them how they could learn from this and do it better in the future. Hopefully that would also be noticed by other companies planning future capital raising

[percy]

NZX make the rules,so it would appear to me, NZSA should be talking to them.

[Baa_Baa]

NZX make the rules,so it would appear to me, NZSA should be talking to them.

Yes, heaven forbid NZSA would have the temerity to talk to the company about considering the impacts on their members. Take it to the NZX, they'll do the right thing by the minions. Yeah right!

[percy]

Yes, heaven forbid NZSA would have the temerity to talk to the company about considering the impacts on their members. Take it to the NZX, they'll do the right thing by the minions. Yeah right!

Yeah right.
Most probably just following ASX on SPPs.

[Snoopy]

Under Note 4 of HY2016 the 'impaired asset expense' has increased to $5.610m (HY2016, ended 31st December 2015) up from from $5.102m in the corresponding prior period (HY2015). Bad debts for the full year to 30th June 2015 (FY2015) added to $12.105m. By simple subtraction the bad debt expense for the period 1st January 2015 to 30th June 2015 ( 2HY2015 ) was $12.105m - $5.102m = $7.003m.

This means that what we are seeing is 20% fall in bad debts declared over the six months to December 2015, compared to the immediately preceeding 6 month period.

Under Note 4 of HY2017 the 'impaired asset expense' has increased to $6.892m (HY2017, ended 31st December 2016) up from from $5.610m in the corresponding prior period (HY2016). Bad debts for the full year to 30th June 2016 (FY2016) added to $13.501m. By simple subtraction the bad debt expense for the period 1st January 2016 to 30th June 2016 ( 2HY2016 ) was

$13.501m - $6.892m = $6.609m.

This means that what we are seeing is a 4.3% rise in bad debts expense declared over the six months to December 2016, compared to the immediately preceeding 6 month period.

SNOOPY