HGH - Heartland Group Holdings

[winner69]

Have done so,including foot notes a certain "legend" missed.!..lol.

Well done. Footnotes are the best bits

Might go to Wellington one even though Jeff only sending the boys ....snacks afterwards the invite says. If play cards right might get enough so don’t need dinner ...Heartland healping pensioners ..well done Heartland

[Beagle]

Wonder why I haven't got one of these invites...felling left out and Suppose the annual meeting being in Auckland might have something to do with it...or maybe they just invite those with a seven figure sized shareholding like Winner and Percy

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12116824 Honestly if farmers can't make money at that price its time to move on...

[minimoke]

Well done. Footnotes are the best bits

Might go to Wellington one even though Jeff only sending the boys ....snacks afterwards the invite says. If play cards right might get enough so don’t need dinner ...Heartland healping pensioners ..well done Heartland

I classify those snacks as an Special Dividend - and its incumbent on me to maximise my dividend especially as it its tax free.

[percy]

Well done. Footnotes are the best bits

Might go to Wellington one even though Jeff only sending the boys ....snacks afterwards the invite says. If play cards right might get enough so don’t need dinner ...Heartland healping pensioners ..well done Heartland

Yes you miss Jeff.Jeff does the diversity,the feel nice stuff you enjoy,while he leaves the meat to David,and Chris.
Don't over do the good quality wines,and under do the tucka. Pity the presentation is outside "Gold Card" bus hours.

[BlackPeter]

I classify those snacks as an Special Dividend - and its incumbent on me to maximise my dividend especially as it its tax free.

NO - don't! Lets hope nobody from IRD read your post - otherwise they might join the meetings, take records and charge withholding tax on the provided snacks - I am sure they could classify them as fringe benefits;

However - there might be a loophole to rescue snack-taxed shareholders. I understand that HBL invited as well non shareholders (actually all NZSA members) to these meetings - i.e. the snacks are not a dividend but just a marketing investment and can be written off HBL's tax bill.

[percy]

Wonder why I haven't got one of these invites...felling left out and Suppose the annual meeting being in Auckland might have something to do with it...or maybe they just invite those with a seven figure sized shareholding like Winner and Percy

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12116824 Honestly if farmers can't make money at that price its time to move on...

Yes I would guess it is to do with the agm being held in Auckland.

[winner69]

Yes you miss Jeff.Jeff does the diversity,the feel nice stuff you enjoy,while he leaves the meat to David,and Chris.
Don't over do the good quality wines,and under do the tucka. Pity the presentation is outside "Gold Card" bus hours.

Coming home will be OK on the Gold Card ....if Wellington buses turn up

[Snoopy]

Have done so,including foot notes a certain "legend" missed.!..lol.

Yes and just to remind everyone what you found. There was a tiny foot note at the bottom of page 6:

"It is a condition of Heartland Bank’s registration as a registered bank that Heartland Bank must conduct a substantial portion of its business within New Zealand. This requires Heartland Bank’s Australian assets to not exceed 33% of its total assets."

Yet if you go over to the Cameron Partners Report p23, or p64 of the 'report within a report'.

Requirement for Substantial portion of business in New Zealand (Total Assets Maximum): Not disclosed

Why did Heartland not disclose to Camerons the maximum amount of business they could do outside of New Zealand, when they knew what it was all along? Could it be that if they had disclosed this, then Cameron's would have realised that they could more than double their business in Australia with the rules as they are now? And if Cameron's had known this, then the touted advantage of removing the 'constraint on Australian funding and asset growth' would probably not be a factor for several years of organic business growth?

Of course it might be that Heartland wants to acquire a substantial existing reverse mortgage portfolio from a third party to add to their existing operations. In that case the restructure would be understandable. But if this was the case, why doesn't Heartland tell you shareholders what is in the wind?

This proposal removes the protection of Reserve Bank of NZ oversight for no good reason. It will make no difference to Heartland profitability for the next couple of years at least if you vote in down. This new arrangement is an erosion of minority shareholder oversight and protection IMO. Vote it down folks.

SNOOPY

[percy]

If you had read the report from front to back,rather than back to front, you would have found it on page 6.[always read the notes]
We do not know why Camerons chose not to mention this.
Suggesting Heartland did not disclose this to them is just guess work.

[Snoopy]

If you had read the report from front to back,rather than back to front, you would have found it on page 6.[always read the notes]
We do not know why Camerons chose not to mention this.
Suggesting Heartland did not disclose this to them is just guess work.

Cameron's did disclose what they knew about the Heartland Financial Compliance Limits. It is in table 8, and 13 items were listed together with their limits. This presents a very complete picture of the constraints on Heartland. But the 14th item in that table (the amount of business that could have been done outside of NZ) was listed as 'not disclosed'. Heartland knew what it was, but it seems they didn't tell Camerons. They told them in great detail of the 13 other restrictions. But they did 'not disclose' the fourteenth restriction, seemingly by their own choosing. This is not guess work on my part. You have to ask yourself why?

The quote below is a liner from Cameron's 'Table 8'

Requirement for Substantial portion of business in New Zealand (Total Assets Maximum): Not disclosed

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the information wasn't disclosed. I am saying that Cameron's are telling shareholders the information wasn't disclosed, presumably because they weren't given it by Heartland. There is a big difference between those two statements!

SNOOPY