HLG - Hallenstein Glasson

[Habits]

I give it one shot to put you on the right track:

Government gave money to HLG who gave money to staff.


Now, if HLG were to do the right thing then:

HLG would give money [back] to government and staff keep money given to them.


Disc: I am having first slice of freshly delivered XMAS log roll and nobody is taking that away from me.

Yes I think I agree with that. If you want to use the log roll example like you're tucking in (which sounds rather trumpian) then look at WHS and the chain of events.. WHS shd did not get a slice of the income.. case won and closed imo

[Habits]

I disagree with witchhunts however why did Freigtways (freightways information services ltd), an essential service company claim over 330k of wages subsidy. Please correct this if FIS is not a subsidiary. Other organizations which claimed for a limited part of the operation that was affected were told they could not if the overall business was not impacted

[Beagle]

Hard to believe people are still, after all this time and fierce debate relitigating this old chestnut. HLG's position which really is quite simple to understand.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...wage-subsidies

At the time nobody knew how bad the pandemic was going to be or how long it would last. There was either going to be widespread layoffs or the Govt was going to give support such that instead of a truly dramatic rise in unemployment, companies could be in a position to get going quickly again by paying part of the cost of staff to keep them on.
In effect it was cheaper for the Govt to make part payments to keep people employed that make massive unemployment payments.

Do we ask people who were unemployed to repay their benefit when they get a well paying job ? I rest my case. Not worth me getting my fur matted up again and I suggest not worth others getting hot under the collar about. Time to move on. Peace and goodwill to all this Christmas season.

[Balance]

Hard to believe people are still, after all this time and fierce debate relitigating this old chestnut. HLG's position which really is quite simple to understand.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...wage-subsidies

An itch which needed scratching but has now turned into a festering sore needing treatment for some posters, Beagle? They need to get a life before the sore becomes septic.

It is indeed the season of goodwill, so let’s wish them a merry time.

[Snow Leopard]

An itch becoming a sore for some?

Poor Beagle: Definitely a Pavlovian Dog.


Disc: The mushrooms & other trimming on the XMAS log roll were made from pavlova.

[winner69]

Your $24m H1 npat forecast seems reasonable

Of that about $5m would have come from a catch up on all the sales that were lost during lock downs (I reckon 80% recovered)

So real / underlying / normalised or whatever growth is $16m to $19m

I’ve assessed HLG lost about $14m of sales during lockdown. Lost margin $8.4m offset by wage subsidies. No impact on profit in F20.

A fair chunk of those lost sales have been recovered post lockdown (Thats why sales are up 15% YTD) - let’s say the recovery of lost sales has contributed $5m (after tax) to profit this financial year (this would be in your $24m number)

Conclusion - it seems HLG have benefited financially (ie made money) by about $5m (maybe even more) from the wage subsidy.

[Jantar]

I’ve assessed HLG lost about $14m of sales during lockdown. Lost margin $8.4m offset by wage subsidies. No impact on profit in F20.

A fair chunk of those lost sales have been recovered post lockdown (Thats why sales are up 15% YTD) - let’s say the recovery of lost sales has contributed $5m (after tax) to profit this financial year (this would be in your $24m number)

Conclusion - it seems HLG have benefited financially (ie made money) by about $5m (maybe even more) from the wage subsidy.

The wage subsidy went to workers, not the company. Would you prefer that HLG sacked the workers to save money during the lockdown and re-employed them afterwards? That would have saved the company the 20% they had to pay the workers, and then they still would have made those post lockdown sales resulting in even more profits.

HLG met the threshold for claiming the subsidy on behalf of their workers. It wasn't just a 30% drop in revenue during the lockdown, it was 100% drop.

[winner69]

The wage subsidy went to workers, not the company. Would you prefer that HLG sacked the workers to save money during the lockdown and re-employed them afterwards? That would have saved the company the 20% they had to pay the workers, and then they still would have made those post lockdown sales resulting in even more profits.

HLG met the threshold for claiming the subsidy on behalf of their workers. It wasn't just a 30% drop in revenue during the lockdown, it was 100% drop.

All well and good jantar

Did HLG have a disaster plan / business continuity plan which might have guided them through bad times, including lockdowns?

Nonetheless I suppose my point is that since lock down they have recovered extremely well and over March/November are well ahead of the game and they have made money from getting the wage subsidy. Other retailers have experienced this (making money from the subsidy) as well and decided the right thing to do was to to repay it. The wage subsidy was good to get at the time but as things recovered strongly they concluded they didn't really need it in the first place.

[Waltzing]

There should be not repayments until an accounting standard is implemented by the IRD in conjunction with the accounting society. It should remain on the balance sheet until the IRD takes the credit back after a smoothing of the last 5 years. It really is not a matter for anyone in the public except the IRD and the standards body. The idea is good and the implementation by the government is not so good.

Its a balance sheet issue not a moral one. The public have got it wrong and so has the minister of finance and the PM.

[peetter]

All well and good jantar

Did HLG have a disaster plan / business continuity plan which might have guided them through bad times, including lockdowns?

Nonetheless I suppose my point is that since lock down they have recovered extremely well and over March/November are well ahead of the game and they have made money from getting the wage subsidy. Other retailers have experienced this (making money from the subsidy) as well and decided the right thing to do was to to repay it. The wage subsidy was good to get at the time but as things recovered strongly they concluded they didn't really need it in the first place.

I doubt any company pre-covid had a disaster plan for Government mandated 100% business full stop nation wide. Your usual disaster recovery plans if you're not global company would be having warehouses/shops/infrastructure in differrent locations throughout the country. Or closing down stores that don't perform and consolidating to the better location as most of travel companies did now.

Returning subsidies makes no sense if business payed employees. That's what the subsidy was for. Couple loud mouths on FB and in media won't do anything about it as it's obvious most don't care and buy there anyways.