Share Investor

Monday, April 18, 2011

Share Investor Portfolio: Value @ 15 April 2011

The Share Investor Portfolio was up well in the second week of April. The portfolio was up by 1.33% or $3604.38 on the April 8 update . For the first 15 weeks of 2011 the portfolio has increased by 9.54% or $24113.37 . This weeks rise was due, primarily, to a 3c rise in SKC, 7c rise in WHS and smaller rises across the board. Most of the remaining stocks were down marginally.

The total of unspent dividends and interest in the bank from the 2010 - 2011 earnings years is $23479.21 at close of reporting season for 2010 and near the end of the 2011 year. There are also approx $50000.00 in tax credits earned from the portfolio since it began in late 2002.

The Share Investor Portfolio has increased in value by 14.33% or $37870.53 since I began tracking it for this blog on October 11 2010.

Share Investor Portfolio as at 17:30:00, Friday 15 April, 2011 (NZT)

Stock

Quantity

Cost price

Total cost

Market price

Market value

Change

AIA

2,000

$1.700

$3,400.00

$2.185

$4,370.00

$970.00

28.53%

AIA

2,000

$1.510

$3,020.00

$2.185

$4,370.00

$1,350.00

44.70%

AIA

558

$0.000

$0.00

$2.185

$1,219.23

AIA

754

$2.150

$1,621.10

$2.185

$1,647.49

$26.39

1.63%

ASBPB

3,027

$0.000

$0.00

$0.680

$2,058.36

ASBPB

6,973

$1.000

$6,973.00

$0.680

$4,741.64

$2,231.36

32.00%

BGR

619

$0.000

$0.00

$1.420

$878.98

BGR

2,381

$0.990

$2,357.19

$1.420

$3,381.02

$1,023.83

43.43%

FBU

284

$0.000

$0.00

$9.180

$2,607.12

FBU

830

$9.750

$8,092.50

$9.180

$7,619.40

$473.10

5.85%

FPH

3,000

$2.350

$7,050.00

$3.180

$9,540.00

$2,490.00

35.32%

FPH

541

$0.000

$0.00

$3.180

$1,720.38

FPH

1,459

$3.720

$5,427.48

$3.180

$4,639.62

$787.86

14.52%

FRE

2,054

$0.000

$0.00

$3.340

$6,860.36

FRE

6,577

$3.630

$23,874.51

$3.340

$21,967.18

$1,907.33

7.99%

GFF

586

$0.000

$0.00

$1.600

$937.60

GFF

1,414

$2.330

$3,294.62

$1.600

$2,262.40

$1,032.22

31.33%

HLG

299

$0.000

$0.00

$3.900

$1,166.10

HLG

701

$2.530

$1,773.53

$3.900

$2,733.90

$960.37

54.15%

KIP

190

$0.000

$0.00

$1.000

$190.00

KIP

810

$1.480

$1,198.80

$1.000

$810.00

$388.80

32.43%

MFT

1,000

$7.960

$7,960.00

$9.340

$9,340.00

$1,380.00

17.34%

MFT

1,838

$8.000

$14,704.00

$9.340

$17,166.92

$2,462.92

16.75%

MFT

657

$0.000

$0.00

$9.340

$6,136.38

MFT

1,505

$4.200

$6,321.00

$9.340

$14,056.70

$7,735.70

122.38%

MHI

1,646

$0.860

$1,415.56

$0.900

$1,481.40

$65.84

4.65%

MHI

7,000

$0.630

$4,410.00

$0.900

$6,300.00

$1,890.00

42.86%

MHI

494

$1.050

$518.70

$0.900

$444.60

$74.10

14.29%

MHI

860

$0.000

$0.00

$0.900

$774.00

PPG

$0.000

$0.00

$0.250

$7.75

PPG

1,500

$0.440

$660.00

$0.250

$375.00

$285.00

43.18%

PPG

1,004

$0.800

$803.20

$0.250

$251.00

$552.20

68.75%

PPL

1,000

$3.090

$3,090.00

$1.300

$1,300.00

$1,790.00

57.93%

PPL

1,000

$2.870

$2,870.00

$1.300

$1,300.00

$1,570.00

54.70%

PPL

939

$4.200

$3,943.80

$1.300

$1,220.70

$2,723.10

69.05%

PPL

975

$0.000

$0.00

$1.300

$1,267.50

PPL

1,086

$1.530

$1,661.58

$1.300

$1,411.80

$249.78

15.03%

RYM

459

$0.000

$0.00

$2.470

$1,133.73

RYM

4,586

$1.970

$9,034.42

$2.470

$11,327.42

$2,293.00

25.38%

SKC

5,750

$7.430

$42,722.50

$3.440

$19,780.00

$22,942.50

53.70%

SKC

1,000

$7.600

$7,600.00

$3.440

$3,440.00

$4,160.00

54.74%

SKC

2,750

$7.700

$21,175.00

$3.440

$9,460.00

$11,715.00

55.32%

SKC

1,431

$8.750

$12,521.25

$3.440

$4,922.64

$7,598.61

60.69%

SKC

272

$4.720

$1,283.84

$3.440

$935.68

$348.16

27.12%

SKC

25,712

$0.000

$0.00

$3.440

$88,449.28

STU

$0.000

$0.00

$2.660

$207.48

STU

303

$4.740

$1,436.22

$2.660

$805.98

$630.24

43.88%

WHS

4,500

$3.730

$16,785.00

$3.520

$15,840.00

$945.00

5.63%

WHS

6,979

$6.000

$41,874.00

$3.520

$24,566.08

$17,307.92

41.33%

WHS

$3.710

$55.65

$3.520

$52.80

$2.85

5.12%

WHS

3,506

$0.000

$0.00

$3.520

$12,341.12

26.16%

	Total cost	Market value	Change
	$270,928.45	$341,816.74	$70,888.29

The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value Investing. A Book of Practical Counsel (Revised Edition) by Benjamin Graham
Buy new: $14.95 / Used from: $9.73
Usually ships in 24 hours

Security Analysis: The Classic 1934 Edition by GRAHAM
Buy new: $37.80 / Used from: $29.48
Usually ships in 24 hours

Buy these two Books @ Fishpond.co.nz

c Share Investor 2011

Decent Disclosure

In writing this piece on the name suppression of Mark Hotchin and the issue of non disclosure by the courts of his name to the public I got to thinking about disclosure as a whole and what that meant in such a small country like New Zealand.

In the Hotchin Ponzi Scheme case, lack of disclosure of his name to potential investors in his failed Hanover Group had some well known and serious consequences for those people unaware of Mr Hotchin's financial background and non disclosure in New Zealand business has a long history of keeping investors in the dark when it comes to them making decisions based around who they might invest with.

We have seen bankrupted and disgraced company directors and CEOs continue to recycle themselves multiple times because there has either been no onus on them to disclose their past or they have not been compelled to disclose due to insufficient regulatory restraint.

The issue over the size of New Zealand is perhaps one of the more concerning areas around disclosure to the investing public. Each of us in this country on a personal level are only a few people removed from some stranger that a friend or the friend of a friend might know and in business this relationship is even closer.

This is apparent in boardrooms (and indeed bedrooms) across the business spectrum and the lack of honest and open revelation that one may have a conflict of interest in a business deal because they might already have some kind of interest in any of the other parties doing the deal is more often than not the staus quo.

This issue over the size of the business community in New Zealand and the subject of disclosure is perhaps more worrying and has its biggest impact in the arena of business journalism. This has always been the case with traditional media but has been happening more frequently and surreptitiously in the age of the internet and especially with the rise in popularity of social media like Twitter and Facebook.

I always declare any conflict I might have when I am writing here by adding a small disclosure note at the bottom of the post but that sort of thing is not often done these days. With some brokers and investment house CEOs doing their own writing across the various media platforms, it is misleading to say the least for individuals not to declare what bias they might have simply by declaring what shares they might own or manage, whether they have done business with someone in an industry they are writing about or whether they have some kind of personal relationship with their subject.

The issue of disclosure relates directly to the ability of a potential and current investor in an asset to trust as much as possible that the asset being invested in is what it is and along with an investors own research in facts and figures disclosure of conflict or potential conflict is an important part of cementing that trust.

Clear disclosure needs to happen more in such a small country and while I loath the heavy regulatory hand of the State with a passion more must be done in legislation to protect investors than they are currently in terms of disclosure.

Without clear disclosure, markets and business in general is that much the poorer in terms of our ability to have faith in what we invest in.

Recent Share Investor Reading

From Fishpond.co.nz

Buy Every Bastard Says No - The 42 Below Story, by Geoff Ross & Justine Troy & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

c Share Investor 2011

Friday, April 15, 2011

Tourism Holdings Takeover: Dont Sell (UPDATE 2)

UPDATE 2: THL shares finished today's trading up 10c to 70c or nearly 17%. This is 2c more than the offer from Ballylinch LP.

Ballylinch LP this morning announced that it intends to make a partial takeover offer to acquire 40.85% of the ordinary shares and redeemable shares in Tourism Holdings Ltd [THL.NZX]that it does not already own. The company currently owns 19.14% of the ordinary shares in THL.

The offer is for 67.5c per ordinary share and this is a 12.5% premium to the closing price on the NZX yesterday.

While the offer is higher than the market price (see one year chart below) and the company has been trading at these low levels because of its poor management and dire results over a number of years, it is opportunistic (and canny of course) of Ballylinch to make an offer for this company when its fortunes are at its lowest ebb in many a year and they are likely after the lions share of THL so they can realise assets that are worth more than the THL share price.

Tourism has been a fickle beast over the last few years and in combo with poor management the share price has obviously suffered. The thing is regardless of its management ills the company is going to see better times in terms of tourist numbers to their businesses and this will eventually reflect in a higher share price as the overall macro situation will get better for them. The 2011 Rugby World Cup should be a boon for THL.

On this basis alone shareholders should soundly reject Ballylinch's offer and hold tight for either a better offer or better times for the company.

Tourism Holdings @ Share Investor

Share Price Alert: Tourism Holdings Ltd
Tourism Holdings worth more broken up
Long Term View: Tourism Holdings Ltd
2011 World Cup Fever

Discuss THL @ Share Investor Forum
Download THL Company Reports

c Share Investor 2011

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Hanover Finance: Hotchin Ponzi Scheme Suppression; Investors failed by SFO & SEC

The lifting of name suppression yesterday for Mark Hotchin and Kerry Finnigan, a former director and chief executive of the Hanover Group on a case involving their "investment " of personal money in a ponzi scheme, opens up a number of questions for investors in the failed Hanover Finance that went bust in 2008, taking with it over half a billion of investors money.

Hotchin's lawyer, on Hotchin's instruction, at the time argued that disclosure of his name would inflict the following on Hotchin:

* "There would be concern over the investment strategies adopted within the Hanover organisation because of the loss of credibility and damage to my reputation."

* "Investors and third parties with whom Hanover and its entities deal could well come to the conclusion that if one of the directors of Hanover was making inappropriate investment decisions personally then he could well be doing the same for the group. This in turn could cause a lack of investor confidence and support potential for a run on funds, the possible collapse or restructure of the group with obvious impact on its 600 employees."

* "The commercial relationship Hanover has with commercial partners would also be placed under stress. In those circumstances I anticipate that my fellow shareholder [London-based Eric Watson] and director could well request my resignation as a director."

Of course the claim that name disclosure for Hotchin would seriously affect the Hanover Group, in terms of lost investor confidence, may well have an element of truth to it but the main reason for the, until now, permanent name suppression, was self preservation on Hotchin's part, as the lifting of the suppression orders would have put a dent in his own ponzi scheme happening at Hanover Finance. NZ Herald, April 13 2011

The ponzi scheme that Hotchin lost money in promised 160% returns over 2 months, yes, you read that right a 960% annual return! The deals lacked paperwork and clear investment details and the recipients of the funds spent the money on personal items, like real estate, jewelry and extensive luxury travel - much like Hotchin and Eric Watson were doing with Hanover investors moola in fact.

The fact that Hotchin and Finnigan put their own money into this obvious ponzi scheme points at the risks they were taking with others money within the walls of Hanover's head office in Auckland. Clearly if investors knew about Hotchin's involvement in a get rich quick scheme they probably would not have piled more of their money into Hanover.

Disclosure of Hotchin and Finnegan's involvement in such a scam was clearly in the public interest then but the courts decided, wrongly in my opinion and probably in the opinion of most of us, to keep name suppression a permanent thing.

Judge Weir at the time stated:

"there is a failure also to identify any person or past person who would specifically benefit by publication of the details of the case".

It can be argued of course, as I have above, that those that would have benefited from lifting name suppression would have been prospective investors in Hanover.

Putting aside that poor judgement The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), that was directly involved in the case, and other legistlative arms of the State such as the Securities Commission (SEC) who are tasked with protecting investors from financially reckless individuals such as Hotchin and Finnigan, were happy to keep this kind of disclosure, that is normal in business, secret from investors.

The court judgement lay unchallenged by either the SEC or the SFO and therefore they failed in their duty to make investors aware of the poor judgement and financial ability and therefore the inability of Hotchin and Finnigan to be competent managers of other peoples money.

The New Zealand Herald should be congratulated for overturning what the SFO and SEC had no interest in.

Related Share Investor Reading

Mark Hotchin Comes Out Swinging
Hanover's "White Knights" are really daylight robbers
Hanover collapse: It was just a matter of time
Money Managers Saga: 3 Story wrap
Money Managers gives First Step investors the middle finger
Greed is bad: Geneva Finance Folds
Financial 101: Learn before you leap
Kevin's Blog

Recommended Fishpond Reading

Buy The Intelligent Investor & more @ Fishpond.co.nz

c Share Investor 2011

Share Investor

Monday, April 18, 2011

Share Investor Portfolio: Value @ 15 April 2011

Decent Disclosure

Friday, April 15, 2011

Tourism Holdings Takeover: Dont Sell (UPDATE 2)

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Hanover Finance: Hotchin Ponzi Scheme Suppression; Investors failed by SFO & SEC

Total Pageviews

Translate

Search Share Investor

Share Investor Blog Archive

Share Investor

Share Investor Portfolio Individual Shareholder Websites

Market/Financial News

Stockmarket/Business Blogs/Share Forums

My Favourite Reading