H. Pollard invests SIM

Press, 4 August 1976, Page 22

H. Pollard invests SIM

ipA Auckland) In recent months, Hender-i 'son and Pollard, Ltd, had, ;installed nearly SI.OM worth; of new equipment in its ply-) wood plant as part of redevelopment, said the chairman (Mr C. W. Pollard) at the annual meeting. “This upgrading is to the latest world standards adapted to New Zealand conditions by the group after 54 years of continuous plywood manufacturing experience,” he said. The company had finallyreceived a permit to expand into particle-board produc-j tion “under almost the same terms that the group offered, two-and-a-half years ago.” i Mr Pollard recalled that,; | in the annual report, he s mentioned the delay had* cost the country “untold”) .millions of dollars. He, ’amplified this at the meeting.

.[by giving a figure totalling.■ about S4OM made up of lost) production, lost overseas) [orders, wastage of overseas) (finance and wastage of rawi (materials accumulated for I the project. As reported, group net profit rose 14.8 per cent to $872,399 in the year to April 30, on sales up 21.2 per cent 1 to $13,151,000. ' A final dividend of 8.5 c (8.5 per cent), keeping the annual rate steady at 12.5 c, ; is being paid tax-free from ' the share premium reserve. Mr Pollard said profit, with the inclusion of equity ! entitlement, covered the) 1 dividend “by just 100 per)* Cent.” )' ! “For the first 60 to 70) [years of the company’s his-1; [tory, patterns of business); • and policies of the Govern-); ment enabled expansion,) • equating to technical ad-|: | vances and market require-1 ;ments, to be financed from), I the normal cash flow. , However, since that time,)i restrictions, profit controls,) inflation — local and global.; —have necessitated increas-i : ing injections of extra out-) side finance.” But the present and pro-' jected expansions of the; company were covered, Mr. Pollard said. Last year had been easily,' the best growing season; [since the forest was started.

124 years ago. In new’ plan-i (ting there was almost a 100) per cent strike. A year later,! (the trees were easily 50 per. (cent larger than normal. In addition because of the, W’et spring and lack of summer, many hundreds of acres ; of cutover 'problem sites’ in the North had regenerated, and a new forest has been ] established, for free. In the first two months, of ; the present year Henderson , and Pollard increased sales , by “a remarkable 45 per , cent over last year.” The industries company, which , provided more than 50 per [cent of total sales, had ) [achieved an increase exceeding 70 per cent. ' This appeared much too ; good to last, but was a very , (satisfactory start to the , year. . At an extraordinary meet- ) ing of Henderson and Pol- , ) lard, shareholders approved , a change in the articles to , enable the directors, if they , [wish, to pay a lump sum, or t (pension, to outside directors ( 'or their widows. , The payment, if any [should be made, is not to j exceed the amount of the.'t fees received by the bene-, ifited director (of his widow);, ’during his last three years || on the board. (’ The present board" i evidently has no such pay- t

intent in mind at the mo(ment, but this step is being 'taken because it is becoming (standard practice among Australian companies, and (others in New Zealand, who have either adopted it, or are considering doing so. Presumably it is intended to help the recipient in a hardship situation. The motion from the board to the shareholders was put by an outside director. Mr A. G. Gray, who is deputy-chairman. He stressed that the board was making no case for or against the motion, since the directors were themselves divided on the issue. A shareholder, Mrs C. A. Longworth, said that, while she approved the idea, it needed amendment to guard against possible abuse in the distant future, when there would be other directors. Accordingly, she moved that the motion carry’ additions calling for the director under consideration for a payment to have served five years on the board, and that each year the directors inform "the shareholders of (the sum thus paid out. The amendment, however, (was lost on a show of 'hands, after an indecisive [voice vote. The original mo-1 •tion from the board was) carried. ,