Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Farmer Ed

mf240 wrote: »

Right at the risk of being told I'm talking shutter. (I may well be) would it not be better business for Glanbia to pay as high as they can for milk instead of a myriad of schemes, rebates, terms and conditions accompanied by an ever increasing amount of administration.

It's been said here that all Co ops are subbing price. They seem to be doing a better job of it and with less of a song and dance about it.

As a hedge I don't think the latest offering is attractive. But then what would a simple farmer like me know. Sure I was only in school cos that's where the bus let me out.

I guess the simple answer to that is, it would probably be way too transparent to do something like that. Plus having paid the spin doctors, I guess they would be expected to come up with something more creative. These guys have to be seen to be earning their keep.

frazzledhome

mf240 wrote: »

Right at the risk of being told I'm talking shutter. (I may well be) would it not be better business for Glanbia to pay as high as they can for milk instead of a myriad of schemes, rebates, terms and conditions accompanied by an ever increasing amount of administration.

It's been said here that all Co ops are subbing price. They seem to be doing a better job of it and with less of a song and dance about it.

As a hedge I don't think the latest offering is attractive. But then what would a simple farmer like me know. Sure I was only in school cos that's where the bus let me out.

I agree on point 1. No rebate being paid on milk, it's on feed and Fert.

On point 2, we can see exactly where the monies are coming from. I wonder what the balance sheets will be like in other coops after 2-2.5 yrs of sunning prices. As a member it'd be something I'd want to know.

On point 3, it's up to everyone to make their own mind up. What gets me is no matter what's suggested it seems to be rubbished out of hand without consideration.

There'll be some gallery here when the finance package is announced. I'm looking forward to it.

whelan2

frazzledhome wrote: »

There'll be some gallery here when the finance package is announced. I'm looking forward to it.

Sure if they were paying top milk price we wouldnt need a finance package

Buford T. Justice XIX

frazzledhome wrote: »

I agree on point 1. No rebate being paid on milk, it's on feed and Fert.

On point 2, we can see exactly where the monies are coming from. I wonder what the balance sheets will be like in other coops after 2-2.5 yrs of sunning prices. As a member it'd be something I'd want to know.

On point 3, it's up to everyone to make their own mind up. What gets me is no matter what's suggested it seems to be rubbished out of hand without consideration.

There'll be some gallery here when the finance package is announced. I'm looking forward to it.

We live in interesting times:)

atlantic mist

fixed schemes suit some and others will always be completely opposed

i would generally been against them, but thats more to do with my business risk tolerance we played the market for 10 years before quota abolished, lost some years gained others, not easy to call market at present, we calved all friesian this year in anticipation of milk price rising by the time they reach parlor we used some beef the last year, what to use this year is the question at present

the gii schemes i really would encourage everyone into them due to the product being sold, regret not being in the ornanua scheme, and id be the first to say they should be getting a higher price for these contracts, but ceo thinks its a fair price so thats the state of play for the minute, our good products are going into these schemes, the balance will be what were trying to sell on international market which are volatile and will be until usa steps off the gas (milk wise) but too much cheap grain over there

frazzledhome

whelan2 wrote: »

Sure if they were paying top milk price we wouldnt need a finance package

Everyone needs access to reasonably priced finance. Its probably one of the more important inputs

kowtow

mf240 wrote:

Right at the risk of being told I'm talking shutter. (I may well be) would it not be better business for Glanbia to pay as high as they can for milk instead of a myriad of schemes, rebates, terms and conditions accompanied by an ever increasing amount of administration.

Problem there is that the Coop becomes a book runner - if it fixes contract prices and the market goes against it, everyone loses and the complaints start.

In an ideal world the producer chooses what to fix to suit his own risk appetite and exposure. It's not an ideal world of course, but matching customers who want to fix to producers in a fair and transparent fashion isn't a bad start.

kevthegaff

When is this low interest eu farming loan for young farmers coming on stream, still an eye on a skidsteer;-)

frazzledhome

NZ dairy industry buried in debthttp://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11596222

Farmer Ed

Why the rush to be more like NZ? Do we need to be careful what we wish for? What happen if the super co op goes belly up?

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dairy-debt-major-concern-nz-economy-nzsa-conference-told-b-178651

WheatenBriar

mf240 wrote: »

Right at the risk of being told I'm talking shutter. (I may well be) would it not be better business for Glanbia to pay as high as they can for milk instead of a myriad of schemes, rebates, terms and conditions accompanied by an ever increasing amount of administration.

It's been said here that all Co ops are subbing price. They seem to be doing a better job of it and with less of a song and dance about it.

As a hedge I don't think the latest offering is attractive. But then what would a simple farmer like me know. Sure I was only in school cos that's where the bus let me out.

The rebates come from your own pocket via your shares in your co op
Giil cannot pay a top price because its 40% owner doesn't want to be seen by the stock market as reducing their margin
They look better to the stock market by keeping price to the farmer as low as possible
Thats what its come too and to be honest your board members don't care
They and their Ceo are the fcukers and the lads/lassies getting up in the night calving cows and milking them are the fcuckee's

kevthegaff

frazzledhome wrote: »

NZ dairy industry buried in debthttp://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11596222

Irish co ops seem to be performing ok, will they be the next affected. 500 million in interest payments crazy

jaymla627

WheatenBriar wrote: »

The rebates come from your own pocket via your shares in your co op
Giil cannot pay a top price because its 40% owner doesn't want to be seen by the stock market as reducing their margin
They look better to the stock market by keeping price to the farmer as low as possible
Thats what its come too and to be honest your board members don't care
They and their Ceo are the fcukers and the lads/lassies getting up in the night calving cows and milking them are the fcuckee's

Could be worse try been a fonterra supplier done a bit of reading online their ceo is on a base salary of 5 million dollars and it's estimated that he would be racking in 2 million plus extra in bonuses, Talbot in comparison is on 1.6 million euro all in....
Fonterra largely is a farmer owned business and looking at its latest published results is in mountains of debts, and preforming badly, on the flipside for all the whinging we do about glanbia plc it's preforming brilliantly, any farmers with a nice bundle of co-op shares have done extremely well the past couple of years from spinouts our are sitting on a nice bundle of plc shares worth quiet a bit, they might be a cent our two behind on milk price but this is more then off-set by the spinouts which have put a lot of money back into glanbia suppliers pockets

frazzledhome

jaymla627 wrote: »

Could be worse try been a fonterra supplier done a bit of reading online their ceo is on a base salary of 5 million dollars and it's estimated that he would be racking in 2 million plus extra in bonuses, Talbot in comparison is on 1.6 million euro all in....
Fonterra largely is a farmer owned business and looking at its latest published results is in mountains of debts, and preforming badly, on the flipside for all the whinging we do about glanbia plc it's preforming brilliantly, any farmers with a nice bundle of co-op shares have done extremely well the past couple of years from spinouts our are sitting on a nice bundle of plc shares worth quiet a bit, they might be a cent our two behind on milk price but this is more then off-set by the spinouts which have put a lot of money back into glanbia suppliers pockets

Really sorry, but I'm breaking my ass laughing. Saul didn't have a conversion of this magnitude on the road to Damascus

Farmer Ed

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/global-dairy-trade-may-post-first-rise-2016-tomorrow/

BannerBarry

Fonterra have large borrowings and as yee saw in the Journal this week can borrow at 2% on the bond markets despite this.
We can't use our strong assets in Glanbia or Kerry via PLC & Co Op Shares to borrow at 11%... Its a screwed up banking system here.

kowtow

I might be in a minority on this point but I'm not sure that making lines of finance available to farmers at abnormally low rates (i.e. sub 5%) is actually very helpful to the industry or, in the medium term, to the farmer.

Finance of that sort is typically secured - so is likely to feed through into land & capital expenditure. We already have the most expensive farmland in the world, and given the current returns in dairy I am not sure that pushing capital prices up and locking in even lower returns as a result of long term finance is the way to build a stable business.

What we really need is either a better milk price (through product mix or whatever), a severe downward adjustment of input costs including land, or - dare I say it - some other major structural adjustment in the way we are approaching the dairy business. Targeted finance - of course, by all means, but do we have the models to drive the return on assets?

The example of Fonterra at sub 2% if compared to individuals borrowing against the security of shares is nothing unusual or new - neither individuals nor small businesses are able to access the corporate traded debt market, and even if you could - you wouldn't - the advisory fees on a single debt issue are rarely less than a million US, and often a lot more.

BannerBarry

You make alot of sense on the land and the impact of the low rates.
The issue is that we as a nation are strangled with red tape, excessive costs of doing business, excessive interest rates.
From a national perspective we cannot compete with say a New Zealand farmer for this reason. We trade our farm produce (Commodities) on a world market and our Department add excessive costs to disadvantage our commodities.

Take the 3 boats we only have approved for Live Export.
Why can other nations have less stringent requirements than us in terms of approved board for exporting?
Again this is a disadvantage to us in the world markets.

kowtow

BannerBarry wrote: »

You make alot of sense on the land and the impact of the low rates.
The issue is that we as a nation are strangled with red tape, excessive costs of doing business, excessive interest rates.
From a national perspective we cannot compete with say a New Zealand farmer for this reason. We trade our farm produce (Commodities) on a world market and our Department add excessive costs to disadvantage our commodities.

Totally agree - what you describe is an industry which makes losses because input costs are high and output prices are (at the moment at least) low.

The trouble is that providing finance at low rates (a) will tend to increase asset & input prices and (b) will in effect finance the losses, while storing up problems for the future.

There is an exception - where finance allows a farmer to jump up a step in scale and benefit from lower costs and greater efficiency as a result. The trouble is that the Irish model of family farming and a fragmented land base is not the most obvious example of scalability. You can certainly get bigger, but by how much does the return on capital employed improve when you do?

That's not to say that there aren't some sweet spots and some potential for improved borrowing models - there are - particularly against stock or milk cash flow and linked to milk prices, but more by way of a volatility tool than a new line of cheap investment credit.

frazzledhome

kowtow wrote: »

I might be in a minority on this point but I'm not sure that making lines of finance available to farmers at abnormally low rates (i.e. sub 5%) is actually very helpful to the industry or, in the medium term, to the farmer.

Finance of that sort is typically secured - so is likely to feed through into land & capital expenditure. We already have the most expensive farmland in the world, and given the current returns in dairy I am not sure that pushing capital prices up and locking in even lower returns as a result of long term finance is the way to build a stable business.

What we really need is either a better milk price (through product mix or whatever), a severe downward adjustment of input costs including land, or - dare I say it - some other major structural adjustment in the way we are approaching the dairy business. Targeted finance - of course, by all means, but do we have the models to drive the return on assets?

The example of Fonterra at sub 2% if compared to individuals borrowing against the security of shares is nothing unusual or new - neither individuals nor small businesses are able to access the corporate traded debt market, and even if you could - you wouldn't - the advisory fees on a single debt issue are rarely less than a million US, and often a lot more.

Who's offering finance at sub 5%?

Farmer Ed

frazzledhome wrote: »

Who's offering finance at sub 5%?

There is some EU funding for new investment available from the main banks at 4.5% at the moment. The funny thing is if you go in and tell them you want to go and buy a new Audi, you might have a good chance of getting the money at that rate, so long as you tell them you will use the Audi for business purposes. However if you go in and tell them you want some money because you want to pay of a bill and the local contractor or the feed merchant needs to be paid. You're unlikely to get the money and if you do you'll be charged a lot more than 5%
So in effect money is only available for things you don't really need in the first place. So in a way I agree with Kowtow. Maybe farmers may be better of in the long run if they didn't get it.

alps

Farmer Ed wrote: »

There is some EU funding for new investment available from the main banks at 4.5% at the moment. The funny thing is if you go in and tell them you want to go and buy a new Audi, you might have a good chance of getting the money at that rate, so long as you tell them you will use the Audi for business purposes. However if you go in and tell them you want some money because you want to pay of a bill and the local contractor or the feed merchant needs to be paid. You're unlikely to get the money and if you do you'll be charged a lot more than 5%
So in effect money is only available for things you don't really need in the first place. So in a way I agree with Kowtow. Maybe farmers may be better of in the long run if they didn't get it.

You shouldn't need finance to pay a bill like feed or contractor.

Farmer Ed

alps wrote: »

You shouldn't need finance to pay a bill like feed or contractor.

Maybe not but people that are borrowing money to buy stuff they don't need that will only depreciate quickly, could find themselves in that very situation. Ask many a contractor or anyone who deals with small businesses in general. Cash flow or lack of it, it what is killing small business in general. There has been many the case where a number of businesses went to the wall as a domino effect of one business getting in trouble with cash flow.
Surely it should be more of a priority for the banks to ensure that that their customer's get paid. Why the rush to lend out money to people for things they don't need. For example I think you said you are planning to borrow money to buy a new skid steer? Now assuming that is brand new. That will be a net loss to the Irish economy as it will have to be imported. However if you owe money to a local business and you manage to pay it. That would be a net gain to the Irish economy.

So why then give you a loan to buy your skid steer for 4.5% and charge you 6.5% for a stocking loan or to restructure an existing loan? Or worse still after you have brought your skid steer and something unforeseen happens and you are in danger of missing a payment, force you to lean on a local business for credit. Who are the banks trying to benefit? Its certainly not the local economy and it certainly not you.

whelan2

Was told of a lad today with 150 cows, 8 unit parlour, 1 lad full time working and 1 part time. Farmer and his wife would also work a good bit on farm. Milking taking 3 hours now in the morning. Would labour cost alone at the current milk price , not to mention electricity for such a long milking not be very excessive for that amount of cows?

Water John

The restriction on live export boats mentioned above, is really a political decision to support the factories. Lets call it what it is. Sorry, if off topic.

Milked out

whelan2 wrote: »

Was told of a lad today with 150 cows, 8 unit parlour, 1 lad full time working and 1 part time. Farmer and his wife would also work a good bit on farm. Milking taking 3 hours now in the morning. Would labour cost alone at the current milk price , not to mention electricity for such a long milking not be very excessive for that amount of cows?

I guess he'd be swoping labour/esb savings for repayments in a new parlour... may have chose to hold off till things look like improving and he could still milk on his own if need be. 150 cows in an 8 unit in 3 hours isn't bad going with fresh calvers etc. No drafting, dumpline or space for separate herd here yet so had 15 coming out of tank one week it was taking me close on that from parlour on to off in a 14 unit with 115 cows. Heifers, buckets, mastitis can all slow it down big time. Having the labour there would allow someone to come in and out to take milk or deal with a heifer or whatever if need be too I guess. Level of debt and drawings are different on every farm and that can determine labour input as much as anything else. Repayments on land here would pay a wage

kevthegaff

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Maybe not but people that are borrowing money to buy stuff they don't need that will only depreciate quickly, could find themselves in that very situation. Ask many a contractor or anyone who deals with small businesses in general. Cash flow or lack of it, it what is killing small business in general. There has been many the case where a number of businesses went to the wall as a domino effect of one business getting in trouble with cash flow.
Surely it should be more of a priority for the banks to ensure that that their customer's get paid. Why the rush to lend out money to people for things they don't need. For example I think you said you are planning to borrow money to buy a new skid steer? Now assuming that is brand new. That will be a net loss to the Irish economy as it will have to be imported. However if you owe money to a local business and you manage to pay it. That would be a net gain to the Irish economy.

So why then give you a loan to buy your skid steer for 4.5% and charge you 6.5% for a stocking loan or to restructure an existing loan? Or worse still after you have brought your skid steer and something unforeseen happens and you are in danger of missing a payment, force you to lean on a local business for credit. Who are the banks trying to benefit? Its certainly not the local economy and it certainly not you.

Think it was me about the skidsteer!(one for under 7k) I've never borrowed for a machine just yet.. but if you have money in the bank for merchants, bills etc would u not be better off with finance and having surplus in account for bills?

kevthegaff

kevthegaff wrote: »

Think it was me about the skidsteer!(one for under 7k) I've never borrowed for a machine just yet.. but if you have money in the bank for merchants, bills etc would u not be better off with finance and having surplus in account for bills?

Also some guys buy the machine first, hold out on merchants, extend overdraft and pay s**t loads of interest on overdraft facility/merchant interest

kowtow

kevthegaff wrote:

Think it was me about the skidsteer!(one for under 7k) I've never borrowed for a machine just yet.. but if you have money in the bank for merchants, bills etc would u not be better off with finance and having surplus in account for bills?

General rule is to try and match finance to the life of an asset, if finance required. On the other hand some seasonal costs would be well served by overdraft or perhaps even stocking loan... as you say depends on the farm.

My concern is the apparent willingness to 'confuse' ability to borrow with actual income... being able to borrow money doesn't eliminate a loss, never has never will, and yet from promissory notes to delayed superlevy the way institutions talk here you'd think the two were interchangeable.

alps

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Maybe not but people that are borrowing money to buy stuff they don't need that will only depreciate quickly, could find themselves in that very situation. Ask many a contractor or anyone who deals with small businesses in general. Cash flow or lack of it, it what is killing small business in general. There has been many the case where a number of businesses went to the wall as a domino effect of one business getting in trouble with cash flow.
Surely it should be more of a priority for the banks to ensure that that their customer's get paid. Why the rush to lend out money to people for things they don't need. For example I think you said you are planning to borrow money to buy a new skid steer? Now assuming that is brand new. That will be a net loss to the Irish economy as it will have to be imported. However if you owe money to a local business and you manage to pay it. That would be a net gain to the Irish economy.

So why then give you a loan to buy your skid steer for 4.5% and charge you 6.5% for a stocking loan or to restructure an existing loan? Or worse still after you have brought your skid steer and something unforeseen happens and you are in danger of missing a payment, force you to lean on a local business for credit. Who are the banks trying to benefit? Its certainly not the local economy and it certainly not you.

Only skid marks around this yard this year Ed, are on the seat of the underpants.....

kevthegaff

kowtow wrote: »

General rule is to try and match finance to the life of an asset, if finance required. On the other hand some seasonal costs would be well served by overdraft or perhaps even stocking loan... as you say depends on the farm.

My concern is the apparent willingness to 'confuse' ability to borrow with actual income... being able to borrow money doesn't eliminate a loss, never has never will, and yet from promissory notes to delayed superlevy the way institutions talk here you'd think the two were interchangeable.

So match repayments to the life of an asset or to how long before one upgrades??

Deepsouthwest

Farmer Ed wrote: »

There is some EU funding for new investment available from the main banks at 4.5% at the moment. The funny thing is if you go in and tell them you want to go and buy a new Audi, you might have a good chance of getting the money at that rate, so long as you tell them you will use the Audi for business purposes. However if you go in and tell them you want some money because you want to pay of a bill and the local contractor or the feed merchant needs to be paid. You're unlikely to get the money and if you do you'll be charged a lot more than 5%
So in effect money is only available for things you don't really need in the first place. So in a way I agree with Kowtow. Maybe farmers may be better of in the long run if they didn't get it.

While I'm a big fan of Audi, why would u need a 4.5% loan? Aren't VW advertising 0% finance deals now!!

Timmaay

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

While I'm a big fan of Audi, why would u need a 4.5% loan? Aren't VW advertising 0% finance deals now!!

Ah please, ya surely know 0% finance is just pulling the wool over your eyes, you pay the rrp against a cash price of a grand or so less!

Plus blowing 40/50k on a car, jezz like ha! I'd pick my trusty '01 s3 anyday over a fairly bland a4 diesel ha.

Farmer Ed

kevthegaff wrote: »

Think it was me about the skidsteer!(one for under 7k) I've never borrowed for a machine just yet.. but if you have money in the bank for merchants, bills etc would u not be better off with finance and having surplus in account for bills?

I guess the point I was making is that banks have different rates of interest for different types of borrowing. For example if someone asks for a loan to buy a new car and they say its for business purposes they will qualify for this 4.5% loan. Yet they are being charged 6.5% on most other farm loans and more if they have an overdraft. The banks are able to get free money at the moment so in effect we are now paying for the mistakes they made in the past.

The man I buy the straw from every year told me he has a couple of customers that have every kind of a new machine in the yard, but cant pay him for straw and beet he sold them. I drove a two hour round trip today to collect money from a someone who owes me money. Needless to say I didn't get paid. I am pretty sure that person will be good for the money in the long run. But the banks should be the ones supplying credit not me.

The crazy thing about it is that I'm pretty sure that person would qualify for the 4.5% loan if they were to buy a new car, but they wouldn't get any kind of overdraft to pay me, or if they did they'd be charged through the nose for it . I know they are just having a bit of a cashflow problem and they will pay me in the long term. Why can't the banks see that? The banks are not supporting small business the way they should be. Why the growth in things like crowd funding with interest of up to 10% or more, if the banks are as supportive of small business as people would like to believe.

Farmer Ed

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

While I'm a big fan of Audi, why would u need a 4.5% loan? Aren't VW advertising 0% finance deals now!!

Personally I have a theory about Audi drivers.

Best kept to myself

Deepsouthwest

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Personally I have a theory about Audi drivers.

Best kept to myself

I hope it's positive, my previous three cars to the present one were Audi's!

Farmer Ed

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

I hope it's positive, my previous three cars to the present one were Audi's!

Let's say his theory of mine is developing as we speak

Only a matter of time before someone does a phd on it;)

frazzledhome

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I guess the point I was making is that banks have different rates of interest for different types of borrowing. For example if someone asks for a loan to buy a new car and they say its for business purposes they will qualify for this 4.5% loan. Yet they are being charged 6.5% on most other farm loans and more if they have an overdraft. The banks are able to get free money at the moment so in effect we are now paying for the mistakes they made in the past.

The man I buy the straw from every year told me he has a couple of customers that have every kind of a new machine in the yard, but cant pay him for straw and beet he sold them. I drove a two hour round trip today to collect money from a someone who owes me money. Needless to say I didn't get paid. I am pretty sure that person will be good for the money in the long run. But the banks should be the ones supplying credit not me.

The crazy thing about it is that I'm pretty sure that person would qualify for the 4.5% loan if they were to buy a new car, but they wouldn't get any kind of overdraft to pay me, or if they did they'd be charged through the nose for it . I know they are just having a bit of a cashflow problem and they will pay me in the long term. Why can't the banks see that? The banks are not supporting small business the way they should be. Why the growth in things like crowd funding with interest of up to 10% or more, if the banks are as supportive of small business as people would like to believe.

So to be clear, what you're saying is

Banks should give unsecured money to your debtor so he can pay you.

No question as to why he has himself in this cash bind

No question as to why he bought goods/service without agreeing terms with you

On your estimation he'd get finance on a machine/car. A secured loan where assets are easily recoverable

If I'm understanding you, do you not see the problem?

WheatenBriar

frazzledhome wrote: »

If I'm understanding you, do you not see the problem?

He probably see's the problem but not the flexibility
They should give his customer the facility secured
I mean banks got bailed out for their mistakes yet kept a lot of the loan book that the bailout paid for,and continue to earn money from it
Not too many businesses can get away with that
Jam on both sides of the bread basically

frazzledhome

WheatenBriar wrote: »

He probably see's the problem but not the flexibility
They should give his customer the facility secured
I mean banks got bailed out for their mistakes yet kept a lot of the loan book that the bailout paid for,and continue to earn money from it
Not too many businesses can get away with that
Jam on both sides of the bread basically

I agree but doubt that's what's been got at here. Perhaps I'm wrong. Trying to decipher can be difficult at times.

frazzledhome

WheatenBriar wrote: »

He probably see's the problem but not the flexibility
They should give his customer the facility secured
I mean banks got bailed out for their mistakes yet kept a lot of the loan book that the bailout paid for,and continue to earn money from it
Not too many businesses can get away with that
Jam on both sides of the bread basically

There are also badly run business'. I had to sub a guy this time last year to pay his insurance. It was repaid in 30 days, but this guy didn't know that this could be financed over 11 mths. The same guy owes a massive bill to coop and bitches about having to pay interest. He has done a big cap ex recently out of (you guessed) cash flow. We know he isn't alone.

Some people just go blindly head down ass up until they bang into something.

mf240

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

While I'm a big fan of Audi, why would u need a 4.5% loan? Aren't VW advertising 0% finance deals now!!

You'd buy a good vento or carina with test for 5/600 hundred.

Was a local enough lad used change up the car every couple of years. used have to change contractors nearly as often. All flash but no cash.

Farmer Ed

frazzledhome wrote: »

So to be clear, what you're saying is

Banks should give unsecured money to your debtor so he can pay you.

No question as to why he has himself in this cash bind

No question as to why he bought goods/service without agreeing terms with you

On your estimation he'd get finance on a machine/car. A secured loan where assets are easily recoverable

If I'm understanding you, do you not see the problem?

In the case of farmers if the bank has a charge on the property then all the debts are infact secured. As far as I know this new 4.5% loan would fall into that category also. Just because you pay 8% on an overdraft does not necessarily mean it is unsecured debt.
The person who owes me money is infact making a great go at getting a business up and running and is employing 4 people in the process. In real life not every business is flush with cash at all times.I am sure if it came to it they wouldn't have a problem using business assets as security.
Security is not the issue. I think a lot of the problem is the banks no longer have people in the branches with the discretion to make decisions on lending.

Farmer Ed

frazzledhome wrote: »

I agree but doubt that's what's been got at here. Perhaps I'm wrong. Trying to decipher can be difficult at times.

If I understand you correctly it sounds like if this guy was to go to the bank and they were to agree to restructure his borrowing so he could pay off everything he owes to the Co Op and also fund his latest capital investment, it should go a long way to sorting out his problems. This brings us back to my original point.
The problem is would the bank have cop on enough to back him?

frazzledhome

Farmer Ed wrote: »

If I understand you correctly it sounds like if this guy was to go to the bank and they were to agree to restructure his borrowing so he could pay off everything he owes to the Co Op and also fund his latest capital investment, it should go a long way to sorting out his problems. This brings us back to my original point.
The problem is would the bank have cop on enough to back him?

Not a phuckin hope. That bridge is long burned.

In fact the big bad coop/Plc are the only ones standing by him. They have bent over backwards to do so. Not what you want to hear but true

kevthegaff

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I think a lot of the problem is the banks no longer have people in the branches with the discretion to make decisions on lending.

In theory sounds plausible but in reality reckless lending may happen

kevthegaff

frazzledhome wrote: »

Not a phuckin hope. That bridge is long burned.

In fact the big bad coop/Plc are the only ones standing by him. They have bent over backwards to do so. Not what you want to hear but true

We give out about the Co ops, but the do have to deal with big debts built up and the outcry if the Co op is too heavy handed. Some of these farmers would act the same way in any business

kowtow

kevthegaff wrote:

In theory sounds plausible but in reality reckless lending may happen

Some does.

But it was at least lending in the branch was scattergun reckless. It had the inherent stability of the random mind.

Lending by a central computer however.... that will lend and lend as long as every cow is a high ebi jersey x who eats no meal and every house built is an apartment...

We know what happens then.

mf240

kevthegaff wrote: »

We give out about the Co ops, but the do have to deal with big debts built up and the outcry if the Co op is too heavy handed. Some of these farmers would act the same way in any business

Local lad has done all the independent merchants and is now only able to deal with Co op. In all fairness a lad like that would have to be kept on a tight leash,


Priced fertiliser in Glanbia and they seem to be very competitive on price and haven't built the 7 euro rebate into it in fairness.

mf240

kowtow wrote: »

Some does.

But it was at least lending in the branch was scattergun reckless. It had the inherent stability of the random mind.

Lending by a central computer however.... that will lend and lend as long as every cow is a high ebi jersey x who eats no meal and every house built is an apartment...

We know what happens then.

You confused. You not expected to build apartments for the jerseys.