The Kingston story: Bidders fail to pay up for auctioned cows

Water John

Otto, its called the hind tit and that is what the farmer is holding.

OttoPilot

Water John wrote: »

Otto, its called the hind tit and that is what the farmer is holding.

You're right, farmers have very little pull in this country.

longgonesilver

Dnisbarrett.com has an auction listed for 25/4/2016 Cradenhill Part2

http://denisbarrett.com/?page_id=180

I am very surprised at him for going near this auction at all.
When I first saw that he was involved I thought the Kingstons were cooperating in order to extract the true value of the herd.

BoatMad

20silkcut wrote: »

There were senior bond holders who were protected. I know that a fella called Timothy Geithner in the U.S. Somehow had the authority to step in and stop the Irish government from Burning bond holders.
The rights and wrongs of it are another matter and there is sweet damn all we can do about it.

But who ever these senior bond holders are be they governments or pension funds or Russian oligarchs they are above this moral hazard.
I'm just arguing to keep this in mind when banks get on their high horse about moral hazard. Pay back what you owe but don't listen to their bull ****! Or feel too guilty.

While this isn't a direct banking thread

The people with the " authority " that stepped in were the ECB. Some of the most exposed bond holders were other euro area backs. ( all this only applies to Anglo. There was never going to be a default of the pillar banks )

BoatMad

screamer wrote: »

BoatMad, it is that simple TBH, and if people actually stopped to realise this very simple structure of you borrow you don't own till you pay last payment, (yes sure you might have the use of that new car or whatever, it may be in your name, but if you don't pay for it, they'll take it back) or worse, you borrow with personal guarantee or by putting up asset against loan then you effectively give the banks your asset. (Yes, they have to go to court to get their hands on it, but usually, that is not a problem).
The only exception is an unsecured loan, which these days is virtually impossible to secure. Banks will go to any lengths to recoup their money, even getting mortgage judgements etc...... so I think if people can do without bank loans, they're better off.

And yes, they banks set out to get their money back, it's their business, but they will and they do destroy families and family businesses in the process, it may be a by-product of their debt collection but it is what many borrowers experience.

As for sweet talking you, well maybe you've not experienced it, but it happens, even these days. I guess it depends on what potential return they see in engaging in such behaviour.

Of course , if you can survive without borrowing great. But the reality is that most business need expansion capital and that almost always borrowed except for public companies.

I find the term " destroy " incorrectly applied. It's the borrower not the bank that is the person that's" destroys " their business. The bank doesn't run your business

aCC didn't destroy the kingstons for example


By the way , these days banks merely seem PGs ( or floating charges. ) rather then specific asset collateral

coolshannagh28

BoatMad wrote: »

While this isn't a direct banking thread

The people with the " authority " that stepped in were the ECB. Some of the most exposed bond holders were other euro area backs. ( all this only applies to Anglo. There was never going to be a default of the pillar banks )

Geithner was the ultimate authority representing the interest of the Fed who were burned by Lehmans and wanted to curtail any possible contagion and also US investment funds, Hedge funds and bond holders hence his reward .
The ECB were prevaricating at this stage although Trichet was a hawk on any default

kowtow

BoatMad wrote:

banks are unemotional, they dont " destroy " anything, They merely seek to protect their business where you the borrower does not live up to you contractual commitments

Nonsense, banks suffer from greed and fear just like the rest of us.

Where farmers are concerned the banks greed manifests itself in lending which purports to support a dairy business plan where the bank pretends to be a 'knowledgeable partner' whereas in reality it's a cynical stab to lend cheap money on the largest stock of family equity in the country - inherited land.

"Backing brave" and bank managers in wellies are the outward signs of this easy money strategy.

We have some of the poorest and most overpaid retail bankers in this country that it's ever been my misfortune to meet, but at least the adverts are ok.

kowtow

OttoPilot wrote:

And bonds at the end of the day are nowhere near as speculative as land because the holders were not exposed to higher returns, unlike farmers and developers who gambled to make larger profits.

I regard land as speculative but I promise you bonds beat them hands down!

patsy_mccabe

I often wonder if we never joined the Euro. How would things be now? No housing bubble, no bail-out, just plodding along as usual. I reckon, we'd be far better off now.

RightTurnClyde

kowtow wrote: »

......, but at least the adverts are ok.

Ya love the new PTSb one ,very good
( but they're still a shower of pr1cks...:speaking from experience)
Good ad though. "Move On"

Water John

Patsy, we would have had priority access to the EU, like Norway.

On our past behaviour though, I doubt if we would have done too well.

54and56

20silkcut wrote: »

What you say is 100% correct logical and correct.
Except that when the Irish government bailed out the banks with our money we all shared in the debt of the Irish banks.

The government set a precedent there basically f*uck moral hazard. They demonstrated on a massive scale and in a very public fashion that debt does not have to be paid off.

When the government are doing it everyone else is going to try it.

Mega simplistic POV. The banks were only bailed out because they were systemically important and the alternative to bailing them out was worse. (with the possible exception of Anglo which wasn't systemically important)

Believe me, I'm not an apologist for banks and bankers. Governments over many decades allowed the banks to become "too big to fail" and bankers were perversely rewarded for making reckless loans where they had no personal downside i.e. they got big commissions for making the loan but no clawback or penalty of any sort if the loans went bad. Our regulator was weak and asleep and the government responsible for ensuring the regulator was strong and effective turned a blind eye. It was a massive cluster fcuk on an unprecedented scale but you can't take the precedent set by bailing out systemically critical financial institutions and simplistically apply it to every person in the country. If all individuals and companies who had borrowed money were suddenly given a free pass on repaying their liabilities there would be total chaos and anarchy. No one would ever lend money to anyone ever again and it would be a massive kick in the teeth for people who lived within their means and put aside savings.

Allowing individuals and companies to write off all their debt sounds like a nice idea but those advocating it haven't thought through the long term consequences.

we

OttoPilot

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I often wonder if we never joined the Euro. How would things be now? No housing bubble, no bail-out, just plodding along as usual. I reckon, we'd be far better off now.

While I agree there would have been less of, if not no bubble, had we not joined the EU and probably no bailout, the general impression I got was the farming community did well out of joining, due to CAP and access to EU market. What's the opinion of farmers on here?

patsy_mccabe

I meant the EURO currency. We'd still be part of the EU. It was the record low interest rates at a time when house prices were increasing at record levels that really messed us up.

Bass Reeves

I have a conundrum. I have two loans out against farm land. It is not in my family for generations as I bought it. I am over the worst of it the hardest years were 2009-2012. However I see from this that some favor loan forgiveness. Now I can afford to pay them back. Seeing as how the land is not in my family for generations and nobody gave it to me for nothing will I get the same sympathy if I default and look for loan forgiveness.

The truth is I burst my b@ll@x for a good few years and it was my blood sweat and tear's that are gone into the place not my parents( even thought they were very hard working) or my grandparents or there parents either. However there seem to be a perception that if you got handed something for nothing and make a b@ll@x of it you deserve a break.

If the banks were giving out free passes all the time we could all own land.

OttoPilot

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I meant the EURO currency. We'd still be part of the EU. It was the record low interest rates at a time when house prices were increasing at record levels that really messed us up.

We were never not going to adopt the euro imo if we joined the EU. Euro-skepticism is a very... British thing :pac: And things were going so well from being in closer to Europe that the only Irish people who would oppose the euro would be people who opposed joining the EU.

In short, I don't think we were ever going to have a UK/Denmark situation, it was whole hog or no hog.

jd

patsy_mccabe wrote:

I meant the EURO currency. We'd still be part of the EU. It was the record low interest rates at a time when house prices were increasing at record levels that really messed us up.

Tighter fiscal policy and taking the Bacon Report on board might have helped here.

20silkcut

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Mega simplistic POV. The banks were only bailed out because they were systemically important and the alternative to bailing them out was worse. (with the possible exception of Anglo which wasn't systemically important)

Believe me, I'm not an apologist for banks and bankers. Governments over many decades allowed the banks to become "too big to fail" and bankers were perversely rewarded for making reckless loans where they had no personal downside i.e. they got big commissions for making the loan but no clawback or penalty of any sort if the loans went bad. Our regulator was weak and asleep and the government responsible for ensuring the regulator was strong and effective turned a blind eye. It was a massive cluster fcuk on an unprecedented scale but you can't take the precedent set by bailing out systemically critical financial institutions and simplistically apply it to every person in the country. If all individuals and companies who had borrowed money were suddenly given a free pass on repaying their liabilities there would be total chaos and anarchy. No one would ever lend money to anyone ever again and it would be a massive kick in the teeth for people who lived within their means and put aside savings.

Allowing individuals and companies to write off all their debt sounds like a nice idea but those advocating it haven't thought through the long term consequences.

we

I did say that I agree with your sentiment 100% and of course I understand that borrowed money has to be paid back.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of those preaching moral hazard driving a coach and four through moral hazard themselves. You have to admit it is a bit rich.
I don't want to start a debate on the rights and wrongs of the bank guarantee but there are many who would argue that better options were available.
There were important individuals and institutions protected at our expense who were expendable have no doubt about that.
Personally myself I am against large borrowings on a farm.
I would never put land up as security because I'm not prepared to lose it.
Any farmer going to a bank looking for 2.5million should be told where to go.
The farmer and the bank and the country in general would be a hell of a lot better off.

whelan2

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/500-cradenhill-animals-advertised-for-resale-206580

kevthegaff

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I often wonder if we never joined the Euro. How would things be now? No housing bubble, no bail-out, just plodding along as usual. I reckon, we'd be far better off now.

We would still have a large fishing industry, our fishing industry was capitulated in favour of agriculture

Sam Kade

whelan2 wrote: »

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/500-cradenhill-animals-advertised-for-resale-206580

Looks like the pension fund was another delay tactic.

Sam Kade

kevthegaff wrote: »

We would still have a large fishing industry, our fishing industry was capitulated in favour of agriculture

We would be still going to the creamery with donkey's and carts :eek:

blue5000

20silkcut wrote: »

There were senior bond holders who were protected. I know that a fella called Timothy Geithner in the U.S. Somehow had the authority to step in and stop the Irish government from Burning bond holders.
The rights and wrongs of it are another matter and there is sweet damn all we can do about it.

But who ever these senior bond holders are be they governments or pension funds or Russian oligarchs they are above this moral hazard.
I'm just arguing to keep this in mind when banks get on their high horse about moral hazard. Pay back what you owe but don't listen to their bull ****! Or feel too guilty.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Mega simplistic POV. The banks were only bailed out because they were systemically important and the alternative to bailing them out was worse. (with the possible exception of Anglo which wasn't systemically important)

Believe me, I'm not an apologist for banks and bankers. Governments over many decades allowed the banks to become "too big to fail" and bankers were perversely rewarded for making reckless loans where they had no personal downside i.e. they got big commissions for making the loan but no clawback or penalty of any sort if the loans went bad. Our regulator was weak and asleep and the government responsible for ensuring the regulator was strong and effective turned a blind eye. It was a massive cluster fcuk on an unprecedented scale but you can't take the precedent set by bailing out systemically critical financial institutions and simplistically apply it to every person in the country. If all individuals and companies who had borrowed money were suddenly given a free pass on repaying their liabilities there would be total chaos and anarchy. No one would ever lend money to anyone ever again and it would be a massive kick in the teeth for people who lived within their means and put aside savings.

Allowing individuals and companies to write off all their debt sounds like a nice idea but those advocating it haven't thought through the long term consequences.

we

But it is that simple. The dogs in the street know that the reason the bond holders weren't burnt is because of who those bond holders were. If the banks had been allowed to fail politicians' and bankers' heads would have been stuck on railings somewhere public.

Farmer Ed

Sam Kade wrote: »

We would be still going to the creamery with donkey's and carts :eek:

I haven't heard of any aid organisation fundraising for Norway or Switzerland. There is arguments for and against. It's not always as black and white as it is sometimes made out to be.

blue5000

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I haven't heard of any aid organisation fundraising for Norway or Switzerland. There is arguments for and against. It's not always as black and white as it is sometimes made out to be.

Or Iceland either, they recently told their PM to shove it, and bankers not so long ago either.

BoatMad

blue5000 wrote: »

But it is that simple. The dogs in the street know that the reason the bond holders weren't burnt is because of who those bond holders were. If the banks had been allowed to fail politicians' and bankers' heads would have been stuck on railings somewhere public.

lets just put this convenient mis-thruth aside , AIB , BoI and less so PTSB always had to be recapitalised and hence allowed to continue to function as banks, because the first two are of systemic importance to the state

Anglo , in my view, was not and could have been allowed to fail. However it is clear now , that the ECB would not countenance a Lehmans, in the Euro zone and in effect forced the Gov to prop up Anglo ( and gave us in effect free money to do so )

While its convenient to direct " anger" to "them", i.e. the banks, and we irish are past masters of blaming everyone but ourselves, its entirely mis-directed in this case.

Blaming the banks for farmers distress or loosing their business, is like blaming a drowning in a swimming pool on the water supply service.

A business is a business, its leaders take decisions and some of those decisions involve in-debting the business for what might seem good business reasons.

If they dont pull that off, the consequences are their own, nobody else .

for businesses to succeed their also has to be failures , thats a fact of life

lets commiserate and hope they can do something else in life, because clearly they need to examine if they are good businessmen in the sector their were in. Dust themselves down and start somewhere else again. Thats life

BoatMad

blue5000 wrote: »

Or Iceland either, they recently told their PM to shove it, and bankers not so long ago either.

yes and suffered greatly for it

RightTurnClyde

whelan2 wrote: »

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/500-cradenhill-animals-advertised-for-resale-206580

They're going to draw big crowds with those T&C's. :)

hometruths

Bass Reeves wrote: »

However there seem to be a perception that if you got handed something for nothing and make a b@ll@x of it you deserve a break.

Very good point and one I'd not considered, and it's interesting question as to the farmer/non farmer mindset differences.

If I got left a free house by my father which I put up as security that went bad, I doubt there'd be much sympathy, even though my father might have worked his ass off to pay for that house.

There might be a little more sympathy if I lost a house through a bad loan, if I'd worked my own ass off to buy it a few years ago.

If I worked my ass off and bought a few fields to expand a family farm but then lost that to a bad loan, people might be sympathetic and say "sure at least you still got that the home place"

But if I lost the home farm to bad loan, which my father left to me, that he never even paid for either, as his father left it to him, the reaction would be huge sympathy, volunteers mobilised, and a maybe a whip round to ease my suffering!!

I get the personal attachment to the value of land, but anyone else having sympathy for the above doesn't really make a lot of sense if you think about!

Buford T. Justice XIX

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

They're going to draw big crowds with those T&C's. :)

How can bidders bring 'proof of ID and animal passport'?

Are you supposed to bring a passport from one of your own animals to get admittance?