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

handlemaster

melissak wrote: »

farmerjj wrote: »

Why would he have been a so called grabber?

Anyone who deals with these auctions is a grabber or an aider of grabbers

the less who bid the more the debtor pays in the end

PeadarCo

melissak wrote:

Obviously land prices didn't stay the way he expected. A family farm or family home is not just a business. No luck will come to those who profiteer from misfortune.

Anyone who takes out a multi million euro loan is running a business. If they hadn't put the farm up as security they probably wouldn't have got the loan in the first place.

All they're doing is harming other farmers. If banks can't repossess the security put up for loans it means smaller loans and higher interest rates for everyone else in the long-term. In the short term all the costs here will be passed on to everyone else in the form of increased interest rates and bank charges.

The people I feel sorry for are the farmers who borrowed and spent within their means and lost out when bidding for land and animals against people who borrowed recklessly. They won't get a loan write off.

handlemaster

Base price wrote: »

whisky_galore wrote: »

They had a name for them: Grabbers.

Might be 50 years after the sale, but the family would still be called 'the Grabbers'. :pac:

OH has a friend with a cattle lorry and he was asked if he would be available to transport cattle from Cork up the country. The friend asked were the cattle from the Kingston sale and he was told that they would be. The friend told the guy to get someone else as he wouldn't put the key in the ignition of the lorry for that sort of work.

A hero

Kovu

PeadarCo wrote: »

Anyone who takes out a multi million euro loan is running a business. If they hadn't put the farm up as security they probably wouldn't have got the loan in the first place.

All they're doing is harming other farmers. If banks can't repossess the security put up for loans it means smaller loans and higher interest rates for everyone else in the long-term. In the short term all the costs here will be passed on to everyone else in the form of increased interest rates and bank charges.

The people I feel sorry for are the farmers who borrowed and spent within their means and lost out when bidding for land and animals against people who borrowed recklessly. They won't get a loan write off.

And now if they try to buy that same land which has been taken back by the banks, they'll be called grabbers!

Base price

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I am not sure. It is important from the point of view that there may be 20-50 of these type of cases over the next 5 years. Will the farmers involved be better going head to head with the banks as may have happened here or will negotiation be a better answer. This is the reality of borrowing money and what happens when a bank forecloses. What options have you and what can the bank do.

If you take a cold hard look at it are lenders better off trying to cut a deal and saying to banks look we will sell the cattle, grain or machinery or what ever and try to gain the maximun value for the stock rather than a sheriff or receiver and maybe work there way through it like that. Maybe banks will do a deal in such a situation maybe not.

Or we can bury our head in the sand and hope when we take it out it has all gone away.

Prefix my comments with the fact that I have no knowledge of the unfortunate case of the Kingston family other than what I have heard/read in Irish media publications.
Negotiation is always the better option IMO
Advise your bank that your financial circumstances have changed (due to whatever circumstances) and that your predetermined repayment scheduled may need to be recalibrated.
In my experience (so far) if you are upfront with your bank they are more than willing to accommodate and work with you. In fairness Revenue will also work with you as long as you can show them a regular payment schedule and meet those payments.

melissak

Kovu wrote: »

And now if they try to buy that same land which has been taken back by the banks, they'll be called grabbers!

Not if they had a previous claim on the land. Then they would be reclaiming their land and I would wish them well.

Base price

fepper wrote: »

Cattle dealers come into my yard looking for cheap good cattle,I was a soft touch for yrs but hardened up a lot and torment now with my outrageous prices now,they are vultures in all business that's life,these people are ruthless and don't care if they Are known as grabbers it's water off a ducks back to them,if they can get it cheap they win!!

By your own admission you stated that you were a soft touch.
IMO cattle feeders/dealers stay clear of repossessed/liquidated stock

melissak

How did he have so many cows? Was he renting land?

Kovu

melissak wrote: »

Not if they had a previous claim on the land. Then they would be reclaiming their land and I would wish them well.

But how would you or I know who had been bidding for the land along with the first buyer? I could have an interest in land 50kms away and kept an eye on proceedings after I noticed it being taken back, then gone and spoken to the bank or had the auctioneer I'd been dealing with previously speak on my behalf.

rangler1

Base price wrote: »

Prefix my comments with the fact that I have no knowledge of the unfortunate case of the Kingston family other than what I have heard/read in Irish media publications.
Negotiation is always the better option IMO
Advise your bank that your financial circumstances have changed (due to whatever circumstances) and that your predetermined repayment scheduled may need to be recalibrated.
In my experience (so far) if you are upfront with your bank they are more than willing to accommodate and work with you. In fairness Revenue will also work with you as long as you can show them a regular payment schedule and meet those payments.

Agreed, i've seen great deals being done but have also seen farmers kick on good deals and once they're off the table they were never offered again, so you never know the real story.
Debts were multiplying so quick in the eighties at 20% interest, bank had to try to negotiate

Bass Reeves

Water John wrote: »

I think it was Bass, who said it might be far fetched for a bank to set up the move of land to a 'friend'.
Well, I know where in the 70's and 80's, farms in trouble were quietly transferred by Irish Banks to good clients. No auction, no tender.
I also know of a business that was moved on to, lets say a more compliant customer.
One of the Irish banks has a particular reputation in this regard.

I hold no love for people who really overstretch and expect us all to bail them out. But I would not give banks, including Irish much leeway as they would make hay.

I wouldn't be putting any Irish bank shares in my pension fund.

That is called ethical investing. and there is a lot to be said for it. A lot of people got burnt on bank share from 2007-2012. However there are some happy campers out there that have bought them since.

handlemaster wrote: »

I know of a farm over 100 acres got for very little in the 80's this way. I Heard a figure of 25k punts. It wasnt offered to anyone only the guy who had big money at the time even though locals would have had the cash to buy at that crazy low price

Also I am not sure if referring back to what happened in the 70's and 80's is a true reflection of business practices now. I heard a story as well from up around the Laois area of a farmer that sold land in the mid noughties, got 100K/acre for 70 acres. When the downturn happened the bank offered it back to him for 1.5 million or so the story goes. He refused there offer and bought it at auction for 600K.

Was he a grabber or an astute business man.

When I was young, a old farmer that lived by himself a few miles away died. His farm was landlocked and he only had a right of way into it. He had only one daughter who was married and lived in another county.

Now the story goes that the night of the Funeral a neighbouring farmer approach them and bad mouthed the farmer who's land the ROW was over. The rumour went out that he bought the farm for 8-10K. It was found out after that it was more like half that. These were well respected people locally as they were large farmers.

Base price

Kovu wrote: »

But how would you or I know who had been bidding for the land along with the first buyer? I could have an interest in land 50kms away and kept an eye on proceedings after I noticed it being taken back, then gone and spoken to the bank or had the auctioneer I'd been dealing with previously speak on my behalf.

In my time I have seen many a black cross painted on an auctioneers signpost.
If I was truly interested in buying land 50kms away then I would research the circumstances that led to the sale.
I understand that times are a changing and now day's some people will profiteer on another's misfortune. I would never attempt to buy repossessed land. Be it for good or bad, I'm not one of those unprincipled individuals.

Kovu

Base price wrote: »

In my time I have seen many a black cross painted on an auctioneers signpost.
If I was truly interested in buying land 50kms away then I would research the circumstances that led to the sale.
I understand that times are a changing and now day's some people will profiteer on another's misfortune. I would never attempt to buy repossessed land. Be it for good or bad, I'm not one of those unprincipled individuals.

Sometimes it can be the only way somebody can get into farming. Lets say repossessed land came up for auction next to a determined young person who was renting land nearby and paying through the nose for it.
Should he not be allowed to have his chance to own some ground? Or should he be judged for a purchase he could otherwise not have made or afforded if the land in question wasn't repossessed.

handlemaster

How much approx would this farm have been getting in milk sold ?

What were the disclosed payments made over the last year or two ?

Farmer Ed

Kovu wrote: »

Sometimes it can be the only way somebody can get into farming. Lets say repossessed land came up for auction next to a determined young person who was renting land nearby and paying through the nose for it.
Should he not be allowed to have his chance to own some ground? Or should he be judged for a purchase he could otherwise not have made or afforded if the land in question wasn't repossessed.

Realistically the returns that are being made from farming at the moment would not make it feasible for a young person to borrow money and buy a farm no matter how cheap, unless the young person had some other source of income other than Farming.

fepper

Base price wrote: »

By your own admission you stated that you were a soft touch.
IMO cattle feeders/dealers stay clear of repossessed/liquidated stock

If I didn't harden up to these dealers/vultures I'd end up in liquidation meself.

Bass Reeves

handlemaster wrote: »

How much approx would this farm have been getting in milk sold ?

What were the disclosed payments made over the last year or two ?

You would have expected that cows of this quality to be averaging over 8K litres at an milk price of 30c/L they would have averaged 1.5 million in milk sales if the hered had 600 milking cows. However it seems that they were averaging below this at about 7k litres/cow with low milk solids as well.

This seems strange but I saw this reported some where on a thread here. Not sure if it is true or not.

Bass Reeves

fepper wrote: »

If I didn't harden up to these dealers/vultures I'd end up in liquidation meself.

It is by your mistakes you learn and if you do not learn from them well it too bad as the saying goes

bought sense is better than taught sense

Base price

Kovu wrote: »

Sometimes it can be the only way somebody can get into farming. Lets say repossessed land came up for auction next to a determined young person who was renting land nearby and paying through the nose for it.
Should he not be allowed to have his chance to own some ground? Or should he be judged for a purchase he could otherwise not have made or afforded if the land in question wasn't repossessed.

In my book he is considered a grabber and always will be - ill will and all that befalls him. I would never encourage (or back) my sons to buy repossessed land/property and in fairness to them they would not contemplate buying same.

Panch18

It seems to me that people are up in arms about others benefitting from others misfortunes

however it seems these people have a problem differentiating between misfortune and poor business decisions - and there are big differences

melissak

Kovu wrote: »

But how would you or I know who had been bidding for the land along with the first buyer? I could have an interest in land 50kms away and kept an eye on proceedings after I noticed it being taken back, then gone and spoken to the bank or had the auctioneer I'd been dealing with previously speak on my behalf.

I would know if it was around my area if the land was taken from an old time farmer and not a speculator. Of it had been bought in the last 10ish years it would be fair game. If it had been farmed by them for generations, it would not.

melissak

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is by your mistakes you learn and if you do not learn from them well it too bad as the saying goes

bought sense is better than taught sense

Truer.words were never spoken

melissak

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You would have expected that cows of this quality to be averaging over 8K litres at an milk price of 30c/L they would have averaged 1.5 million in milk sales if the hered had 600 milking cows. However it seems that they were averaging below this at about 7k litres/cow with low milk solids as well.

This seems strange but I saw this reported some where on a thread here. Not sure if it is true or not.

If they were earning 1.5 Mil a year in milk they were not overextended with a loan for 2 Mil. Now that the cows are gone it won't be repayable. The cows were not collateral. If this is true the sherrif is no better than the mean old sherrif of Nottingham. I thought there were 1000 cows?

Panch18

melissak wrote: »

If they were earning 1.5 Mil a year in milk they were not overextended with a loan for 2 Mil. Now that the cows are gone it won't be repayable. The cows were not collateral. If this is true the sherrif is no better than the mean old sherrif of Nottingham. I thought there were 1000 cows?

If the costs of producing the milk were 1.6m a year then damn right you would be overextended - you can't look at sales to judge repayment capacity

Bass Reeves

melissak wrote: »

If they were earning 1.5 Mil a year in milk they were not overextended with a loan for 2 Mil. Now that the cows are gone it won't be repayable. The cows were not collateral. If this is true the sherrif is no better than the mean old sherrif of Nottingham. I thought there were 1000 cows?

I am not sure how many cows there were however from a dairy herd of nearly 1K animals you would expect that at least 600 were cows. They were over extended as since 2008 it seems they have made only interest payment and no capital repayments. Over 20 years such a loan would be costing 160K/year. Now you would have imagined that a well run operation could have sustained such a repayment.

A 600 cow high preforming herd milking 9K litres at 30c/L would have an annual turnover of 1.78 million. 100 pedigree sales bulls and heifers another 200K in sales averaging 2K/animals. 150 cull cows at 500/cow and 200 calves at 100 euro/calf nearly another 100K.

That the kind of preformance you would have expected. However they had a TB outbrealk in 2010 I think

ceegee

Base price wrote: »

In my book he is considered a grabber and always will be - ill will and all that befalls him. I would never encourage (or back) my sons to buy repossessed land/property and in fairness to them they would not contemplate buying same.

What do you suggest should happen when someone decides to put land up as collateral and then decide not to pay back that loan?

For example, someone decides to become a property developer. Puts the farm up against a loan. Property plan goes to the wall. Contractors etc dont get paid. Bank doesnt get paid.
Should he get to keep the land he put up as collateral?

In your ideal world where nobody loses their collateral when they dont pay debts, nobody could get a loan as there would be no reason to bother paying it back.

Farming is a business. If your not going to pay back your debts you'll lose it.

This "grabbber" nonsense just shows up the fact that people are too emotionally invested in what should be a simple business deal. If you leverage assets you might lose them. Dont blame the person who buys them next, they arent the ones who put the land at risk, the farmer was

whelan2

melissak wrote: »

If they were earning 1.5 Mil a year in milk they were not overextended with a loan for 2 Mil. Now that the cows are gone it won't be repayable. The cows were not collateral. If this is true the sherrif is no better than the mean old sherrif of Nottingham. I thought there were 1000 cows?

1000 stock , 600 milking cows in that

melissak

Panch18 wrote: »

If the costs of producing the milk were 1.6m a year then damn right you would be overextended - you can't look at sales to judge repayment capacity

If the costs were higher than the milk sales how did he get the loan on the first place. The loan was 10 years at least. 10 per cent of your sales is not overextended, unless costs had gone up hugely. I might be wrong I have a pathological fear of debt so not sure what the usual recommended margin for a business/farm loan. Without his stock he has no chance of repaying. Are dairy farms insured for tb?

liam7831

I wonder will the farm sell its for sale a circa 2.5 mil. You would want to be a brave man going in there with the family home inside in it........

Mrs cockett

liam7831 wrote: »

I wonder will the farm sell its for sale a circa 2.5 mil. You would want to be a brave man going in there with the family home inside in it........

Who has that sort of money?
Would any bank give a loan for that much money to buy land in the current climate?
I truly hope no one buys it