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.
frazzledhome wrote: » There'll be some gallery here when the finance package is announced. I'm looking forward to it.
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.
whelan2 wrote: » Sure if they were paying top milk price we wouldnt need a finance package
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.
frazzledhome wrote: » NZ dairy industry buried in debthttp://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11596222
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
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
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.
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.
frazzledhome wrote: » Who's offering finance at sub 5%?
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.
alps wrote: » You shouldn't need finance to pay a bill like feed or contractor.
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?
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.
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?
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?
