One bank starting to force farm sales

Forecasts for improving prices for dairy keep being extended.

In spite of that the message from banks, accountants and other advisers has been keep calm, keep a tight rein on your costs and carry on.

This interview with Kerry Adams a chartered accountant says, at least in Southland, something has changed.

He says one of the banks is forcing people off their farms.

The bad news starts at 1:29.

“The reality for most farmers is they get out of bed, they’re losing money . . .

Down south we’ve got a bank that’s actually taking a lot of action against farmers and telling them they’ve got to sell out at the end of the season because they’re pulling the funding. . . We know at least 35 farms that have been told . . .

I don’t think it’s a smart move on their part, it just makes it worse than what it is. . . “

He is clear it is just one bank and just in Southland.

But forcing people off farms when the milk price is so low is bad for the farmers and sharemilkers and their staff, bad for the bank and ultimately bad for the whole industry.

Fire sales like the video describes result in lower stock and land prices which costs the bank and reduces everyone else’s equity.

However, we don’t know the bank’s side of the story and even when the milk price was high there were mortgagee sales.

The message from our bank is that they have budgeted to carry people through a couple of bad seasons and when prices improve, as they eventually will, they will start addressing structural problems.

136 Responses to One bank starting to force farm sales

  1. Brown says:

    The worrying thing is that I see no reason for prices to improve and you can only screw costs down so far. This is just the start I suspect.

    3:16

  2. Dave Kennedy says:

    The video Andrei has linked to is one reason why we are unlikely to be competitive in producing milk powder and why we need to urgently add value to our milk by having a points of difference (organics, pasture based, quality added value products).

  3. Paranormal says:

    At least those naughty foreigners are still able to buy farms which will gain a better return for those forced to sell.

    Here’s an interesting graph. It shows the slow down in dairy demand has more to do with the overall state of China’s economy than local production meeting their growing demand for dairy. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-29/china-spurns-new-zealand-milk-and-12-000-farmers-see-red#media-1

    DK what you fail to recognise/understand is the less government involvement means the more responsive an industry can be. What do you think the dairy industry might do next without government directing them to do specific things? Note that’s not what you want them to do, what they will do as knowledgable producers and manufacturers.

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    “At least those naughty foreigners are still able to buy farms which will gain a better return for those forced to sell.”

    At what long term cost? It only shifts profits off shore and raises the prices above what ordinary farmers can afford if they want to buy again at a later date.

    It seems that we have two different ideas of the role of Government in supporting the private sector, you want a hands off scenario while I want the Government to supply the infrastructure that supports industry: an educated and work capable population, well maintained and efficient transport networks, a good health system, banks that provide a service rather than just encouraging debt, cheap and sustainable energy, well supported R&D…

    To do this well you need income and when we sell out to off shore owners much of the wealth generated by our resources, environment and workers heads that way too.

    What you support is like putting up a big fire sale sign on our border. When did selling up provide a long term solution.

    “Companies are major wealth creators and the substantial overseas ownership of our larger corporates results in a significant transfer of wealth out of the country.”

    “New Zealand companies have offshore assets but these are far smaller and less profitable than the overseas-owned companies here.”

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10854140

  5. Andrei says:

    The video Andrei has linked to is one reason why we are unlikely to be competitive in producing milk powder and why we need to urgently add value to our milk by having a points of difference (organics, pasture based, quality added value products).

    Dave Kennedy;

    The current population of China is 1,379,925,101 as of Friday, February 12, 2016, based on the latest United Nations estimates.

    A dairy farm with 10,000 cows or even one with 100,000 as is being developed on the Russian border as a joint venture with them will only provide the tiniest fraction of the dairy products this number of people could potentially consume

    Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from my video is the need to intensify our dairying efforts?

    The market for “boutique” dairy products produced by mom and pop operations is small Mr Kennedy and the marketing of them expensive……

  6. Will says:

    “It only shifts profits offshore…”

    There aren’t any Dave. That’s the problem.

  7. Dave Kennedy says:

    What the video showed was the growing capacity around the world to produce milk through industrial practices. That is why milk prices have dropped.
    “There is a lack of demand globally, particularly from China and Russia, and a huge surplus of supply from New Zealand, Australia, the European Union and the United States.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/70273189/GlobalDairyTrade-auction-prices-suffer-massive-fall

    The market for “boutique” dairy products produced by mom and pop operations is small Mr Kennedy and the marketing of them expensive……

    Smaller co-operatives is the way to go and successful boutique businesses can grow into larger concerns, our wine industry has done very very well through this model and our craft beer has growing markets.
    “New Zealand breweries were selling beer in 40 countries and indicated exports were just getting started.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/71110635/something-big-is-brewing-in-new-zealands-craft-beer-industry

    There are so many examples that prove you wrong:
    http://www.ruraldelivery.net.nz/2014/08/building-an-organic-family-dairy-business-at-retro-organics/

  8. TraceyS says:

    I wonder whether this bank is not just treating the farms as it would any other business in similar circumstances? That would be fair wouldn’t it? I’m pretty sure that were there a restaurant owner debt funding his operation with no end to that in sight then the bank would likewise be pretty quick to react.

    Farms are businesses like any other. Farms mostly sell commodity products. Commodity prices fluctuate. Most farmers would realise this. But if they don’t, and don’t plan for fluctuations, then I don’t think that it is unreasonable to question whether they should stay in the business or not.

    The downside of banks doing this is that it makes people nervous about borrowing money. The most conservative types will be first to respond and will shelve their development until times improve. But they are the ones who should be going ahead.

  9. TraceyS says:

    Dave at 11.11pm – Will meant FARM profits. There are no farm profits in the cases in point.

  10. TraceyS says:

    It’s good that you raise bank profits at this point though, Dave.

    As a conservative borrower I actually want my bank to have made some pretty good profits over the last few years. How else will they absorb the losses ahead when farms sell for less than the debts owed on them?

    The interview touches on this matter but doesn’t get into it. Unfortunately.

    If the bank can’t deal with it that way then those who are solid might find themselves paying higher interest rate premiums or fees just because the bank knows they can. When solid businesses are getting a raw deal then we really have problems.

  11. TraceyS says:

    There are profits for sheep and beef farmers? Who knew!!!

    “Why would you bank with an Australian Bank?”

    If they offered the best deal then I would bank with them. The package they can offer us more important than the ownership.

  12. Will says:

    There is not much real profit in sheep farming Dave. The farms are so capital intensive. You can treat them as a money mine, but you end up with a wasteland. Most of us run lean in the difficult years and pour the money back in when things come right. One way or another, most of the surplus stays in the country, even if foreign owned.

  13. Name Withheld says:

    Smaller co-operatives is the way to go our wine industry has done very very well through this model

    The Todd family, who have an estimated worth of $3.16 billion, have sold vineyards associated with its company Winegrowers of Ara to Marlborough-based wine company Indevin..
    Ah…yes.
    Another boutique winery.
    You just don’t have a clue, do you?

  14. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I understand that 30 years many farmers farmed because they loved the lifestyle (some still do) but since subsidies were removed they have to be run like a business. Capital gain is the prime reason why people remain in farming, many farmer pay minimal tax but they are sitting on a growing investment. It is also why a capital gains tax is strongly opposed by farmers, such a tax will make their investment less profitable.

    Commodity prices will always fluctuate but land values have been increasing at over 10% a year for some time. This is also the reason why banks are keen to lend to farmers, they benefit from the interest on substantial loans and when the loan can’t be serviced they can gain even more through forced forclosures:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-29/warnings-of-rural-financial-crisis-as-farmers-take-on-anz/5992188

    Farms are capital intensive, but with a 10% growth in capital value each year the returns are still healthy as long as the borrowing can serviced by low interest rates. Banks have probably profited more from farming than many farmers and much of their profits are definitely funneled across the ditch.

    NW, It is you who hasn’t got a clue, many successful large operations started off as a boutique business. The TPPA is largely about protecting the big boys and stopping the small guys from growing.

    The NZ wine brand has become globally regarded as meaning quality and even small producers can benefit from that perception, they don’t have to have quantity to find profitable niche markets overseas. The energy and innovation that comes from small enterprises also creates healthy competition for the larger producers who have to maintain quality to remain competitive. That is why the Green Party believes that practical support for SMEs is crucial for the future success of our economy, continuing to do the same thing and relying on quantity over quality is not smart economics.

  15. Name Withheld says:

    So the success of the NZ wine industry relies on the evil, rich-lister owned corporates.
    Yep.
    Not….a….clue.

  16. Will says:

    For a start, farmers are not “sitting” on an investment, they are working it, usually trying to pay down debt, lest that “investment” becomes a liability. And debts are paid with taxable profit. If many farms pay little or no company tax, it’s because there is no surplus. I admit I’ve always seen paying too much company tax as a criminal waste, but I pay income tax like everyone else, about $25,000 a year in rates! for nothing!!! fees, fines, levies, consents, ACC, road tax, fuel excise tax, carbon tax, GST and more, too depressing to contemplate.
    True, there is no capital gains tax, but nobody pays one. Why is this seen as exclusive to farmers?

    You really think the returns are healthy? ROI in farming is a national joke, try it yourself for a few years.

  17. Dave Kennedy says:

    “So the success of the NZ wine industry relies on the evil, rich-lister owned corporates.”

    NW, no, it is dependent on a combination of SMEs and corporates. Remember the blandness of the domination of DB and Lion Breweries in the old days of the liquor industry. It took a small family brewer, Monteiths, to challenge the big guys and reintroduce innovation and the pursuit of quality over quantity.

    I am not anti corporate, I am just against the unfair domination of corporates when it stifles innovation and they can influence to Governments to remove competition.

    Will, I never said that they “sit” on an investment and that farming isn’t hard work. I also know that while a farm may not return large profits each year, capital gain still ensures a good lifestyle. If you have a growing capital asset it still allows you to own expensive vehicles, live in a nice house and even own other properties. Lots of current farmers own more than one farm too.

    Those who struggle most are those who recently entered the industry and have little equity.

  18. Name Withheld says:

    It took a small family brewer, Monteiths, to challenge the big guys and reintroduce innovation and the pursuit of quality over quantity.
    In your dreams maybe.

    I am not anti corporate
    Cue manic laughter.

    Rodney Hyde summed you up perfectly recently.

    I never supported James Shaw for the reason he is a member of the Green party, which almost goes without saying he is politically retarded and a lunatic to boot, Anyone who could share a small conference room with Catherine Delahunty and not flee gagging at the stupidity must themselves be stupid.

  19. Paranormal says:

    DK at 11.10, there you go again. Looking back fondly at fortress NZ without recognising just how much farming has improved without the dead hand of the state sending the wrong price signals through subsidies.

    Why would you think subsidies were anything but a negative for farming? And why would anyone take anything you say about economics seriously with you thinking subsidies are a good thing?

  20. Gravedodger says:

    Alas NW I can only give that one uptick.
    I have long abandoned trying to make sense of the Green Party candidate for Invercargill, he is like a greasy pig from back in the day when catching was not the problem it was hanging on to it.

    Drone;
    1 a male bee does no work only mates with the Queen.
    2 monotonous buzzing sound, indeterminate.
    3 a remote controlled flying vehicle, useful for surveillance.
    Any or all really.

  21. Will says:

    Actually Dave, you DID say ‘sitting’ on an investment, but I won’t quibble. Capital gain ensures a good retirement, not lifestyle. As it does for other businesses, and property investors. So it should. As always, you ignore risk, possibly because you have little of it in your own life. If a farmer fails, he and his family lose it all…job, business, home, retirement, the lot. It is generally accepted that returns should be commensurate with risk.

  22. Name Withheld says:

    It is generally accepted that returns should be commensurate with risk.
    What risk? 🙂
    A Kennedy view on farming.

  23. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, you are right, I did use “sitting” and I withdraw the inference that you nothing needs to be done in the interim, it wasn’t my intention.

    NW, Calling a successful businessman and democratically elected leader of New Zealand’s third largest party politically retarded is a huge joke when coming from a deposed leader of a scandal ridden party that is artificially supported to even exist 😉

    I don’t ignore risk, but you must admit in the boom era of dairying many did not calculate the possibility of a drop in commodity prices when leaping into the industry and banks were often happy to lend despite the risks.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5005469/Dairy-farmers-deep-in-debt

    As for the video, I have seen it before and thought it hilarious and if it was true everyone would be farmers 😉

    Paranormal, where the hell have I supported subsidies as a major solution. It is this Government that actually practices corporate welfare to an extent never seen before. Matthew Hooton and Cameron Slater have huge concerns about the extent of of this under this Government:
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/04/wed-have-a-surplus-if-key-and-joyce-didnt-keep-splurging-on-corporate-welfare/

  24. Name Withheld says:

    a successful businessman
    Cue manic laughter

  25. Brown says:

    It would appear the days of capital gain for many farmers is going to become a fond memory as well because without a return on capital the capital value of the asset” will decline to the point where there is a return. When being debt free doesn’t see the competent farmer make a decent living there is clearly no hope for those with a mortgage. All risk with no prospect of reward. How ironic that the govt waffled on endlessly about two things – the Chch rebuild and dairying like they were the saviours of NZ and would go on for years. What will be interesting is seeing who buys up the land at the distressed prices that must follow a lengthy decline in farming returns.

    A mate with a very wealthy banking friend in Singapore says his friend is saying “sell everything”. I suspect he’d hang onto land unless he thought he could sell and but it back later at half price. Maybe its already too late for that in NZ?

  26. Andrei says:

    A mate with a very wealthy banking friend in Singapore says his friend is saying “sell everything”.

    A mate with a wealthy friend in Singapore eh? Must be the real gen

    Wotchya going to do with the money realized when you have sold everything?

    You can’t eat money – its not even made out of paper these days, it is just electrons in computers manipulated by fraudsters – people like George Soros

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    “a successful businessman. Cue manic laughter”
    Oh dear, just like Mr E, I’ve pushed you over the edge 😉

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_(New_Zealand_politician)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Hide

    James has worked for the most prestigious accounting firm and business advisory in the world (PricewaterhouseCoopers) and one of the worlds largest banking and financial services organisations. He then ran his own successful business before being elected to Parliament. Comparing James’ CV with Rodney’s and I can see the reason for the manic laughter.

    “Since leaving parliament… “Hide writes a political column for the New Zealand Herald, and has also worked as a casual labourer.”

    One of my cousins was an Act MP and her treatment by Rodney was less than honourable. You may regard anything he says with some reverence, but that just reveals something about your personal judgment.

  28. TraceyS says:

    “When being debt free doesn’t see the competent farmer make a decent living there is clearly no hope for those with a mortgage.”

    I think you have to distinguish between being mortgaged and being mortgaged up to the eyeballs.

    Dave says:

    “…many did not calculate the possibility of a drop in commodity prices when leaping into the industry and banks were often happy to lend…”

    That’s the bank’s role. They don’t force anyone to borrow money. People are free to “leap” into ventures if they decide to and I wouldn’t want it any other way. But you can’t blame the government for that and you can’t blame the banks.

    This whole thread is really an argument for conservatism.

  29. TraceyS says:

    “Comparing James’ CV with Rodney’s…”

    You obviously have access to both CV’s then. Can you please post links to both so that we can make our own assessments rather than relying on yours?

    (Note: the Wikipedia links don’t qualify as CV’s)

  30. Dave Kennedy says:

    “…you can’t blame the banks.”

    But I do, you obviously don’t understand the underlying causes of the GFC 😉

    “the Wikipedia links don’t qualify as CV’s”

    Tracey, oh yes they do, they just haven’t been written by the individuals themselves. You are more than welcome to question the accuracy of the qualifications and experience described 😉

    A curriculum vitae (English pronunciation: /kəˈrɪkjᵿləm ˈviːtaɪ/, /ˈwiːtaɪ/, or /ˈvaɪtiː/;[1][2] CV)[3] is a written overview of a person’s experience and other qualifications.

  31. Paranormal says:

    “The underlying causes of the GFC” was government meddling in banking. It was government legislation that brought the sub-prime market into being. The rest was the banking system doing exactly what it is designed to, and does best, which is spread to spread risk.

    Keep up the whole “tell a lie three times stuff” DK….

  32. Name Withheld says:

    Shaw worked as both a consultant for HSBC bank on “environmental awareness” programmes for future leaders

    No wonder you go all tingly and dampen your knickers over him.
    Add “sustainability consultant” and your love affair is complete.
    It appears “the Akina Foundation” is at best a charity.

    So he was a sustainability consultant or token unicorn-riding “enviromancer”, brought in to answer a company’s PR department wet dream, to piss on fires and generally calm the horses after the shit has hit the fan.
    He did work for HSBC, Cadbury and Shell while with PWC.
    Heres what he had to say about Shell after boasting his employer had trousered “something like a billion dollars a year from Shell globally.” (His words)

    Shell’s obviously a very dirty company, they’re hard to audit and dodgy stuff goes on

    Demonstrating discretion, ethics and integrity like that, he will get on just fine with his new best friend forever, Winston.
    Businessman??….Not in a million years.
    Why I bet he can’t even boast an old sock competition on his CV.
    Old boot competition?
    Underpants?
    Woolly hat?…Whatever, I forget.

  33. Mr E says:

    Let’s sum,

    Hates of the Green Party:
    Banks
    Corporates
    Profits
    Trade Freedom
    Germans
    Chinese
    Canadians
    Foreigners
    Growth
    Laughter

    Life…..

    Vote for the Greens?????????

  34. Gravedodger says:

    If there was one massive contributor to the layman’s understanding of the GFC it was the socialist moves that had Fanny May and Freddy Mac allowing deadbeats to borrow to purchase property way beyond any conceivable ability to ever be in a viable loan contract.
    Those otherwise dodgy loans were then bundled and onsold as “instruments” and the rest is history.

    If the relatively small number of “farmers” facing a ‘black widow’ were to be declined as some morons suggest, how many potential Bill Gates will also be cast on a scrapheap somewhere because a dumbarse banker made an inevitable gross error through ignorance.
    Am I alone in wondering at the age and experience of modern “loan managers” fresh out of Lincoln University with an impressive aarray of bits of parchments and precious little understanding of real world risks.

    Of course a top busines brain such as Material girl’s latest cohort will have the answers. Leaves me mystified why another very successful successful operator in international business is only a Money Trader with no credenntials to be the best Prime Minister in some very challenging economic times in my three score and ten.

    Then possession of a diploma in teaching is all any expert needs to really understand such simple uncomplicated matters.
    Who was it said if you can , do, if you cant, teach.

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    Dear oh dear, since the level of debate has descended to talking about wet knickers and underpants, and because there is such blatant refusal to engage with solid evidence, i don’t see any point in continuing.

    Paranormal and Gravedodger are apologists for corrupt banks and financial institutions (who knew exactly what they were doing):
    http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

    NW has resorted to naughty talk and Mr E continues to just throw out random made up stuff.

    Good grief!

  36. Andrei says:

    If there was one massive contributor to the layman’s understanding of the GFC it was the socialist moves that had Fanny May and Freddy Mac allowing deadbeats to borrow to purchase property way beyond any conceivable ability to ever be in a viable loan contract.
    Those otherwise dodgy loans were then bundled and onsold as “instruments” and the rest is history.

    Sure GD – everybody was making sub prime loans in those years and they were profitable with the risks hidden in complex financial instruments like CDOs

    Thus the mortgage broker who got paid for signing someone up and the lender both profited from the loan while the risks of bad loans were held by other parties – furthermore a housing bubble was created in the process

    The whole scam lasted until the bubble burst and millions found themselves living in houses with negative equity and owning CDOs that were worthless

    Banks failed but as we know the biggest ones were deemed “to big to fail” and bailed out by the taxpayer – this is Government welfare for the Rich at the expense of the poor – not socialism but crony capitalism

    It was the middle classes who lost the most in this scam – and scam it was

  37. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    I think the way you have talked about the items I have listed above, my conclusions are sound.

    Much of the list you deride with unfair negativity, much of which does not constitute evidence of your claims.

    Take for example your SBS preference. They act no differently from any other bank. Last year they had a $29m profit. And you might claim this is good, because they reinvest it in their own company but this is also exactly what Ryman Health do, and you have been intensely negative about them.

    And SBS have acted very similarly to other banks that operated during in NZ leading up to the GFC. To say that local is better and the GFC is an example why, is silly IMO.

    Where I do agree with you is on the pointlessness of continuing. The list I provided above, pretty much explains why.

  38. Paranormal says:

    Andrei, you have bought the leftists spin and missed the underlying issue – that the US government caused the problem in the first place. They legislated that banks could not refuse loans the banks would not otherwise make. The government created the problem.

    Why do you think the leftists want to divert attention away from the real cause and blame the banking system – that operated exactly as it should in spreading the risk?

    Yes there were brokers making hay whilst the sun shone, yes there were people wrapping dodgy loans up in CDO’s, yes there were stupid individuals (central banks etc.) buying CDO’s they didn’t understand, but that does not detract from the underlying cause of the GFC – government meddling.

    What the GFC does show is the banks were very good at spreading the risk – which is exactly what we would want them to do in the normal course of business – if the underlying assets were real.

  39. TraceyS says:

    “…you can’t blame the banks.”

    But I do, you obviously don’t understand the underlying causes of the GFC…

    Obviously you do not understand that when you are in business, farming or whatever, you are responsible for doing your own due diligence. The bank can, and probably will, tell you it’s a good idea to borrow the money. That’s their business – to sell you money. But at the end of the day, when you overextend yourself, it is you left holding the baby. In that situation, no one should be fooled that the bank will be looking after its own backside, not yours.

    So go on blaming, Dave, it gets you absolutely nowhere. And it does absolutely nothing to help those who have borrowed too much and are now in a negative equity situation.

    “the Wikipedia links don’t qualify as CV’s”

    Tracey, oh yes they do, they just haven’t been written by the individuals themselves. You are more than welcome to question the accuracy of the qualifications and experience described

    A CV is usually written as a timeline so that it can be seen when, where, and for how long experience was attained.

    I actually can’t “question the accuracy” (not that I had any intention to) because there is not enough information given.

    Those Wikipedia pages are not CVs. A more apt description is “brief bio”.

    James might have been a successful businessman, as you claim, but I don’t see the evidence required to establish that. Working in the business world on a salary doesn’t make one a successful businessman. I would expect to see that a person had risked their own money in a business venture before meeting that definition.

    Maybe he has, maybe we will never know. Maybe you’ve seen his CV and can provide an answer?

  40. TraceyS says:

    “…SBS have acted very similarly to other banks that operated during in NZ leading up to the GFC.”

    And that is exactly what the rational person would expect of them.

  41. Gravedodger says:

    So Andrei are we agreed what is threatened in Southland and elsewhere is nothing to do with government but all about Banks making errors of judgement over loans and the market sorting it out.

    Not that such simple facts could ever be understood by a Melon whose over-riding philosophy dictates that elected nobodies working in concert and in the case of Shaw’s mob not even winning a plurality among the voters of an electorate, can make better decisions than the market where failure dictates an exit from the process for the incompetent.

    My service club has annual elective process for its rulers at district level annually where the usually single candidate for the top job must face the club delegates. Should somebody arrive at the exalted state of District Governor elect they must garner fifty percent of the votes cast at convention to be inducted.
    I am unaware of a candidate ever failing and boy have some lemons slipped through but the vote is a salutary process available to the grass roots members through the delegate selection.

    Alas failure down on the farm will have some operators gone by lunchtime sometime down the track while incompetent MPs just continue with their destructive behaviours.
    Ahh the joys of democracy and our maniacal MMP system that has the most successful PM in living memory beholden to a couple of race based MPs and a lost in the wilderness Boofhead for legislative success.
    The alternative an administration made up of a bunch of whom too many, currently around half, will never win an electorate seat where they must convince a simple plurality of their peers to go to the Big House.

  42. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you don’t know what you’re talking about, the SBS is quite different from our Aussie owned banks as it is owned by its customers. It may interest you that Rod Donald had a supporting role in ensuring it wasn’t sold to an Australian bank too.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67490728/SBS-the-little-bank-with-big-plans

    It was Tragic that Wayne Evans died prematurely, he was a very progressive and effective CEO.

    Gravedodger, you may be interested in Gareth’s speech about your beloved populist. poll driven leader, it has gone viral. It is already one of the most popular speeches ever made in the house and ten times more views (and rapidly growing) at this stage than the PM’s speech. Enjoy 😉

    I can tell you that our Green Party Membership is still growing steadily at a time when we usually have some attrition at this stage of the electoral cycle.

  43. Paranormal says:

    NW at 2.04 14/2 I think you will find that is Whaleoil’s comment on Hide’s NBR article regarding the background of their anti TPP stance.

  44. Will says:

    Viral? That speech has gone bacterial.

  45. Name Withheld says:

    NW at 2.04 14/2 I think you will find that is Whaleoil’s comment on Hide’s NBR article regarding the background of their anti TPP stance
    The included blockquote is from Rodney, but is behind a paywall.

  46. Dave Kennedy says:

    Witty response Will, but you just need to reed the most popular Youtube comments afterwards (100+ of them) to appreciate the support he has. Scattered amongst them are the odd abusive National supporter saying really intelligent things like f*** off Gareth. Priceless 😉

  47. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    Have SBS funded the conversion of farms to dairy in the pursuit of market share?

    Who do you think the bank is that is mentioned above?

  48. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, no more side stepping and pin dancing. You were proven in error so just do what I do in the same circumstances (Feb 14, 7:32 pm).

    “Banks making errors of judgement over loans and the market sorting it out.”

    Gravedodger, you have a very cold view on life, I guess you believe this is just collateral damage of a properly managed market:

    http://farmersweekly.co.nz/article/farmer-suicide-rates-need-action?p=7

  49. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    You have gone all cryptic on me. I suspect to avoid answering the questions I have asked.

    Why would you dodge those questions?

    Come on. Stump up.

  50. TraceyS says:

    Actually, Dave, Mr E’s questions are right on topic whereas your most recent comments have not been.

  51. Name Withheld says:

    NW at 2.04 14/2 I think you will find that is Whaleoil’s comment on Hide’s NBR article regarding the background of their anti TPP stance
    The included blockquote is from Rodney, but is behind a paywall.

    Another look proves you are probably correct, Paranormal.

  52. Mr E says:

    Will,
    It’s the Green Party. It is more likely to be fungal than bacterial.

    I used to think Gareth used to look like a rat tail possum. But his beard has changed his look. Now I think he look more like Rowan Atkinson from Blackadder. But with a bowl cut. An unusual style. He often doesn’t brush his hair. It isn’t helping his image.

    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7ImwhO-1InaiPVXDQORB3XP2wYbzhpACzl7OQ27lNKE0xzJHT

  53. Paranormal says:

    DK @ 11.26 another one of your pot / kettle / black moments. You claim GD is cold when you’re the one that wants to further penalise those going through the stress of a forced sale by not allowing those ‘filthy furrinors’ to keep farm prices up.

    What does that make you?

  54. Mr E says:

    Perhaps GE does exist in NZ.

    Could this cross be possible?

  55. Mr E says:

    Good Grief! TM.

  56. Mr E says:

    Tracey,
    Dave won’t answer those questions. And the reason is simple. Many of the claims in the story are likely to be bull poppy.
    There is no bank pushing out 35 farms.

    Think about the claims. They are nonsense.

    I challenge Ele to substantiate these claims. In the politest way possible, there must be some journalistic responsibility for this type of story.

  57. homepaddock says:

    “I challenge Ele to substantiate these claims. In the politest way possible, there must be some journalistic responsibility for this type of story.”

    Mr E this is a blog, while I try to be reasoned and fair, and would post an update should I come across more information, I have neither the responsibilities nor resources of a journalist. You can watch the video I linked to, google the name of the interviewee.

  58. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, it was fairly obvious that the story could not have involved SBS by the description given. Adams described young guys with little experience sent down from head office to Southland to “sort out” our local dairy farmers.

    SBS is based in Southland, its head office isn’t up north and the SBS website claims that all their rural bankers have a farming background:

    “You need more than a pair of Red Bands to become a rural expert. Our skilled rural team come from farming backgrounds, so they understand the unique nature of farming. Combining this understanding with banking know-how and our unique customer focus means you get the best banking solution for your business.”

    https://www.sbsbank.co.nz/borrow/agribusiness-rural/agribusiness

    While I realise that SBS is not perfect, as one Southlander to another I am appalled that you did not know the difference between the SBS model of banking compared to the big Aussie four, and shocked that you would even imply that they could be the bank described.

    I will also defend Ele’s posting, to claim that Kerry Adams is making it up is a serious charge and your only evidence otherwise appears to be that you just have a personal belief that the big banks wouldn’t do it. How do you know that 35 farms aren’t under pressure from banks? Your connections with local leaders of the farming community have already been exposed as limited.

    Here is what the ANZ is doing in Australia.
    http://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/receivers-in-farm-foreclosure-fracas/2726645.aspx

    The same bank recorded an $859 million profit in NZ last year, up 7% from the previous year. It may not be this bank that is responsible but, based on its Australian activities, it could hardly be discounted.

    These last few comments from you are very concerning, a new low in attacking a person’s appearance rather than their behaviour (that is just grubby Whaleoil type stuff) and questioning Ele’s judgement with regards to this post is bizarre. Perhaps amongst the many diploma’s, certificates and qualifications in genetics you have claimed to have, you also have one in clairvoyancy (how else would you know about the relationships between all banks and farmers)?

    Your credibility has really taking a dive, Mr E.

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oops should read “taken” in the last sentence above. I also saw Ele’s response after posting my comment, it was a good call.

  60. TraceyS says:

    Dave, students are expected to pay their loans back (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11577650) and so are farmers.

    Those who don’t put things at risk for everyone else.

    The calculated risk-taker, the conservative borrower, and the diligent payer should not have to fund those who overextend themselves and end up in the shit.

    But they do.

  61. TraceyS says:

    Maybe I’m being a bit black and white about it, but I don’t see why anyone necessarily has to end up in trouble when we all know that commodity prices/costs fluctuate beyond anyone’s direct control. When people borrow heaps with little equity or deposit in order to join in the good times surely they realise that they’re laying it all on the line?

    Saying “but the bank told me to do it!” just doesn’t wash with me.

    What we really need to ask in these sad cases is “how did you get in this situation?”.

    In many of them it will be because money was easy to get. But anything that comes too easy should be regarded with caution – maybe even suspicion. It is important to dig deeper and not judge these stories just on the surface information appearing in the media. We have a whole new generation coming through who need to learn from them.

  62. farmerbraun says:

    Torrid thread. 🙂

    Here’s a fact – dairy farms which cannot currently pay their bills are finding that their banks are reluctant to advance more credit in the absence of a plan to return to a positive cash flow and profitability.

    Who cares whether that is pressure ? It’s reality.

    My bank just lent me another million, in record time . (A neighbouring block came up for sale).

    No hoops to jump through; just a quick look at the track record. Not even an amended budget was required.
    Seems like business as usual.

  63. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, the issue I have with banks is that their modus operandi used to be providing a service and operating in the interests of their clients. Most bankers were not wealthy but were generally respected. This has changed over the last 30 years and now banks see themselves as companies that exist to create profit and providing a return to shareholders is their core focus. Banker workers have debt sale targets and bank CEOs are the most highly paid in the world. In 2011 the four NZ CEOs of our biggest banks had combined earnings of $15 million.
    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/56716/ceos-countrys-four-big-banks-get-a117-mln-nz153-mln-combined-annual-pay-31-fixed-pay-and

    Banks should be advising borrowers with advice that minimises the risks for them and not providing advice that is mainly shaped to maximise their own profits. To me this is unethical as a service provider. It is really sad when you seem to claim that we should never trust what a bank says and everyone should lift their financial literacy so that we are informed enough so that we don’t need to follow a bankers advice.

    Really?

  64. TraceyS says:

    The sea is full of sharks, Dave, and not just bankers.

    Financial literacy is the best investment anyone can make. If you had some, you might realise that advice is not to be “followed”, it is to be considered.

    I would certainly never follow investment advice from an accountant, a banker, or a financial planner. Listen to them I would, mix it up with all the other advice and knowledge then add a big dose of gut feel, and make my own decision.

    That way you don’t need to look around for someone else to blame if it goes to custard. Blame is horrible whichever end you find yourself at.

    Resolve your own moral hazard. If everyone did that then these problems would not exist.

  65. Mr E says:

    Fair enough Ele,

    I was hoping to appeal to the journalist in you. But I understand the resource issue.

    Dave,
    I am well aware of the SBS ownership structure. Where your weird claims come from, nobody knows.

    Regarding the SBS rural team, sure they are a good bunch, but no different from managers in other banks. Infact most of them have worked for other banks. Were trained there and now work for SBS.

    I’ve noticed you have fallen for the story. I suppose it fits your agenda and is therefore easy to be sucked in.
    I suppose you also think it is a good idea for dairy farmers not to get out of bed in the morning? Sound advice you might say?

    And I’m satisfied I am right regarding his other claim of 35 farms. I’ve researched the claim and really there is no foundation. If anything banks have been very supportive of farms. There are exceptions. But they are a very small number, and spread across banks.

    If I am wrong, I’ll responsibly apologise and withdraw. But I’m feeling pretty confident.

    Regarding your qualification claims, and connectedness claims, I just don’t know where you get this weirdness from. It is just lies.

    And you didn’t laugh and the pictures I posted? That’s sad. And boring. Green’s really do seem to hate laughter.

    I have also noted you still have not answered the 2 questions I asked.
    I’d settle with the answer as to who you think the imaginary ’35’ bank is.

  66. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, it is sad that most people do not have the superior financial literacy that you claim to have (and such a useful gut as well).

    I guess if you don’t believe that bankers and financial advisors need to operate ethically then a privileged few will do all right and the rest of the population will be easy prey.

    It is not about blame it is about taking responsibility and expecting ethical behaviour. if we can’t expect that from our major financial institutions then what sort of world can we expect…probably a repeat of this again:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

  67. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I’ve researched the claim and really there is no foundation.”
    Mr E I have no way of knowing the truth of Mr Adam’s claims and I have no faith in your research that supposedly proved otherwise. You often make these wild seemingly authoritative claims with no evidence. I have called your bluffs before and found them seriously wanting. Did you speak with every farmer? Do you have insider information in each bank?

    According to the TV news today 1 in 10 dairy farmers are now in serious financial plight and the very things described by Mr Adams are implied in this article:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/281049/'banks-putting-pressure-on-dairy-farmers

    and this one:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/75816797/Banks-put-pressure-on-Northland-farmers

    and this one:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/70514556/Bank-pressure-starts-on-farmers

  68. Mr E says:

    None of your links refer to one bank trying to sell out 35 farms.

    And if you want to put up generalised links there are plenty to show bank support.

    http://farmersweekly.co.nz/article/farmer-satisfaction-with-banks-steady?p=35%3Fp%3D13

    But let’s deal with the matter at hand. Last week was field days week. This story was a big topic of conversation in some tents. And claims were widely refuted by the sector. Being the ex editor of the Young Farmers newsletter I am sure you’d know this. So why you keep supporting strange claims is beyond me.

    I suppose that is what the Greens want, dairy farmers to stay in bed. It sure would create their view of utopia.

    Regarding the pictures, the possum is a very noble animal, Rowan and Jim are very famous actors, what do you mean ridicule? I was flattering Gareth.

    That aside many politicians have been depicted in many less than flattering ways. Many celebrate it. But you seem to want to cry like a baby. Just reminds me that you don’t have the chutzpah.

    How many time have you put up less than flattering pictures on your blog in an attempt to ridicule?

    Yes your thin veil of hypocrisy has been exposed again.

  69. TraceyS says:

    “Tracey, it is sad that most people do not have the superior financial literacy that you claim to have (and such a useful gut as well).”

    No Dave, I have not claimed to be superior in any way. For all you know I’ve learned the hard way through making plenty of mistakes. Even my gut has let me down occasionally but it is generally right. The biggest mistakes I have ever made were when I ignored what it was trying to tell me.

    It is misleading and potentially destructive to suggest that “superior” financial skills are a prerequisite to achieving moderate success. They are not. Most people can do alright with some basic knowledge (or access to someone they trust who has it), an internet connection, a good level of common sense, and confidence in their own instincts.

    “I guess if you don’t believe that bankers and financial advisors need to operate ethically then a privileged few will do all right and the rest of the population will be easy prey.”

    No, that’s not right, you are wrong again. I don’t believe that at all. Of course the desire, and expectation, is that all professionals will behave ethically – and most do. But they don’t have a crystal ball. They’re human and as such are prone to all kinds of error. People can minimise their exposure to this risk by taking a range of advice and other information, distilling it down, and then making their decisions independently. Therefore, if one of the sources used for information or advice happens to have dodgy motives, their influence is diluted.

    “It is not about blame it is about taking responsibility and expecting ethical behaviour. if we can’t expect that from our major financial institutions then what sort of world can we expect…probably a repeat of this again:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail

    We can expect ethical behaviour. Just be on the lookout because there are no guarantees in life. Nothing is fail safe – nor can it be made so.

  70. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, and there we have it, your research involved anecdotal conversations at the field days 😉

    Please don’t try and explain your bizarre pictures, it just makes things worse and is embarrassing.

    “Most people can do alright with some basic knowledge (or access to someone they trust who has it), an internet connection, a good level of common sense, and confidence in their own instincts.”

    Oh dear Tracey, tell that to all those burnt by South Canterbury Finance. Too many good honest people who trust their ‘personal banker’ or financial advisor have been burnt over the years from doing the very thing you describe. There does need to be stronger regulatory control of financial institutions that encourage debt and investments that are not actually in the interests of the client. It is actually a form of fraud.

  71. TraceyS says:

    “Too many good honest people who trust their ‘personal banker’…”

    Oh man have you missed my point!

  72. Paranormal says:

    DK you rail at others who talk without knowledge of a subject (for example your first paragraph at 10:57), but are happy to be guilty of it yourself. You have no idea what made those people that invested in SC finance do so.

    As we have seen multiple times when it comes to financial literacy, the first person that needs to learn something about financial literacy is you.

  73. Will says:

    I thought the South Canterbury Finance guys got a tax-payer bailout. And Hannover. Of course Yours Truly had his miserable savings in Bridgecorp. What a mug.

  74. TraceyS says:

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/51345/south-canty-finance-had-neither-cash-nor-capital-survive-week-when-sandy-maier-arrived-dec-2009-he-s

    “A belief that the institution was, in its own mind, too big to fail, the problems in the environment were somebody else’s problems, not theirs.

    At the individual borrower level, if you bite off more than you can chew it is your problem, not somebody else’s.

    Dave appears to disagree.

  75. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Most people can do alright with some basic knowledge (or access to someone they trust who has it)…”

    I didn’t miss your point, it is a naive one. Many people get rich in New Zealand through the exploiting the trust and the limited knowledge of others. We also need to protect the vulnerable (there is a good article about the retail trucks in South Auckland) rather than blaming them for their vulnerability as you appear to do. Many have no understanding of what they have bitten off or agreed to.

    “At the individual borrower level, if you bite off more than you can chew it is your problem, not somebody else’s.”

    Paranormal and Will, I am confused, do you support bailouts and Governments covering risk? Do you support a regulatory environment that limits fraudulent behaviour?

  76. Will says:

    No, I don’t support bailouts, I’m allowed to grumble a bit.

    Yes you ARE confused.

    Limits fraudulent behaviour? Fraud is illegal Dave, they don’t just limit it, it’s banned.

  77. TraceyS says:

    “Many people get rich in New Zealand through the exploiting the trust and the limited knowledge of others.”

    Can you please supply some FACTS to back that statement up. I think that it is completely wrong.

    “We also need to protect the vulnerable (there is a good article about the retail trucks in South Auckland) rather than blaming them for their vulnerability as you appear to do.”

    What? Where have I blamed vulnerable South Aucklanders for anything? The topic here is banks putting pressure on farms. How many farms are there in South Auckland and what on earth do retail trucks have to do with the discussion here? Nothing, that’s what.

    “Many have no understanding of what they have bitten off or agreed to.”

    Many farmers?

    Really? I knew you had a low opinion of them but this is ridiculous!

    (I’d rather be naive than a liar btw)

  78. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Limits fraudulent behaviour? Fraud is illegal Dave, they don’t just limit it, it’s banned.”
    I guess you didn’t read my link that explained the loopholes that banks were able to use to enable fraud and the costly legal process that was necessary to recover it.

    I think there is also the common situation where banks and financial financial advisors misinform clients to encourage them to invest or borrow by withholding important information or overselling products. I also call that fraud when money is obtained through dishonest means but this is what some would call good business and Tracey would say it’s the clients fault if they get tricked.

    An honest bank would have advised a client, wishing to buy or convert a dairy farm over the past year, that relying on continually growing commodity prices would be unwise and an allowance for a down-turn in their business projections would be advisable. One in ten farms being under financial pressure in servicing their loans also points to poor advice from the lender.

    “Can you please supply some FACTS to back that statement up. I think that it is completely wrong.” – Many people get rich in New Zealand through the exploiting the trust and the limited knowledge of others.

    Certainly:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3286944/Nathans-Finance-directors-lied-court-told
    https://www.sfo.govt.nz/n446,25.html
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10615695

    There are many of these that can be found online that involve millions upon millions of lost savings for decent, honest New Zealanders. For every one that is discovered and convicted there are others still getting away with it. Many don’t pay the full consequences for their fraud and still manage a good lifestyle afterwards because their ill-acquired wealth is funneled away into protected accounts and family trusts.

    In the US the very financial advisors that were involved with fraudulent behaviour were allowed to remain in their positions, their banks or institutions were bailed out and then they paid themselves bonuses.

    I’m surprised that you have been so unaware of all this.

  79. Will says:

    There are a few examples where that would be true. Forex loans, those interest rate swap thingies. Lot of fish-hooks.

    I’ve had banks try to talk me into buying the neighbours’ farms twice. Certainly they make it easy, one offered to write the budget for me! Trying to shift debt to a healthier book. But I also experienced the “We want you to reduce your debt” opposite. Still can’t decide which is scarier. It’s up to the individual, not the state. Some people are fearless, sometimes it pays. 37 years in a dying industry has made me cautious.

    I find it strange to think that if Alan Crafar had sold at the right time, he would be Sir Allen, a respected, successful business leader. Look at him now. Everyone is vulnerable at some time, if the market turns sour when you are exposed, it’s just bad luck. The recent boom/bust in dairy will catch quite a few I think. Really bad luck, I feel sorry for them.

    Not very coherent ramble, must be tired.

  80. Will says:

    Sorry Dave, my reply was to Tracy’s comment.

    Regulators are like generals, always fighting yesterday’s battles. By the time you clamp down on today’s scam, they’re running the next one. This is because those guys are smarter than you and I. It’s the old story, don’t get in over your head.

  81. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, while there will always be businesses looking to exploit loopholes in creative ways, I do think we could be smarter about how we regulate and be more proactive in monitoring behaviour.

    With the GFC the fraud was obvious and yet while the money was turning over, and people were getting rich, there were too many blind eyes turned.

    The crashes in the value of coal and dairy could be predicted, not exactly when, but the signs existed at the time large amounts of money was being invested.

    By the way you were coherent and I appreciate your thoughtful responses (your earlier ‘bacterial’ quip was actually very witty, Mr E could take a lesson in real humour from you).

    There is always a risk in any investment and many are unpredictable, but I do think that in boom times caution gets thrown to the wind and we should be able to rely on our Government and banks to be the ones with an eye to the bigger picture.

  82. Mr E says:

    “your research involved anecdotal conversations at the field days”

    Anecdotal conversations? Tell me is the above video an ‘anecdotal conversation’?

    Where is your research?

  83. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, I never said it was accurate, but it is clearly possible based on current reporting and Ele was right is posting it. If you have some real evidence to discount it, then that would be great, but as I was easily able to show there are many Southland famers feeling the pressure from their banks and your field day discussions do not constitute anything of substance. It all depends on who you were talking to. When you have asked me to name my sources I do but your sources are generally as secret as your own identity.

    Your arguments tend to follow two lines…1) that you are a very educated and experienced man and that I should just trust your pronouncements on face value, and 2) that you talk to people and they tell you stuff.

    Unless I know who you are there is no way I can verify the credentials you claim and unless I know what your sources are, what value can I place on them?

    Using Tracey’s method of being careful I would have to say that I would have little faith in investing in anything you recommend, including your arguments.

    The one time that I challenged your credibility, you couldn’t deliver.

  84. Paranormal says:

    Dk you are so financially and commercially illiterate it is beyond belief that you ‘think’ you are qualified to comment. That you want to get into central government and expect to tell people how they should (a greens favourite word) live is truly scary.

    “An honest bank would have advised a client, wishing to buy or convert a dairy farm over the past year,…” A bank is not qualified to provide business advice, and if they did provide the sort of advice you are suggesting they would be sued for it if results went contrary to that advice. You should (there’s that word again) try to understand what Tracey was saying above.

    “I think there is also the common situation…” there you go again thinking when you don’t actually know or understand the industry. Mr E’s comment @5.31 relevant yet again.

    Interesting the exploitation you link to involves the SFO and court actually holding the fraudulent to account. Things are clearly not as wild west as you ‘think’ (TM).

  85. Dave Kennedy says:

    “A bank is not qualified to provide business advice”
    Then I wonder why they do? And you are lecturing to me about my lack of financial knowledge…
    https://www.bnz.co.nz/business-banking
    http://www.anz.co.nz/business/tools-forms-guides/business-startup-guide/
    http://www.westpac.co.nz/business/business-resource-centre/

    Paranormal, how on earth will a bank judge the security of a business loan if they don’t understand business and can’t offer advice? It is actually part of their core business.

    You really have shot yourself in the foot with that one 😉

  86. Name Withheld says:

    You really have shot yourself in the foot with that one

    Must have been a trick shot then….
    The only person I see taking mortal punishment is you, Mr Kennedy.
    You are just too thick to feel the hits.

    “financially and commercially illiterate” when referring to you is putting it too kindly.

  87. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    “Your arguments tend to follow two lines…1) that you are a very educated and experienced man and that I should just trust your pronouncements on face value, and 2) that you talk to people and they tell you stuff.”

    I’ve never argued that I am well educated of experienced. I’ve stated some facts about those things. But rarely do that.

    And yes I talk to people and they tell me stuff. I never argue about that. You don’t talk to people?

    Are you too busy writing on blogs? To busy to talk to people, too busy to do your own research?

    That would explain a lot.

    “The one time that I challenged your credibility, you couldn’t deliver.”

    The one time???? Hahaaaa.

    If your talking about emails that you don’t believe I sent, I’d happily forward them to Ele to verify, (if she wanted to). That way all readers can hear the conclusion of your attacks on my honesty. Frankly I think that is childish, a waste of Ele’s time, and I don’t need it. But if you do…..

  88. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, then you too believe that banks are not qualified to give business advice and it isn’t their role? Good grief!

    “I’ve never argued that I am well educated of (or?) experienced.”

    Chuckle.

    “If your talking about emails that you don’t believe I sent, I’d happily forward them to Ele to verify”

    What nonsense, even if you had sent them, it became clear it wasn’t to anyone in a leadership role and when i don’t get a response I phone people up. You made a strong challenge, I accepted and you couldn’t deliver. End of story.

  89. Mr E says:

    Yes I thought so. When I present an opportunity to verify emails, you make an apparent run for the hills.

    Now you are left in a sticky position. You can accept the opportunity, or you can bury your head and call me dishonest.

    Or there is a 3rd option. We both act like adults and call the matter done with.

    We are back at a place where you are making personal attacks on me, and I doubt even you want that.

  90. Dave Kennedy says:

    “When I present an opportunity to verify emails, you make an apparent run for the hills.”
    Not at all go for you life with that one, Mr E. but I’m not sure if Ele would want to be involved in such petty nonsense when it only proves that you sent an email to someone who thought it was so inconsequential that they didn’t reply. 😉

    “We both act like adults and call the matter done with.”
    Happy to Mr E, let’s meet at a place of your choosing, shake hands and I’ll shout you a drink.

  91. Will says:

    My experience is that bank managers are extremely careful to avoid giving advice. They get you to submit a proposal and if it passes their scrutiny you get a loan. If not, you do it again or maybe try another bank.

    I’m not sure the GFC was all fraud. Except Goldman stacking CDO’s with junk and getting them graded as AAA, that was appalling. As someone observed at the time, What was amazing, was not what was illegal, but what was legal. But,I doubt there will be any more future bailouts, people simply won’t stand for it, so Wall St should be more circumspect.

  92. TraceyS says:

    “There are a few examples where that would be true. Forex loans, those interest rate swap thingies. Lot of fish-hooks.”

    Oh sure Will, but farmer Joe doesn’t need these instruments and if he doesn’t understand them, shouldn’t sign up to them.

    The best advice ever given to me was by an accountant and it was “don’t sign anything that you don’t have to“. Never let me down yet.

    “I’ve had banks try to talk me into buying the neighbours’ farms twice. Certainly they make it easy, one offered to write the budget for me!”

    Finance companies come knocking on our door regularly to ask if they can sell us some money.

    “Regulators are like generals, always fighting yesterday’s battles. By the time you clamp down on today’s scam, they’re running the next one. This is because those guys are smarter than you and I. It’s the old story, don’t get in over your head.”

    So true, except that I don’t know about them being smarter. One thing for sure though is that they definitely aren’t your mate or compassionate advisor.

  93. TraceyS says:

    “My experience is that bank managers are extremely careful to avoid giving advice.”</em

    True too. Even if they did it would be microcosmic. I doubt, for example, they have a good understanding of the employment market at any point in time and a range of other matters critical to business decision-making.

  94. TraceyS says:

    Purely for our entertainment, Dave, how did you approach the matter?

    Did you ask if someone by the name of “Mr E” had been in touch…LOL

    🙂

  95. TraceyS says:

    “I also call that fraud when money is obtained through dishonest means but this is what some would call good business and Tracey would say it’s the clients fault if they get tricked.”

    That’s a dirty smear against me Dave.

    Have you noticed how I don’t reciprocate?

    You should tidy up your act.

  96. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, banks do employ business advisors and have business packages, but I think most of them are focussed on SMEs.

    The article I linked to earlier from the economist is a fairly measured and informed summing of the GFC. Paranormal was partly right in that the US Government loosened regulations to make home ownership more affordable but it opened the floodgates to even dodgier lending and then endless attempts of getting rid of the risk in increasingly suspect ways:
    http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

  97. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Purely for our entertainment, Dave, how did you approach the matter?”
    Purely for my own entertainment, Tracey, I know most of the leadership team of the local Feds and asked Mr E which one he had approached (the most logical was Alan) and he admitted that he hadn’t contacted any of them. Then he said that the person he emailed hadn’t responded and suggested some sort of spam problem.

    I didn’t have to ask about someone called Mr E, but asked if they had been approached regarding a meeting with me, I was quite open to it.

    But it is all getting a bit tedious, so happy to shake Mr Es hand like an adult and move on.

  98. Paranormal says:

    Sigh, DK. You’re showing you are not only commercially illiterate, but also fail at reading comprehension. I never said banks didn’t employ highly skilled people to analyse businesses prior to approving loans etc.

    Lets see if you can understand why banks would not provide business finance and then advise the business how to operate. The bank has taken a risk in financing a business. If the business fails they run the risk of losing some or all of the amount financed. Imagine if the business could then hold the bank accountable for negligent business advice that ’caused’ the failure. the bank could then be at risk of losing double the amount originally financed. That’s the way it works.

  99. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I’m not disagreeing with all that you say, but was objecting to the the statements that banks do not give business advice and that they are not qualified to, which was clearly nonsense (as I was able to prove).

  100. Name Withheld says:

    <i.(as I was able to prove).

    You proved nothing of the sort.
    You posted links to 3 bank’s business guides.
    Nothing more.
    Your comprehension of this part of a lender’s role is sadly lacking.
    I’ve said it before, sometimes if you want to explain something to a slow learner such as a child or an idiot…..
    It is helpful to speak really slowly.
    B a n k s d o n ‘ t g i v e b u s i n e s s a d v i c e.
    They give advice on borrowing.
    If I borrow a couple of hundred thousand for a new truck, the lender will not tell me how to run my contracting business. He will want an assurance that I can pay back the loan.
    As somebody whose business experience has been limited to auditing the milk monitor cash float or devising a roster for the blackboard monitors, you really should think before you post stuff you know nothing about.

    And whats with the “Good grief!”(TM) You continually use.
    Is this supposed to convey some sort of incredulous intellectual superiority towards us mere non-primary school teacher mortals?
    (Mimes rhythmic wrist movement) (TM)

  101. Dave Kennedy says:

    “B a n k s d o n ‘ t g i v e b u s i n e s s a d v i c e.
    They give advice on borrowing.”

    NW, then explain this:
    https://bizhub.anz.co.nz/

    As I stated earlier, much of the advice is for start ups and SMEs but it is definitely advice to businesses on starting a company, business plans, use of marketing, business management…

    When a business starts to struggle, is losing equity and comes close to defaulting many banks will actually get alongside and work with the borrower to improve management and restore the business. This goes beyond advice around borrowing.

    You can make your petty little personal attacks as much as you like but I would really love you to explain the how the link is just about advice on borrowing 😉

    I actually believe that banks could offer better advice at the point of providing loans and admit that business advice isn’t a major part of their work, but to make the extraordinary claim that they don’t do it and aren’t qualified to, is clearly deserving of another…Good Grief!

  102. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, before you debate the semantics around the word “advice”, here is the meaning:
    “guidance or recommendations offered with regard to prudent action”

    And here is the guidance and recommendations that the BNZ provides for small businesses with less than $1 million turnover:
    https://www.bnz.co.nz/business-banking/support/small-business-toolkit

    It looks pretty comprehensive to me 😉

  103. Paranormal says:

    Sigh (again). DK, slowly unclench your fingers and move away from the shovel. The only thing you are proving is my earlier comments regarding your level of commercial knowledge.

    For just a minute take a look at the links you are providing. The banks are just providing general information available anywhere on the net. They are not providing business advice in a legal or commercial sense. if they were it would be specific and actionable. They’re smarter than that.

    As for ‘qualified’ also just stop, breath, and think for a minute. They don’t qualify to be business advisers because they aren’t. In my career I have been a builder and a panelbeater, but in my current role I am not qualified to provide advice on either, even though I could. My role is as an insurance broker and I cannot be looked upon, or even give the impression, that I can provide advice outside my area of expertise. Banks are in exactly the same position.

    Have you been in a position where a bank has ‘got alongside and worked with the borrower’? What they do is discuss cashflows and when they can be paid. That’s it. Banks don’t get involved in providing business advice that could be actionable by the business owners, creditors, liquidators or receivers should the business go belly up.

  104. TraceyS says:

    These are what I’d call tools, Dave. They are not advice. Advice is not really advice, in a business sense, unless there is a contractual arrangement and payment.

    The things you have posted are just general information for anyone to see. Business advice has a value. It is not free.

    Banks are not likely to offer business advice (as a consultant would). To do this they would have to have appropriate Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance. This costs a lot of money and is apparently hard for banks to get (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/370df762-b6ce-11e4-95dc-00144feab7de.html#axzz40Tbmgzfu).
    They would have to charge clients for giving business advice in order to afford the insurance. Do they?

    The problem with your definition of advice is that it is too general. Advice of the type we are talking about here is professional advice as distinct from, say, friendly advice.

    Anyone can offer friendly advice for free and generally they hold no responsibility for what you do with it. Professionals offer professional advice. If they stuff up you can sue them. That’s why they need insurance.

    Here’s a good wee article explaining the distinction between guidance and advice:

    http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/02/02/pension-guidance-versus-advice-whats-the-difference/

    An excellent NZ example is WorkSafe (http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/tools-resources).

    Very similar tools and templates compared to the bank’s aren’t they? But ask them to give advice and they clam up real quick.

  105. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal and Tracey, Just read the initial claim, my response and the evidence. Banks do provide business advice but the level of that advice and the quality and extent of it can debated for ever. I see no point in engaging in that discussion when my main point was proven.

    You can quibble and sigh as much as you like about whether the advice is friendly, tool based, contractual or in packages. The banks themselves call it advice, those that receive it regard it as business advice and it is far more than what Paranormal claimed was just related to borrowing.

    I feel another ‘good grief’ coming on 😉

  106. Will says:

    They never advise you into debt. Too many conversations starting with “but you said…” Ending with, “you’ll be hearing from my lawyer.”

  107. TraceyS says:

    You’re actually demonstrating how many business people become unstuck, Dave.

    It’s called ignorance.

    To put it in terms you might follow, at school when one kid pushes another and then says “he told me to do it”, pointing to the kid next to him, do we say “oh that’s alright then, run along, we can see you were given poor guidance”?

    No. We say you take responsibility because you should have known better.

    So a businessperson goes to their bank and seeks funding for a venture. The bank is supportive because their business is to sell money. If their business was your business then they’d be a shareholder. They are not. The bank is not in the same business as you no matter how friendly, supportive, encouraging, helpful, local and smiley they may seem. Your business is selling fluffy widgets, theirs is selling money. Their business goals and yours are obviously quite different.

    They approve your loan. This is not an assurance that your venture will succeed. It just means that, today, you can have the money.

    If things go wrong for you later then its no good saying “but he told me to do it” while pointing at your bank manager.

    He might have granted you the means to do it but in the end it was your decision to go ahead with your venture, not his.

  108. Mr E says:

    Dave
    “Mr E which one he had approached (the most logical was Alan) and he admitted that he hadn’t contacted any of them. Then he said that the person he emailed hadn’t responded and suggested some sort of spam problem.”

    What? I hadn’t contacted but I had emailed? Emailing is not contacting?

    How confusing.

    But let’s move on. You think forwarding emails proves nothing. So I won’t.

    And won’t be meeting you, to shake your hand. That serves no purpose to me.

    So let’s move on and talk about banking. Agreed?

  109. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, your philosophy supports individual responsibility to an extreme degree, which essentially is just anyone out for themselves in a dog eat dog world where regulation and protections are minimal. I have established this because every time I suggest there should be accountable standards for financial advice and expectations of honesty you reply with:

    “No. We say you take responsibility because you should have known better.”

  110. Will says:

    I’m genuinely astonished you would take such a position Dave. You must have borrowed from banks yourself. You must know how it works. Actually banks are generally considered too conservative, only loaning against equity. For something really bold you need shareholders or venture-capitalists. (not hedge-funds, the old meaning of the word.)

    Also, dogs don’t eat dogs.

  111. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, when i was much younger banks were very conservative, but no longer. When I was in my twenties I tried to buy a small wooden cottage as my first attempt to get into the property market. I was told then that because of the age of the house and its construction that I would need to have 3/4 of the full price as a down payment.

    Even earlier when i was a student in the 70s I remember asking to borrow money to tide me over a rough patch and I was grilled heavily about my income and expenditure and the reasons for my loan and i was turned down. Neither of my children have been refused a loan as students, the questions they are asked are generally about how much rather than any assessment of their needs and money management.

    Three years ago when taking out a loan to buy another property we were advised to have a review of our borrowing capacity. It was revealed that our assets and income allowed us to borrow over $400,000 without question and we were encouraged to do so. We only wanted to borrow a fraction of that and I was concerned about the encouragement to borrow more.

    I know of famers who were allowed to borrow at level that would have left them with marginal equity at the peak of dairy prices. Many farmers are now being encouraged to sell as their equity has already slipped in the short time since. To me the lending was irresponsible if some lean years were not factored in initially. After only few months the same thing that happened in Australia is happening here:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/rural/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503445&objectid=11494663

    Dog eat dog is a common expression but that describes the kind of world Tracey supports, but thank you for the lesson 😉

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dog-eat-dog

  112. TraceyS says:

    …”your philosophy supports individual responsibility to an extreme degree…”

    I have argued the case for individual responsibility but the “extreme” is something that you have dreamed up.

    “…which essentially is just anyone out for themselves in a dog eat dog world where regulation and protections are minimal.”

    In your mind, maybe, but not mine.

    “I have established this because every time I suggest there should be accountable standards for financial advice and expectations of honesty you reply with…”

    What you have “established” is imaginary, Dave. I have not argued against honesty and standards. They can happily coexist with individual responsibility. Why do you see honesty/standards and individual responsibility as opposite and opposing extremes? Must be your politics I suppose.

    What amazes me is that you think it is possible to regulate morals like honesty.

    What a dreamer you are!

  113. TraceyS says:

    “It was revealed that our assets and income allowed us to borrow over $400,000 without question and we were encouraged to do so. We only wanted to borrow a fraction of that…”

    Well, well, Dave is a fiscal conservative with his own money but has liberal views when it comes to “ours”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

    “In economics, moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.”

    When you personally bear the cost of the risk you are conservative. When the people bear the cost of the risk (as would be encountered by introducing a ‘living wage’) you are liberal. All this does is encourage riskier behaviour.

    Why don’t you understand?

  114. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E I remember providing a list of names of those I thought you may have contacted, including Alan, and you told me that you were emailing someone else altogether. You spoke with such certainty at the beginning that you could easily set up a meeting and when i called your bluff I was surprised how quickly it fizzled. You appeared to give up when the supposed email wasn’t responded to.

    As I said I am quite willing forget it all and shake your hand as two adults. Since we live in the same place i don’t understand why the adult solution doesn’t suit you. I don’t know why you want to play this childish hide and seek (that has no logical explanation) when i have no energy for seeking you other than to confirm you are genuine and not just another Walter Mitty.

  115. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, being liberal doesn’t mean fiscally stupid. As you would know the Greens are economically smart, we are financially successful (raised more money than Labour in the last election), had all our policies independently costed and even proposed this year that Treasury should cost all parties major policies in the next election (Key has run from that idea). A good number of our MPs have successfully managed their own businesses while few in National’s front bench have. We are risk averse and probably more fiscally conservative than National.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2015/11/the-cost-of-bills-surplus-still-hurting.html

    I have also estimate that this National Government has cost the country about $150 billion through dumb ideas and mistakes.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/nationals-top-ten-dumb-ideas.html

    The fact that you so avidly support this Government is evidence enough of your economic understanding 😉

  116. Paranormal says:

    DK, incredible that you would think the Greens are ‘economically smart’. You’ve managed to repeatedly disprove that, and thats just on this thread, let alone others.

    As for banks providing business advice, just look at your own definition to confirm that what the banks are offering is not advice. ““guidance or recommendations offered with regard to prudent action” – you will note the generic information the banks provide does not give any recommendations for prudent action in the direction a business should take.

    You may also be surprised to learn, given your mastery of the commercial and financial world, that there are financial standards in place. There is the IFRS, the FMA, the Reserve bank, as well as the bankers association own code.

    Perhaps theres another windmill out there you would like to tilt at?

  117. TraceyS says:

    “…being liberal doesn’t mean fiscally stupid.”

    But it can do.

    Policies such as 50% of farms being converted to organic, and 100% either converted or in conversion, are fiscally stupid.

    You may have costed that policy for the Government side but have you costed it for the plebs?

    Sorry for repeating myself but;

    “In economics, moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.”

  118. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, chuckle 😉

    “Per tonne, organic milk powder sells on the international market for more than NZ$14,000. By comparison, conventional milk powder prices languish at NZ$2900.”

    “Fonterra launched a new organic policy last March and offered incentives for farmers to convert to organic systems, reversing a 2011 decision to concentrate its organics business in the Waikato.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/76628312/fonterra-to-pay-organic-milk-farmers-at-market-rates

  119. Gravedodger says:

    The GP raised more money last election than Labour ?
    Whoop de do.
    Most preschools raise more money annually than Labour at the last election and that reveals financial success credentials as exactly what ?

    I think of you Mr Kennedy as Enos,
    he knows everything and gives us all the runs.

    If your beloved Green Party with all their business acumen are so all knowing around the Business world and have all the answers it is hard to understand why they don’t borrow some of this easy to access currently cheap Bank largesse and set up model businesses to demonstrate the prowess they so willingly trumpet.
    So far a search of the biographical data base on the MPs reveals zilch and past history is hardly a litany of outstanding success.
    The only effort that might qualify in the feeble minds of the moronic 10% was the rort where they purchased Wellington property with their Superannuation money then asked Parliamentary services to pay their rent as a get rich quick scheme. Oh there was also Stephen Browning and his claim that Homeopathy would cure Ebola, one L’s print money madness, Rod Donald’s smoky old Combi Van, Wonderboy Gareth’s need to fly hither and thither for avoidable meetings of very few to “save the planet”, Material Girl’s “castle” with its corrugated iron wall.
    None to threaten Bill Gates, Sam Morgan or even a Phillip Burdon.

    Your views on economic drivers and practice c2016, Mr Kennedy are really quaintly naïve and if they were not so potentially dangerous would be mildly entertaining.

    Banks lend money to finance potential wealth creators to expand the pie you are so keen to continue to slice and consume with little thought as to how Baroness Thatcher’s predictions on the viability of socialism as a self funding function can be overcome.
    Restricting lending because a minority of borrowers fail is typical socialist ‘we know best’ thinking and from the opportunistic way some are hoping to exploit failing dairy entities for political advantage is certain proof of the addled thinking that allows market corrections to become recessions and even depressions as 1929 demonstrated with the devastating results history records.

  120. TraceyS says:

    But I’m not selling milk powder, Dave, so those figures are not relevant to me.

    Try again, why do you think it is fiscally prudent for every farm in New Zealand to convert organic?

    The reality is that your policy has nothing to do with fiscal prudence and everything to do with the ideology of your (minority) supporters. Supporters whom will never pay the costs themselves so can afford to come up with reckless ideas for what other people will do with their money.

  121. TraceyS says:

    You don’t seem to understand, Dave, that with the promise of higher rewards there is the expectation of higher risk. Anyone who has been in business on their own account will understand this.

    But if you can make the risk go in one direction and the rewards in another then it’s all good right? Provided you’re on the right side of it. And with your political goals you certainly intend to be otherwise you would be busy converting a conventional farm into an organic one.

  122. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “You spoke with such certainty at the beginning that you could easily set up a meeting ”

    No I didn’t. In fact I said I would “try”. That is not certainty.

    “I don’t know why you want to play this childish hide and seek”

    You seem determined to “seek” me and it is flattering but not needed. I know hardly any of the other contributors. I don’t need to. It adds nothing to the conversation.

    So let it go. Stop personalising the discussion. It seems that other readers are quite bored with it.

    Regarding banks you said:

    “To me the lending was irresponsible if some lean years were not factored in initially.”

    Have banks allowed for lean years? If the answer is yes you can’t claim they are irresponsible.

    I my experience, a lot of lending has been done between $5-6.2/kgMS. The 5 year rolling average for payout has been above $6.4/kgMS. To me banks have allowed for lean years. I would be interested in your view.

    Now imagine the Government wrote policy on payout of $7.1kgMS.

    Would that be irresponisible?

    The reason why I ask is the Green Party has a policy that has been ‘economically reviewed’ at $7.1/kgMS. And on that basis they have promoted their policy. Have the Greens allowed for “lean years”

    Is that responsible?

    If not, isn’t it a little rich to be questioning the banks?

  123. TraceyS says:

    What an excellent response that is Mr E.

  124. Mr E says:

    Thanks Tracey.

    I am trying to lift my level of commenting so your feed back is appreciated.

    Still have not got the spell check and grammar check sorted…..

  125. Dave Kennedy says:

    Given our current hugely inflated property market and the $17 billion hole in our economy created by the crash in dairy commodity prices we have a looming crisis.

    The well researched article in North and South reveals how Fonterra was trapped into mainly supplying commodity markets through its cooperative model and then created its own demise through setting up the GDT against all the evidence against doing so. There are some huge structural issues that the industry needs to attend to. This isn’t my view this comes from industry leaders and Fonterra itself.

    Banks have done extremely well out of dairy debt which now stands at almost $40 billion. 49% of the dairy sector was operating below the break even point over the last financial year and 80% of farmers will have a negative cash flow in the next one. This is not a resilient industry and the Government and banks need to share some of the responsibility for how this has come about.

    The article also highlights how increased lending has created increasingly larger farms and the growth of corporate and overseas ownership. Young sharemilkers now struggle to get on the ownership ladder.

    The continual defense of the status quo in comments here are sadly ignorant of the realities. A healthy, resilient economy can only develop with some strategic vision and the current pandering to greed and speculation is leading us to inevitable disaster.

    “Restricting lending because a minority of borrowers fail is typical socialist…” If only that was the case, Gravedodger, 80% of farmers will have a negative cashflow this financial year. 1 in 10 are already in trouble and if commodity prices don’t pick up soon the 10% in trouble will quickly grow. And please tell me who is going to buy all the fire sale farms? I would also love Mr E to explain how banks factored in the lean years given the current situation.

    I predict another “perfect storm” excuse like Don Elder used when Solid Energy experienced its $600 million dollar crash, only we all know both storms were predicted much earlier we are now trapped in another scenario of our own making.

    And you guys are arguing about the semantics of the meaning of advice and what Gareth Hughes looks like. Mr E even had the audacity to question Ele’s judgement in putting up the original post.

    Unbelievable…no wonder we are in trouble (and NW wonders why I say ‘good grief’ so often).

  126. Paranormal says:

    DK, please, please step away from the shovel. That you are unable to tell the difference between general information and business advice is not helping you.

    We do not have a ‘hugely inflated property market’, we do have an issue in Auckland where council practices have raised the market level pricing for houses, but not in the rest of NZ. There is no bubble that will burst in the near future for Auckland property prices because the council will not free up supply. Simple. Our CV went down at the last revaluation so our current market value is less than we paid when we built 12 years ago. A bit of market growth here would be appreciated.

    As for your $17bn made up hole, what is happening elsewhere in the economy? Calves before Christmas were selling for $250 each, they’re now selling for $650. Has that been factored in? No it hasn’t, along with all the other possible variables, and just shows the paucity of thinking using something so spurious for a political brickbat.

    Coming back to dairying, what does Tony Alexander, a real economist (you could learn something from him), have to say – why that the banks were expecting this downturn as part of the normal dairy cycle (provided in a presentation by TA I attended back in October 2015). The same occurred in (from memory) 2001,2009, 2013. Where is it heading, only those with a fully functioning crystal ball would ‘know’ that, however he does say when it changes it will change quickly.
    http://newsletters.bnz.co.nz/business-wire/2015/07/World-dairy-prices.html

  127. Dave kennedy says:

    Paranormal, the majority of New Zealanders live in areas where the median house prices are more than 3 times the median inome (level of affordability), Auckland is nearing 10 times and our most populated city is now one of the most unaffordable in the world. We also have a severe shortage of good quality homes (affordable ones are often rubbish). Hence the highly inflated values. Not everyone wants to live in Ohai or Invercargill and there aren’t enough jobs anyway.

    Read the North and South article, you will find it very informative, there is no quick fix for the dairy industry.

  128. Paranormal says:

    So are you suggesting devaluing peoples homes? That will be a political winner.

    How do you propose solving what you consider is a dilemma?

    Ultimately the value of homes is not really a problem (as opposed to cost – but you may not see that) as people will find a way around that problem. The key issue is removing artificial hurdles that the Auckland City Council have put in peoples way – such as an artificial limit to Auckland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: