Any more ex-Fonterra suppliers out there?

[Ocean1]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/78179286/Fonterras-big-profit-shows-it-can-pay-suppliers-on-time-Prime-Minister-John-Key

As of last week they're in default of the T&C associated with my invoices.

Which means far from needing to avail myself of their kind offer of special loans to tide me over until they see fit to pay me they simply go on stop credit.

And I don't like their chances of surviving the next couple of months without that causing them stoppages costing them approximately 5,000 times the value of the outstanding account.

I'm not their fucking bank, if they're having cash flow problems, (and they're not) then THEY're the ones that need to go cap in hand to the bank for a loan, not their suppliers.

Cheeky cunts.

[skippa1]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/78179286/Fonterras-big-profit-shows-it-can-pay-suppliers-on-time-Prime-Minister-John-Key

As of last week they're in default of the T&C associated with my invoices.

Which means far from needing to avail myself of their kind offer of special loans to tide me over until they see fit to pay me they simply go on stop credit.

And I don't like their chances of surviving the next couple of months without that causing them stoppages costing them approximately 50,000 times the value of the outstanding account.

I'm not their fucking bank, if they're having cash flow problems, (and they're not) then THEY're the ones that need to go cap in hand to the bank for a loan, not their suppliers.

Cheeky cunts.
Yup, $40k mth they owe us.....fucken drag it out......

[Grumph]

You weren't the engineer/supplier on talkback today were you ? Talking about the problems associated with shutting down a 50T drier...and where the incoming river of milk has to go....He reckoned they should have built 5X10T dryers so shutting one down didn't cause chaos.

But anyway, they're bigger than you, might is right in this govt's eyes...good luck.

[Akzle]

they've been technically insolvent for years.

Ahhh. Economoney.

[sidecar bob]

Can someone please explain to me how the fuck you can steal milk off farmers, sell it on the world market & go broke doing so?

[caspernz]

Can someone please explain to me how the fuck you can steal milk off farmers, sell it on the world market & go broke doing so?

The management chain got a bit chunky and greedy. Capitalism 101 me thinks.

[Akzle]

the world market

ocean is all about this.
Free market economoney, value, worth, money, it's all good solid stuff.

[Madness]

I'm almost certain it's the fault of career beneficiaries.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I listened to that dutch cunt tayo speeeeeeeeering today. What a cunt. Trying to say they had "regularised" their supply because they were competing on a world market. Fuck that shi. Plus the cunts made 409 million half year profit. Not just font error though. I know someone who does work for hardly normal. They tried to put him on 90 dy turnaround. Fuck you, he said i dont ned you, but you need me. You pay 20th of the month following or all that shit over there is smashed with a hammer and goes to the dump. They pay. As they have done for 10 plus years

[HenryDorsetCase]

ocean is all about this.
Free market economoney, value, worth, money, it's all good solid stuff.



National party plant everyone!!!!!!

[Woodman]

I don't understand why these companies extend their payment terms, it can only help them out for a month, then its back to normal. Unless they want to skew some profit results for misleading reporting purposes?

[Ocean1]

You weren't the engineer/supplier on talkback today were you ? Talking about the problems associated with shutting down a 50T drier...and where the incoming river of milk has to go....He reckoned they should have built 5X10T dryers so shutting one down didn't cause chaos.

But anyway, they're bigger than you, might is right in this govt's eyes...good luck.

Nope, not me. Sounds like their typical planning though.

And I don't care how big they think they are, they're barely a blip on my revenue and if they can't meet my terms and conditions they can get fucked. Without their work whatever hrs I invoice them for would be invoiced to someone else, someone who pays me when they agreed to, why would I put up with less from them?

It'll take them another couple of months to work that out, even though I've already warned them, and even then they won't source an alternative in time to avoid some savage downtime. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.


Can someone please explain to me how the fuck you can steal milk off farmers, sell it on the world market & go broke doing so?

They're not broke. They're just deciding to pay all of their suppliers a month or two later. Does wonders for the bank balance AND puts about 4% on annual results.

And the complete opposite for their suppliers, of course.

To be fair 90 days is fairly common overseas, rather than the ubiquitous "20th of month following invoice" normal here, and when I work off-shore I accept that, and build it into the price. 8% contingency, usually.

[Ocean1]

I don't understand why these companies extend their payment terms, it can only help them out for a month, then its back to normal. Unless they want to skew some profit results for misleading reporting purposes?

It's an extra two months with your money in their accounts, saves them heaps.

To put it into perspective, I'm tiny but even for me that would mean I could pull maybe $100k out of my business all together, my clients unpaid bills would be funding my business.

[Woodman]

They're not broke. They're just deciding to pay all of their suppliers a month or two later. Does wonders for the bank balance AND puts about 4% on annual results.

And the complete opposite for their suppliers, of course.

To be fair 90 days is fairly common overseas, rather than the ubiquitous "20th of month following invoice" normal here, and when I work off-shore I accept that, and build it into the price. 8% contingency, usually.

Wonder how many suppliers will now raise their prices to Fonterra?

[Mike.Gayner]

I don't understand why these companies extend their payment terms, it can only help them out for a month, then its back to normal. Unless they want to skew some profit results for misleading reporting purposes?

They can get by with a lot less working capital, which means they can put that money to use elsewhere for a better return. It's shitty and scummy, but it's a nice little tactic if you can use it.

Look at it this way: if your boss only paid your wages once every six months, it's "only a timing issue", but you'd need a big cash float to pay all your bills in the mean time. If your boss starts paying you weekly, you can use that cash on other things.

[gsxr]

Slightly off topic but still relevant. From my recollection Fonterra was formed in 2001 with in excess of 90 % of dairy farmers at the time becoming shareholders. That was to increase returns to the shareholders .
However Fonterra became a corporate with no regard for its shareholders . In fact its mission now appears intent to screw over the shareholders. Yes the dairy farmers that are doing the production.
To assist in that screwing over they have used funds /money/ remuneration due to those providers to build dairy factories in China to produce the exact product we are producing here and exporting to our largest market. Yes China. To further screw the shareholders they are also exporting cows in calf to China and employing kiwis to teach the Chinese to grow milk.
Fonterra as a corporation dont care where their revenue comes from . They have zero concern for the dairy industry here now. Consolidating in China and South America is their major focus

[Katman]

Slightly off topic but still relevant. From my recollection Fonterra was formed in 2001 with in excess of 90 % of dairy farmers at the time becoming shareholders. That was to increase returns to the shareholders .
However Fonterra became a corporate with no regard for its shareholders . In fact its mission now appears intent to screw over the shareholders. Yes the dairy farmers that are doing the production.


While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.

[gsxr]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

Id hate to be you

[Katman]

Id hate to be you

I'd hate you to be me too.

[HenryDorsetCase]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.



?.......????? Dude, really?
Also you did read the OP! right?

[bogan]

I get the advantage of later payments, but its bean counter bullshit unless you have that actually set up with suppliers. Cos once you start failing supplier attitude tests, lead times climb, prices are given a nudge; and actual cost to business takes quite a hit.


And I don't care how big they think they are, they're barely a blip on my revenue and if they can't meet my terms and conditions they can get fucked. Without their work whatever hrs I invoice them for would be invoiced to someone else, someone who pays me when they agreed to, why would I put up with less from them?

It'll take them another couple of months to work that out, even though I've already warned them, and even then they won't source an alternative in time to avoid some savage downtime. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery..

You have to feel sorry for those other suppliers who do rely on their business though.

Stop work until overdue payments received, then charge overtime rates to catch up on their urgent shit they left to last minute. Win-win.

[mashman]

I know a few guys who say that this behaviour is becoming more prevalent among customers too. Completely satisfied with the job like, but they take an extra 60 days to pay. Shame to hear them whining like stuck pigs, but if I were in the same position I'd likely be just as pissed.

[Ocean1]

I get the advantage of later payments, but its bean counter bullshit unless you have that actually set up with suppliers. Cos once you start failing supplier attitude tests, lead times climb, prices are given a nudge; and actual cost to business takes quite a hit.



You have to feel sorry for those other suppliers who do rely on their business though.

Stop work until overdue payments received, then charge overtime rates to catch up on their urgent shit they left to last minute. Win-win.

Aye, the value of goodwill obviously isn't a factor in their calculations.

For me it's not even that complicated. I'm sitting on a piece of equipment here, ready to re-install. If they can arbitrarily change the terms of our contract then so can I, the price just went up 10% and they get the equipment when their account is up to date.

But yes, those that live or die on their Fonterra contract will be hurting for a month or two.

[Ocean1]

I know a few guys who say that this behaviour is becoming more prevalent among customers too. Completely satisfied with the job like, but they take an extra 60 days to pay. Shame to hear them whining like stuck pigs, but if I were in the same position I'd likely be just as pissed.

Like I said it's become the default payment schedule overseas, but while it saves the big guys a bunch it means some small suppliers go under.

And new ones never arrive to compete, because instead of just having to buy some plant and a ute or van and find enough reserves to cater for a month or two of fiscal drag they now have to stump up with a whole quarter worth of overhead costs. For a small engineering business that can mean an increase from maybe a few tens of thousand to more than their house is worth.

There's a business law that says that any market eventually evolves into just three suppliers, and for most countries that's true. But NZ is a land of small businesses, and I've seen so many small businesses bought out by big corporations only to have their prices double to get a fairly good idea of the difference in respective performance between the two models. So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?

[sidecar bob]

While I can sympathise with most farmers, I'm finding the irony of it happening to Ocean positively delightful.

I haven't felt this degree of Schadenfreude since Martin Shkreli was arrested.

I got the impression that he has more work than he can handle & will just move over to the clients that pay as they should.
Much as you & I don't share the same opinions, I still find you to be a most affable chap in person & would be crushed if I heard that bad tidings had befallen you.
My business remains strategically understaffed so I am constantly in a position to just scrape the cream off. Every one is a winner, high profit good paying job with low expectation of future failure, or warranty comeback/ do over again.
In a nutshell, I refuse to employ fuckwits so I can do work for fuckwits.

[mashman]

Like I said it's become the default payment schedule overseas, but while it saves the big guys a bunch it means some small suppliers go under.

And new ones never arrive to compete, because instead of just having to buy some plant and a ute or van and find enough reserves to cater for a month or two of fiscal drag they now have to stump up with a whole quarter worth of overhead costs. For a small engineering business that can mean an increase from maybe a few tens of thousand to more than their house is worth.

There's a business law that says that any market eventually evolves into just three suppliers, and for most countries that's true. But NZ is a land of small businesses, and I've seen so many small businesses bought out by big corporations only to have their prices double to get a fairly good idea of the difference in respective performance between the two models. So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?

I get how it works and I get how "general" business process will eventually be swayed by that sort of practice. How do you legislate for that without breaking the law in regards to what's classed as "fair" competition?

[Tazz]

To be fair 90 days is fairly common overseas, rather than the ubiquitous "20th of month following invoice" normal here, and when I work off-shore I accept that, and build it into the price. 8% contingency, usually.

Why not just do the same in this case?

[Smifffy]

Why not just do the same in this case?

Possibly will, now the 'rules' have changed (been broken)

As already said, this move by the big F might solve a short term cash issue, but it could very well drive their costs up overall.

[Ocean1]

I get how it works and I get how "general" business process will eventually be swayed by that sort of practice. How do you legislate for that without breaking the law in regards to what's classed as "fair" competition?

Why legislate for it at all? If the supplier and the consumer can't agree a price + terms and conditions then the deal doesn't get done. That's the core principle of a free market, nobody is being forced to buy or sell.

If Fonterra find themselves unable to source services for the price and conditions they're offering then they'll either have to pay more, pay it earlier or do without. A situation I'm contributing to in a very small way not because their policies really hurt me but because I don't like seeing the big guys bullying the little guys.

[Ocean1]

Possibly will, now the 'rules' have changed (been broken)

As already said, this move by the big F might solve a short term cash issue, but it could very well drive their costs up overall.

It's not a cash shortage issue, it's just plain increasing their margin a the cost of their suppliers. They're behaving just like the multinationals we all love to hate.

And the multinationals aren't the only ones behaving like arseholes, telecom have been decidedly odius with their staff and contractors for yonks, shuffling contract boundaries to make it look like they have to import linesmen from Indonesia, purely coincidental that they work for half the hrly rate locals work for.

[Katman]

It's not a cash shortage issue, it's just plain increasing their margin a the cost of their suppliers. They're behaving just like the multinationals we all love to hate.


Dude, you're normally the veritable Champion of Corporate Greed.

Why the about face?

Is it because you're suddenly on the receiving end?

[Ocean1]

Dude, you're the veritable Champion of Corporate Greed.

Why the about face?

Is it because you're suddenly on the receiving end?

No change here, dude, I've always been anti-arsehole, no matter how big or small they come. What I've always been decidedly in favour of is people paying for what they agreed to buy, and people delivering what they've been paid for. Pretty simple stuff, really.

It's no different to one of your clients deciding not to pay one of your bills until he's had another eight pay cheques as a matter of policy. And your reaction to that next time they walked into your shop would be exactly the same: fuck off until you pay your bills.

[mashman]

Why legislate for it at all? If the supplier and the consumer can't agree a price + terms and conditions then the deal doesn't get done. That's the core principle of a free market, nobody is being forced to buy or sell.

If Fonterra find themselves unable to source services for the price and conditions they're offering then they'll either have to pay more, pay it earlier or do without. A situation I'm contributing to in a very small way not because their policies really hurt me but because I don't like seeing the big guys bullying the little guys.

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

[sidecar bob]

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

[Ocean1]

How else do you enforce payment? Sorry, "So let's keep the rules appropriate for those small enterprises, eh?" and the "core principle of a free-market" bits do not compute.

Fair enough... but doesn't that depend on how badly the supplier needs the work?

The rules in question are the supplier's rules, usually written on the back of their invoice, govt has no part to play in any normal commercial agreement. They're the rules the purchaser agreed to when he ordered the goods/services in question. Why does govt need to get involved in a private commercial agreement between two business entities?

The only time I expect that to happen is through the commerce commission, if someone is taking advantage of a monopoly, for example. In other words when a market's freedom is being fucked with.

Yes, and how badly the client needs the work to be done. And as long as that balance isn't fucked with then you can say that business is fair and reasonable.

[mashman]

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

Perfect system for it.

[Ocean1]

The key here is to never place yourself in a position to Need the work to survive. A heap of small clients is better than one giant fuckwit, in this case Fonterra.

Or alternatively command a price that compensates for that risk and if they call you on it then be prepared to walk away.

I know a lot of ex-employees of big businesses, (mostly specialist techies) that now work for the same companies, (or their descendants or competitors) as contractors at 4-5 times their old rate. I know of quite a few where their clients, (ex employers) have failed to learn the lesson the first time around when they made these guys redundant and have tried to dictate terms again. :laugh:

The thing an MBA fails to teach these economic geniuses is that they're not selling a product, or a service, they're selling the ability to produce it...

[mashman]

The rules in question are the supplier's rules, usually written on the back of their invoice, govt has no part to play in any normal commercial agreement. They're the rules the purchaser agreed to when he ordered the goods/services in question. Why does govt need to get involved in a private commercial agreement between two business entities?

The only time I expect that to happen is through the commerce commission, if someone is taking advantage of a monopoly, for example. In other words when a market's freedom is being fucked with.

Yes, and how badly the client needs the work to be done. And as long as that balance isn't fucked with then you can say that business is fair and reasonable.

I'm still wondering who is going to enforce the rules? Let alone who is going to set the framework within which rules can be set. That requires a third entity.

Heh... or someone believes that anti-competitive behaviour is being promoted :innocent:

I'm not a fan of the approach.

[Ocean1]

I'm still wondering who is going to enforce the rules? Let alone who is going to set the framework within which rules can be set. That requires a third entity.

Heh... or someone believes that anti-competitive behaviour is being promoted :innocent:

I'm not a fan of the approach.

We're talking about a deal two entities have already agreed to. Who else should expect any right to dictate the terms of an agreement not involving them? If there wasn't the intention to pay for the product you agreed to buy then you don't have an agreement, what you've got is theft. THEN you get to call the enforcers.

No, beliefs don't, (or shouldn't) play any part in setting anti-competitive behavior rules.

And like I said, if you've got no skin in the game then you don't get any say in the terms of the agreement. And that's entirely fair.

[sidecar bob]

Or alternatively command a price that compensates for that risk and if they call you on it then be prepared to walk away.

I know a lot of ex-employees of big businesses, (mostly specialist techies) that now work for the same companies, (or their descendants or competitors) as contractors at 4-5 times their old rate. I know of quite a few where their clients, (ex employers) have failed to learn the lesson the first time around when they made these guys redundant and have tried to dictate terms again. :laugh:
.

And then they wonder why the same product costs 5 times as much to produce, the retail price has quadrupled & they're still going backwards.

[mashman]

We're talking about a deal two entities have already agreed to. Who else should expect any right to dictate the terms of an agreement not involving them? If there wasn't the intention to pay for the product you agreed to buy then you don't have an agreement, what you've got is theft. THEN you get to call the enforcers.

No, beliefs don't, (or shouldn't) play any part in setting anti-competitive behavior rules.

And like I said, if you've got no skin in the game then you don't get any say in the terms of the agreement. And that's entirely fair.

I get that. Who controls the "arbiter"?

They shouldn't, but they do :yes: Comes back to that "arbiter" thing and rules thing.

Shame you see the economy as a game.

[Ocean1]

I get that. Who controls the "arbiter"?

They shouldn't, but they do :yes: Comes back to that "arbiter" thing and rules thing.

Shame you see the economy as a game.

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

[HenryDorsetCase]

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

John Milton Keynes might say the invisible hand of the market was the arbiter.

or that other dude. With the beard. Karl Marx.

above my desk I have a picture of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. For, uh, reasons. In our office we have four Mao portraits I can think of.

[mashman]

What "arbiter"? And what is it with you and "control"? An agreement between two parties doesn't require "policing" unless one of those parties fails to do what he agreed to.

So your answer to the possibility that someone's beliefs may interfere with a commerce commission ruling is to get them involved in every single agreement?

I don't. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I see the economy as a series of mutually advantageous agreements. If that's not the case then pleas feel free take that as read.

"Arbiter" = "policing". In a slightly different vein, an agreement between 2 parties most definitely does require "policing", else it wouldn't require money.

Eh? Quarter Past 2.

So you used the word game for another reason?

[James Deuce]

The thing an MBA fails to teach these economic geniuses is that they're not selling a product, or a service, they're selling the ability to produce it...
It's fun being in the middle of a situation when an MBA equipped account manager suddenly realises that's the opportunity he's missed. The means of production is key to everything in any economic equation. It's been ideologically diminished. In the meantime I'm collecting the kudos for preventing disasters and saving a million or so off a client's annual bill because we treat them with respect, not as a cash cow. The long view is something Western society does not value.

[oldrider]

It's fun being in the middle of a situation when an MBA equipped account manager suddenly realises that's the opportunity he's missed. The means of production is key to everything in any economic equation. It's been ideologically diminished. In the meantime I'm collecting the kudos for preventing disasters and saving a million or so off a client's annual bill because we treat them with respect, not as a cash cow. The long view is something Western society does not value.

Wouldn't the sole purpose of production be consumption? (or why bother) - all else is relative - develop need exploit greed. The American dream?

[scrivy]

Surely all suppliers to Fonterra have penalty interest payments in their supply contracts for late/overdue payments?

Damn phone....

[slofox]

I wonder what would happen if I tried putting all my creditors on a three month wait for payment deal...bet I'd end up in the shit.

[sidecar bob]

I wonder what would happen if I tried putting all my creditors on a three month wait for payment deal...bet I'd end up in the shit.

Yes, you would have the equivalent of three months bill payments in the bank, make the mistake of assuming you had far more money at your disposal that you actually had, going out & wasting it on frivolous whims, ending up broke & properly in the shit.
Paying your bills on the due date gives you a very realistic idea of your actual financial position.
Even one month at my small place would be worth a whole lot more than a nice brand new sports or adventure bike from most manufacturers.

[Ocean1]

Surely all suppliers to Fonterra have penalty interest payments in their supply contracts for late/overdue payments?

Damn phone....

Probably. I wouldn't know, I've never had a contract with them.

Which leaves, (as far as written agreement are concerned) my terms and conditions on one hand and their correspondence of several months ago on the other, elements of which which directly contradict a whole raft of stuff in my terms and conditions.

If it went to court I assume their lawyers would have been seen to be more "correct" in their handiwork than the std Auckland Law Society based content of my terms and conditions. Which is why they can be confident there will be no formal legal challenge to their policy.

It matters not a jot, simply because when it all boils down to basics I don't agree to supply them services or goods on the basis of their new policy, carefully articulated via their correspondence or otherwise. Nor will I do so.

Free market in action.

[Gremlin]

Which is why they can be confident there will be no formal legal challenge to their policy.
There are plenty of instances where business tries to pull a fast one, relying on the fact that not everyone would challenge them, but a few might, and that's an acceptable trade off...

[Ocean1]

Yes, you would have the equivalent of three months bill payments in the bank, make the mistake of assuming you had far more money at your disposal that you actually had, going out & wasting it on frivolous whims, ending up broke & properly in the shit.
Paying your bills on the due date gives you a very realistic idea of your actual financial position.
Even one month at my small place would be worth a whole lot more than a nice brand new sports or adventure bike from most manufacturers.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to managing cashflow, to the point where I usually pay on receipt of an invoice. There's a bunch of my suppliers who just can't handle that and get horribly confused by it all, but it means that at any given time I can look at my bank balance and know that it's almost all actually mine.

The one that usually sneaks up on me is ACC levies, which seem to arrive at completely random times demanding sums of money having little to do with either turnover or class of activity involved.

[Ocean1]

There are plenty of instances where business tries to pull a fast one, relying on the fact that not everyone would challenge them, but a few might, and that's an acceptable trade off...

Aye. That's the basis on which whole industries operate. Sell crap knowing it's crap but sell it at a high enough margin that the returns are already accounted for.

I often wonder how it is that their marketing overcomes their reputation to the extent that places like Te Wharehori and Michael Hill can still function.

As far as legal standing's concerned there's one thing I wonder about, isn't it the creditors that get to set the terms of the loan? Not the debtors? And let's face it that's exactly what a commercial account is: a loan.

[scrivy]

Aye. That's the basis on which whole industries operate. Sell crap knowing it's crap but sell it at a high enough margin that the returns are already accounted for.

I often wonder how it is that their marketing overcomes their reputation to the extent that places like Te Wharehori and Michael Hill can still function.

As far as legal standing's concerned there's one thing I wonder about, isn't it the creditors that get to set the terms of the loan? Not the debtors? And let's face it that's exactly what a commercial account is: a loan.
More precisely a credit account.
As with Romalpa clauses you still own the goods until paid for. ...

Damn phone....

[Ocean1]

More precisely a credit account.
As with Romalpa clauses you still own the goods until paid for. ...

Damn phone....

Quite right.

What's puzzled me over the years is the extent that there seems to be far better discounts available for those on a credit account than for those paying cash. Yes I know it reflects the higher turnover likely from account holders but the link is more tenuous than it used to be, so surely it'd make more sense to discount based on the size of last month's account than how it's paid.

Not to mention the significant fact that a cash purchase has zero risk associate with it and zero financing cost...

Oh, and more on Fonterra's new ethos: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/78225580/fonterra-letter-tells-businesses-to-get-set-to-fight-for-the-coops-business

Which I don't have a problem with, but they're already seen as somewhat mercenary, predatory. And the whole concept shows a typical blindness to anything but costs, missing the fact that defining the work to be done adequately would save at least as much...

Also, if there's ever a death rattle for a business it's the announcement that they're going to cut maintenance costs by 20%. :laugh:

[sidecar bob]

More precisely a credit account.
As with Romalpa clauses you still own the goods until paid for. ...

Damn phone....

But seriously, how much is a used coffee machine locked in someone else's business worth to you? About the same as a used wheel bearing in someone else's car that can't be removed without an hours labour & total destruction of the part in question is worth to me.
Romalpa clauses are bullshit in the real world.

[scrivy]

But seriously, how much is a used coffee machine locked in someone else's business worth to you? About the same as a used wheel bearing in someone else's car that can't be removed without an hours labour & total destruction of the part in question is worth to me.
Romalpa clauses are bullshit in the real world.
Yip.
But the threat of having $8k of commercial crockery taken from a client that is overdue and ready to be used for a packed restaurant at a busy time 😈😈😈.
Just have a cop present.
Funny how businesses pay up then. ..

Damn phone....

[Grumph]

Quite right.

What's puzzled me over the years is the extent that there seems to be far better discounts available for those on a credit account than for those paying cash. Yes I know it reflects the higher turnover likely from account holders but the link is more tenuous than it used to be, so surely it'd make more sense to discount based on the size of last month's account than how it's paid.

Not to mention the significant fact that a cash purchase has zero risk associate with it and zero financing cost...

As a functioning member of the cash carrying underground, i can confirm you're correct. A couple of the places I deal with are prepared to give a discount for on line payments but not a cash purchase. Doesn't make any sense unless they want your contact details to bury you in offers.

Personally I'm resisting the move to a cashless society.

[Ocean1]

As a functioning member of the cash carrying underground, i can confirm you're correct. A couple of the places I deal with are prepared to give a discount for on line payments but not a cash purchase. Doesn't make any sense unless they want your contact details to bury you in offers.

Personally I'm resisting the move to a cashless society.

:laugh: When we're all lined up ordering lunch somewhere up country I'm the one that gets funny looks when I pull out some cash rather than a card.

One of the Stupid Worlders will be among shortly to insist that it's not my cash anyway and Big Coffee is conspiring against us all...

There's a dozen or so of my suppliers that I have accounts with simply for the discounts. One of them won't actually deal with you otherwise but in spite of several applications to set up a proper account has failed to do so but nonetheless emails me the instant I fail to pay an invoice within 7 days. :facepalm:

[MarkH]

I'm not their fucking bank

I agree, cunty move by Fonterra. It is good that you are in a position of being able to tell them to go fuck themselves, I imagine there are some businesses hurt by the later payments that can't afford to walk away from the volume of work they get from Fonterra.

[bogan]

:laugh: When we're all lined up ordering lunch somewhere up country I'm the one that gets funny looks when I pull out some cash rather than a card.

One of the Stupid Worlders will be among shortly to insist that it's not my cash anyway and Big Coffee is conspiring against us all...

There's a dozen or so of my suppliers that I have accounts with simply for the discounts. One of them won't actually deal with you otherwise but in spite of several applications to set up a proper account has failed to do so but nonetheless emails me the instant I fail to pay an invoice within 7 days. :facepalm:
I get funny looks when using my phone to pay for things, opposite ends of the spectrum. But I share and endorse the notification of paying for shit on time, and ensuring you have the money to do so.

Duncan Hills coffee ftw :headbang: