FARMERS' COOP. ORGANISA-

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXII, Issue LXXII, 28 May 1917, Page 5

FARMERS' COOP. ORGANISA-

TION SOCIETY, LTD.

ANNUAL MEETING

The following is a report of the proceedings after the Star went to press wit>h the last edition on Saturday:— Mr Taylor asked if the item £158 18* represented the whole amount paid out interest.

The chairman replied that this was aa amount paid out in connection with their working expenses. The company had a fairly large amount of interest coming in from secured accounts, and Sometimes from unsecured accounts, which nearly balanced the amount* paid out for interest.

Mr Taylor questioned the amount of £987 3s 8d written off for bad debts. This seemed to be a large amount, and what it was going to be at the end of the war he did not know. Perhaps the chairman could tell them.

The chairman: I am not a prophet, Mr Taylor.

Mr Taylor: Well you ought to be. Mr Taylor proceeded to draw ajttention to the amount of £402 3s 4d set down for legal expenses. The chairman replied that this amount included £130 incurred in connection with the formation of the1 company, which their solicitors were good enough to wait for for nearly three years.

Mr Taylor proceeded to make some references to the question of the commissions mainly going to cattle dealers, and commenced to criticise some remarks made by Mr G. H. Buckeridge daring the initial slfcages of the company. He said it was intended to give the faa-mers a rebate of only 1J per cent, against 10 per cent, to the cattle dealers.

Mr Buckeridge: You don't know what you are talking about.

The chairman: We don't feel justified in refusing to sell stock to cattle* dealers, who are prepared to give, the highest price and to pay cash for their cattle.

Mr Buckeridge, in reply to Mr Taylor's criticisms, said he was not going to allow Mr Taylor to asperse his good name. He would just mention this, that Mr Taylor apparently,did not understand the difference between commission and turnover. It was proposed, Mr Buckeridge explained, to give shareholders a rebate of l£ per cent, on goods purchased, and a rebate of 7 per cent, on the commission charged in selling cattle. Mr Taylor had suggested thai the farmers should get 10 per cent.; that would be more than they would make in profits. Would Mr Taylor suggest that they should receive what they did not earn? He thought they were receiving very good value at present. Mr Taylor had. questioned a statement made by him (Mr Buckeridge)., and frequently when he was organising the society. It would be remembered that the company had decided to issue "B" shares to enable co-operative dairy companies; to come in. and Mr Taylor complained that only a few of these shares had been 'issued. But the history of this company was not .finished yet. No .one, at the time the company was started, could predict that England was going to be at war with Germany, which had altered the complexion of the company's business entirely. The few companies which had taken up "B" shares were getting interest, on their money, and were finding that the project was a good proposition. Those companies who .Had taken shares would find that the project was another etep along the road to co-operation, ana they would find that within a few years their money had not been badly invest" ed at all. Tne company was not yet finished; in fact, it had not really started yet. Mr J. O. Taylor next drew attention, to the item under the heading of land commissions £1572 3s 4d. He considered that for a big concern like the Co-op, that a good live man should do four or five times that amount. If they had not had the commission from Symes Bros.' sales they would have made a. sorry showing this year, and would not have liked to have then printed it ilk their balance-sheet. Th^ secretary said that none of thd commission on Symes' sale had been included in this item. ! The chairman explained that thjs item was the net profit on lsrnd sales, and not the gross. In any ca-3-3, he did not think it would have been a good thing to see a good deal of land changing hands during these times; he preferred to see very little selling excepting in the way of cutting up the larger areas.

Mr Buckeridge, speaking to the motion for the adoption of the report and? balance-sheet, said that he believed it to be a good thing to compare one's concerns with the best, in an endeavor to arrive at some comparison between tbeir own concern and^hef kindred concerns. When he started out originally' to organise this co-operative co.icern, the one thing he then Irreely stated, and always would urge, was that if any business was to succeed it was absolutely essential that they should, have* sound, finance. He believed in strong finance if they were going to <?o strong business, and in looking through thoreport and balance-sheet of the local Farmers' Co-operative, he must 6ay that their finance was not anything like as strong as their business warranted. X they put too big a load on a rtan'» back they would bend it; if they tried to put the same load upon a child's back they would break it. They had yet tbjO child 6O far as their co-operative business was concerned, but they were attempting to put a man's load en it. It was up to the farmers of Taranaki to> put their business, which was their own, on a sound basis. i!e was rot saying that, their business was not already sound, but it was not as strong as it should be, especially where they were* asked to launch out in all directions. A. store was wanted here, sale yards somewhere else, but the directors could only cut their coat according to the cloth given them, and a comparison of thee cloth given to the local association as against that given to other kindred associations meant that the suit thatcould be made by the directors of the* local association must be a very small one. They.had 2273 shareholders, holding 7060 sh"ares, or equal to an~average> of 3 1-10 shares each, representing £12? 10s paid up. At this stago Mr Tavlor rose to apoint of order. Was Mr Buckeridgemaking a speech or was he asking aquestion. The chairman ruled that Mr Bucker— idge was quite within his rights in. speaking to the motion. A shareholder took Mr Buckeridge to> task for stating that each shareholderhad only taken up 3 1-10 shares, worthi £12 10s paid up. He, for one, hadL sixty. Mr Buckeridg;e explained that he wast referring +n the average, not to mdi-« vidunl holdings. A Yo;ce: There has b^en a lot of rotf talked here -to-day. Let us get on* with some business. Mr Buckeridge replied this aspect of their business was one of the most important thfv had to consider. This concern had to be put on a strong financial footing, and despite anything that might be said to the contrary success depended absolutely on the soundness of their finance. The time had come when this Co-operative Society must have stronger financial support

than they, had i.had. in the past; they had a t>aid-up capital of £29,000, and last year their turnover ;\yas ;£703,000. That'meant that theyjha&-;to turn their; capital over 25 times —twice a month, or once every fortnight. Would they find another -"concern in New Zealand attempting to do that. Compare that with the New Zealand Farmers' Co-op. They had 7500 shareholders, as against the "local Co-op.'s 2200, and their average amount pVid ur> was £59, as against ours with £12 10s". It was only necessary for them to turn their capital over eight times a year, as against our 25 times. It was "not a fair thing to ask the directors to carry such a load. Considering that they were passing through a war year, probably the worst war year ■Riey had had, and considering also the company was so hampered for the want of capital, it was a wonder that there was any profit at all to divide. It was a wonder" that the directors and management had been able to turn out such a balance-sheet as they had. (Hear, hear). 'Mr Coleman did not consider that the affairs of the company had been carried on as they should have been, and instanced the fact that he had been billed several times for money that he said he did not owe. Mr Gray remarked that he had scarcely ever gone into their Eltham store without hearing people complaining of the way their accounts were kept. He himself was debited with an account for £ which 3 when it came to be adjusted, amounted to £3 only. Mr Astbury said that no business could be carried on without mistakes happening. Mr Coleman was part of the company, and he should have taken the trouble to have gone to the office, produced his receipt and had his account rectified. A shareholder should not immediately take up an antagonistic attitude merely because an error had been made, in his account. He should first go to the manage^ and if he could not get redress there then he should appeal! to the directors. If he failed to get satisfaction from them, then he should j place his case before the shareholders . for all he was worth, bu£ not before exhausting the other means. ! In reply to a question the chairman said the directors anticipated recovering the wiiole of the £54,000 showed under the heading of "unsecured creditors." These people were not actually behind in their payments, probably many of them w.ere oniy incurred three or four days previously. This sum only ■represented about a weeks i>rading, and all the company's creditors were allowed fourteen days'. grace. It was practically all money represented by transactions within the fourteen days. Question: Do you nave any system under which your allow credit The chairman replied that every application for credi[fc had to go before an Advances Board, who took every precaution to safeguard the company's interests. Jiv A. Death pointed out that on February 2S^h unsecured accounts amounted to £80,000, and on the following month they were in credit £5000, showing that UEsecur.ed accounts had been reduced £85,000 in one month. The amount of unsecured accounts in the balance-sheet was a mere nothing; it was _marvellous tb.e amount of business going through this concern. Ma- Mills, inquired if there was any reason why rebates were not being allowed on wool and land sales commissions,- and if those reasons could not be disclosed to shareholders. The chairman replied' that, the directors had discussed the question of paying out.rebates on these items, but as they had already to reduce rebates on c:heir items they decided to let matters stand as they were at present. It was the intention of the directors to make rebates on the items mentioned, when they could do so. A shareholder remarked that years ago. when stock was sold in the paddock, they paid 2\ per cent, commission. Now, if an agent brought a buyer along they were charged 5 per cent. What was the reason the Farmers' Co- i op. joined the Association of Auctioneers? Why did they not go on their own ? j The Chairman: We have seceded from , the Association of Auctioneers as from April 30th last. So far as he knew the commissions had not been altered: The General Manager: The commissions are exactly the same as have been i rulins in this district for many years. ! A Voice: No. j The General Manager: You are refeV- ' ring to dairy heifers, especially are you ? You pay what ? Five per cent. The General Manager: Since 1 came here 5 per cent: has been the ra:te. We ' have been members of th.c Taranaki j Auctioneers' Association, and that has been the current rate of commission. ! The chairman has told you thai we have . seceded from that Association. j ! Question : Are you going to reduce the commission on dairy heifers? The general manager said that that would be a matter, for the directors to decide. There were reasons for the .Farmers' Co-op, seceding from the Auctioneers' Association that would later on . 'be apparent to shareholders. Mr Cleaver referred to item "travelling expenses, £2300." This, he thought was rather high. The chairman explained that at Auroa, for example, there was no place at which their agents could get lunch, ami they had to take it with them. This the Society paid fo?\ and the total amounted to £17 3<? 2d. Motor car and gig hires amounted to £980 17s 9d: railway tickets £38 6s 7d; and agents' expenses, £1264 11s 7d. The agents' expenses worked out at £6 4s per montli per agent, and this al<i included the up-keep of five cars. Lasi; year they held 205 sales, and this worked out at £4 15s per car per sale. On some occasions two and three cars were required for ono sale. A Voice: That explanation is very satisfactory. In reply to a question a.s to the profits made at the various bulk the fhairman said that the turn-over at the Hawera store was £29,758. The profits were 2.02 per cent., and the nett profirs £802 9s Bd. Eltham. £19.970--. profit 4.01. and nett profit, £819 17s 91. Or>u nake, £5888; 2.75 per cent., and £162 Tncrlewood. £2837; 7.5 per cent., and .■f">l4 10s. Manaia (for one month only) £522 4s Id; 2.2 per cent,, and £13. Machinery and motor cars, £39.997; profit, .015 per cent.; nett profit, a little ovpr £100. Auctions. £603,804; profit, 3.19 per cent. Mr Astbury asked the chairman if the general manager could not devise some means of _ securing an absolute check on goods sold at their outside stores. Complaints had been made by people that they had been charged for goods that they declare they had never received, and there was no evidence, although the invoice showed the sale, that the goods had ever been delivered. The general manager said that mis■takfs had occurred ia this way: Accounts were closed at the head office, say, on the 25th, and by the time these were made out and checked it might ' be the first of the month before they j reached the shareholder. In the meantime a shareholder had called in ;st j, the branch store and paid his account, i but the head office had no knowledge - of this until they got the branch office >] transfer. He admitted that their sys- v tern was far from perfect, but he point- f •d out ihat seven months ago their errors were more numerous than they! \ were to-day. Since he had taken con- j ■fcrol of their business he had put in a' aaw" system of bookkeeping modelled on i

the system in vogue in the co-operative ooncerns down south, and he ventured to> say-that-before long these mistakes ;WouldMbe '^ety largely eliminated. Where they had four or five complaints a few months ago they had now only one, and errors should be reduced to a minimum when the new system was in smooth running order. Farmers p-ust realise that it was most difficult to avoid mistakes sometimes, but they could give the management a great deal of assistance if, instead of going Co a branch manager or an employee, they ■ would communicate direct vith the general manager when an error tad been made, >so tha^Se could personally investigate it. He might mention that, owing to the war, they had had continual changes in the office staff. When he first came here there was one lady in the office; now there were eight, and whilst they were doing excellent work it took time for them to become familiar lvith the new system. "Tie would predict, however, that by the time their next annual meeting came j around they would have very little I reason for complaint. Mr Astbury said the point he wished to make was that at their branch stores shareholders had received accounts for goods that they say they have never had. Could not some method be devised that would be conclusive evidence that goods were ordered and delivered. The general manager 6aid that this would be a difficult thing to do, and if a dishonest person came in and ordered goods in another person's name j that could not be detected. Furthermore, there might be four or .five people in the district with ,tfie same name, and they could therefore see that some mistakes must occur. He would again impress upon them the fact that if a, mistake should occur they should communicate with the manager at the head office or come and see him. That was the best way to eliminate these troubles. ■■> • Mr Coleman: That means that 1 would have had to go to Hawera four times to see you. The general manager pointed out that he and other officials were merely the shareholders' servants, and if shareholders would only come to the

office and go into .the matter of an account that was in error they would go away satisfied clients. Mr Coleman: 1 know one man who did that, and you did not thank him for coming in. . ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. For the five vacancies on the directorate there were seven candidates, viz., the five retiring directors and Messrs E. Marfell and G. Death. Messrs Voullaire and J. V. Wyborn were appointed scrutineers, and the election resulted: Messrs E. D. Dickie 438, W. Jones 346, E. Marfell 385, G. Death 333 W. F. Coombridge 327 (elected); J. Foreman 317, and D. Todd 266. AUDITORS. Messrs Rowley and Gill (Wellington) were re-eTected auditors,, at a remuneration of ££50, plus travelling expenses not to exceed £70. REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS. | It was decided that the directors' remuneration,* be the same as vast year, j viz., £1 for travelling members, and 10s for non-travelling members.. CHAIRMAN'S REMUNERATION. The chairman was voted £100, the same as last year. Mr Taylor: I would like tcr'compliment the chairman upon being a reasonable man. (Laughter.) A Voice: Mr Taylor has changed his coat. (Renewed laughter.) The chairman: He nas had a feed. (Continued merriment.) At a meeting of directors subsequently Mr A. Hunter was re-elected chairman.