MOSGIEL INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED.

NZ Truth, Issue 873, 19 August 1922, Page 3

MOSGIEL INDUSTRIAL CO-OPER-ATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED.

Second Report and Balance Sheet,

From the above heading one can gather that this is an infant amongst the industrial co-operatives at work* m this country. '.'Cambist," under ordinary circumstances, would pass such affairs over, for there are many matters of larger capital significance available at the present moment, even though the efforts m that direction are small indeed, so far as the Dominion is concerned. The individualistic ■ character of the people seems to hamper them m reaching co-opera-tfve achievements, which, under proper social training, might be easily attained. Looking over the little document now to hand, one must feel disheartened at the results for the six months covered by the accounts. To' tell the shareholders that sales amounting to £.7139.4 for the period covered only resulted m a net profit of £34 7s 2d is a practical indication of business failure. Looking at the sales effected, £4842 was for credit, and £2296 only for cash. Yet this sort of trading is branded as "cooperative." At the very root of the matter the proposition is unsound. One of the first principles of co-oper-ation is ■ CASH TRADING, and that principle is absolutely necessary, m all cases where the paid-up capital is small. This, little concern is Struggling to do a business on £1188 of share capital paid up, and at 1 the same time it is hampered by some of its shareholders being m arrears with their payments for calls. The latter sum is £306, but "Cambist" is not disposed to censure people for their default. . Possibly, these .shareholders are, merely shareholders; not co-operators, 't There is a wide difference between these daises. In the former instance it may be that there is a lack of confidence m the management. If the business Is not paying, or its services, do not. give satisfaction to the shareholders m arrears, they may be "hanging back" to see how matters will develop. Of course, such antics are foolish as well as detrimental to the society, and the sooner all parties are made to face the position of the shareholding liabilities the better. The overhead expenses are out of all proportion to the profits. They, with the depreciations written off, and the sum" deducted from preliminary expenses, practically swallow up the gross profits carried into the profit and loss account. The supine co-operators like a lot of expensive service. They must have their goods delivered, and, perhaps, insist upon being canvassed for their orders, This kind of thing COSTS MONEY, and at the same time fails to add to the importance of the people who desire such services. If people do not care to pay cash and carry their purchases, let them keep out of "cooperative" storekeeping. Better far give their trade to the fat little grocer around the corner, so to speak. The balance . sheet shows that sundry creditors (including balance lof xmpaid purchase price) stands at £ 891. How much of this is for the "unpaid purchase price" and how much for creditors is not to be arrived at by looking at these figures. "What is -required to I get forth these facts is a detailed set-out showing ihow much is owing to the wise man who sold his business to this company, and to the other moderately wise men -who" give it credit for the goods purchased. This matter should be attended to m the next balance sheet. Cooperation is intensely candid m its accounting methods. To lump items differing m this fashion is worthy only of the capitalist. On the assets side of the balance sheet, stock £1121 appears' to be a heavy item', if the quality and price is soundly arrived at, then nothing more need be written about it. The committee should have had something about this matter m their report to the members: Such being omitted, "Cambist" will not try to analyse the conditions on the evidence offered. Sundry outstanding accounts £600 is one of the effects following a policy of giving credit. It is A DANGEROUS SYSTEM m any case, and it should hot be considered a very one to follow on a paid up capital of only £1188, even though co-operation is applied to the practice of "putting it on the books." The report of the committee is a very civil document. It almost apologises for the shareholders who are In arrears with their calls. Why , not apply the forceful methods (usually adopted m such cases? Surely the rules of the society provide for the use of the Court as a debt-collector. If the members will not pay as true co-operators should, then by all mea"hs "make them". The report fails to tell members how much of the interest was left m the society to build up its capital account. When so much praise has been bestowed upon the good people acting m that co-operative fashion, it. is rather disappointing to find the amount of cash connected with the transaction overlooked. "Cambist" can see nothing to be joyful about here. The report tells us that "the profit lies m the turnover," and calls upon members to make the latter larger. The fact is, however, that tile expenses of running this business should be cut down first, for profits are almost unobtainable under the conditions dis- ' closed by the accounts. Moreover, let them get on to a cash basis of trading and then, of com-se, urge the members to really co-operate m every other direction open to a distributing cooperative concern.