Another tobacco farmer loses it all

A group of tobacco farmers is expected to gather in front of the downtown Simcoe CIBC this morning to protest the bank's foreclosure on an area farm. The demonstartionis expected to get underway at 9am. It's the first of what's expected to be many foreclosures. Local Tobacco Grower and supporter Mark Bannister tells CD 98.9 enough is enough, and this show of support is to get the message out to lenders that "this will not happen". It remains unclear as to whether or not the latest proposed buy-out; which did pass in the House of Commons, but is not binding; will actually come to pass. In the meantime Bannister tells CD 98.9 there dozens of local tobacco growers who are at risk of losing their homes and businesses because of outstanding debt. CD 98.9 will be there live on location and bring you updates.

I feel badly for this farmer but what is the bank supposed to do? I'm sure that the foreclosure was the last resort for them. They are a business after all. Would there be a protest if Joe Blow lost his dairy farm or if I lost my home due to bankruptcy?

Nobody cried the blues for me when I lost my job.

rudievalentine wrote:

I feel badly for this farmer but what is the bank supposed to do? I'm sure that the foreclosure was the last resort for them. They are a business after all. Would there be a protest if Joe Blow lost his dairy farm or if I lost my home due to bankruptcy?

This protest is more targetting the government than the bank but the banks should relize and back the farmers until something is resolved. If no one cares about these guys losing their farms and no one protests or tries to help these people then their story goes unheard and the government gets off scott free as this family is forced on the street.

Tobacco farmers have been peacefully protesting for help for years, I wonder how long before it becomes violent as its clear the peaceful way does not work.

Retired2 wrote:

Nobody cried the blues for me when I lost my job.

Farming is not a job where the farmer works for someone, its a business, owned and operated by the farmer. When a farmer loses his business due to government policy which forced on him huge amounts of debt he loses it all, not just his "job". When you lose your job for whatever reasons you can simply go to the next and get another one without the 500K-1 mill debt load and keep your house. Situations are completely different, no other industry faces the policies tobacco does and those policies have been to end tobacco.

By the sounds of your name you didnt lose it anyways, you retired and if you did lose your job your attitude towards others is likely the reason why.

Banks are not in a position to carry someone's debt. No more than you can get groceries without paying for them.

There are many people in dire situations who lose their homes and livelihoods for a variety of reasons..most of them not of their own creation.

Think about it! A bank will not even cover a $20 NSF cheque! They will send it back and charge you extra for doing so!

You're barking up the wrong tree. CIBC and this, and other foreclosures, are only a symptom of the bigger problem. The problem will only be solved if the current government(s) offer financial relief. The bank isn't going to do it.
Demonstrate in front of your MP's office.

Drove past this morning. Yes they are protesting out in front of the CIBC. But they are also blocking the road as well which means to me they are protesting against the town and everyone in it. BTW nice to see the cops doing as they do with the natives. Letting the farmers block a major roadway and mess up traffic like they do the natives.

A bank can only go so far to help. And if as you say a tobacco farmer has $500 to $1 million in debt then that is a big, no HUGE chunk of change for a bank. Compare that to foreclosing on a normal $200k mortgage.

Thanks for the inconvenience on the way to my JOB. Seriously, how can you justify shutting down a major road through town to protest someone not paying their bills?

I know if I didn't make the payments on my house or business that the bank would waste no time in trying to recoup their money.

CIBC is not a charity and should not be expected to lose their money just because someone didn't pay their legally owed money back to them.

If anything, all this protest is going to do is turn even more citizens of this county against the farmers. Everyone has it rough in these economic times and they just don't have the sympathy for growers of harmful products.

Farmers blocking roads trying to be heard yet the only people affected are the locals that are trying to get along with their daily business. Skully has posed the question of what the next form of protest will be. Taking a cue from the occupiers of the Douglas Creek Estates, the farmers are begining to get serious about real action.

Who can blame them? Although the particular case that they are protesting may or may not have merrit, ticking off the locals only losses support from the very people who supported tobacco in the past.

Do farmers think that locals will call up Toby and Diane for answers? Not likely, the people of Norfolk are already paying a heavy price for the loss of this industry in every cash register in town, but I don't see many non-farmer residents blocking roads and slowing traffic to protest the shortage in their pockets!

Most people see the Tobacco Farmer as a business that had some amazing years with cash yields beyond any other crops. The party is over and has been over and the writing on the wall for decades. Perhaps some of those guys that made millions on the crop a few years ago will volunteer to help out their brothers and sisters who have yet to move on. I don't see the current Conservative Government being of any help in the matter and the banks will just conduct business as usual.

I'm assuming that the borrower signed a contract with the lender to repay the mortgage (plus interest) over a set period of time at a consistent and reasonable frequency. By foreclosing, all the lender is doing is exercising their contractual obligation, nothing more. To protest a public finance issue in front of a private financial institution is sending the wrong message. Just like the borrower, the lender has a balance sheet too. They need to maximize assests while minimizing liabilities, just like any other rational private business owner/operator.

Consider what could potentially happen if a lender did not foreclose on deliquent loans. That branch would have poor quarterly and annual results which they submit to the parent company. The parent company doesn't want to have poorly performing branches, so they might shutdown the underperforming outlet. So, instead of one private business owner losing their business, a whole branch full of people who have nothing to do with an outstanding and deliquent account lose their jobs.

This might be an extreme example, but I think that does a good job demonstrating how a private lender should not be protested against because of a public policy dispute. It's not CIBC's fault that the federal and/or provincial government has damaged a farmer's ability to pay down their debt.

My mom works there and they are also stopping employes from leaving! NICE!

I'm with.... umm ... Batman.. lol on this I worked in tobacco 15ish years ago and the farmer I was working for then knew it was not going to last, and that was before "govr't interference" it was a health thing back then and still is. People were realizing that smoking really wasn't good for you, cancer and all other reasons. You can blame the govr't all you like but tobacco days were numbered even 15 or so years ago. I just think that those who kept with it for reasons that are beyond me, are just using the govr't as a scapegoat because they didn't get out when they should have when it was financially viable. Now blaming the bank for foreclosing on someone is just plain idiotic. They are just doing what any financial institution would do when they aren't getting paid. so holding them up just plain doesn't make sence, not in the least.

Leslie wrote:

My mom works there and they are also stopping employes from leaving! NICE!

That is now beyond protesting the government. Like blocking traffic downtown that is the farmers personally attacking and protesting against the town of Simcoe. Period. All that will get them is animosity.

cking wrote:

Banks are not in a position to carry someone's debt. No more than you can get groceries without paying for them.

There are many people in dire situations who lose their homes and livelihoods for a variety of reasons..most of them not of their own creation.

Think about it! A bank will not even cover a $20 NSF cheque! They will send it back and charge you extra for doing so!

Im sure there is many others who lose it all, but this imo is a unique situation. This man owns quota along with his farm, at the governments request three years ago the tobacco marketing board frooze that quota disallowing tobacco farmers to sell their quota even if they wanted to get out and even if they had a debt load that the banks wanted back. During that process the government stated they would resolve the issue, the banks kept lending and allowed farmers to keep their farms in the mean time knowing a quota buyout would come. This spring the government changed its tune and said no buyout (right now), and they instead said farmers will have to use exsisting programs to get funding, but a farmer cannot get funding unless he continues to grow and even if you grow i can tell you first hand there really is no programs available. Farmers are also told if they stop growing they may not be eligble for the buyout should one ever come, so again farmers continue to grow at the advise of the government and yes banks as well in order to keep up with so called new programs to come.

So then why now is it alright to forclose on these farmers when it is the government anf the banks who have advised them to continue to grow over the last few years? Why is it right that this farmer who say for example owns 300,000lbs of quota will now lose that all and be disallowed a buyout should one come in the fall? Who will get his quota money? the bank? If the banks and the government held to their words this farmer and many others could have already paid off their debts and kept their farms.

As for simular businesses losing it all, putting us in the same boat. No other business is disallowed to advertise its product, no other business faces a sin tax to deter people from buying the product, no other business has an illegal trade taking up 40-50% of its market just down the road where the government completely ignores it.

So IMO this bank has stepped over the line, they should not put pressure on the farmer they should put pressure on the government which told us and them that a buyout was coming. I find it pretty heart warming that these farmers stick together and will not allow this to happen, I also find it pretty sad that some just dont care about him or anyone but themselfs.

MI_13 wrote:

It's not CIBC's fault that the federal and/or provincial government has damaged a farmer's ability to pay down their debt.

But it is CIBC's and other banks fault for advising farmers like this individual to continue to grow even though your going further in debt because the government promised a buyout. It is this banks fault for not understanding that before quota was frozen three years ago he could of sold his quota for around 1.75/lb and payed off his debts in a day, it is this banks fault for not understanding he still owns that quota and buyout or no buyout if that quota was unfrozen today and he was allowed to sell it he could keep his farm.

This bank is just taking his quota and his home even though if certain things happen in the near future he could bail himself out. The bank in this case wants to cash in on the farm and the quota leaving the farmer crushed.

Also I think I have figured out the governments plan, just wait until all of us farmers go bankrupt, lose their farms and disappear so they dont have to pay a dime for their actions.

Spidubic wrote:

Leslie wrote:

My mom works there and they are also stopping employes from leaving! NICE!

That is now beyond protesting the government. Like blocking traffic downtown that is the farmers personally attacking and protesting against the town of Simcoe. Period. All that will get them is animosity.

A family saved his house today as a bunch of people stood side by side to stand up for him and your upset you had to take a 1 minute detour?

Normally one would be happy to see people unite for a good cause of keeping a family in their home, you on the other hand just dont give a darn, sad really.

Jonas wrote:

You're barking up the wrong tree. CIBC and this, and other foreclosures, are only a symptom of the bigger problem. The problem will only be solved if the current government(s) offer financial relief. The bank isn't going to do it.
Demonstrate in front of your MP's office.

I disagree, if you grow tobacco then you knoww it is the banks who have advised farmers to continue to grow and it is the banks who are now ignoring the worth of quota which was 1.75/lb before it was frozen three years ago. This mans quota alone could set him free and allow him to keep his farm.

Banks advised farmers to continue to grow because the government promised a buyout, the banks should now put pressure on the government, not take farms and throw people on the street

SkullyCapone wrote:

A group of tobacco farmers is expected to gather in front of the downtown Simcoe CIBC this morning to protest the bank's foreclosure on an area farm. The demonstartionis expected to get underway at 9am. It's the first of what's expected to be many foreclosures. Local Tobacco Grower and supporter Mark Bannister tells CD 98.9 enough is enough, and this show of support is to get the message out to lenders that "this will not happen". It remains unclear as to whether or not the latest proposed buy-out; which did pass in the House of Commons, but is not binding; will actually come to pass. In the meantime Bannister tells CD 98.9 there dozens of local tobacco growers who are at risk of losing their homes and businesses because of outstanding debt. CD 98.9 will be there live on location and bring you updates.

This was your original posting. Nowhere in it do you describe the situation as you did later in the thread. For anyone, they would read this post and react as some did with disgust. So instead of implying that a person doesn't care about a family losing their home, maybe consider the information they were given to draw their conclusion.

At any rate, maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation. Was CIBC the only lender that the party in question consulted with? Did they go to other lender's to attempt to secure financing? What was the interest rate on the loan (i.e. what was the risk premium)? What I'm trying to understand is that if the risks of this loan were so great as to suggest the bank mislead the borrower, wouldn't the borrower have some sort of signal to indicate this risk? Such as other banks refusing application or an elevated interest rate? If the lender did misrepresent the risk to the borrower then I could not agree more with a protest (and I'd hope there was a lawsuit that follows) but the cost-benefit analysis must be conducted by both the seller and the purchaser of the debt.

Based on your astute observation, which I concur with, farmers should act accordingly.

SkullyCapone wrote:

MI_13 wrote:

It's not CIBC's fault that the federal and/or provincial government has damaged a farmer's ability to pay down their debt.

But it is CIBC's and other banks fault for advising farmers like this individual to continue to grow even though your going further in debt because the government promised a buyout. It is this banks fault for not understanding that before quota was frozen three years ago he could of sold his quota for around 1.75/lb and payed off his debts in a day, it is this banks fault for not understanding he still owns that quota and buyout or no buyout if that quota was unfrozen today and he was allowed to sell it he could keep his farm.

This bank is just taking his quota and his home even though if certain things happen in the near future he could bail himself out. The bank in this case wants to cash in on the farm and the quota leaving the farmer crushed.

Also I think I have figured out the governments plan, just wait until all of us farmers go bankrupt, lose their farms and disappear so they dont have to pay a dime for their actions.

SkullyCapone wrote:

Spidubic wrote:

Leslie wrote:

My mom works there and they are also stopping employes from leaving! NICE!

That is now beyond protesting the government. Like blocking traffic downtown that is the farmers personally attacking and protesting against the town of Simcoe. Period. All that will get them is animosity.

A family saved his house today as a bunch of people stood side by side to stand up for him and your upset you had to take a 1 minute detour?

Normally one would be happy to see people unite for a good cause of keeping a family in their home, you on the other hand just dont give a darn, sad really.

Not sure who you are referencing here. I did not have to detour as I was going down Robinson not Norfolk. As for the family saving their house, great. No one should have to lose their house. It is the fact a road had to be closed and the bank staff had to be harrassed in for it to happen. That is the sad part. No one can sit down and solve their problems behind closed doors. It has to escalate to near violence before something happens. I am not saying it is the farmers fault either as the government could have stepped in and done something long before this. I just think it really shows where our society is headed. Violence will soon be the only answer to solving problems.

This situation involving the tobacco farmers vs the banks brings to mind, albeit on a much smaller scale, the sub prime mortgage fiasco in the U.S. Why are the banks, in either country, lending moneys to situations that they realize, in the long run, are not sustainable? You cannot blame the victims (here being the farmer, in the US being the home buyer) in either case. The banks, in both countries, stand to benefit by becoming holders of vast amounts of property. The imagineable longterm implications are dire . . .

It is also rumored that the banks speculating on oil is why it is $140 a barrel instead of $60.

I wonder how many of the bank employees grew up or worked on tobacco farms when they were in school? Remember back in the eigthies and early nineties when farmers in the states where having the same types of problems? There were a couple of movies made at that time about it (can't remember the names) but it showed just how damaging it can be to the community, state and families. Remember Farm Aid? If the federal government came through with what was promised families would be able to stay on the "HOME" farm. For those of you that grew up in town you have no idea what its like to live where your family makes its living. In alot of cases its a 365 day, 24/7 job and alot of people wouldn't have it any other way. I'm sure that if they were allowed to get out of debt that most farm families would find something else to grow and make a living at. Wonder if Ms Finley was aware of what was happening today? From where she lives off Donly she could have walked down and watched! She helped create the problem with her promises of help.

There is also one other thing. Some are saying....... .nobody helped me when I lost my job. It doesn't seem fair that the farmer is not allowed Unemployment Insurance as they were self employed, thay have no other income til they find a job. The ordinary guy that carries a lunch pail has Unemployment wages to help him, farmers don't.