BACKING INTO ANGLED PARKING SPOTS & TINTED WINDOWS ..

 

There is a dysfunctional change to the way people angle park and it’s moronic.  As an example of this stupidity, at South Melbourne market people go to great lengths to back into a 90 degree angled parking spot seemingly oblivious to the fact that their boot/tailgate, where they will put their purchasers, is now blocked by the very fact they backed in. If they had driven in forwards like a normal human being they would have had easy access.  At South Melbourne market we have seen idiots carrying shopping, kids, strollers and all manner of junk squeezing past cars parked either side just to get to their tailgate which they can’t access anyway.  We have also seen the same morons use the bonnet of the car next to their tailgate as a platform until they shift their car forward a metre  into the traffic so as to load up.  There is another entirely logical reason to nose into an angled parking spot in that by parking nose in you do not disrupt the passing traffic as in parallel parking.  By backing in to an angled park you expect all traffic to stop just so you can back in.  This sense of entitlement and ‘me me me’ beggars belief.  Indeed we have seen people reverse park even in a 45 degree angle park which makes zero sense and they are facing the wrong direction on exit.  This backing into angled parking spots is moronic and I suspect driven by the proliferation of reverse cameras enabling the moron to pretend they self shine.

People need to be aware that backing into everything is not normal behaviour.  May I suggest that a touch of clear thinking will override self entitlement.

Please, nose into angled parking spots like a normal human being!!

There may be another reason why people use their reversing cameras with such moronic regularity.  Watch drivers doing strange things and I will back it in they have every window in their cars, including the windscreen, so heavily tinted they can’t actually see outside with enough clarity to park or indeed safely drive anywhere.  Yesterday we ate lunch at a cafe on Church Street in Brighton enjoying a table outside where we had a plain view of passing traffic.  In roughly 40% of cars you could not see the driver through any window let alone through the windscreen.  How these people see anything at night is a mystery but does explain the necessity for parking cameras.  In our daily commute we see drivers veering, swerving and ignoring other cars and in nearly all cases the morons have heavily tinted windows.  Obviously, there are good drivers with tinted windows but, it seems that a good percentage of bad drivers have tinted windows – they just can’t see out.  

Personally, we like to look out and enjoy the world with as clear a vision as we can get.  The world is a fantastic place to be treasured and not to be hidden behind tinting.  Drive with the windows down, let the wind flow through, turn the radio off and soak in life.  Please.

Campaign funding:

The labour party are in the enviable position of having both ABC radio and television continually supporting ‘labour’ through hundreds of hours of obvious bias.  This through innuendo, words, pictures and indeed even through somewhat blatant jaw dropping comments.  Just watch the nightly news when so called political reporters offer opinion after opinion without fear of retribution or even accuracy.  This is the ABC’s choice but I believe it must be made clear that the ABC is working for the Labour party and the full cost of those hundreds of hours need to be charged to the labour party.   

The ABC is supposed to be independent funded by ALL Australians to reflect proper unbiased ‘reporting’ and proper ‘discussions’ supported by real ‘well educated and life experienced journalists’ [not reporters] also without bias. 

Perhaps an independent analysis of the last say 6 months would identify bias toward any party and, to be fair, any time spent for one party over any other to be charged at commercial rates.

Everyone has opinions and beliefs which shape their delivery and that’s fine as long as the listener / viewer understands the bias.  I have always been a big fan of bringing back the ‘soapbox’ where people can express ANY view without fear except for perhaps a few rotten tomatoes. Gender sedition – fine!  Celebrate racial differences – ‘fine’!  The next Martian attack – fine!!  Global cooling – fine!  Quotas which treat women as less – fine!  People are smart and can decide for themselves and weed out the crap – even with euphemistic tomatoes. 

BANK - BIG 4

This is a story about the culture within a big 4 bank having an all pervasive internal ethos of – ‘right’. 

Thousands of employees believed they were right in everything they did because their chief executive told them so and defended their actions even though they often bent the law.  Indeed, this bank believed it was above the law because it was big and controlled money and they knew that money was everyone’s lifeblood.  It was superior and knew it was superior because everyone was always nice to them.

'You need our money' preached the bank and people queued up to borrow their dream.  After all, this was its job, to enable dreams.  Or so it said.

Their real job was to buy and sell money at a profit - perfectly commendable and natural for any big public company.  Indeed, most of us sell our time for a profit as do all the employees of the big public company / bank.

Unfortunately, some of the employees of the bank were sick the day ethics were handed out and they did things to advance their own career at the expense of reason and often ignored lawful requirements.  After all, it wasn’t their money or dreams and they knew they were right because their senior managers supported them and even encouraged them to act in bad faith.  Why be a nice guy when you can make lots of money by selling the dream then ripping the dream away – for a profit?

One day, one of the more ethically challenged employees decided, without cross checking, that a client had failed to pay a mortgage payment of circa $2,400 on his home months before.  If the employee had checked he would have realised that it was the bank that had made the blunder but fact checking was not in his mindset so he knee jerked into pious action in the absolute knowledge he could do nothing wrong - because he was a part of the bank and was always – right.

He rang the client with the opening statement, ‘We are going to sell your home in 30 days’.  Needless to say the client was somewhat taken aback, confused and indeed scared because the bank had aggressively threatened his dream without cause or reason or even humanity.

Still, this client had a life’s ethos in that it wasn’t the problem that was important it was how you dealt with it.  He knew he was outgunned by the bank that was constantly increasing its feverous attack and sought support from the Ombudsman.  This stopped the drivel and the insane fervour by the bank because the Ombudsman sported a protective umbrella shielding the client whilst they investigated as an independent authority.

That independent authority found the bank was wrong on all counts and awarded damages, compensation et alia to the much relieved client.  However, the issue now was that the client had lost a lot of money, time and opportunities as a direct result of actions by the bank but the Ombudsman was powerless to award anywhere near the quantum of loss.

The client was confused.  Would he accept the determination and accept losses whilst the bank rolled onto their next victim or would or even could he take it further.

At this point he discovered that the employee who had acted illegally threatening to sell his home had been promoted within the bank.   They were content within themselves that they were right and above the law as they had just promoted the dissident with not one syllable of apology to the client for their unlawful acts causing a great deal of stress and loss.

The client was determined to address the issue and pointed out to the bank they were found to have acted unlawfully by the Ombudsman and should compensate him for sustained losses.

The bank always seeing themselves as – right – refused.

So the client took them to VCAT where a higher level of jurisdiction could right some of the wrongs.

Now, the bank was incensed that a lowly client had the temerity to take them on even though they knew the client was the innocent and the somewhat aggrieved party.  After all, they were always right and strutted and pontificated that fact at every chance.  'How dare he!'

As a power play and not so subtle threat to the lone unrepresented client they engaged multiple lawyers, barristers and employees to defend their position in court.  Cost was irrelevant because it was shareholders money and they knew they were always right.

However, this client had done some homework and blocked every legal ‘trick’ the bank threw at him.  The client was not driven by career or personal gain but by mitigating personal loss.  Big difference and somewhat focus inducing.  At that time the bank was respected as a leader with enormous market power which did intimidate the client somewhat and that reality eventually forced a compromise.  How long could he hold out against dozens of lawyers and million dollar bank employees who were always right?   

After 5 years he settled because of a huge power imbalance and the self promoted invulnerability of the bank

That settlement saw the bank lose quite a few thousand dollars to the client but with a full cost to the bank of over a million dollars.  All for a alleged debt of $2,400.  But that’s alright because it’s only shareholders money. 

The client had mitigated some small part of his losses and the bank pontificated on as the all powerful trying to gag any public response by the client.  But now, enter the Royal Commission where Christian Porter – Attorney General said, “The royal commission has noted is that its standing powers enable it, in effect, to override the existence of any non-disclosure agreements.“  The same logically applies to settlements especially where and when there is a huge imbalance of market power forcing outcomes.

The big public company / bank now had nowhere to hide and its culture was for the first time on show for all to see, and it was found wanting.  It turned out that the bank was not superior, not right and that the chief executive had failed to act in good faith by presiding over a ‘toxic’ culture enabling many and various unlawful acts by various ethically challenged employees.  Indeed, in our client’s case the chief executive knew and sanctioned the events leading to a million dollar plus loss of shareholders money.

That revelation cost the jobs of the Chair and chief executive but still left our client in a loss situation.  A loss situation caused by and through a toxic culture supporting unlawful dysfunction.  Note that fault lies with the office as well as the incumbent executive. You can’t just change the executive and expect that all is now well.  The bank must take responsibility as an entity.

So, now our client has a determination by the Royal Commission which says the bank is indeed responsible for their ‘toxic culture’ causing dysfunction and client losses.  The bank is no longer invulnerable with pontificating executives self elevated above the law and past settlements can be revisited especially where bullying or coercion through size dominance was a factor in the signing.

Our client is now able to pursue losses caused by the bank and will.

The bank must decide if it will do the right thing and take responsibility for its actions or just continue on with an air of invincibility throwing and wasting even more shareholders funds at can’t win legal bills.

The story continues.

'T' PLATES

TOURIST PLATES

We drive from St Kilda to Fitzroy between 9am and 1am 5 days a week and we watch with some trepidation what happens to traffic, drivers and pedestrians.

 

The national endemic is ignoring red lights by all participants which creates constant ‘mind’ chaos because no one is sure what anyone else will do.  For example, the disaffected personally powerless dropkick deliberately walks across traffic fingering anyone who dares to complain.  Not a good look.

Everyone has a ‘whoops’ moment being caught clipping a red light but this is vastly different from the dross who accelerate through an intersection in the full knowledge it’s red.

Enter the tourist into this mind chaos.  Strange car, strange city, perhaps driving on the other side of the road and in a constant state of panic.  We as locals are used to it and expect others to also be used to it with little quarter given.  Yet, any tourist wants a positive experience and I speak from personal experience having driven all over Europe.

The trouble is that we don’t know who the tourists are so we have no chance to cut some slack or even smile.  These people are not dross, they are tourists enjoying our space but in a constant state of panic.

The solution is simple.

Magnetic ‘T’ plates the same as ‘P’ plates identifying the driver as a tourist who may make mistakes and whom we have a duty to both understand and support.  

Nice people in a nice city doing nice things being supported by nice locals.

Couldn’t be easier really.

TERRORISM AND SUBVERSIVE MATERIAL

There is an issue developing with the way we treat people and who read what some may call subversive material. 

When I was a lad I read everything I could about homemade firearms with a view to building something which went bang!  You remember, a penny bunger down a lump of pipe with a ball bearing thrown in on top – point it at the fence and wait - only to suffer the ignominy of a hiding from Dad when a large hole appeared.  Or, reading up on how to make a boat only to launch an old door off Black Rock beach and float to glory.  Half a mile out and it dawned on our collective pea brain that we were heading into the shipping lane faster than we could paddle back to shore. Rescued by a fisherman and another hiding.  How about reading up on making a bow and arrow only to have my best ‘friend’ shoot me in the face – quivering arrow embedded in my cheek and, you guessed it, another hiding. This is normal boy’s stuff, adventure and projectiles. 

There were a plethora of books available for boys to ponder over and discuss what would be considered by today’s moral police to be subversive and indeed even anarchistic as well as deeming those evil tomes for corrupting the minds of boys leading them into the paths of terrorism and world domination!

Can you imagine what one of moral turpitude could write about my antics as a boy?  “Terrorist plot foiled by fisherman when youths caught in shipping lane on homemade boat waiting to sink American container.  These same despots have previously been caught developing home made weapons of mass destruction designed to inflict maximum damage. They have also been caught with terrorist instruction manuals. They should be immediately jailed for the rest of their horrible and unchristian lives!”

 Sounds like a big call for a couple of 10 year olds somewhat lacking in a sense of self preservation and an overinflated sense of adventure with no allergies or colds or disease or, brains.

The exampled news article from the moral high ground person was created from the very dark side of their own thoughts and desire to sell news papers turning a couple if idiot 10 year olds into perpetrators from the ‘axis of evil’.

I have read part of David Hicks book yet I don’t think I will be developing any desire to go and follow some passion in another country through and by just reading his book.  I can remember reading books by Dennis Wheatley as a kid on the occult and being fascinated but I don’t think I will be buying a pointy hat any time soon.  At our school we had a church service every morning – 2400 sessions of attempted indoctrination - yet I have no desire to pursue a role as a religious do-gooder. 

I have read the bible dozens of times and indeed have a couple of those inculcating tomes floating around the house somewhere.  Does this mean I am a religious extremist with views taken from a collection of part phrases?  Not bloody likely.

As I am scrawling this I am looking around at our library.  Right there in front of me is another mine of information allowing me to research possible malfeasant targets.  This incendiary publication is innocently called the ‘The White Pages’.  I can slobber over this whilst wearing my pointy hat and thinking of my antics as a “despot youth reading unchristian terrorist instruction manuals such as Popular mechanics”.

Then there is the internet.  That terrorist inspired publication, The White Pages’ is on-line!  God help us all.

This week a person was arrested for reading ‘subversive’ material and accused of a crime because someone somewhere deemed the material subversive and of Al Qaeda origin.  Every bloke should therefore be arrested who had read the White Pages, Popular Mechanics, The Bible, any thriller novel or has seen any ‘action’ movie over the last 50 years.

Mao Tse Tung tried to remove Chinese culture by removing books. Stalin and Hitler did the same. These delightful despots believed that if you removed people’s ability to seek information then you gain control.  The sad thing is that they nearly pulled it off and worse, their idea of censorship is still alive and well in today’s challenged dictatorships.

It has been proven time and time again that people will seek information and then disseminate what they think is right and what is wrong.

There will always be people who read into a sentence just what they want to hear and make judgements based on no fact.  Take the article written about my attempts to sail to glory as a 10 year old - nothing to do with reality.  It’s not the act but the reporting which creates angst.

It’s not what people read, it’s how they interpret it. What’s more, if too many books have been burnt then the total picture is not available and people will make decisions on limited and possibly spurious texts.  Not good.

I was lucky because as part of my 2400 church services we discussed all religions on equal terms with an overriding agenda not to judge.  Obviously, as a Presbyterian school, the preference was to guide us into the true light of that belief, but not at the expense of intellectual understanding.

The same cannot be said for other doctrines which attempt to blind and demand adherence to what is a very small section of life.

Therefore, the issue is not what they read but what they DON’T read.  Balance in everything is good whereas dictated opinion is bad.  Take ‘Reds under the beds’ and ‘George Orwell’s 1984’ as examples.

I personally don’t think it an issue that someone reads a subversive document.  Every Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Christian Scientist or orthodox Jew could also be accused of subverting another’s chosen true way if all we had to judge on was the specific written word of each doctrine.

Every one of those believers who decry other’s beliefs should also be arrested and jailed as was the person downloading alleged Al Qaeda subversive material.

Perhaps not a good thought as this act alone is heading towards Hitler’s idea of a free world.

I personally have been threatening to read the Koran.  It’s about time and like Popular Mechanics, The Bible and the White Pages, it’s an obvious terrorist book designed to subvert the masses into a proletarian uprising.

Can you imagine how the same writer who wrote the article on me as a floating kid could perceive this wanton act.

“Brainless dropkick youth previously guilty of terrorist plots grows up to continue his life of subversion and anarchy by downloading and indeed even reading the other side’s religious text!  His intentions are obviously Armageddon generated from the axis of evil.  God Help us all”

Yep, if that drivel is what we believe and those beliefs guide our actions then truly, ‘God Help us all’.

Jon Langevad   

MONTSALVAT

Montsalvat - Australia is extremely lucky to have Montsalvat.  Make no mistake, this ‘artist’s colony’ built through the vision of Justus Jörgensen early last century has survived to this day and is a place people go to marvel at just how a French Gothic village could be created on a hillside in Eltham.  Not just a French low-line thatched affair but grand architecture inclusive of a great Baronial hall, a beautiful chapel, a delightful pool and some of the best ‘balanced’ architecture one could hope to see.  We are still lucky enough to have residing at the property the man who helped build this icon with his father, Mr Sigmund Jörgensen as patriarch, arts advisor, multi-hat-restaurateur and board member.

It is approaching 50 years ago, when I first stepped onto the property marvelling at the community feel by just wandering aimlessly around dodging killer geese and surly peacocks and stopping to watch artists at work perhaps to buy their wares. 

In my mind, Montsalvat must be both protected as a national icon and cherished by celebrating its history and making sure it continues in the manner visioned by Justus Jörgensen all those years ago.  In this way a zillion new people over the next 80 years can go and gawk and admire and experience a slice of living history without Walt Disney like exuberance. 

Ethos discomfort - But now, Montsalvat seems to be in some degree of ‘ethos-discomfort’.  Whilst the buildings remain and are most certainly worth a visit or ten, I am concerned that the current board and management do not understand the raison d'être behind Montsalvat and are failing to manage critical business aspects and heritage responsibilities.

As the saying goes, there is no free lunch!  To preserve Montsalvat requires vision and money and focus and clear strategies all leading to informed decisions by a coherent and transparent board.  Decisions which ensure working capital for infrastructure maintenance and development.

Board and management have failed - As I watch events unfold, monitor blog and change sites, read publicly available documents, watch everything and listen to all and sundry it seems to be increasingly clear that the current board and management are failing in their primary duty to make sure Montsalvat is protected, cherished and financially sound.  Unfortunately, there are many board and management decisions seemingly incongruous to these three very basic visions leading to profit diminishing year on year thereby curtailing infrastructure repairs let alone being able to take advantage of any ongoing strategic initiatives. 

Directors are required to make informed and independent judgments on decisions put to them [AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992) 7 ACSR 759] and are required to place themselves in a position to guide the company and monitor its management but Montsalvat seems to have a board riven with infighting whilst making questionable [even ultra vires] decisions in possible breach of the Corporations Act [2001] S180 etal. All board decisions seem to be treated as confidential subject to secrecy provisions inserted within the constitution. The result being the ‘self elected’ board only answers to itself with no members other than the actual board members - so there are no checks and balances.

Just a cursory look at the 2013 financial reports indicates problems like consultant’s fees, employment expenses and professional fees amounting to around 87% of gross profit, non current liabilities increased by $103,000 and the loss of a $600,000 revenue stream through gifting the popular albeit badly managed restaurant to a third party by tender for a fraction of its worth as that revenue stream. As directors have a lawful duty to be informed of the companies actual financial affairs [Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd v Morley (1990) 2 ACSR 405], how can this happen?

Just three examples:

Deliberate sacrifice of a major revenue stream - Money was and is critical to the survival of Montsalvat but revenue streams are limited.  A few years ago we worked with Mr Sigmund Jörgensen to reinvigorate the restaurant establishing a vision, mission, strategic directions, strategic objectives, change plans, spatial changes, and cuisine changes all financially documented with timelines.  We estimated a nett profit to Montsalvat from the restaurant of some $3,000 to $4,000 per week and, based on later published turnover of up to $14,000 per week, they should have easily achieved that profit and more - providing it was properly managed.  Unfortunately, management did not take any of our advice apart from some spatial changes [since destroyed] resulting in losses roughly equivalent to profits foregone in as much as $300,000 per annum was lost to forecast.  That’s a lot of maintenance and marketing money just gone.  Management must have actually budgeted for wages etal  near 90% of gross profit and a cost of sales well above industry norms to screw this up.  Much worse, instead of fixing the problems, as a board and senior management should, and given they had all the information we gave them, decided instead of actually managing the restaurant to profit, to lease the space out for a fraction of its worth as a revenue stream for Montsalvat.  How can that be acceptable?  These are not the actions of a competent board and/or management given that under the Corporations Act each and every director must exercise their power and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that any reasonable person would exercise.

Wasted marketing opportunities - Mr Jörgensen had just written a book on Montsalvat launching it a couple of weeks ago at Montsalvat itself.  This major event should have been embraced by board and management, but no.  Sigmund had to do his own marketing, beg entertainment, seek his own speakers and believe it or not the entry doors remained locked until after the advertised start time leaving guests outside in the dust for no reason. I was there, being extremely underwhelmed by the board and management in their conduct towards the launch and Mr Jörgensen but far far worse, their ambivalence if not rejection of the huge marketing opportunity this launch could have provided for the future benefit of the property they purport to direct and manage.  It is shameful as this conduct seems to be driven by board dysfunction and infighting to the detriment of Montsalvat.

Destruction of heritage - An example which really strikes at the heart of Montsalvat.  When Justus Jörgensen designed and built Montsalvat he designed a beautiful pool gated from the outside world and surrounded by artist accommodation and galleries.  This pool is an integral part of the ethos of Montsalvat as are the pools at Ripponlea and Mooramong.  Indeed we were at the National Trust property, Mooramong, a little while ago enjoying afternoon tea around the unfenced pool and have enjoyed many a visit to Ripponlea around their also unfenced pool which they use for functions and receptions. These heritage pools are unfenced for heritage reasons with no requirements by council or anyone to fence same.  Yet the board and management at Montsalvat decided to erect a glass fence [which they can’t afford to pay for] around their heritage pool.  This they are doing against significant objections [change.org] and no lawful imperative or need [no council requirement].  It is public information that the Board even lied to protect their decision to erect the fence by stating there was indeed a lawful requirement.  Heritage aesthetics are ignored and a vital part of Montsalvat’s ethos is being ripped away by a board who just doesn’t understand Montsalvat.

There are many more such examples - Montsalvat has lost its direction.

Three things need to happen starting right now to ensure Montsalvat’s protection and survival:

Stop - The current riven and dysfunctional board along with senior management must resign forthwith apart from Mr Jörgensen who, pursuant to Montsalvat’s constitution as a family member, must remain. 

Assess - An independent administrator / chair / chief executive needs to be appointed for a period of 12 months to instigate a totally independent assessment of all finances and decisions for the last 5 years.

Plan -  Develop a proper strategic plan.  During this time the board needs to be rebuilt with appropriate people after which senior management need to be appointed. 

As I said, I am very concerned about Montsalvat and its future.

Jon Langevad MBA

Justice Heydon

There are several things which define us as people and as an advanced society.  Of prime importance is the ability to stay a course of conviction through and by focussing on key points of change. On the contrary one of the things which define a low intelligence is swapping a focus on key change points for an attack on the person in the misguided belief that this is a rational behaviour in line with our adversarial Westminster system but is instead based on a desire to win at all costs.

Events over the last few days have shown quite clearly that the unions and the labour party have gravitated to the second group whilst Justice Heydon has exhibited the strength of character demanded of a High Court Justice by staying his course of conviction.

Union officials and labour politicians are devolved to absurdity in their criticism of Justice Heydon saying quite openly that he is guilty of bias seemingly just because his commission uncovered unlawful acts in the union.  David Oliver on Lateline disgraced himself and his union members by accusing a high court justice of what is essentially an unlawful act totally abhorrent to his former role as a Justice and current role as commissioner.

Both the unions and labour politicians have disgraced themselves and made Australia a laughing stock by personally attacking Justice Heydon over him finding against them and recommending several of their number for police intervention. 

They are bordering on personal defamation against a lawful commissioner and in my opinion should be firstly prosecuted and secondly removed of any political power by resigning their posts.  They are not attacking the issues but the commissioner.  This defines low intelligence and a misguided belief that attacking the person is a valid course of debate whereas attacking the issue is the only fair game in a democratic and respectful society.

ANDREWS AND THE EAST WEST LINK - LATEST

In the AFR [Lucille Keen] on Saturday  the 23^rd of May 2015 said it was reported that just last month our Victorian Government paid $339,000,000 just to cancel the East West link with lost sunk costs amounting to $500,000,000.  Add on the thousands of hours of Government time foregone and the $1.5 billion lost from the Federal Government and the problem becomes gigantean remembering this is OUR money he is squandering.

Now infrastructure Australia has weighed into the ‘cancel it at any cost’ decision by Andrews stating that Victoria has lost the opportunity through not building East West to create a traffic plan for a key section of Victoria’s future. Instead Andrews is going to spend money on level crossings in marginal seats.  This is minutia thinking at its worst.  No future thinking, just repairs in marginal seats.

He has no project ready to start right now worth anything in terms of long term strategy and has foregone thousands of jobs and cost us billions through this decision and, he has cancelled the proposed airport link.

Victoria deserved better, MUCH BETTER.

ATTACKING OUR WAY OF LIFE

Sometimes it’s very hard not to attack the person behind stupid conduct instead of the conduct itself because, there are times when the extent and gravity of that conduct is so wrong and so abhorrent to our values and way of life, the person themselves must hold responsibility. 

Daniel Andrews, the leader of our current Government, refused to rule out introducing retrospective legislation to invalidate a lawful debt over the East West link for which he knows he is responsible. 

Unfortunately it’s all of us who suffer this conduct because he speaks for us and anything he does reflects on us as a State.

I can’t imagine the degree of ignorance and stupidity it takes to even contemplate this sort of action.  Retrospective legislation is an evil ploy of dull witted people because it is so abhorrent and so against our Westminster system of Government it beggars belief.

Can anyone imagine what this will do to our reputation as a place in which to invest or indeed the effect on our country’s credit rating?

This third world conduct by the current Premier is enough to call an immediate election because it threatens our very way of life. 

He has spent a good chunk of our surplus already and can fund few of his promises - even with forward estimates of 20 years plus. Now add on the costs of an imminent High Court challenge and subsequent payouts for the East West link plus the withdrawing of funding from the Federal Government and we are back to the days of Cain, Kirner, Bracks and Brumby.  Does anyone remember how much Bracks cost us as a State when Hull in his post as attorney general lost the court cases over Seal Rocks including a stupid appeal attempt?  Try $80,000,000 and that’s minor compared to the lawful default costs of East West link. Remember also that the Bracks Government at the time tried to blame anyone but themselves - as Andrews is currently attempting. 

Please, please not again.

Retrospective legislation is evil.  Our system of Government is sacrosanct as it protects us, supports us and makes us the envy of the world – why screw with it?

There’s a good reason our Judiciary is independent.

Regards,

Jon Langevad

What are nab and its lawyers doing?

It would seem that the culture and business practices at nab leave a lot to be desired as proven by just three of many examples:
1. There is a petition on ‘change.org’ which highlights the culture of harassment by both nab and its lawyers, especially against people at a special financial disadvantage. In this case it seems nab and its lawyers [Gadens] are harassing their victim and are determined to sell the house of that victim just to satisfy their own seemingly rabid need for foreclosure at any financial or human cost;
2. In an article written about nab and Gadens by journalist Tess Lawrence she said, “Without question, the police should investigate how and why lawyer [Nab’s lawyers – Gadens] made .. a phone call .. and on what authority and on what grounds .. saw fit to interfere with the course of Justice ..” and, from another lawyer during the same case when addressing the victim in a public hallway, “You’re dead” .. “you f…ing bitch”. “The NAB and I will take you down”… “You will have nothing, you will be destroyed”. Charming.
3. In our case, after considerable maladministration and misfeasance, Nab acted unlawfully with extreme harassment and assaultive malfeasance by cancelling all our financial facilities, including our mortgage, and taking great delight in threatening to sell our home within 30 days – all without due cause. The Financial Ombudsman Service agreed with us and found nab’s acts unlawful and awarded contract restoration, damages and compensation. However, we believed the quantum to be insufficient so we are pursuing nab through VCAT. This has been going on for over 3 years with nab losing their ploy to have the case dismissed or shifted to the Supreme Court [which would have been a huge financial disadvantage to us] whilst employing nasty little tricks like delivering reams of documents the night before a hearing [twice] guaranteeing we had no time to read them, let alone understand them. In this instance and once again nab was found to have failed to have acted in a conscionable manner when the Judge agreed that nab’s actions were inappropriate.
As I said, these 3 examples are but 3 of many and clearly point to a culture within nab which has grown, to be what many victims consider, unconscionable and indeed ferrel.
At the heart of this culture is nabs continual refinement and reliance on their terms and conditions, developed at great expense by their teams of lawyers, which purport to give nab extreme power to do what they like and to whom they like. All three examples above clearly point to this malfeasance. In our case [example 3] it was indeed unconscionable malfeasance as nab knew its acts to be unlawful but ignored the law.
I purport that just the act of including terms and conditions nab knows are unlawful and to be read down are unconscionable in themselves.
The key question is, “Can an action or intention to action be deemed as unconscionable if that act or intention is against good conscience but as yet has no victim”. The corollary is that there is no unconscionable intent until someone is affected? [Has the tree fallen if no one sees it fall? – note, yes the tree has fallen!]
Take for example a contract and in the fine print there is a clause which stipulates that one party has the right to terminate the contract if they ‘deem’ any issue they wish a breach of that contract and the contract becomes null and void without loss of benefit to the author of the contract.
An obvious nonsense yet that is a standard term for nab. As a matter of fact, any contract which can be broken at will for no reason is not and can never be a contract because no one could rely on that contract. That is why a lawful process to break a contract is legislated – for example S88 and S89 of the National Credit Code.
Now let’s assume, in the normal run of events, that nab is in a strong position with services in demand and people needing those services. People sign off the contract including the ‘deeming clause’ because they have little choice. Say a mortgage or a credit card contract.
At what point and under what circumstances does the enforcement of the deeming clause become unconscionable and do we even need an enforcement to recognise the term as unconscionable and to be read down?
I believe that it is enough to make such clauses unconscionable even if there is no victim just because it may confuse, coerce and mislead people into believing it is valid. This sort of clause has the obvious intent of doing just that by advantaging the author unconscionably at the expense of others.
Take nab. They have similar deeming clause in their terms and conditions which allows them to summarily terminate an agreement and demand instant repayment of a loan. Yet there are provisions within the Code of Banking Practice, the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC act which specifically preclude nab from actioning their deeming clause without due process.
So, on one hand we have nab with their deeming clauses and alleged cancellation rights and we have the law on the other stopping or at least modifying the same alleged rights.
As nab is well aware of the law and well aware of the way their deeming clause is inappropriate then isn't the unlawful inclusion of such a clause, by definition, unconscionable because the intent of the clause is to take unconscionable advantage - even if it’s never acted on!
Therefore the precursor to any litigation is whether or not the deeming clause is unfair because the intent of nab is unconscionable.
I would say that any clause which purports to allow one party to just deem a contract null and void to someone’s disadvantage must be read down as it would be unconscionable to leave it there.
Now let’s assume, nab acts on the deeming clause and we have a victim. Mr Victim had a credit contract and was using his ‘card’ for everyday things and accumulating frequent flyer points and paying his monthly commitments. He was late a couple of times but fixed the arrears and all was well and Nab were still charging lots of interest for the privilege. Then someone from nab decided to deem the victim’s card cancelled and the victim had to repay the entire debit within a few days because that’s what the deeming clause said.
This put the victim instantly in a state of special financial disadvantage for at least two very important reasons. Firstly, he had to find the money elsewhere to pay the loan [if he could] and secondly he had relied on the line of credit and instantly had no other immediate access to money to live on or pay bills. In effect he had relied on nab acting conscionably and in compliance with all parts of the law.
Mr Victim complained but nab just pointed to the deeming clause as justification for the cancellation. Nab was well aware of the law but chose to mislead and coerce the victim into believing they had the right.
Now, not only is the deeming clause unconscionable but nab acted on that clause in the full knowledge of its effect on the victim. Therefore the act is also unconscionable as it caused Mr Victim to lurch into a state of special financial disadvantage.
I believe Mr Victim has an actionable case against nab on at least two grounds. Firstly, nab included such a clause with obvious unconscionable intent to mislead and coerce and secondly, nab acted on it outside the known provisions of law.
I would say that pecuniary penalties apply for both inclusion and act and the victim needs to be compensated.
In the article written by Tess Lawrence [example 2] it seems clear that there is a culture within nab and its lawyers of ‘f..k you, nab will take you down, you will have nothing, you will be destroyed and we will do what we like including trying to influence the legal process when we want’. In my opinion nab’s conduct in this instance is common assault and should be treated as such.
The culture within nab and its lawyers of condoning these sorts of actions is thoroughly objectionable to any reasonable person. In our case, nab have been found guilty of unlawful acts to our disadvantage by the Ombudsman and yet nab still condone and continue with similar conduct which still can only be described as unconscionable.
Nab know that 99.99% of people will not question a multi-national company because they believe nab’s published terms and conditions are lawful and that nab must have a right to do what they do because it has teams of lawyers and they couldn’t fight them in any case. In our case this assumption is incorrect.
We are seeking more than justice for us. We are seeking an independent umpire [Judicial member at VCAT] to order that the terms and condition which purport to give nab ultimate power are unlawful and to be read down.
In this way people are able to rely on their ongoing financial contract, rely on nab complying with the law and rely on that same law to define a lawful process for voiding a contract and to also stipulate penalties for non compliance.
Perhaps nab need to change the way they think.
Jon Langevad
Tuesday, 7 October 2014

I am concerned about Montsalvat, the way it’s managed and its future.

Montsalvat - Australia is extremely lucky to have Montsalvat.  Make no mistake, this ‘artist’s colony’ built through the vision of Justus Jörgensen early last century has survived to this day and is a place people go to marvel at just how a French Gothic village could be created on a hillside in Eltham.  Not just a French low-line thatched affair but grand architecture inclusive of a great Baronial hall, a beautiful chapel, a delightful pool and some of the best ‘balanced’ architecture one could hope to see.  We are still lucky enough to have residing at the property the man who helped build this icon with his father, Mr Sigmund Jörgensen as patriarch, arts advisor, multi-hat-restaurateur and board member.

It is approaching 50 years ago, when I first stepped onto the property marvelling at the community feel by just wandering aimlessly around dodging killer geese and surly peacocks and stopping to watch artists at work perhaps to buy their wares. 

In my mind, Montsalvat must be both protected as a national icon and cherished by celebrating its history and making sure it continues in the manner visioned by Justus Jörgensen all those years ago.  In this way a zillion new people over the next 80 years can go and gawk and admire and experience a slice of living history without Walt Disney like exuberance. 

Ethos discomfort - But now, Montsalvat seems to be in some degree of ‘ethos-discomfort’.  Whilst the buildings remain and are most certainly worth a visit or ten, I am concerned that the current board and management do not understand the meaning behind Montsalvat and are failing to manage critical business aspects and heritage responsibilities.

As the saying goes, there is no free lunch!  To preserve Montsalvat requires vision and money and focus and clear strategies all leading to informed decisions by a coherent and transparent board.  Decisions which ensure working capital for infrastructure maintenance and development.

Board and management have failed - As I watch events unfold, monitor blog and change sites, read publicly available documents, watch everything and listen to all and sundry it seems to be increasingly clear that the current board and management are failing in their primary duty to make sure Montsalvat is protected, cherished and financially sound.  Unfortunately, there are many board and management decisions seemingly incongruous to these three very basic visions leading to profit diminishing year on year thereby curtailing infrastructure repairs let alone being able to take advantage of any ongoing strategic initiatives. 

Directors are required to make informed and independent judgments on decisions put to them [AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992) 7 ACSR 759] and are required to place themselves in a position to guide the company and monitor its management but Montsalvat seems to have a board riven with infighting whilst making questionable [even ultra vires] decisions in possible breach of the Corporations Act [2001] S180 etal. All board decisions seem to be treated as confidential subject to secrecy provisions inserted within the constitution. The result being the ‘self elected’ board only answers to itself with no members other than the actual board members - so there are no checks and balances.

Just a cursory look at the 2013 financial reports indicates problems like consultant’s fees, employment expenses and professional fees amounting to around 87% of gross profit, non current liabilities increased by $103,000 and the loss of a $600,000 revenue stream through gifting the popular albeit badly managed restaurant to a third party by tender for a fraction of its worth as that revenue stream. As directors have a lawful duty to be informed of the companies actual financial affairs [Statewide Tobacco Services Ltd v Morley (1990) 2 ACSR 405], how can this happen?

Just three examples:

Deliberate sacrifice of a major revenue stream - Money was and is critical to the survival of Montsalvat but revenue streams are limited.  A few years ago we worked with Mr Sigmund Jörgensen to reinvigorate the restaurant establishing a vision, mission, strategic directions, strategic objectives, change plans, spatial changes, and cuisine changes all financially documented with timelines.  We estimated a nett profit to Montsalvat from the restaurant of some $3,000 to $4,000 per week and, based on later published turnover of up to $14,000 per week, they should have easily achieved that profit and more - providing it was properly managed.  Unfortunately, management did not take any of our advice apart from some spatial changes [since destroyed] resulting in losses roughly equivalent to profits foregone in as much as $300,000 per annum was lost to forecast.  That’s a lot of maintenance and marketing money just gone.  Management must have actually budgeted for wages etal  near 90% of gross profit and a cost of sales well above industry norms to screw this up.  Much worse, instead of fixing the problems, as a board and senior management should, and given they had all the information we gave them, decided instead of actually managing the restaurant to profit, to lease the space out for a fraction of its worth as a revenue stream for Montsalvat.  How can that be acceptable?  These are not the actions of a competent board and/or management given that under the Corporations Act each and every director must exercise their power and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that any reasonable person would exercise.

Wasted marketing opportunities - Mr Jörgensen had just written a book on Montsalvat launching it a couple of weeks ago at Montsalvat itself.  This major event should have been embraced by board and management, but no.  Sigmund had to do his own marketing, beg entertainment, seek his own speakers and believe it or not the entry doors remained locked until after the advertised start time leaving guests outside in the dust for no reason. I was there, being extremely underwhelmed by the board and management in their conduct towards the launch and Mr Jörgensen but far far worse, their ambivalence if not rejection of the huge marketing opportunity this launch could have provided for the future benefit of the property they purport to direct and manage.  It is shameful as this conduct seems to be driven by board dysfunction and infighting to the detriment of Montsalvat.

Destruction of heritage - An example which really strikes at the heart of Montsalvat.  When Justus Jörgensen designed and built Montsalvat he designed a beautiful pool gated from the outside world and surrounded by artist accommodation and galleries.  This pool is an integral part of the ethos of Montsalvat as are the pools at Ripponlea and Mooramong.  Indeed we were at the National Trust property, Mooramong, a little while ago enjoying afternoon tea around the unfenced pool and have enjoyed many a visit to Ripponlea around their also unfenced pool which they use for functions and receptions. These heritage pools are unfenced for heritage reasons with no requirements by council or anyone to fence same.  Yet the board and management at Montsalvat decided to erect a glass fence [which they can’t afford to pay for] around their heritage pool.  This they are doing against significant objections [change.org] and no lawful imperative or need [no council requirement].  It is public information that the Board even lied to protect their decision to erect the fence by stating there was indeed a lawful requirement.  Heritage aesthetics are ignored and a vital part of Montsalvat’s ethos is being ripped away by a board who just doesn’t understand Montsalvat.

There are many more such examples - Montsalvat has lost its direction.

Three things need to happen starting right now to ensure Montsalvat’s protection and survival:

Stop - The current riven and dysfunctional board along with senior management must resign forthwith apart from Mr Jörgensen who, pursuant to Montsalvat’s constitution as a family member, must remain. 

Assess - An independent administrator / chair / chief executive needs to be appointed for a period of 12 months to instigate a totally independent assessment of all finances and decisions for the last 5 years.

Plan -  Develop a proper strategic plan.  During this time the board needs to be rebuilt with appropriate people after which senior management need to be appointed. 

As I said, I am very concerned about Montsalvat and its future.

Jon Langevad MBA

CAR INDUSTRY

When do we start taking the initiative and look outside political and media driven doom and gloom? 

When do we start to believe in our own Australian expertise and stop flailing about in discontinuous rage as another ‘foreign’ company withdraws ‘hurt’ when the going gets tough but after profiteering for years on uneven playing fields at the expense of our country?

When do politicians stop trying to assure the yet to be unemployed that they are trying to create new jobs through all sorts of ill-thought-through initiatives to make themselves look important and to be seen as doing something? 

Instead  …..  why don’t we bite the bullet and produce our own cars and other vehicles?

We will soon have 3 newly vacated plants which do and can produce cars.  Why don’t we produce our own world leading new-design taxis, government cars, town cars, military vehicles, scram jets, super tractors, planes, farm bikes, fun cars [Moke-a-like] or any other vehicle which is useful for us as a country and can be sold elsewhere?  And no, don’t call any the Kangaroo or the Wallaby or the bloody Dingo!!

I am really sick of the prevailing oh-woe-is-me attitude where we import expertise [because we are so backward, stupid and don’t have any talent] only to find the imports are wanting [EG. The Mexican triumvirate at Telstra or multiple managers at Coles Myer or several Australian icons currently in trouble with imported management].

We have sold our soul to foreign manufacturers who can’t manage a decent profit other than the ‘incentive fees’ we pay them [Ford worldwide a couple of years ago].  And, we accept foreign management just because they are foreign and must therefore be much better than us.

This is utter bullshit!

Abbot and Shorten – how about working together with an Australian collective spirit and foster/create/allow the creation of something special?

We are really that good!!

Yes?

How about starting by immediately enforcing Australian only isles at supermarkets?

FINANCIAL CONTRACTS WITH THE BANKS

Does anyone know why the banks seem to be able to vary standard financial contracts at their absolute discretion yet deny borrowers the same rights? This includes the ability to cancel any contract at will - for no given reason.

I always thought that a contract was a binding agreement on both parties to continue with that agreement until the terms of the contract naturally expired either through time or some other form of completion - a mutual obligation. In this way each party could rely on whatever benefit they subsumed from the contract and each other.

For example, Mr and Mrs Bloggs bought a home with a 20 year mortgage calculated to enable them to pay off the house and live comfortably.  The bank benefited from fees and interest - as clearly defined within the contract. At some point the bank arbitrarily changed its lending policy and decided to call the Blogg’s loan without reason.  Nothing to do with the Bloggs and their loan performance - just a new policy by the bank.  The Bloggs couldn’t  refinance and had to sell their home in a depressed market and lost a great deal of money whilst the bank got all its interest and termination fees.  Perhaps unjust enrichment?

Justice?  I don’t think so and it brings up a number of questions.

If a party to a contract has the ability to cancel a contract at will, was there a contract in the first place? I thought a contract was something which both parties could rely on for some mutual benefit for the natural life of that contract. If one party can vary the terms of the contract or ‘change the agreement’ at will then surely there was no ‘agreement’ in the first place?

This is obviously a nonsense yet all banks include ‘terminate at will’ clauses into their standard form contracts whilst ignoring the whole concept of expectation damages or damages wrought by breach of contract in that the injured party I thought had a right to ‘expect’ a contract to go full term and if that is truncated by the other party then they are entitled to expect damages equivalent to the benefit they would have received if the contract had gone the agreed distance?

Secondly, as far as I understand it, there are many provisions in many acts which specifically preclude the alleged rights of banks to unilaterally and unconscionably vary contracted terms including S12BH (1)b of the ASIC Act. It seems the law is clear so how come the banks can and do ignore those legislated provisions?

Thirdly, why do the banks include such terms and indeed rely on them when pursuing innocent borrowers?  The only reason I can think of is that banks feel the need to misrepresent their actual ability to breach a contract through a form of unconscionable coercion. It seems they ‘coerced’ Mr and Mrs Bloggs into believing that they had to sell their home even though the bank knew full well that they did not have the right and that the Bloggs had little financial or legal knowledge and that they could not deal with a gaggle of lawyers from a multinational telling them through ‘official’ legal letters that they had to sell their home.  The Bloggs were not capable of dealing with the banks self adduced phalanx of power and the banks knew it and indeed depended on it!  Surly this is misrepresentative and unconscionable coercion at its worst?

Recently we have been in a situation where we have had to take three different banks to the Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] for what I considered legal and contractual breaches even though each bank incorporated within the standard terms and conditions their ability to ignore the law and basically do whatever they liked.  We have won all three with each bank found guilty of breaching the code of banking practice.  They were forced to rectify their actions and pay damages.

 

But key is that for FOS to make this determination it must have read down the bank’s own published terms which stated that the bank could in effect do what it likes.  That term and its implied power was read down and discounted by FOS as a legal body using the intent and practice of the law.

Yet, those sorts of clauses are still very much a part of standard form contracts.

My question and dilemma is – ‘How can banks publish terms and conditions with impunity which obviously breach the law knowing that those terms are indeed ‘unfair’ and will confuse the average borrower to the advantage of the bank?’  Surely, this is ‘unjust enrichment’?  The banks know that 99.99% of people will just accept the banks terms without question just because they are a bank with lots of lawyers and as a consequence must be right.

Perhaps they aren't right?

ASIC / FOS / TIO / ACCC / CCMC

There is a tendency for all the regulators and interventionists to hide behind 'the – must be followed - process' and from a complainants of view it is frustrating.  I have read the various acts and try to understand the respective charters as 'regulators etal' and I try to understand each department not wanting to get involved in single disputes.

However, it IS those single disputes which seem to point to systemic and endemic issues.

ASIC have taken some flak recently about not acting on vital issues. [Commonwealth Bank] when early intervention could have saved millions.

The cases I have reported to ASIC [and are current] against banks all revolve around banks ignoring provisions of ASIC, ACCC, ACL and CCMC.  These issues are both systemic and endemic and effect millions of people.  Yet ASIC do nothing.

The inclusion of 'unfair terms and conditions' by the banks is prevalent, with them relying on obviously illegal clauses breaching many acts telling their customers they must comply. This is gross misrepresentation.  It’s actually worse because they will not put anything in writing rather relying on call centre staff to issue verbal threats which the customer is not allowed to record the conversation.  Dodgy?

Secondly, they ignore provisions of the NCCP particularly at S72, S88 and S89.  ALL the banks with whom we deal ignore the law yet ASIC don't do anything.

Lastly, I have a case against nab at FOS waiting for determination with nearly 2 years of 'must be followed process' by FOS.  ASIC, CCMC and ACCC refuse to become involved until FOS make a determination.  This is stupid when there is an obvious dysfunction and where a combined approach could expedite the matter and create systemic change.

In our current  case, nab have clearly breached legal requirements and continue to do so at our expense and I dare say at the expense of a few hundred thousand other so called 'customers'.

Yet ASIC seem reticent to do anything instead relying on its own 'must be followed process'. 

With one particular case at FOS for nearly two years you can imagine what I think of their process.  I have been quite direct.

ASIC's website indicates it will take action yet it doesn't happen?

Change does NOT take years – people take years to create change.  There wouldn’t be private enterprise if we took years to make a decision. 

May I suggest a little bit of strategic change management within the regulators etal would benefit our society.  Delays cost money and effect people’s lives in a very dysfunctional manner and - life is indeed finite.  Unlike FOS, TIO, ACCC, ASIC and CCMC the rest of us do not have years to wait for someone to do something. 

Presuming we are going to keep having requests for intervention, and maybe at an increasing rate, we need to create the changes necessary to expedite quality solutions.  Strategic change, resource allocation and people with the desire to protect society from illegal acts in an appropriate time frame.  People who don’t mind pursuing the wrongdoers – publicly and quickly.

Process is only a tool to create action – it is not a change agent in itself or an excuse for not doing anything.

Jon Langevad

Gender Politics

Federal Government – Question time and the gender ‘card’..

It is only fools and idiots who attack the person rather than the behaviour.

Men and women are not equal!  And, thank God for that.

Women think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

Men think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

The world would be a sad place without both sides of thought.

I have run project teams all over the world and have always attempted to maintain a 50/50 gender split.

One is like water and the other sand.  Individually strong in some respects but also easily moved aside.  You can easily move water aside and kick sand into the air but, mix them up in the right proportions and ‘they’ become a strong and resilient force.  Yet sand and water together remain separate, identifiable and unique - not homogenous but working together to become that force.  A partnership

Apart from remaining unique the second criteria is respect where that respect is a God given right for everyone.  Without necessarily agreeing, respect each other and respect each other’s opinions.  It’s actually quite easy and cathartic to assume you will like and respect someone before you meet them!

Perhaps our political leaders need to learn to enjoy our differences and the inherent strength of working together.

Jon Langevad

Goodwill in life and business

One of the most misunderstood concepts in business concerns our perceptions of ‘Goodwill’.

Perhaps good will means that one thinks good things about someone else and we ‘will’ our positive thoughts and actions so that others get warm and fuzzy - just from our mere brain waves.  Nice!

On the other hand, perhaps it’s how we view ourselves through someone else’s eyes?  Perhaps we have spent years being nice to someone so that they in turn think good things about us?  In this case we have spent time and effort doing whatever it takes to make others think nice things of us.  Good!

For example, families and friends take real work to remain family and friends and dare I say the development of mutual goodwill is a key ingredient.  The bonus is when all of a sudden those obviously recalcitrant family dropkicks respond with equally magnanimous gestures, we have indeed developed goodwill and the world is a joy and we bathe in those esoteric warm and fuzzy self gratifications.

This is also the case in business.

We spend time and effort and money convincing others that they should spend their discretionary dollar with us and not that horrible bloke down the street.  In effect, we are developing goodwill.

In rather blunt terms - in business and in life goodwill can be defined as that ….

“Intangible benefit of reputation relative to that benefit being of value to another party.”

When this applies to a business the ‘goodwill’ component is the value of the reputation of the business.  This may result in increased revenue and may even result in long term benefit.  We hope!!

On the contrary, an empty premise has no goodwill from clients but may have a measure of ‘value’ based on its location, neighbours, etc.  However, a premise in distress has negative goodwill because its reputation has been sullied.  Logical, really.

When selling a business, goodwill is not an accounting sum associated with excess earnings.  Whilst accountants will want to put a quantifiable figure on goodwill, there is far more involved.

For a business sale, there can never be guarantees of future income streams because there are a myriad of factors outside of the control of the seller to even be able to logically or legally guarantee. Therefore, excess earnings as a determinant of business value is a nonsense.  It is merely one factor of many.

When buying a business, of far greater value is the way in which customers view their relationship towards the premise, its reputation and indeed their willingness to continue that relationship without having to rebuild a reputation from scratch or far worse, from a negative.  Bloggers as real and vitriolic customers have changed the face of goodwill in business – for the better!!

In essence, goodwill boils down to the willingness of people to continue a relationship with the new owner.  The business may have great excess earnings but has just blotted its copybook by poisoning the neighbours.  On paper it’s worth dollars but in reality worth squat because of the salmonella cookies.

When buying a business the only consideration is, ‘can I be successful ‘.  To do that the value of committed clients is crucial and has a dollar value.  That value cannot be logically calculated albeit bloggers have made that much easier by their transparent and public opinions.

But then, every blogger may love a certain business but it still doesn’t work for whatever reason.  May I say that the value of the goodwill is still strong and doesn’t change but the overall business value is mitigated by a straight revenue valuation.

So, goodwill is esoteric, unknowable and incalculable yet it has value because it means customers will come and try the new person in the new business.  A head start on bankruptcy.