Trees Again

Tree planting continues here on the farm and the Kubota tractor sure made the job moving the Shiloh Birch easier.  Rather than the traditional plastic tub these were bound with a wire cage and wrapped in black fabric. 

Because they were much larger root ball than those in plastic tubs it required a larger than usual hole.

Digging these large holes is hard on an old geezer and after some sweating the trees made it in the ground.  

Yesterday we noticed that the local farm supply store has recently gotten in a fresh batch of trees.  So, having recovered from planting the Birch trees I went back to the farm supply store today and bought a Shumard Oak tree.  This one was in the traditional plastic tub and was much easier to plant.

It joins all the other trees we have planted over the years and you can't have too many trees on a farm.

Shiloh Splash Birch

In the 12 years we've been here on the farm we have planted over 100 trees. What we have done was augmenting the old trees that were planted here by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) back in the 1930's.

The River Birch we planted 10 years ago are doing great.

Today we picked up a couple relatives of the River Birch called Shiloh Splash Birch.  Since the River Birch are doing so well we thought we would give these a whirl.

They might look skinny in the pictures, however they were much too heavy to manually lift out of the pickup.  What could have been a horrible lifting job turned out to be simple by attaching the pallet forks on the tractor loader and sliding them out of the pickup.

Work smart, not hard, eh?

Stock Tank Algae

Summer plods along and the nice neighbor farmer's corn is taller than the fence.

I've been fighting algae in the stock tanks, especially fast growing in the heat, requiring frequent cleaning with a brush and pressure washer.  

Initially I tried tablets, however because the nice neighbor farmer's heifers drink down the tanks nearly to the bottom it would require adding a tablet to each tank every time I refilled them.  On hot days that would be three times a day for each tank.

Obviously the tablet method is intended for much larger stock tanks where the water isn't refilled frequently.  After some research I came upon advise that adding barley straw to the stock tank would keep the algae away.  Not having access to barley straw bales I found that it can be purchased in small packets - on Amazon, wouldn't you know.

Even though it treats up to 500 gallons of water each bundle, I figure as much as I refill the stock tanks this would work for the duration.  At this point it seems to be doing the job.

Rump roast on the hoof.

And so it goes, here on the farm.

Walmart Boondocking?

 So, are the days of boondocking at Walmart coming to an end?

A Minnesota mother is suing Walmart after a fire in a store parking lot burned her daughters alive, killing one and leaving the other “permanently disfigured,” according to a lawsuit.

Essie McKenzie’s daughters were sleeping soundly in the back of her minivan when she pulled up to the Walmart Supercenter in Fridley, Minnesota, on Aug. 6, 2019.

The girls, ages 6 and 9, were tired after being woken early to go to the airport, where McKenzie dropped off her mother, she would later tell investigators, according to court documents. She decided to let them sleep while she took care of some shopping, believing they would be safe.

It was around 6 a.m.

When she came back outside minutes later, the minivan was in flames, documents say.

She ran toward the fire but first responders held her back. She watched and waited while firefighters eventually pulled the girls from the van.

The flames had gotten to them.

The younger of the two was in cardiac arrest, revived in the parking lot and taken to a hospital, where she later died. Her big sister survived, severely burned and “permanently disfigured,” documents say.

In the lawsuit against Walmart, filed June 6, McKenzie’s attorneys blame the company for its “well-known” policy of allowing people to stay in store parking lots overnight and essentially camp out — but not monitoring those guests to help ensure the safety of other customers.

“Walmart encouraged and permitted a dangerous condition on its property,” the lawsuit says. (Walmart) escalated that danger by failing to provide staff to oversee the appropriate use of its parking lot as a campground.”

In a statement to McClatchy News, Walmart spokesperson Randy Hargrove said “our sympathies remain with the friends and family impacted by this tragic even three years ago,” adding that the retail corporation “plan(s) to defend the company and will respond in Court to the Complaint as appropriate.

The fire started with a camping stove, investigators say.

A California man was traveling with his wife in their 2005 Dodge Caravan, living out of it as they drove across the country, according to documents. They decided to stop at the Walmart in Fridley and camp in the parking lot.

The morning of the fire, the man used a camping stove to make breakfast, documents say. Once finished, he put it into the back of their vehicle “without waiting for it to cool,” then drove from the back of the lot into a parking space closer to the store entrance — a parking space right next to McKenzie’s minivan.

The man went into the store and the camping stove ignited a fire inside his vehicle, documents say. His wife tried to put out the flames but was unsuccessful. Their vehicle was engulfed and the blaze spread to McKenzie’s van.

The man, who pleaded guilty to two counts of negligient fire causing bodily harm was sentenced in 2020 to 120 days in jail and three years probation, outlets reported.

“Unmonitored overnight guests pose a foreseeable heightened risk to other Walmart shoppers and nearby residents,” the lawsuit says.

Walmart also fails to inform guests and the public at large about “the potentially dangerous condition” created by the free camping policy and lack of oversight, according to the lawsuit.

McKenzie’s attorneys are seeking a minimum of $75,000 in relief.

Vindication Or Pittance?

Back in April, 2021 I did a post which described how Genworth Insurance had slapped us with a massive annual premium increase on our long term care insurance (here).  

Yesterday we got a thick mailing from a federal court which described a pending settlement in a class action lawsuit against Genworth for fraudulently conducting a scheme to increase premiums significantly to make up for actuarial losses. (Haney, et al. v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, et al.)

This all this on the heels of two other class action lawsuits of different types of long term care insurance policies issued by Genworth asserting the identical facts (Holcom, et. al. v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, et al) and (Skochin, et al. v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, et al). The following is a compilation of plaintiff claims in the three cases:

Cracks in Genworth’s financial stability began to show in 2012 when the company announced that it was experiencing a shortfall in the reserves it had to cover its long-term policyholders when they needed to use the insurance. As result, said the plaintiffs, the company hit policyholders with massive premium increases ranging from 44 to 66 percent.

To right the ship and plug the growing hole in its reserves, Genworth created a series of internal action plans. These internal plans each called for significant premium rate increases systematically across its older policy classes. By 2013, Genworth had planned to seek significant rate increases on all of its long term care insurance products.

These future rate increases, however, would not be recognized in Genworth’s asset adequacy testing until that increased revenue began flowing into its reserves over the next decade. So as to avoid reporting a current negative loss recognition testing margin, Genworth instead began to utilize in its actuarial testing assumptions for “significant anticipated (but not yet filed) future premium rate increases or benefit reductions” to increase its reported loss recognition testing margin by $4.9 billion.

Genworth relied almost entirely upon billions of dollars in anticipated future (but not yet filed) rate increases to plug this massive hole in its reserves. And it was so confident in its ability to achieve these rate increases that it relied on them in its then current financial reporting and when paying executive compensation bonuses that were tied to successful execution of these plans. 

This material information about Genworth’s plan for (and need for) massive future rate increases, however, was never shared with Genworth’s policyholders who would be required to pay the increases

As of December 31, 2016, Genworth’s assumptions for “significant anticipated future premium rate increases or benefit reductions” had exploded to a reported $7.3 billion. By the end of 2019, that number had grown to $7.6 billion. This is the ever-escalating amount of future premium increases that would largely fall upon Plaintiffs and the Classes. None of the details of this massive rate increase plan, however, were shared with policy holders.

Now it is a matter for us to wait to see what the class action plaintiffs in the Haney settlement, which applies to us, will be compensated.  Class action plaintiffs in the previous cases are in the process of settlements and it appears that Genworth has conceded to adjustments in policy premiums.

Back in April, 2021 the title of my blog was, "What's Wrong With Corporate America."  My assertion has been proven correct.