Day two of the fourth round of the banking royal commission, covering agribusiness lending, saw ANZ's head of lending services, Benjamin Steinberg, kept in the witness box all day. As the day wore on, each case study of a farming family forced off their respective properties became a relentless variation on a theme - ANZ's lack of proper due diligence when it took on the Landmark loan book in 2009. It emerged that in March 2010 there were 113 impaired Landmark accounts and 320 "high risk" accounts - making 433 in total. By 2013 those 113 impaired accounts had increased to 419 impaired accounts, along with 631 high risk accounts, giving a total of 1050 impaired and high risk Landmark accounts. These accounts were valued at A$722 million, and represented almost one-third of the $2.4 billion Landmark loan book.Senior counsel assisting, Rowena Orr, continued her cross examination, peppered with case studies of farming families forced out of business by a bank that had adopted a legalistic approach, lacking in empathy, even if that meant the Banking Code of Practice directions were sidelined.Situations where loans became impaired or otherwise delinquent were covered extensively at the Hayne royal commission yesterday. It emerged that Hayne is not a big fan of forced sales where there is a chance of the owner selling for full price, given a bit more time.Consequently, although Hayne was at great pains to rule nothing in or out of his interim and final reports, the use of 'mortgagee in possession' clauses as a first line of action may well be in for a rethink. Among the many exchanges between the commissioner and senior counsel and ANZ's head of lending services, Benjamin Steinberg, the one concerning a farming family, the Harleys, that had progressively sold off five of nine properties, is especially illustrative:Q: "Was there any reason for ANZ to think that agents for a mortgagee in possession could achieve a better price for the sale of the remaining parcels of land than the Harleys could? "  A: "What we were looking for, Ms Orr, at this point in time was to bring this matter to a conclusion, and certainty.  They were drivers behind this particular decision.  And as I have said before, this matter had been going on since 2010 and before.  And a point had to come where this decision was made.  And with the certainty being needed, that's when that decision was made."Orr was not satisfied, and rephrased her question:Q: "Was there any reason for ANZ to think that agents for a mortgagee in possession could get a better price for the sale of the remaining parcels than the Harleys could have? "  A: "So perhaps - I mean, the answer to that is I don't know, but I guess another part of the answer to that is that at that point the Harleys hadn't sold those remaining properties".Or and Hayne were putting the countervailing view: Was there any reason for ANZ to think that agents for