Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 10, 1976, Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg free press saturday january 10, 1976 business finance realtors 4bug homeowners although ads state 6no agents by Mike Ward homeowners seeking to sell their properties privately in the classified columns of the free press Are being in undated with phone Calls from real estate agents. A Survey of advertisers who had specified private Sale no agents revealed that All of them had received p hone Calls from agents. In most cases the agent identified himself and made it us first task to find out the Vendor s address. Again in most cases the agents gave up once the Ven Dor emphasized it was a Pri vate Sale advertisement but quite a few did continue regardless to persuade the Homeowner on the merits of their service. We have had about 30 40 of them on the phone since we placed the advertise said one Homeowner. They Are quite persuasive and when you try and put them off they say you Don t want to sell your Home is that what you this is the kind of thing you have to put up with when you place an advertise ment in the paper saying no another Vendor said i be had so Many Calls from agents. Too Many i be lost count. The first tiling they do is 1 try and get the address and then they say it would be better if i let them try to sell my House. I respect that these peo ple have got to make a Liveli Hood but i think they should also respect the fact that if people want to try to sell their property privately they should t Bug us like they another House owner said that so Many agents called he finally handed it Over to one realtor to get them out of my none of the homeowners realized they could complain to the Manitoba Keal estate Board which polices the activities of its members. Had they known All the homeowners contacted one would have done so. The Board s executive officer Ken Mackenzie said he had never received a complaint from the Public about Telephone soliciting. . Mackenzie said the Kef Rosso ii Lii Tiv i Bob Ozofor Owasa of 1 Rit i. Heights 6 rm., s 2 Stry. Home very close to bus school mod. Kitchen with sep. Eating with area . In Halls steers ,.r. Rec. Pm. With 2 pee. Powder rm., garage Kilt in with attached screened in Patio Alum windows. Private Sale. Absolutely Noj Sas Cinus 6 3 b. Itetis., Sivec Frosini l. D.s., m.b. Us. I safes. Wilsie Liibs . Seh i a Winnipeg schoolmaster inserted the word absolutely 1 in the above advertisement. It has made no difference at he said. Board s code of ethics did t Lay Down a policy about real tors following up advertise ment if someone were to write in to complain to us formally then we would certainly take action on he said. We Don t have a policy on this kind of thing and to my knowledge no one has Ever complained formally about . Mackenzie said he had to agree that if people specified no agents private Sale in then advertisements they were entitled to get upset if agents called by phone. Most salesmen seem to re Gard the advertisements As fair game with Good Lead potential. It has been proven Over and Over again that 70 to so per cent of the people who advertise privately end up by listing with an said Ted Zaharko an area Man Ager for one firm. We Don t like to bother anybody and if a person we Contact Points this out we Don t try to get Pushy. All we Are doing is explaining that we can be of service ill the the saving to a person who Sells a House privately is nor Mally six per cent commis Sion on a House. The incentive to agents to secure a private Sale Ven Dor s business is three per cent of the Purchase Price should the House be sold by any other agent on the Multi ple listing service. . Zaharko explained that this percentage automatically goes to the agent who first puts the Home on to multiple listing and the other three per cent goes to the agent who makes the Sale in a Good Many cases the same realtor. We Don t have a policy on whether we should Contact people who advertise Homes he added. Our policy is to provide a service and to sell a a spokesman for the Mani Toba securities commission the government watchdog on the Industry said we do run into the Odd Case of an agent contacting a person to say he can sell the House for them hut it in t an infringement of the Law and that is what we Are concerned increasing . Govt. Role in farming rated inevitable despite dangers this article is the second of a two part series on the question of whether the grains Industry in the United states will be subject to greater regulation by govern ment. By ban Morgan the Washington Post Washington when investment banker Nathaniel Samuels was Deputy under Secretary of state in 1972, there was t a soul who did t think Russia s Grain buying was manna from he recalls. Nearly four years later . Samuels is of the outside looking in at . Food policies that restrict sales of wheat and Corn to Moscow and Dis courage Grain companies from automatically Selling As much As they want to whomever they want. . Samuels now is chairman of the Louis Dreyfus Grain company in new York City one of the major exporters of american wheat Corn Barley and soybeans. And although he is not Overly pleased Wilh the Federal gov emment s deepening involvement in Grain markets he thinks it is probably permanent. There s not much doubt that we re moving toward greater regulation As the food Supply becomes More of a Public he says. My guess is that the Grain companies will just have to put up with it even though they Are As pure free Market advocates As you can members of Congress who Are pass ing several investigations of the Grain business agree. They say any Busi Ness that can affect foreign policy food prices at Home and the diets of tens of millions of people All Over the world is too important to be left to the private traders alone. Of All the countries in the world Only the United states has operated what amounts to an open supermarket in which foreigners can shop for Grain on the same terms As american buyers. For example the european common Market employs a system of rigid controls on both Grain imports and exports. Canada and Australia sell their wheat abroad through governmental boards though the private Grain companies assist As commissioned Middle men. By contest the United states is the last bastion of free As a new York City commodity broker put it. No fewer than 36 private companies Export wheat from the United states six of them handle three quarters of it. Many the 38 companies Are not american at All but Swiss French West German dutch. Every Day the whole world looks to the commodity exchanges in Chicago As the guide to the real Price of Grain the Price of Grain the Price at which buyers and Sellers Trade it in the Market place. Economists and politicians seem to agree that there Are real dangers in tampering with such a sensitive sys tem particularly As even Small adjustments Are Likely to be Felt around the world. Grain company executives say they operate the most efficient system in history for transferring food from where there is More than enough to where there is too Little. Any fundamental changes would ultimately re sult in higher costs to Consumers and nations abroad they insist. Five times since 1073, a president has imposed some kind of government controls on commercial Grain and soy bean exports As supplies grew tight. The soviet Union Poland and members of the Oil producers Cartel All were singled out for stoppages at one time another. And in 1973 the United states placed a general Embar go on soybean exports. Never in recent history have world Grain prices fluctuated up and Down As Widly As they have since 1972. They have done so in a period when Agri culture Secretary Earl l. Butz was de fending his economic doctrine of an uncontrolled free Market in agricultural products and maximum exports. The Price swings have had a severe Impact on Consumers Farmers live Stock raisers who feed Corn and soy Beans to animals and poultry and on foreign nations at the end of the Amer ican food pipeline. Many of those nations Are poor and ill suited to adjust to the higher prices. The United states exports St least billion Worth of agricultural products annually to developing countries Al most 40 per cent the entire value of farm sales abroad. Advocates of Grain Trade Reform say the Price shocks of the last four years could have been avoided by allocating commodities to customers abroad through Long term government agree ments and by creating an International Grain Reserve to soften the Impact of Scarcity and surplus. The five year soviet american Grain agreement signed oct. 20, was a step ill that direction. It established maximum and minimum annual purchases for the soviets. A More drastic step would be to nationalize Grain exports by having the Federal government instead of private firms Market wheat and Corn abroad. Rep. Jim Weaver a Wash has introduced legislation in Congress which would do that. A government marketing Board could prevent private companies from reaping speculative profits at the hands of Farmers and Consumers and it would end the possibility of raids Oil american food supplies by big govern ment buyers abroad. Washington would gain tremendous political and economic leverage Over adversaries if the government con trolled this country s surplus food. Central intelligence Agency analysts for instance already envisages the United states regaining world Domin Ance through its food Power. The Kremlin would have to come directly to Washington to buy Grain As it must now do with Canada. Governmental tampering with food exports can have Domestic political repercussions. American Farmers and farm state congressmen reacted angrily to the administration s embargo of Grain and soybeans against Russia last summer. Farm organizations Are still angry at the Long term agreement signed oct. 20. We treated the says Joseph Halow of great Plains wheat inc., Washington. They backed off when we applied the pres sure. We should have sold them As much wheat As possible to increase their dependence on us. We did just the Between the extremes of Maissel Aire agricultural Trade and government management there Are opportunities for Many reforms according to Malm Grey and Goldberg. So they Are positioning themselves for change by indicating they would accept some forms of greater manage ment of the Grain Trade. Position papers issued by Cargill inc. Of min Neapolis support an International Grain Reserve that would gather Grain in various countries when it is plentiful and cheap and sell it off when it be comes scarce and expensive. The american Midwest Grain Belt is a vast supplier of food throughout the world. The Central intelligence Agency favors Wash some Cia analysts note that the so Viet Union in t Likely to destroy the United states while the United states is providing a sixth of soviet Grain requirements As it is now. For All its attractions agricultural economists say the idea of an Ameri can government Grain Board has its drawbacks. Such boards in other countries have been Well but have tended to encourage Over production costs says prof. Kay Goldberg an agribusiness specialist at the Harvard Busi Ness school. Prof. Goldberg says government bureaucrats Are far less capable of set Ting prices in Grain deals with foreign ers than merchants in the Market place. Abolishing the free Enterprise Grain Market would deprive the world of the Benchmark it uses to ascertain Grain prices he notes. If a govern ment Board was handling the Export deals bureaucrats would be picking prices out of the air and the open american supermarket would become a thing of the past prof. Goldberg argues. Harald Malmgren of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for schol ars says that the government should avoid getting directly involved in sell ing Grain because political pressures from Farmers and Consumers would be so intense. You d end up using such an Agency As the Export import Bank has been used As a political while Farmers would be pressuring for All out food exports consumer representatives would want to limit them to keep supplies abundant at Home and food prices Low he adds. In ton regulation of the Grain Industry because it believes the . Can regain world dominance through the country s food Power. On the question of bilateral agree ments Edward w. Ned Cook chair Man of Cook industries says he approves of the recent Long term pact with Russia because it took the emotionalism out of Grain sales to the Kremlin. In fact individual nations have Al ready taken measures to reduce some of the volatility that has characterized the Grain markets in the last four years. Japan Russia and Romania All have signed Grain buying agreements with the United states. Even under the so Viet american agreement the rus sians could still swoop in and buy As much As eight million tons of Grain in a Day. But they could then buy no More that year without . Govern ment approval. The soviet Union reportedly has in vested several billion dollars building Grain storage facilities and improving transportation so it could be Able to stockpile Grain when it is cheap. That development should be Good for Amer ican Farmers because it Means the Kremlin will help support american farm prices when they fall Low. We can live with any system As Long As we know what the rules says Clarence Palmby vice president of Continental Grain co. In . Malmgren s View More Rales Are needed we need regulation in terms of More disclosure about the companies. They re in a special Busi he says. The Grain companies Are anxious to avoid the most Radical ones Export controls creation of a United states government Grain Board. The department of agriculture has Long been protective of the secrets of the Grain companies. For instance it refuses to give out any detailed information about the hundreds of overseas affiliates of the companies. Without that information the global operations of the firms cannot be fully assessed. Sen. Dick Clark a Iowa has introduced an amendment to require much greater financial disclosure by. The firms. Only one of the big six Grain firms Cook regularly makes Public its financial data. Comptroller general Elmer b. Staats reported in 1973 that the links Between Grain companies and their affiliates abroad could have been used to manipulate the size of the Export subsidies which Are paid by the american taxpayers. A 1973 report said that preferential pricing relationships with the Affili tates could cause the government to pay unnecessarily High subsidies. The wheat subsidies were suspended in september 1972. Despite that report which contained numerous recommendations and cited Many flaws in the wheat subsidy pro Gram the department of agriculture has not drawn up a contingency plan in the event the subsidies Are to be paid again. Grain company executives say privately they Are sure they will be Able to succeed in business even with much More regulation. Much More threatening to the Mer chants would be a decline in american agricultural exports. The United states now exports 60 per cent of its wheat and Rice nearly half its soybeans a Quarter of its Gram sorghum and nearly a Quarter of its Corn. Between 1970 and 1975 Grain exports jumped from 41 million to 76 million metric tons. The Boom benefited the Grain companies which make Money when volume is Strong. The exports earned enough Money to pay for six months of . Petroleum imports. Yet critics of present farm policy say that the administration s continued push for All out food production and maximum exports is a mistaken one. They say there Are costs As Well As benefits in those policies. For one thing they require maximum use of Energy including huge amounts of Nat ural Gas from which anhydrous ammo Nia fertilizer is made. The sheer Cost of fanning today farming to reach the goals set in Washington is changing the Ameri can Countryside. Although the United states is still a nation of family Farmers they no longer fit the old image of Farmers they have perforce become big businessmen. They spend a staggering s96 billion a year on fertilizer pesticides herbicides and other necessities. The department of agriculture has conceded that if the present goal of maximum production and maximum use of Energy in farming were stretched to the year 2010, american family farming would virtually disappear because Only big corporations and wealthy individuals would have the capital to finance farming operations. Also food prices and farm income would be subject to disturbing flu Tua according to a recent depart ment study. The same study found that food costs would not be All that much lower than if the government sought to preserve family farming. The maximum efficiency agricultural future assumes massive growing exports to soak up surpluses. Some critics wonder whether that is Good either for the United states Fer countries abroad which tend to postpone building up their own farm ing whenever cheap american imports Are readily available. Of the maximum efficiency Agri cultural future Susan Sechler of the Public interest agribusiness account ability project says it s an uncreative limited vision. When the whole concern is exports then you do things for the companies rather than thinking of what s Good for the it is questionable whether agricultural free Enterprise is i the self in Terest of the United writes food authority Emma Rothschild in the january edition of foreign affairs quarterly. A world food Market characterized by chaos and crisis is hardly the Best circumstance for the develop ment of agricultural big Grain tycoons in last Refuge of free Enterprise Washington for a few Days in Early october 1974, it seemed that Grain merchant Edward w. Ned Cook May have taken one risk too Many. On the night of oct. 4, . Cook Learned from trea sury Secretary William e. Simon that the . Govern ment was Emba going this Sale of 2.2 million tons of wheat and Corn to Russia. Cook had already acquired the Grain. But with news the government embargo the Bottom dropped out of the american Grain markets. Cook knew that if the embargo stuck he would have to unload the Grain at tremendous losses probably exceeding million. The government finally let Cook sell most of the Grain to the soviets and the chairman of Cook Indus tries inc., one of the world s six largest Grain firms was spared. But the affair provided a glimpse of the adventure and risks that often seem to characterize the lives the moguls of the global Grain Trade. To Many in that Trade Cook embodies the qualities most admired by Grain merchants a readiness to take big if calculated gambles competitiveness and a Dis like of government regulations. A close associate says Cook has a risk flu cd has enabled him to Prosper in the Grain Market place where Only the fittest much of what can be said about him could also be said of Michel Fribourg of Continental Grain the Drey fus family that controls the Paris based company of that name the descendants of the two Brothers who founded the House of Bunge in Amsterdam in 1917 the Cargill and Macmillan families who built Cargill inc. Gilbert Vigier of Garnack and Alfred c. Toepfer the West German Gram tycoon whose transatlantic operations Are expanding rapidly. These Grain dynasties often seem to have been Hen More from the Distant Era of unfettered entrepreneurial pioneering than from the corporate world 1976. big Oil aircraft and automobile Compa Nies seem to be governed More and More by business technocrats committees most of the big Grain firms still Are stamped unmistakably with the free Enterprise personalities of the few individuals families who Rule them with autocratic authority. Cook started out in the Cotton business in Memphis with his father. But the growth of synthetics caused him to move into buying and Selling soybeans. He has dazzled the Competition in a Market that re quires a High degree of statesmanship the soviet Union. Michel Fribourg who presides Over the Continental Grain co. From Art bedecked residences in Manhattan Paris and Connecticut and retreats at the Riviera the Alps is far different from Cook in style and personality. Fribourg is a naturalized american who fled from the nazis with other family members in 1940. While Cook is Blunt outspoken and accessible Fri Bourg is shy and elusive. While Cook has been trading Grain a relatively Short time the House of Fribourg has been handling Grain Ever since Michel s great great Grandfather started a Small trading business in Arlon Belgium in 1813. Yet Fribourg the courtly aesthete and Cook the outgoing Southern gentleman share a common instinct for the jugular when they smell big Grain deals in the offing. Only Cargill inc., the diversified conglomerate in Minneapolis that handles about a Quarter of this country s Grain exports departs somewhat from the centralized one Man Rule of the other big. Companies. The chairman of the Board Erwin e. Kelm and the chairman of the company s overseas financing and Trade subsidiary Tradar Waller Gage Are both com Pany career men. Yet even Cargill bears some resemblance to the other firms. The Cargill and Macmillan families which Trace their roots to the 19th Century founding of the Frontier Grain business control 90 per cent of the Stock and help manage the company. The Grain Trade is changing. The Days of one Man Rule when the head of a Grain House knew All his employees and personally rewarded them May be numbered. Companies such As Continental and Cargill now have thousands of employees. They Are also becoming concerned about their Public image. As Cook s exploits have shown there is still plenty of room for initiative and risk taking. It is in the words of Dreyfus counsel Morton Sarnoff the last Refuge of free but that seems to be changing too. The . Government is investigating numerous aspects of the Grain Trade from corruption at port Grain terminals to relationships with Grain company affiliates abroad. More supervision if not regulation seems to be in the offing ;