The Waikato Independent. SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 1930. PREYING ON THE PUBLIC.

Waikato Independent, Volume XXX, Issue 2311, 15 March 1930, Page 4

The Waikato Independent. SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 1930. PREYING ON THE PUBLIC.

A full-page advertisement in a recent issue of one of tlio most widely-read weeklies in Australia described in glowing terms an investment proposition based on a New Zealand tobacco-grow-ing scheme. The prospective - investor was asked to believe that nothing less than an annual return of 25 per cent, would be his within a short time of signing up. There was, of course, the usual parent company with a big block of land to unload; but the man in the street was not offered the opportunity of participating in any profits made from this source —he was expected to provide them by the now common-place method of taking up bonds. For land that would not have cost the parent company £lO an acre if bought on the right market the band-holder was asked to enter into a liability* equivalent to £l4O an acre. Admittedly part of this was to be in payment for certain work undertaken by the selling company, but, on. a most liberal estimate, the whole initial cost would not work out at more than £25 an acre—leaving a profit of over £IOO an acre for the promoters! Further statements showing allegedly high profits made by New Zealand growers were given, but nothing wars said about the fact that many growers in the Dominion this season could not find a market at any price, and that the Government -was advising all but those working under a guarantee from the manufacturing concerns to exercise considerable caution in respect to growing the leaf. In short, it was a proposition that has already been condemned for Now Zealand investors in many papers, a scheme that offers practically no prospects of return to the bondholder. During the past year or so Australia has been the happy huntinggrQund for promoters of schemes either already tried out. in New or based, on some New Zealand development proposition. Afforestation, flaxgrowing, and tobacco-growing schemes have at different times been unloaded on to„.tlic unsuspecting Australian public, and several are being offered on that market at the moment. It seems that in the interest of the good name of this Dominion some check should be kept on the operations of this class of promoter. With little thought outside of desire for individual gain, they are certainly not a good advertisement for sound investments in this country. Yet, by a series of Governments ap-, parently indifferent to the operations of those wko use the public's money, they are allowed to give full exercise to their predatory desires. Only a few

months ago a canvasser was around the Cambridge district with a tobaccogrowing scheme, endeavouring' - to encourage residents into taking parcels of shares. Judging by the glowing prospects painted it would seem that the proposition was among those referred to above. What measure of success the canvasser, or the follow-up circulars had we arc not able to ascertain, but we do know that in this case several citizens were contemplating taking up the proposition. We can only hope that our residents were able to see through this “Get Rich Quick Wallingford’ 7 scheme and that they left it severely alone. We heartily support the warning extended in the foregoing, and would further advise our district residents in future to ascertain the real substance of any such propositions before placing any of thengood money in them.