The decline in retentions announced by the government with bombs and dishes at the beginning of the week lasted just about 72 hours and in the agricultural sector ensure that the bulk of the benefit was in the hands of a handful of exporting companies. In an exclusive interview with Scope, The vice president of the Rural Society Marcos Pereda He asked to investigate the maneuver to confirm if the exports that were declared have grain purchases behind. He said the measure was not thought for producers, who was an emergency assembly and rejected market interventions.
Q.: What evaluation does the last temporary removal of retentions?
MP: It was an emergency measure and we all know. The government was really very complicated and had to get a rabbit from the galley, had to get dollars immediately and the only way, the only sector that generates this type of silver is obviously the agricultural sector. But those who handle the wallet of the agricultural sector are five, six, maximum ten large exporters, that have access to the international market and the commodities that we produce are of great liquidity and of course they are handled in very large volumes. If you tell me, based on that, the measure they took was a measure that could not have been emprolified a little or not, but it is not for the producer, that is very clear.
Q.: Especially for the condition of temporary …
MP: When you make a measure that is temporary, clearly that is immediately incorporated within the price and is immediately regulated and arbitrated, this generates all kinds of distortions because in the end it is a distortion of the market caused by an intervention and it is an intervention, if you want, of a government that at the same time claims to be liberal. We understand the situation, the government did not know what to do, if it did not show dollars, probably this week we will be talking about other things. What happens is that these distortions, which are also windows, are a lot of worse, because you arm a funnel, a door effect. But exporters who know how to operate, given these totally extraordinary and unpredictable volatilities rise above the motorcycle and have much more to win than the producer.
Q.: And of this benefit that some exporters knew how to take advantage of: Did you have something left to the producers or did you not have practically anything?
MP: I believe that the producers were sold around two and a half million tons by producers, but some seventeen were scheduled for exporters, the difference is abysmal, but of course in two days, two million tons is a lot the same, it is not what is sold every day.
Q.: But it would be only 15% of the total then …
MP: Of course, because the boys are declared. And in that there are precedents of the Martínez Raymonda Law. At least you have to investigate, you have to transparent and clarify, to see if some kind of procedure was violated. In these extraordinary situations, they leave the potato in their mouths because it is they who stay with 15, 20, 30 dollars of a decline that made a government in a moment of despair. It is clearly an opportunity that exporters take it flying. Every time there is an intervention, you will generate a change of rules of the game and there is fishermen’s gain there. For each affidavit of external sale, there must have been a purchase first, that is my interpretation, there you talk to a cereal lawyer and tells you something else. What happened this time is that they told them: Write down everything you want to write down and then have three days to liquidate. It is turning a blind eye, today I think the soy was quoting US $ 340, US $ S330, when the value that would have to be quoting if you fully discontinue the retention would have to be at US $ 375 more or less OU $ S380. Those US $ 40 OU $50 are elsewhere, in a man who made a financial game with the country.
Q.: Do the comings and return with the topic withholdings?
MP: How can you think if you are telling you every two minutes, now I put so much imposed and now I take out such a tax? That does not exist in the world. They use carrot withholdings, I take it out, I put it on you. For me there is nothing to applaud here, in fact the producers were allowed, it is seen in all social networks. Why do I have to deliver my soy AU $ S330, could you be delivering it au $ S375?
Q.: What happens when you listen to government officials say that if you don’t like the price they don’t sell?
MP: Well, you know what, for that we are not producing, next year or produce. So that? If they believe they are the owners of the market and that they can intervene and do what they love. This is not like finance, when they tell you about buying and selling a title, well, I take it but here behind each ton of soybeans, there is a lot of effort, work, risk, it is not the same as buying a bonus, the lords are very financially. Here there is a passion behind, there is work, there is effort, there is employment.
Q.: What role did I think the United States pressure played?
MP: There are so many versions that one does not know, the signs in favor of that is first Besent’s tweet, second, talking with exporters they say that the United States is in the period that gives their soy to China and it seems that in the midst of the commercial conflict they were negotiating and suddenly the 3 million tons sold appeared that turn to the market. And well, it affects you. This situation generated thousands of distortions, in the end they intervened using distortive taxes.
Q.: I thought it can have any impact on the market?
MP: It is not the end of the world, it generates anger and I raised it from day one. But on the other hand the government options were difficult. Maybe they think that we are as financial and do not realize that there is another kind of mentality, there is not the mentality of the finance. But I think this government is coming out in the best possible way.
Source: Ambito
