Mexico’s Government Declares War on Cash

The war on cash transactions has been gaining traction among governments. Crisis stricken European countries as Italy, Spain and Greece have earlier initiated the curtailment in the use of cash. 

The Mexican government has joined this bandwagon by announcing a ban on “large” cash transactions supposedly to stem money laundering, most likely emanating from the drug war.

From the Washington Post 

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has signed into law a ban on large cash transactions as part of an effort to fight money laundering that experts estimate may amount to around $10 billion per year in Mexico.

The bill forbids buyers and sellers from giving or accepting cash payments of more than a half million pesos ($38,750) for real-estate purchases. It also forbids cash purchases of more than 200,000 pesos ($15,500) for automobiles or items like jewelry and lottery tickets.

It is kindda odd for governments to pin the blame on the public in the knowledge that for the top 10 lists of most corrupt government officials, many of them have been known to launder pelf acquired during their morally tainted regimes. 

In the financial world they are known as Politically Exposed Person (PEP), which according to Wikipedia.org, “describes a person who has been entrusted with a prominent public function, or an individual who is closely related to such a person” 

The Wikipedia.org also notes of the relationship between corruption and money laundering… (bold mine)

By virtue of their position and the influence that they may hold, a PEP generally presents a higher risk for potential involvement in bribery and corruption. Most financial institutions view such clients as potential compliance risks and perform enhanced monitoring of accounts that fall within this category….

PEP-specific compliance legislation underlines the link between corrupt politicians, money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, more than 100 countries have changed their laws related to financial services regulation, with the fight against political corruption playing a fundamental role. Despite attempts at regulation, certain political leaders like Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak have made news for having frozen assets located in US banks that did not follow these processes for these individuals.

So by virtue of the connection of corruption and laundering then Mexico cash ban should also implicate politicians. But this isn’t likely the real score.

In the understanding the politicians typically use noble sounding justifications to camouflage the genuine design to impose social controls, cash bans have mostly been about governments wanting to take control of the public’s savings in order to finance their profligacy.

Except for the quirk this 2012 in terms of government budget as % of GDP—perhaps due to initial reporting, but as of September Mexico’s debt will equal to 42.9% of GDP—generally speaking, Mexico’s fiscal position (mostly supported by oil revenues) has been in marked deterioration. (chart from tradingeconomics.com) 

With oil production falling from declining reserves, and where oil revenues account for 40% of Mexico's national budget…

…we now get a better picture or understanding of the seeming desperation exhibited by the Mexican government which impels them to corral public’s savings through currency restrictions.

Of course ban on cash would do little to control supposed “money laundering” which in reality represents an offshoot to corrupt arbitrary laws.

In the US, the war on drugs, for instance, has prompted drug trades to migrate to other marketable commodities as the Tide liquid detergents as means of payment. Instead of dealing with failure of the war on drugs, governments typically resort to attacking symptoms. This has been no less than political showmanship or the pretense of doing something. 

Economic and financial restrictions or blockade against Iran by the US has prompted Iran to use gold as money. So essentially, the US government has taken steps to underwrite the decline of the US dollar standard by incentivizing emerging markets to trade using other mediums as gold. 

As I previously wrote, 

As governments stifle people’s social and commercial activities through tyrannical laws, expect the use of more cash, local currencies or commodities (such as Tide) as alternative medium of exchanges, as the informal or shadow economies grow. 

Most importantly, real assets will become more valuable and may become an integral part of money, as sustained policies of inflationism, as Voltaire once said, will bring fiat money back to its intrinsic value—zero. 

The Mexican government’s war on cash will do little to help what truly has been the problem of political greed.

Barry Ritholtz: How to Fix Financial Television

Prolific blogger Barry Ritholtz in one of his latest post "How to Fix Financial Television" submits a wish list of how media should conduct their TV programs when discussing financial affairs (some of this seem applicable to the Philippine equivalent).

Except for number 3, all bold highlights mine. We quote Mr. Ritholz...

1. Stop Yelling. Stop interrupting. Stop Talking Over Each Other: This is not Jerry Springer, its serious business. People’s retirement and investments are at stake. Please treat it that way.

2. Bring us People We Don’t Have Access to. What various FinTV channels do really well is when they bring us long, thoughtful interviews with the likes of Warren Buffett, WIlliam Ackman, David Einhorn, and others. People we wouldn’t ordinarily have access to. Example: This morning, CNBC had on James Rickard. More of this please.

3. S - L - O - W D - O - W - N

4. Risk: All traders must appreciate the potential downside of trades. So too, must FinTV. Explain stop losses. Understand Risk/Reward. Recognize there are periods when Buy & Hold is a jumbo loser.

5. Lose the Octobox. Fire whoever came up with the Decabox. ‘Nuff said.

6. Separate the Signal from the Noise. Understand that most of the day-to-day action is simply noise. Look at a long term chart, you can barely see 9187 or 9/11. If those major events get lost in the long term trend, what does the intraday jags, kinks and reversals mean? Very little. Recognize that not every data release, slice of news, or rumor is at all significant. Stop treating them as if they were.

7. Fact Check: An awful lot of things on air get stated with authority and confidence. Much of them are little more than junk or pop myths. Why is it that the more dubious a proposition is, the greater the confidence the speaker seems to muster? Consider fact checking as much of the statements that are made on air as possible, and making frequent corrections.

8. Accountability is important: I am astounded at some of the money losing hacks that are various shows again and again. These are the “articulate incompetants” to use Bennett Goodspeed’’s phrase. Why not keep track of the records of guests — and let the viewers know how their past few calls have been. Are they Perma-bulls or bears? Are their stock picks awful? Are they reliable money makers? If not, let us know. (Of course, the better question is, if not, why even have them on?)

9. Bring Back Louis Rukeyser: Not the man, but rather, his style. Wall $treet Week — Rukeyser hosted it from 1970 to 2005 — was plain-spoken, thoughtful and accessible. Quiet, contemplative, discussions, with intelligent market participants, revealing helpful information. The investing public would appreciateagain. something of that sort —

10. Sound FX: What is with all the bizarre sound effects every time a screen changes? Its financial news, not a video game. Kill ‘em.

11. Embed your video (on your own website or YouTube) instead of using WMP. At long last, thank you.

12. Investigative Pieces: David Faber seems to have a monopoly on deep, long thoughtful analyses. Be they on Wal-Mart, the credit crisis, whatever, his long format work is a highlight of CNBC. More of these, please.

13. Most stock picks are losers. That’s normal, but the audience does not realize this. A big part of the challenge is informing the viewer that finding the biog winners is a low probability, high outcome event. As in a baseball, a 350 hitter is a star. Explain this to your audience.

14. Stop the Bull/Bear Debate: This is a vast over-simplification of the market, and often does not serve the audience well. There are nuances and variables that get lost when you reduce everything to black and white.

15. Partisanship: Leave your personal politics at home. Viewers don’t care what most of you think.

16. Respect the Audience: We are adults. Treat us that way.

Great stuff, Barry.

I'd like to add, for the Philippine setup -stop projecting markets as some sort of a "game" similar to horse racing. It is one reason why locals have a poor understanding of the markets.