The Mexican Peso: A History of Resilience and Growth - FastBull (2024)

It didn't take very long for someone to work out a way of making money from the London Metal Exchange's (LME) new rules around Russian metals.

The U.S. and UK governments announced on Friday April 12 a new sanctions package, which prohibited either the LME or CME exchanges from accepting deliveries of Russian metal produced after that date. The LME duly updated its rule-book on April 13, suspending deliveries of new Russian metal.

When trading resumed on the Monday, someone cancelled 79,875 metric tons of aluminium, equivalent to around a sixth of LME registered inventory.

By the end of the week a total 172,500 tons had moved to the cancelled category, draining warranted stocks to 152,000 tons, the lowest level in almost two years.

Given that Russian brands accounted for more than 90% of all LME-registered aluminium at the end of March, this is clearly Russian metal on the move.

The LME had warned about the potential for large amounts of Russian metal to enter exchange warehouses not to exit it.

But the exchange's warehouse system comes with its own kinks, particularly when it comes to storing aluminium.

Russian Splits

The latest sanctions package is intended to hit Russia's export revenue from sectors that account for 5.5% of global aluminium supply, 4.0% of copper supply and 6.0% of nickel.

Any metal produced after April 12 should in theory trade at a discount to the LME price since it is now non-deliverable.

But as well as splitting Russian metal between old and new production, the sanctions split older production into two categories of LME warrant.

Russian aluminium already on warrant on April 12 was subject to delivery restrictions but those have now been lifted. What the LME calls Type I Russian warrants can circulate freely through the LME system and be loaded out for physical delivery.

Russian metal produced before April 13 can still be warranted but such Type 2 warrants will come with restrictions on UK and U.S. entities and citizens being able to cancel, re-warrant, shift locations or take delivery for their own account.

It's worth noting that there were 737,000 tons of aluminium sitting in LME off-warrant storage at the end of February. Some, possibly most, of this shadow stock will be Russian metal.

What was cancelled last week were Type 1 warrants. The metal could return to the LME and be re-warranted subject to the exchange's audit trail requirements.

More likely it will return and be re-warranted as Type 2 material. Or it will be replaced with shadow stock, which will also become a Type 2 warrant if delivered onto exchange.

Either way, Type 2 warrants are more likely to stick in the LME system given the restrictions around taking physical delivery.

Storage Split

That would be very good news for whoever is warehousing the stuff, since there is nothing a warehouse operator loves more than metal that isn't going anyway any time soon. The longer it stays in the shed, the more revenue the storage provider gets.

And whoever re-warrants what's just been cancelled or replenishes it with off-market metal can earn a share of that revenue.

So-called "ever-green rent arrangements" allow for a split in future storage revenue between the warehouse and the entity delivering the metal.

They are regularly used by warehousers to attract metal to their storage space. They have the advantage of being cash-flow neutral, allowing smaller players to compete with bigger operators, who can pay a cash incentive to drag metal out of the physical supply chain.

But they have also been a bone of contention for many years, generating LME stocks churn as new owners are forced to move metal between warehouses to free themselves from the rental share deal with the party that originally delivered the metal.

The LME decided to continue allowing them, albeit with some tweaks, after a 2019 consultation on warehousing reform.

Recent large movements of lead and zinc stocks through the LME system are almost certainly as much a function of warehousing as metal dynamics.

Aluminium has always been the primary battleground in the LME storage wars. It's a bigger market than any of the other base metals traded on the LME and it's prone to periods of persistently high stocks.

It was aluminium that caused the LME headaches 10 years ago in the form of long load-out queues from Detroit.

It looks like aluminium is now going to cause more trouble as warehousers and traders capitalise on the Russian warrant split.The Mexican Peso: A History of Resilience and Growth - FastBull (1)

Turbulence

The sharp reduction in LME live aluminium tonnage has inevitably caused turbulence across the front part of the curve.

The LME cash-to-three-months spread was valued at $46 per ton contango at the close on Friday April 12. It has since swung into the sharpest backwardation since June last year. The cash premium was valued at just over $27 per ton at Monday's close.

A one-day short position roll, known as "tom-next" on the LME, cost over $25 per ton at one stage Monday.

The outright price seems unsure what to do. There was a knee-jerk spike to a 22-month high of $2,728 per ton on the sanctions news but the gains were lost by the end of the day. Last week saw three-month metal rally again but the move reversed at Monday's high of $2,688 and has slid back to $2,590 on Tuesday morning.

The UK and U.S. governments were hoping that by allowing older Russian metal to continue trading, they would avoid a drain on stocks and any resulting price turbulence.

They didn't allow for the fact that after years of gaming the LME's labyrinthine rules around load-out queues, both aluminium traders and warehouse operators are primed to spot any regulatory gap, however narrow.

It's a high-risk game given both governments' interest in seeing the sanctions take effect without market distortion.

But the game is definitely on.

Source: Reuters

The Mexican Peso: A History of Resilience and Growth - FastBull (2024)

FAQs

What caused the Mexican financial crisis? ›

The December devaluation triggered a financial crisis because foreign investors felt tricked and feared a default. Investors were angry for a very simple reason. The devaluation and its mishandling caused them substantial losses.

What was the origin of the Mexican financial crisis in 1994? ›

The Tequila Crisis began on Dec. 20, 1994 when the Mexican peso was devalued, causing a global currency crisis and resulting in a $50 billion IMF bailout to Mexico's economy. Both domestic and international economic factors, along with political forces helped precipitate the crisis.

Why is the Mexican peso getting stronger? ›

Mexican interest rates 5% higher than US rates

The Bank of Mexico's aggressive rate hikes from 4% in 2021 to 11% in 2023, compared to the US Federal Reserve's increase from 0% to 5.5% during the same period, have widened the interest rate differential between Mexico and the US.

Why is the US dollar losing value against the Mexican peso? ›

"The U.S. currency has lost value against all other currencies because there's a lot of dollars in circulation," Jorge Fonseca, an economist in Tijuana, told NBC 7's sister station Telemundo 20. However, these fluctuations generated by the "super peso" have also had negative impacts on the binational economy.

What is the history of the Mexican peso? ›

History of the Mexican Peso

The coins were actually the Spanish dollars or eight pieces that were in large circulation in Asia and the Americas until the beginning of the 19th century when the Coinage Act came into force in 1857. The history of paper money in Mexico dates back to the turn of the 20th century.

Are old Mexican pesos worth anything? ›

Examples of present-day values

a $100,000 peso note dating back to 1991 is exchangeable today for a current-day $100 peso note; $1 and $5 peso notes dating back to pre-1975 are worth fractions of a Mexican cent and are now no more than museum pieces and collectors' items.

When did Mexican pesos change? ›

On January 1, 1993, the Bank of Mexico introduced a new currency, the nuevo peso ("new peso", or MXN), written "N$" followed by the numerical amount. One new peso, or N$1.00, was equal to 1,000 of the obsolete MXP pesos.

What are 2 major causes of the Mexican war? ›

One of the causes of this war were the continued claims to Texas from both the United States and Mexican governments. Other reasons were claims against the Mexican government by American citizens for damages during the continuous Mexican Revolutions of the period and the U.S. desire to claim California.

Which of the following factors triggered the 1994-95 Mexican peso crisis? ›

On December 20, 1994, the government of Mexico announced the devaluation of its currency, surprising financial markets and precipitating the so-called Mexican peso crisis.

How did Mexico go into debt? ›

loans to Mexico rose sharply: it quadrupled from 1973 to 1981 (from USD 118 million in 1973 to 460 million in 1981). Mexico also borrowed from private banks with the World Bank's backing. The volume of loans from private banks to Mexico multiplied by 6 between 1973 and 1981.

What was the main cause of the Mexican war? ›

The immediate cause of the Mexican-American War was a disputed boundary between the United States and Texas on the Nueces Strip. Mexico did not recognize Texas as legitimate American territory and Texas admission to the United States antagonized Mexican officials and citizens.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Duane Harber

Last Updated:

Views: 5924

Rating: 4 / 5 (71 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Duane Harber

Birthday: 1999-10-17

Address: Apt. 404 9899 Magnolia Roads, Port Royceville, ID 78186

Phone: +186911129794335

Job: Human Hospitality Planner

Hobby: Listening to music, Orienteering, Knapping, Dance, Mountain biking, Fishing, Pottery

Introduction: My name is Duane Harber, I am a modern, clever, handsome, fair, agreeable, inexpensive, beautiful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.