Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

Mexico’s Pemex Illustrates Trade Credit Risks in Latin America

With all the focus on the Middle East and Europe, it is easy to lose track of Latin America as a region with major risk issues. Companies investing and selling to Latin America have become accustomed to viewing its largest economies—Mexico and Brazil—as relatively low-risk countries with promising growth prospects. That perception has recently changed, however, largely because of a common ingredient: large state-owned oil companies on which the government depends.

With a $1.26 trillion economy and population of 122 million, Mexico is a key market for the United States and Canada, particularly since the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some $535 billion in trade occurred between the U.S. and Mexico in 2014. From 2000 through 2012, U.S. foreign direct investment into Mexico totaled $291.7 billion.

With a monopoly (until recently) on oil production and fuel distribution, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is a colossus—the largest company in the country, representing about one-third of all government tax revenues and approximately 5% of Mexican exports. From its origin in 1938, Pemex has also been a political entity, as it was nationalized at a time when foreign companies dominated the oil sector. Since then, it has become enmeshed in Mexican politics and patronage, suffering from frequent allegations of corruption.

However, in the early 2000s, Mexico’s political leadership recognized a problem: oil production was falling and Pemex lacked the resources to invest in new fields to reverse the trend. Clearly, foreign investment was going to be needed to keep Mexico competitive in world oil markets. So, in August 2014, Mexico passed the laws necessary to open up the oil, gas, and power sectors to private companies, including foreign ones.

buy arava online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/arava.html no prescription pharmacy

Unfortunately, with oil prices taking a serious downturn, the timing of the opening was awful. Pemex was losing its monopoly at the same time its revenue was dropping and home currency was depreciating against the U.

buy minocin online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/minocin.html no prescription pharmacy

S. dollar, after it had accumulated enormous foreign currency debt.

Not surprisingly, in November 2015, Moody’s downgraded Pemex’s credit rating from A3 to Baa1, with a negative outlook. Without the sovereign support, the rating was put at a lowly Ba3. And Pemex’s problems have directly drained the central government: this month, the Mexican government announced over $4 billion in aid for the company.

Pemex has serious cash-flow problems and is not able to pay its suppliers on time. In late 2015, citing low oil prices, it announced that it would unilaterally extend payment terms on all contracts to 180 days from the previous 60-90. For suppliers dependent on short payment terms who were already under cash-flow stress from general industry conditions, these payment delays could cause serious financial problems, including bankruptcies. Accordingly, the trade credit insurance industry—which covers buyers’ failure to pay contractual trade obligations on the due date—is already seeing claims related to Pemex and its suppliers.

Except for people who remember the early 1980s, when Mexico defaulted following the high oil prices and debt run-up of the 1970s, Pemex’s problems were unthinkable just a few years ago. This is an example of the difficulty of predicting how commodity markets, politics and financial management can mix for any given country. However, while Pemex’s problems are serious for its suppliers and represent a drag on the economy, Mexico is still forecasted to grow 2.

buy stendra online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

6% in 2016 and no wide political crisis is currently underway. Many other countries dependent on oil are not so lucky. Next month we will look at one with much more serious problems and risks to investors and suppliers: Brazil.

California and New York Agree to $15 Minimum Wage

Yesterday, the governors of California and New York reached agreements with state lawmakers to become the highest-paid minimum wage states in the country with an increase to $15 an hour. A minimum wage bill passed the California legislature on Thursday, and Gov. Jerry Brown said he will sign the measure on Monday. Late that night across the country, Gov. Andrew Cuomo reached a tentative agreement with New York’s top legislators to do the same with the state’s base wage.

According to the AP, President Barack Obama, who first proposed an increase to the $7.25 federal minimum wage in 2013, applauded the states’ actions and called on the Republican-controlled Congress to “keep up with the rest of the country.”

Currently, California and Massachusetts are tied for the highest state minimum wages at $10 an hour, while New York’s current rate is $9. Only Washington, D.C., at $10.50 per hour, is higher.

From the Department of Labor, here’s a look at how your state measures up:state minimum wage laws

Both California and New York plan to phase in the new rates, which will impact about 2 million employees in each state. In California, the increases would start with a boost from $10 to $10.50 on Jan. 1, and businesses with 25 or fewer employees would have an extra year to comply. Increases of $1 an hour would come every January until 2022, although the governor could delay these increases in the event of significant budgetary or economic downturns.

Cuomo originally proposed a simpler adjustment in New York: three years in New York City and six years in the rest of the state. Negotiations with local lawmakers who expressed concern the sharp increases would “devastate” business owners produced a more gradual approach. The AP reported, “In New York City, the wage would increase to $15 by the end of 2018, although businesses with fewer than 10 employees would get an extra year. In the suburbs of Long Island and Westchester County, the wage would rise to $15 by the end of 2022. The increases are even more drawn out upstate, where the wage would hit $12.50 in 2021, then increase to $15 based on an undetermined schedule.”

These changes come as considerable progress for the “Fight for 15” movement to raise minimum wages across the country. As Will Kramer reported in Risk Management magazine, debates over income inequality in the United States and the “Fight for 15” movement have gathered strength over the past five years. Many credit the Occupy Wall Street movement that began in New York City’s Zuccotti Park in September 2011 with spurring the increased focus on wealth and economic inequality, particularly the divide between the 99% and the 1%.

The impacts have been gaining further momentum recently. Kramer explained, “As of mid-2015, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles have begun phasing in a $15 minimum wage. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced Congressional legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. What was once considered inconceivable has become more and more commonly accepted as a necessary and even moral imperative for many American businesses.”

Check out more from Kramer’s article on the growing debate over income inequality and its implications for businesses in Risk Management.

 

A Trump Presidency Poses Top Risk to Global Economy

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, a Donald Trump presidency poses one of the greatest current global risks. Indeed, Trump ranks as the sixth overall potential risk to the global economy, and based on a 25-point scale, the research firm rated the risk approximately equal to the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilizing the global economy.

The EIU, research and analysis sister company to the Economist, ranks risks based on both impact and probability, with a Trump presidency presenting considerable potential impact, but moderate probability. The EIU’s assessment focused in particular on Trump’s hostility toward free trade (most notably NAFTA), aggressive rhetoric on China, and “exceptionally right-wing stance” on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism.

online pharmacy neurontin with best prices today in the USA

“In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war—and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016,” EIU analysts wrote. “His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the U.S.) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.”

The firm concluded with a prediction that, while it believes Trump will most likely lose to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, that probability could change in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn.

In such a scenario, the trickle-down effect within the American political machine poses noteworthy risk as well.

“Innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr. Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress,” the report says.

online pharmacy antabuse with best prices today in the USA

But “such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.”

The firm’s overall top 10 risks by point ranking are:

economist intelligence unit top global economy risks

Brussels Bombings Highlight New Risk Realities

Belgium map
The deadly terrorist bombings in Brussels this week have elicited an outpouring of support for the victims and for Belgium, along with renewed rage and consternation regarding ISIS. These are predictable reactions.

What these acts also elicited, I’ve noticed, are numerous comments from many outlets that the attacks were not surprising.

The BBC, in fact, said the bombings were “not a surprise” and security experts chimed in with similar assessments. Even Belgians themselves admit that the attack wasn’t shocking—Prime Minister, Charles Michel, lamented that “what we feared, has happened.” Think about how much has changed in less than a generation. Now, when the capital of the EU and NATO becomes a war zone, many react as though this is business as usual.

When it comes to political violence and warfare, we (or at least Western Europe) are living in a brave new world.

In fact, research I’ve conducted in recent weeks for a RIMS Executive Report on political risk confirms how much the paradigm has changed. Political risk experts I interviewed have been emphasizing this point. “I think it is truly a distinctive point in world affairs,” said one. Another confessed, “I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years, and this is by far the most unstable, tenuous, deteriorating…risk environment I’ve ever seen.”

These sentiments are based on more than ISIS. Recent developments include the Ukraine civil war, the migrant crisis, deterioration of large swaths of the Middle East, tensions in the South China Sea, a weakening Chinese economy and Brazil’s political crisis. All contribute to a consensus that things are changing.

For the risk community, a big change is formerly reliable standards of which parts of the world are stable and which are unstable, such as developed economies versus developing and first-world versus second- and third-world. Now more than ever, risk managers considering the security of global operations need to examine a country’s vital signs rather than rely on conventional wisdom about stability. And if mass-casualty terror attacks are the new normal for Western Europe, a number of risk professionals will need to become better acquainted with the realities of political violence.

To end on a positive note, however, we do not have to believe the sky is falling. While terrorist attacks are brutal and unfortunate, it is consoling to think about the odds of being a victim. As data nerds are happy to point out, a person is much more likely to meet his or her demise from bathtubs, dogs and food poisoning. The Post has reported that you are more likely to be crushed by furniture than snuffed out by ISIS.