The exchange and the communication battle.
The health of Argentina's economy has just started a battle against one of its most formidable rivals:
The fear of devaluation.
Fear is a question of expectations: they fear what is supposed to happen.
What could happen or not. But in the moment before, the "fear of that becoming a reality", determines the policies and attitudes. Those who feed the fear, speculators and traders who would benefit from various devaluation, are seeking precisely that: "intimidate by fear" so the government will have to change course and accept if only "a little shift" to push the dollar up.
And look also to generate in ordinary people a sense of "it" to which it is feared, that the devaluation finally is going to happen, so that ordinary people go out and spend their savings and look for what hasn't have (ie taking debt) and buy dollars "to cover themselves in case the worst is to come"
So far, on the first, those who feed fear have failed in twisting the Government's policy, but have achieved some success in the second instance, e.g. generating the feeling that "something is going to happen" in the exchange market.
(Remember postings like this in this forum just before and after the elections?). That's how they operate.
There are two fights that are held in separate rings, but they are interrelated. The Government is fighting on both fronts at once. For years, it had a firm policy of supporting a high dollar value, that would help encourage the export profile of the country, yet with a modest increase, in order not to cause a windfall in export sectors that represent a transfer of resources and their behalf at the expense of the rest of society.
As this policy resulted in an increasingly positive trade balance (export dollar inflows higher than the output for imports), the firepower of central bank reserves also grew. That managed to maintain its policy in any circumstances even in the face of excess demand in the foreign exchange market, the Central solved with more supply of dollars, selling as far as the market required them.
In recent weeks, compared with an unusual and sustained excess demand for dollars in the local exchange market, the Government and the monetary authority had to review its policy. It was not enough with the "market operations" of BCRA (out to sell when the market had "a buyer option" to compensate), because there was a circuit to detect a that "black market" that bought dollars in the market to sell at more expensive to a third party, whom they could not poke their noses into the free market, for its history or because the obscure origins of their earnings, but now intend to spend their profits "by leaking those profits" in dollars out of the country.
From this last week has been initiated in a phased manner a series of measures that seek to control the legality of the operations in the foreign exchange market, and not in changing those rules.
Has been a long time that the field of media can be a battlefield when what is intended to communicate goes against the interests of the owners of large economic corporations, to which the major media groups belong or at least pay some tribute. It happened to Kirchner at the time of the agro-export dispute with the block by the value of taxes on soybeans in 2008. And it could happen again now if you take that lesson and then applies it to current conditions.
The Government faces a battle in the media to report the measures being taken, and that battle is already in sight.
The authorities anticipated yesterday that, starting Monday, the buying of currencies in the system (banks and bureaux de change) will be monitored by the AFIP to verify the financial condition and availability of resources who declare himself the buyer.
But not under the authorized amount or restricted purchasing there still exist the right to purchase foreign exchange to anyone. However, some headlines and comments want to reflect the contrary to this. For example "The AFIP decide who can buy dollars," this is the title cover of one of these media to miss-inform the population. Next, "To buy dollars, we must have authorization from the AFIP" said another of the media of wide circulation. Another, "Disappears single free market changes," alarmed other comments published yesterday..... "Whoever wants to save in dollars does not have official approval and must resort to parallel" deepened the analysis in the same direction.
The funny-maybe not-is that those same notes, lines down, explain the measure, which was announced. "There was no change in the rules, it is true, but tightening the rules," says the same comment as above noted that "removes the single market and free exchange." The medium will be the AFIP titled who "will decide who can buy dollars," he acknowledges that "the most visible change" to the buyer will be that "in addition to the DNI, shall submit the record or CUIL CUIT" that is identified as a contributor .
With this what they want to archive is to exaggerate the impact of the measure, transfigured to make it appear as a tool of state terror, announcing cuts of civil liberties, or simply present it as a desperate and futile action of the Government, if only in its presentation but certainly not be sustained in the development of the news, look for a single purpose: to generate fear, the expectation that "has been the devaluation."
Of course, this fear has a combined effect, because on one side seeks to wear down the government's intention to keep under control the foreign exchange market, and the other is to produce in most people the opposite reaction to waiting for the government: and on that they run out and buy dollars. Speculators pro-devaluacionistas operators are seeking to force the people to do now what they did before: put buying pressure in the foreign exchange market and seek to force a devaluation.
The government is then faced with a double front line: speculation in the exchange market buying pressure that puts foreign exchange and the media frenzy that the Government is aware of the turtle exchange. It is not easy to resolve, but surely the key to how to deal with this is good communication. The Government was not in "the battle of withholding" and it took two years to overcome that politically difficult one. these are the considerations that this time should be measured in advance not to miss the strategy.
By Raúl Dellatorre