Donald Trump has ordered the U.S. Mint to stop producing the penny because it is unprofitable, costing 3.69 cents to produce each one. In response, the lobbyists that earn big profits from the ongoing existence of the penny have come out in full force with dubious arguments for why the penny is still vital. Their newest bit of disinformation is that removing the penny will increase reliance on the nickel, which costs 13.74 cents to produce, thus putting the U.S. public in a worse position than before. This shift-to-nickels claim is wrong, but all sorts of media sources [CNN | Bloomberg | ABC News | TIME ] are repeating it without challenging it. While it's true that the nickel is unprofitable to produce, usage of the nickel will *not* increase when the penny is removed. I'm going to show why shortly, but first a quick comment on the general idea of ending the penny. For long-time penny critics like myself, Trump's idea is tragically undeveloped, even clumsy. All serious minds agree that the U.S. penny is pure monetary pollution and needs to be abolished. It's too small to be meaningful, yet society is forced to continue counting in pennies because the political mechanism for improving America's coinage system is broken, having been captured by the coin lobbyists and conspiracy theorists. (I wrote about the coin lobby in Pennies as state failure.) However, to liberate society from the hassles of the penny the U.S. government can't just stop minting it, as Trump seems to think, because this doesn't prevent the existing stock of pennies that has accumulated over the last century or two from continuing to pollute Americans' economic lives. To solve this, the government must establish a rounding rule for individuals and retail establishments. When paying for goods at the checkout counter, all amounts owed must be rounded to the nearest five cents in order to prevent already-existing pennies from infiltrating day-to-day shopping experiences.  What would this rounding rule look like? Say that your grocery bill comes out to $10.87. You pay the cashier $11 in cash. Instead of getting 13 cents change (a dime and three pennies) your bill would now be rounded down to $10.85, and you'd get a 15 cents in change instead—a nickel and a dime. If your bill came to $10.88, it would be rounded up to $10.90, and you'd get 10 cents change instead of 12 cents. Voila, the penny-infiltration problem is solved. No annoying one-cent pieces required in day-to-day economic life. Now that we've got rounding out of the way, we can tackle the big penny-to-nickel lie that the coin lobbyists are circulating. Mark Weller, director for the lobby group Americans for Common Cents, was quoted in CNN last week: "Without the penny, the volume of nickels in circulation would have to rise to fill the gap in small-value transactions. Far from saving money, eliminating the penny shifts and amplifies the financial burden." Weller goes on to caution that the U.S. Mint may be forced to make in the range of 2–2.5 billion nickels a year if it stops producing pennies permanently, far higher than its normal run-rate of 1.0–1.6 billion over the past decade. The implicit threat here is that it's better for America to have their throats slit by the penny than be mauled by the nickel. Keep in mind that Weller and his lobbying group are sponsored by Artazn LLC, the firm that sells coin blanks to the U.S. Mint for eventual stamping into pennies. The idea that more nickels will be required in day-to-day transactions if the penny disappears is superficially seductive, but it's wrong. That's because the removal of pennies does *not* require that nickels do any more transactional work than before.  First, let's rebut it with a real-life example. In 2012, Canada abolished its one-cent piece and implemented five cent rounding. No nation is more similar to the U.S. than Canada, so it serves as a great foil. Did Canada experience a doubling or tripling in nickel production in order to fill the gap left by the penny? Below is the Royal Canadian Mint's nickel production from 2005 to present: No, the amount of nickels didn't jump in 2013 or 2014, the year after the penny's abolition. In fact, since the penny ban in 2012, Canadian nickel production has remained well-below its pre-2012 level of 200 million to 250 million. Having rebutted Weller's fill-the-gap claim by working through an example, now we'll rebut it mathematically. Let's take a look at all retail transactions that end in 1 cent to 99 cents, and how these transactions differ in a penny and post-penny world. A store will want to have enough change on hand to facilitate each of these one hundred transaction types. In the table below, I’ve listed all one hundred transactions and, assuming the customer pays with the next whole-dollar amount (e.g., if $40.71 is due, they pay with $41), how much coin change is required. First, let's look at the yellow half of the table, which shows how much change must be returned to the customer when the penny is still in circulation. In total, 200 pennies will be required for all one hundred transactions, with the one-cent piece showing up in 80% of all transactions. As for the nickel, a total of 40 nickels will be required, with the customer getting a nickel back in 40% of all transactions. Now let's remove the penny and introduce rounding to the nearest five cents. Will more nickels be required to "fill the gap" left by the penny, as alleged by the coin lobby?  Take a look at the orange area, which shows the shopping experience in a post-penny world. In the first column, I provide the rounded amount that the customer must pay. The demand for pennies has obviously fallen to zero in this world, as the policy intended. But the total amount of nickels required in our one hundred transactions remains at 40, as before. Nothing has changed. Note that the total number of dimes and quarters required also stays constant in both worlds, at 80 and 150 respectively, with 60% and 70% of all transactions needing these larger coins as change. What is happening? If you look more closely, you'll see that certain transaction amounts that didn't require a nickel in change before, like $0.96, now require a nickel (since the amount due is rounded down to $0.95.) But other amounts that once required a nickel, like $0.92, no longer do (since the amount is rounded down to $0.90, for which dimes are the most efficient change.) In short, for every amount owed by the customer that now requires a nickel in change, another amount owed no longer requires a nickel.  So when lobbyists like Mark Weller say that "the volume of nickels in circulation would have to rise to fill the gap," their math is flat out wrong: the removal of the penny does not require more nickels as change.  In real life, these one hundred transactions may not be entirely random or uniformly distributed; shopkeepers may have certain preferred prices points, thus skewing the amount of coins required as change. But I doubt the effect is very large, as suggested by the Canadian example. So both mathematically and empirically, Americans shouldn't be afraid of dropping the penny because they'll be saddled with even more awful nickels. That's just lobbyist propaganda. In a post-penny America, you get all the benefits of zero pennies with no extra nickels required.

In what seems to be an effort to extort Canada for additional benefits, Donald Trump complained yesterday on social media that CANADA DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW U.S. BANKS TO OPEN OR DO BUSINESS THERE. And so according to Trump, Canada doubly deserves to be disciplined with tariffs. Well, if it's true that U.S banks aren't allowed to do business in Canada, then why in god's name is one of the U.S.'s largest banks doing business in downtown Toronto? Citigroup Place, 123 Front St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Citi has been operating in Canada since 1919 and currently has 1,700 Canadian employees. According to OSFI, Canada's bank regulator, the bank earned C$35 million in Canada in the first three quarters of 2024 and has C$5.49 billion in Canadian assets as of September 30, 2024.  In short, Trump was either lying, misinformed, crazy, or some combination of those three. Canada allows foreign banks to enter our banking industry by requiring them to set up a domestic subsidiary and applying for a Schedule II banking charter. Schedule II banks can operate in all of the same lines of business as mainstay Canadian banks (i.e. Schedule I banks) like Royal Bank or Bank of Montreal. There are 16 Schedule II banks in Canada, three of which are American. (In addition to Citi, the other two are Amex Bank and JP Morgan.) Some folks on social media tried to reinterpret Trump's complaint: "But JP, what Trump really meant to say is that Canada doesn't allow U.S. banks to serve retail customers." As proof they cited the fact that if you walk into a Citi office in Canada, Citi won't allow you to open a personal chequing account. The reason that Citi won't give you a personal chequing account isn't because the rules prevent them from doing so. Rather, Citi (along with Amex and JP Morgan) have chosen not to enter the Canadian retail banking market, preferring to focus instead on other types of Canadian banking, like commercial and investment banking. If Citi, for instance, wanted to set up a retail branch network, it could. In fact, Citi once had a small five-branch retail banking network in Vancouver and Toronto, offering personal chequing and savings account, term deposits, loans, mortgages, mutual funds and RRSPs. But it sold out in 1999 to Canada Trust, which was ultimately bought by TD Bank. Other foreign banks have also set up Schedule II banks with a retail presence, only to sell out to domestic banks. HSBC Canada, owned by its British parent, became Canada's seventh largest bank—one that was notably successful in offering mortgages to retail customers—but was recently offloaded by its parent to Royal Bank, a Schedule I bank. ING Canada, owned by Dutch-based ING Bank, created one of Canada's most popular discount retail banks, ING Direct, but sold it to Scotia Bank in 2012, which rechristened the discount bank Tangerine Bank. The lone Schedule II foreign bank I'm aware of that still serves retail customers is ICICI Bank, which is owned by its Indian parent. Why are U.S. and foreign banks reticent to compete in Canada's retail banking market? Contrary to perceptions that Canadian banking is slow and lazy, it's actually quite difficult to make much headway in Canada. The Big-5 banks, plus National Bank, which counts as half a big bank, have built strong retail branch networks that span the entire country. They compete rigorously for consumer deposits, offering higher interest rates than U.S. banks offer to Americans, suggesting a more cut-throat market than south of the border. In short, U.S. banks don't have the cojones to cross the border and compete head-to-head against Canada's more competitive behemoths. Citi already tried. It gave up. By contrast, the U.S. is an easier market for a foreign bank to enter because its banking industry is more fragmented. And many Canadian banks have entered, with TD Bank and Bank of Montreal occupying 10th and 13th spot respectively on the list of largest U.S. banks. This fragmentation is the residue of the U.S.'s refusal (until recently) to allow banks to set up branches across state lines. By contrast, Canada has always had fairly permissive rules about establishing cross-country banking networks. The irony here is that Trump's complaints about lack of openness best apply to the U.S., historically the culprit when it comes to tamping down the spread of banking. Canadian banks' U.S. and international exposure has increased over time. A recent Bank of Canada study finds that our banks now have more foreign liabilities (i.e. deposits) than domestic liabilities. (See chart below). More precisely, 57% of all Canadian banks' liabilities are now foreign. As for our banks' asset mix, foreign assets are poised to surpass domestic assets in the next year or two, if trends continue. Rising Canadian bank exposure to the rest of the world. Source: Bank of Canada The reason for this outward migration is clear. Canada's saturated retail banking market offers few opportunities for growth, but other parts of the world are less saturated, and so these jurisdictions offer Canadian banks ideal avenues for acquisitions and growth. This gives us an additional vantage point for viewing Trump's absurd comments about Canadian banking. He may not be saying that Canada's banking system is closed, but that the U.S. banking system is now effectively shut off to additional acquisitions by Canadian banks, as part of some sort of America First banking policy. This implicit threat of a foreign banking blockade may explain, in part, why the price of Canadian bank stocks fell so much more than the broader Canadian market yesterday. Their avenues for growth may have just narrowed.

Noah Smith writes a provocative article about memecoins as a novel mechanism for bribery payments. A foreign dignitary looking to gain influence over Donald Trump would like to pay him a giant bribe, but doing so directly is prohibited by all sort of laws. Luckily, Trump has just issued his own memecoin, TRUMP, of which Trump owns 80% of all coins. So why not just buy the TRUMP token, thereby pushing its price up and gifting Trump with even more wealth, in return gaining a degree of influence over policy? The best part is that no money actually changes hands, so it's probably less risky from a legal perspective. The dignitary can just plead "I thought it would go up!", says Noah. Now, I'm not so sure that crypto is ushering in anything unique here. Consider that Donald Trump also owns shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT), which are NASDAQ-listed "tradfi" shares that predate crypto. Why not just buy DJT shares, pump their price higher, and collect favors from Trump? No crypto involved.  In fact, a year before Noah wrote his article about memecoin bribery, Robert Maguire of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), worried about precisely such a scenario. Any entity wanting to "cozy up" to Trump need only buy a bunch of DJT shares on the NASDAQ, enough that they "get Trump’s attention, but low enough that it doesn’t break the five-percent threshold that triggers SEC disclosure." Consider that Donald Trump and family members hold a 59% ownership stake in DJT equity, which isn't too different from the 80% of TRUMP that they own. Both assets have market caps of around $7 billion. So pushing up the price of DJT will certainly enrich Trump just as much as trying to nudge TRUMP higher. So here's my question: What's the best way to bribe the current President of the United States of America, by pumping the TRUMP memecoin or pumping old-school DJT shares? Before answering it, I want to pause for a moment to reflect. The fact that I am even writing a blog post on the topic of bribing an American president shows how far along a certain dystopian financial timeline we have gone. Back to the timeline. I see two reasons why the memecoin probably presents a better pseudo-bribery option than the tradfi stock.  The first reason is that it's safer to pull off. DJT is listed on just one exchange; the NASDAQ. And the NASDAQ exists in the U.S., which has the most robustly-regulated and well-trusted securities markets in the world. One duty the government requires of NASDAQ is that it surveil transactions in real-time for abusive trading behaviour, so any sketchy DJT purchases could end up being reported by NASDAQ to the authorities. Furthermore, to get access to NASDAQ-listed shares, a brokerage account is required, and that'll require the would-be briber to pass through the brokerage's identity checks.   On top of that, systems like the Consolidated Audit Trail, a government-mandated system tracking U.S. equity and options trades, gives regulators themselves a means to monitor market activity and investigate potential misconduct. So a foreign dignitary is taking a bit of a risk if he or she goes the DJT route. By contrast, the TRUMP memecoin is hosted on a blockchain, basically a borderless and open decentralized database, not a carefully-guarded database confined to the U.S. The result is that TRUMP can be listed anywhere, including on shady offshore crypto exchanges like ByBit or KuCoin, which surely aren't checking customers for pumps. To boot, these offshore exchanges perform only cursory identity checks, if any. To further protect him or herself, a would-be briber can initiate the pump by sending funds from an offshore exchange, say KuCoin, to a decentralized exchange, or DEX, and only then push the price of TRUMP higher. DEXes are even more hands-off than offshore exchanges; they don't perform any surveillance or identity checks. The riposte to this is that all blockchain transactions are public and observable, so a bribe conducted on a DEX could be traced. Ok, sure. But while blockchain transactions are visible, they aren’t directly tied to real-world identities. Blockchains are pseudonymous. It's a bit like going to a masked ball. Everyone can see who the dancers are, but as long as everyone has their mask on a degree of anonymity is preserved.      So to safely get away with bribing Trump, it sure seems that his memecoin is the better option than NASDAQ-listed DJT. Now for the second reason why the memecoin is better for bribery: it packs more punch per dollar. A memecoin lacks what equity researchers refer to as fundamental value. Its price is solely a function of Sam's expectations of what future buyers like Jill will pay for it, with Jill's expectations conditioned on what she thinks Sam will pay. They are pure bundles of speculative energy. As I've referred to them in other posts, memecoins are decentralized ponzi games, zero-sum lotteries, or Keynesian beauty contests. By contrast, DJT is a stock, and stocks provide their owners with a claim on the underlying firm's 1) profits and 2) its assets in case it is eventually wound-up. There is a "something" that buyers and sellers can coordinate on, so that unlike a memecoin, a stock is more than a pure nested expectation games. That's not to say that stocks don't have a big "meme" component (think Gamestop), but the degree to which this guessing game is played with stocks is unlikely to ever reach that of memecoins. The existence of fundamentals makes pumps less effective. As a pump begins to drive the price of DJT higher, the underlying fundamentals will start to give certain existing investors a reason to sell (i.e. "it's now too expensive relative to earnings"), and that selling will dull the pump. Since there are no fundamentals for TRUMP memecoin buyers to latch on to – any price is as good as another – a memecoin pump never gets throttled by fundamental sellers. To sum up, someone who has $10 million to bribe Donald Trump will want to demonstrate to the President that their purchases drove the price of the target asset higher: it'll be far easier to demonstrate this by pumping the frictionless memecoin than the burdened-by-fundamentals stock. Now, if you've gotten this far and think this post is actually about how to bribe Trump, it's not. It's about the often fascinating differences (or not) between crypto and traditional finance. In my view, they aren't really so different. Crypto fans may think there's a financial revolution going on, but there's nothing new under the sun. You might wonder: is the frictionlessness of a memecoin, its lack of fundamentals, and the ensuing incredible ease by which it can be bribe-pumped a new feature that crypto has brought to the table? Not really. There's no technical hurdle preventing the NASDAQ from listing a non-blockchain version of the TRUMP memecoin on its own old-fashioned Oracle database. People could buy and sell this NASDAQ-listed meme-thingy instead of that blockchain version of TRUMP. But securities law gets in the way. Listing an unadulterated ponzi game on a national stock market has never been legal, at least not in my lifetime. Why putting one up on a blockchain is legal is beyond me, but look over there, the President just did it. At the speed the train is leaving sanity station and heading to financial silly land, I suspect listing pure ponzis on the NASDAQ will soon be an accepted thing. Memeassets everywhere! Bribes for everyone!

We Canadians are overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin, so when the CBC published an expose last week about "banned Russian oil" sneaking into Canada, it was read in despair by most of us. What an awful failure of Canadian sanctions policy.  As with a lot of sanctions media coverage, I saw things a bit differently: "Not bad. We're doing our part!" That's because if you add some more context to the CBC article, the data that it presents can be read as good news. The article takes issue with 2.5 million barrels of refined oil products made from Russian-produced crude that have been indirectly imported into Canada since the start of Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Given that around 1,000 days have passed since the invasion, that works out to roughly 2,500 barrels per day of Russian-linked refined oil products arriving on Canadian shores. (Analyzing oil flows on a per-day basis is industry standard and also makes it easier for our brains.) In the grand scheme of things, 2,500 barrels per day is a drop in the bucket. Canada consumes around 1.6 million barrels of refined oil products per day, according to CAPP, which includes stuff like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. So just 0.1% of our consumption is Russia-tainted. Even so, every barrel matters, and we should strive to avoid any contribution to Putin's war chest. But there's more context. 2,500 barrels per day of Russian refined oil products is far less than what we imported prior to the war. According to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), between 2017 and 2022 Canada was regularly importing around 10,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products directly from Russia (see chart below). After banning imports of Russian crude and refined oil products, Canada's direct imports fell to zero in 2023. Into this void, indirect imports of 2,500 barrels per day of Russian-linked refined products, the flows that the CBC spotlights, have emerged. A 75% decline from 10,000 barrels per day to 2,500 barrels per day is not too shabby. Canada's direct imports of Russian refined petroleum products, which hit zero in 2023. Source: CER 2,500 barrels is still not zero. But we can also take comfort from the fact that those barrels are not as profitable for Russia as they used to be. In the pre-war era, Canada was importing refined petroleum products directly from Russia, but in the post-war era we are importing Russian oil indirectly via a third-party, India. More specifically,  oil in its raw form -- crude oil -- is being shipped all the way from Russia to India by tanker, where it is upgraded by Indian refineries, and only then is it onshipped to Canada. This new workflow is a big downgrade for Russia. Before it can be used, crude oil has to be converted into pricier consumable types of fuel like gasoline for cars and jet fuel for planes. Upgrading crude oil creates extra profits for whoever does it. Russia's refineries used to capture the entire upgrading margin. They refined the raw oil after it was pulled out of the ground and then regularly sent 10,000 barrels per day of the final product to Canada. But now India is capturing those extra profits on the 2,500 barrels per day that are sent to Canada. So not only has the quantity of Russian-linked refined products imported by Canada shrunk by 75% since the war began, but thanks to the interposition of Indian refiners at the expense of Russian ones, the quality of Russia's revenue stream has been downgraded: pound-for-pound, Russia's indirect exports to Canada are a far less lucrative for Putin than they were back in 2021, because his refining margin has disappeared. Compounding Russia's woes is the much more circuitous route that its oil must now take. Prior to 2022, Russian refined oil exports were loaded onto boats in Russian ports like Saint Petersburg and shipped via the Baltic Sea to Canada, around 4,000 nautical miles away. That's a 15-day voyage according to Sea-Distances. These days, that 15-day voyage has tripled, even quadrupled. First, Russian crude oil must travel from the Baltic to India, a 7,500 nautical mile journey that can take 30 days. That's if it goes through the Suez canal. Passing around the southern tip of Africa amounts to a 12,000 mile trip taking up to 50 days. Once refined in India, the product must travel another 8,000 miles from India to eastern Canada.  What an incredible amount of travel to get a barrel of Russian refined oil to Canadian markets! A good way to visualize these new transportation frictions is provided by the Kyiv School of Economics, which charts the volume of Russian oil being transported by oil tankers over time. Thanks to the forced rerouting of crude to less efficient routes as countries like Germany and Canada close their borders to Putin, Russia's oil on water is 163% higher than the pre-invasion average. Record volumes of Russian oil on water is not a good thing for Putin. It mean higher transportation costs. Source: KSE The extra transportation and insurance costs that "oil on water" entails inevitably eat into the final price that Russia can negotiate with buyers like India for its barrels of crude. For these long distances to be financially worthwhile for Indian businesses, they will only buy Russian crude at a discount to the going world price. According to the Dallas Fed, the Russia discount regularly clocks in at around $20 below the market price. This constitutes a big step down for Russia -- prior to the war it was receiving the full world price. The upshot is that Canadian imports of Russian oil are down, and even though some Russian refined petroleum products are indirectly making their way to Canada, this is only after we've extracted our pound of flesh from Putin by forcing him to give up his refining margin and by obliging him to accept a crude oil price discount on account of distance traveled. So let's take some pride from that. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything about our indirect imports of Russian oil product? I want to clarify that Canada isn't importing "banned" products or breaking Russian sanctions. For better or for worse, the coalition's sanction on Russian crude oil have been designed to allow crude to continue to flow around the world, the intent being to avoid a big spike in oil prices while still hurting Russia. The 2,500 barrels of indirectly-refined refined oil we get each day are fair game.    But that doesn't mean Canadians should do nothing. The CBC article is a good effort to name-and-shame certain Canadian importers that are accepting Russian-linked crude from third-parties, including Everwind Fuel's Point Tupper oil storage facility in Nova Scotia. C'mon, Everwind. Why not choose better trading partners, ones who aren't acting as go-betweens for Putin? However, the best step we can do to counter Russia is to focus on producing more renewables, crude oil, and other commodities, as well as to find reliable ways to get these resources to market.  Unlike Europe and the U.S., which have plenty of economic and financial heft, Canada doesn't have any sizable economic chokepoints that we can lever to hurt Russia. We could cut down on the 2,500 barrels per day of Russian-linked oil imports, but as laudable as that might be it doesn't constitute a genuine chokepoint. Canada's edge is that our economy is remarkably similar to Russia. Both of us extract a bunch of resources. The more we compete with Putin in resource extraction, the more we reduce the prices he relies on, thus impairing his ability to fund his invasion of Ukraine.