Sheinbaum Floats Bank Accounts Without an RFC: The Bet on Banking First and Formalizing Later
The proposal aims to open the door to simplified accounts to reduce cash use and bring financial services to millions in the informal economy.
President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration is preparing a financial inclusion strategy with a notable shift from the traditional order of paperwork: allowing more people to open bank accounts even if they don’t yet have a Federal Taxpayer Registry (RFC). The logic is to bring in those who today operate almost entirely in cash—especially workers and microbusinesses in the informal economy—and, once they’re inside the financial system, make it easier for them to transition gradually into tax formality.
Outlined at a press conference on April 6, the plan builds on low-risk simplified account schemes that already exist under Mexico’s financial regulations. In the current system design, many institutions ask for an RFC as an identification data point and to comply with obligations tied to the Tax Administration Service (SAT), along with rules to prevent transactions involving illicit funds. In practice, that requirement becomes a barrier for millions of people with no tax history or with pending paperwork.
In Mexico, high labor informality continues to set the ceiling for access to financial services: the latest INEGI figures report tens of millions of people in informal employment. This population typically relies on cash to get paid, make payments, save, and send money—raising transaction costs, increasing security risks, and making it harder to build a financial track record. The proposal seeks to make a basic account the first step toward shifting to digital payments and broader products such as formal savings and credit.
For now, this is an idea under development, not a formal legislative initiative currently under debate. Still, it opens a public policy discussion: how to increase financial inclusion without loosening critical controls, and how to align inclusion goals with the state’s revenue collection and enforcement needs.
Simplified Accounts and Their Limits: Inclusion With Guardrails
Sheinbaum referenced “N2” and “N3” accounts, low-risk formats that, under regulatory terms, allow products to be opened with reduced requirements and capped limits on deposits and transactions. These “guardrails” matter because they reduce the potential for misuse while also creating a step-by-step pathway: users can start with a basic account to receive payments or small transfers and, as more information is verified or as they complete their tax registration, move up to products with higher limits and more features.
In practice, this aligns with a trend in Mexico’s financial system: digitizing onboarding and expanding entry-level accounts, especially through mobile channels. For users, the immediate benefit would be reduced dependence on cash and a better ability to manage variable income. For the system, the incentive is to grow the customer base and deepen the use of electronic payment methods, which can also increase transaction traceability over the long run.
Implications for the SAT, Revenue Collection, and Everyday Economic Activity
A sensitive point is coordination with the SAT. Opening accounts without an RFC does not, by itself, exempt anyone from tax obligations; it means postponing the RFC requirement as a condition for entry. Over the medium term, the government could aim for greater banking access to make registration easier, reduce compliance friction, and make economic activity more visible. For millions of people with modest or irregular income, the challenge will be ensuring the transition to formality doesn’t translate into disproportionate burdens—or create incentives to keep operating outside the system.
From a macroeconomic perspective, a shift toward digital payments can increase efficiency and reduce cash-handling costs. It can also improve household financial resilience by offering safer ways to save and access transfers. Even so, the policy will have to navigate structural realities: low financial literacy in some segments, connectivity gaps, costs associated with fees or infrastructure use, and a longstanding distrust of formal banking.
Risks and Open Questions: Controls, Data, and Trust
The main risk is operational and regulatory: expanding access without weakening know-your-customer standards and anti-money-laundering safeguards. That’s why transaction limits and tiered segmentation are key. Data handling is also at stake: more digitization means a greater need for cybersecurity, identity protection, and effective fraud response mechanisms. For the policy to work, users must feel the system is safe, simple, and genuinely useful in daily life.
On the implementation side, the role of banks, fintechs, and financial authorities will be decisive in standardizing processes and preventing a fragmented user experience across different requirements. And if the goal is “formalize later,” incentive design (for example, gradual access to credit, higher limits, or better terms) may be more effective than immediate mandates—especially in a country where informality is both an economic choice and a consequence of administrative barriers.
Overall, the proposal for accounts without an RFC points to a gradual path: first, bring people into the financial system through low-risk products with clear limits, and then move them closer to tax formality. The outcome will depend on coordination with the SAT, the strength of controls, and the ability to build enough trust for cash to stop being the default option.
