I remember attending formation meetings re the proposal for
BOLERO
back in the late 80's.... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
It almost looks like international credit is now barely possible unless both buyer and seller are clients of the same bank.
That's one approach,which requires Keynes' centralised global Bancor-issuing authority - because most of the planet would no longer accept the dollar, I think.
No proprietary/private bank could do this.
The alternative is simply a global framework agreement - which is all a Guarantee Society is.
All the banks would subscribe to this agreement, and there would need to be a Custodian entity (World Bank?) plus service providers managing the necessary fees/provisions.
The other requirement is for generic links (rather than individual proprietary solutions and links) to
which operates across borders to deal with transfers of title for goods in transit.
I think I will write a diary about this essential, but little regarded, part of global trade plumbing. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
This already exists: it's called IMF Special Drawing Rights. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Adapting IMF/SDR's to a global trade purpose, would be a nightmare, it seems to me.
I think it would be more straightforward to start with a global guarantee agreement relating to existing trade and develop organically from there.
After all government guarantees seem to be in vogue... ;-) "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
It wouldn't need a loan to the World Bank though, merely a World bank as "Custodian" and a guarantee from the IMF.
Not much else needs to be done... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
The new program, which will use up to about half the IMF's resources, represents a big break from such requirements. "Exceptional times call for an exceptional response," said IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The Fed also took new steps to flood dollars into markets outside the U.S., where banks' unwillingness to lend has left foreign firms without dollars they need. In recent weeks, the Fed has created arrangements with central banks in Europe, Australia, Canada and other developed economies to make dollars available overseas. On Wednesday, it extended those lines, for up to $30 billion each, to Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore. ... The IMF said it won't disclose the names of countries that it rejects for condition-free loans to try to make sure its decision doesn't worsen the applicant's problems. But Mr. Strauss-Kahn said in a news conference that Argentina wouldn't qualify because it hasn't had an IMF review of its finances for more than a year. ... The IMF is funded by contributions from its members and its large holdings of gold, among other sources. By itself, IMF money might be enough for the needs of Mexico or other countries. IMF funding also can often unlock other lending. The World Bank, for instance, chipped in $1.3 billion for the Hungary package. The World Bank has said it may double its lending to countries that might be affected by the financial crisis to $27 billion from $13.5 billion in 2007. In many ways, the new plan is a reprise of a proposal by President Bill Clinton in late 1998 to have the IMF lend to pre-approved countries. That was in response to criticism of the IMF by countries caught up in the Asia financial crisis in 1997 and 1998 in which IMF pushed them to make deep economic changes. Tough IMF requirements in Indonesia, for instance, played a role in violent riots that led to President Suharto's resignation.
The Fed also took new steps to flood dollars into markets outside the U.S., where banks' unwillingness to lend has left foreign firms without dollars they need. In recent weeks, the Fed has created arrangements with central banks in Europe, Australia, Canada and other developed economies to make dollars available overseas. On Wednesday, it extended those lines, for up to $30 billion each, to Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore. ...
The IMF said it won't disclose the names of countries that it rejects for condition-free loans to try to make sure its decision doesn't worsen the applicant's problems. But Mr. Strauss-Kahn said in a news conference that Argentina wouldn't qualify because it hasn't had an IMF review of its finances for more than a year. ...
The IMF is funded by contributions from its members and its large holdings of gold, among other sources. By itself, IMF money might be enough for the needs of Mexico or other countries. IMF funding also can often unlock other lending. The World Bank, for instance, chipped in $1.3 billion for the Hungary package. The World Bank has said it may double its lending to countries that might be affected by the financial crisis to $27 billion from $13.5 billion in 2007.
In many ways, the new plan is a reprise of a proposal by President Bill Clinton in late 1998 to have the IMF lend to pre-approved countries. That was in response to criticism of the IMF by countries caught up in the Asia financial crisis in 1997 and 1998 in which IMF pushed them to make deep economic changes. Tough IMF requirements in Indonesia, for instance, played a role in violent riots that led to President Suharto's resignation.
IMF: Gold Leases, Loans, Swaps and the Gold Forward Rate | Jesse | 27 Oct 2008
In reading this [BOPTEG ISSUES PAPER # 21A], it becomes clear that the IMF believes that once gold is lent out it becomes the property of the borrower who may in turn lend it out to third parties. What the lender holds is the 'promise' of the return of the gold at some future date. What we find shocking however is that on the books there is no accounting for this potential liability. The gold that is lent out is still marked as 'gold reserves.' What is the extent of this lending? How many ounces of central bank gold are really just paper promises for its return? If the dominos start falling in this carry trade it is very likely that there will be a declaration of force majeure, and the contracts will be settled in paper.
What we find shocking however is that on the books there is no accounting for this potential liability. The gold that is lent out is still marked as 'gold reserves.'
What is the extent of this lending? How many ounces of central bank gold are really just paper promises for its return? If the dominos start falling in this carry trade it is very likely that there will be a declaration of force majeure, and the contracts will be settled in paper.
IMF Special Drawing Rights FAQ | SDR daily valuation IMF Financial Statements Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The IMF's new program, called the Short Term Liquidity Facility, would be used largely to pad a country's reserves, which could help the recipient defend its currency. But the funds could also be used to help recapitalize banks or cover import bills.
$100bn would be better spent backing a guarantee of trade credit.
I agree in principle. The IMF could, by exercising its extra-legal authorities and (ahem) unencumbered currency reserve, "unlock" specific bi-lateral credit transactions among firms. If I were Strauss-Kuhn, I'd target food commodity delivery/settlement.
That option however contradicts the current consensus in the thread as to IMF administrative scope, e.g. governments.
That said, the IMF gives me gas. So I have insufficient knowledge of its operations to comment further and in detail. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Government is our one and only safety net. It could, if it wanted to, provide basic financial services, that could easily fulfil three economic functions that are attributed to finance: to provide liquidity, to share risk, and to allow agents in the economy to make inter-temporal choices. You don't need CDOs and CDSs for that. A network of central bank branch offices, in combinations with a relatively small number of national, or nationalised banks, could temporarily offer the vast bulk of all financial service of wider economic relevance. The way to go is to shrink the financial system and nationalise the systemically important financial institutions.
Let's assume the IMF has sufficient information (firm free cash: commodity expiry) to determine its emergency beneficiaries. Then the IMF's administrative problem is confiscating payment from banks withholding beneficiaries' funds.
Aren't you curious as to how I conclude food stocks are "mission critical"? It's my understanding, a significant quantity is rotting in ships' holds and fields at the moment. Should LOCs unlock, "subprime" stocks will not be dumped but "treated," then mixed with current harvests before release to wholesale markets.
oh why did we have to privatise all public retail banks
I chalk it up to indiscriminant applications of "profit motive" and "incentives" to promulgate a particular metric (price premium) of a business's ongoing concern. Conversely, certain governments do not exercise their power of natural monopoly (a "public trust") either to design barriers to "excess surplus" or to enforce "disincentives" to extorting premia. So the costs of capital accumulate through the supply chain.
So where do unsupported "guarantees" end? As Mr Truman famously noted, "The buck stops here." Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The problem is that an importer's bank is not creditworthy enough to have the exporter's bank accept its letter of credit. The importer's bank would pay through the nose for the government guarantee to unlock this, or be forced by an executive order of its own government to provide the administrative services to allow the Government to issue its own letter of credit to the bank's customer. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
What I have in mind is that governments, through state banks or using private banks as service providers, would issue letters of credit to their importers backed not by the country itself but by this newly created IMF fund.
How is this different from current distributions? Show me. Use diagrams if necessary.
The way I see it (though I'm not expert in IMF operations): The "newly created IMF fund" is a name change called "Short Term Liquidity Facility" that was always long-termliquidity facility. This name change recognizes only pervasive, global central bank failure to control domestic cost of capital.
Since its inception, IMF distributes funds (of central bank members) through country-specific "credit facilities" --enforced by martial operations-- to governments (which authorize central bank borrowing against currency/inflationary gov.bonds) which then distributed funds among commercial banks and central bank gov.bond dealers who take profit from fees and/or arbitrageur info. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
They keep wasting their ammo on the wrong things.
That value judgement is dependent on whether one accepts the IMF's stated purpose and demonstrable achievements in financing sovereign states. LOL. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The negligible risk of default - and the fact that the credit is backed by the merchandise itself - is what makes this crisis so strange.
Yup. This is the reason I'm breaking out the old tinfoil hat and thinking it's an International Plot to achieve some dastardly end.
Just because you're paranoid that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
On a more 'normal' level, the rapid price fluctuations in the commodities markets will create uncertainties and increased risk wrt the value of the goods being shipped. Against that is the low cost of moving the goods from port A to port B and the fact nobody is going to load a shipload of wheat until they have a buyer already lined-up.
And, realistically, the players in these markets have long standing relationships.
A puzzlement.
