The bailout of private banks and financial institutions has become a touchy political issue in the United States, ever since President Bush’s Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson asked Congress for a $700 billion dollar blank check last September.
Now the Obama administration is asking the Congress for $108 billion for the International Monetary Fund. This was in accordance with a plan that the administration has helped organize to raise $500 billion in additional funds for the IMF. This would add to the approximately $200 billion that the IMF has on hand, $100 billion in gold reserves, and another $250 billion that the Fund will create in its own currency. These are enormous sums of money that the IMF has never come close to before.
What is all this money for? There is an answer staring us in the face from the financial press: European banks.
It seems that Europe’s banks have gotten into a mess in their own neighborhood that is comparable to the “troubled assets” that our financial institutions accumulated in the course of the housing bubble – which they also shared. These banks had a fit of irrational exuberance in Central and Eastern Europe in recent years, with the result that they now have at least $1.4 trillion – and that is a conservative estimate – in exposure there to loans that are certain to have a very high default rate.
Most of the Central and Eastern European economies are in free fall right now. To make matters much worse, much of their borrowing from European banks was in foreign currency. This extended even to households: e.g. over 60% of Hungary’s mortgages are in foreign currency. When these currencies fall, as some already have, many of the borrowers – both businesses and households – are faced with unpayable debt burdens. Others, such as Latvia, are teetering on the brink of devaluation, which could set off a chain reaction in other countries, as well as mass insolvencies.
The exposure of European banks to the region is astoundingly large relative to their economies. Austria is off the charts with about 64 percent of GDP lent in Eastern Europe; Belgium and Sweden both have more than 20 percent, and Switzerland and the Netherlands are in double digits.
This is where the IMF comes in. In the United States, we have not only the $700 billion TARP bailout, but more than three times that amount, which has been dispensed by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has been used because it is non-transparent and unaccountable to Congress – unlike for the TARP, where Congress attached some rules for accountability, the taxpayers do not even know who has received the more than $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.
For various reasons, the European Central Bank is not going to play the role that the Fed has played here. (The Fed itself has recently been hit by strong demands for more transparency, with 186 Members of Congress sponsoring a bill that would require it to be audited by the Government Accountability Office). The European banks are therefore counting on the IMF to help save them from the costs of their bad decisions.
The Obama administration has argued that the money is necessary to help provide a global stimulus, and to help poor people in poor countries. But the facts do not support this claim. Almost all of the agreements that the IMF has concluded since the global economic crisis began have included the opposite of stimulus programs: for example spending cuts or interest rate increases. The amount of money that will help poor countries is tiny. And it is difficult to see why the IMF would need hundreds of billions of dollars to help governments with balance of payments support: for sixteen Standby Arrangements negotiated since the crisis intensified last year, the total has been less than $46 billion.
On the other hand, European banks are facing potential losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Some, like France’s Societe Generale, have already gotten billions of dollars from the TARP bailout. If the purpose of adding these vast sums to the IMF’s coffers is to bail out these banks, then the taxpayers of the United States (and other countries who are being asked to contribute) ought to know about it.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.



18 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
What an opportunity! Haven’t we always wanted to own a bunch of foreign countries!/s
The economic situation in the US seems to be f*ck’d yet in comparison to other countries, we’re in the middle of a long term economic expansion.
“Once here were humans.”
Shock Doctrine to the um…”rescue.”
I have not been following this issue, at least since the Bachmann nonsense that the IMF plan was a plot to enslave the U.S. by imposing a totalitarian world currency.
The current world downturn is more severe and more coordinated than the onset of the Great Depression. Allowing severe distress in emerging markets is not helpful at this time, so several months ago I was very sympathetic to increasing funds for IMF to help resolve financial crises in emerging markets -probably more so than many here at FDL.
However, it is unfortunate that the IMF bailout will be a nontransparent afffair that is conflated with a U.S. style bailout of European banks. If it is true that the IMF is continuing inflexible macroeconomic policy conditions with its sounder advice on solving the acute phase of financial panics, then that is unfortunate too.
I had hoped that policy makers would have designed a program for IMF aid directly to the economies affected, rather than through a US-style bank bailout. But, I guess that would be too much to expect.
If the author has any links to nature of IMF macroeconomic policy since this downturn began, and on alternatives to European bank bailout for aiding emerging markets, I would appreciate that.
So, I am not a committed opponent to funds for IMF at this point, but this post is not good news. I am not so much opposed to bank bailouts per se, since I figure that the money can be recovered (assuming the bailout works to help the real econom!). What really concerns me is that these bailouts will not work to produce a robust recovery in the real economy. That is where the real money is lost -in reduced economic activity.
Thanks, Mark. A lot of people were wondering about the IMF bailout, and there hasn’t been a lot of good information on it.
BTW, for those who don’t know, Mark is co-director of CEPR with Dean Baker. Dean’s on vacation til June 15, which is why he hasn’t weighted in.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/experts/
As you mention, there is no mechanism for accountability at the Fed, even tho it’s supposed to be an extension of or fiat cash machine for Congressional expenditures, so why single out the IMF? Is it more accessible and amenable to accountability than TARP or the Fed? What sort of accountability has been achieved with TARP, anyway? It’s been as transparent as the Fed as far as I can tell.
Thanks.
Below is a link to an oped that gives three examples of IMF macro policy during this recession -and which are discouraging:
IMF Shouldn’t Get Money Without Reform
By Mark Weisbrot
April 24, 2009
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/…..out-reform
I distincty remember that the increased IMF funds were advertised as being intended for help to emerging markets in acute currency and financial crises. I had hoped that such programs would not be implemented through TARP like bank bailouts, and IMF would be less trigger happy with its old-style, often counterproductive and premature deficit hawk, pressure.
I haven’t had time to check up on the bigshots lately. Joseph Stiglitz has a new column on coordinated global economic stimulus. And he also says that the IMF is still all-to-often continuing its dogmatic Washington Consensus macro policy requirements for aid.
Developing Countries and the Global Crisis
by Joseph E. Stiglitz
http://www.project-syndicate.o…..tiglitz111
(Edit -well, not so new, it was from April. OK, I’ve been too busy to keep up with the news, I guess)
Why can’t/won’t the EU print up a bunch of their own currency?
OT Breaking Supreme Court to hear Indiana Fund appeal & delay Chrysler sale
How is this congress? Listen up now, as 80% of us neither want your war, your IMF funding or Joey Boy’s censorship program. How are you going to vote?
I wonder who represents the people? We just don’t have enough money to bribe our officials the way the corpse’s do. I have this strange feeling the people in the red states are going to wake up and get pissed off one of these days.
And I kept hearing on NPR that the EU elections favored parties to the right of the political spectrum who all oppose government bailouts. So it seems to me like they want US to pay for THEIR bank bailouts since we so readily gave a trillion or so to ours.
I normally don’t like to sound so xenophobic, but “let Europe bail out their own banks.”
That’s short enough to Tweet to my congressman ;-)
The European Central bank is constrained by member countries. Germany in particular has tried to keep the ECB from monetizing member country’s sovereign debt, and I don’t believe there is a mechanism for the EU to issue Eurobonds as federation. Individual countries issue Euro denominated bonds at interest rates that reflect what bond buyers feel is appropriate for their risk of default (hence Italy sells bonds at a higher interest rate than Germany).
That said the ECB has been expanding the money supply and lowering rates.
So perhaps it is going to cost us a few “newly minted” billions? I am assuming that with all the fake money we are printing we have to pay off a few people (in fake money).
The banks in EU member countries financed mortgages in non-EU countries like Poland, Estonia… these mortgages were denominated in Euros, and were servicable at the prevailing exchange rates. Since the crisis has hit exchange rates have added to the pressure – a Pole having a 1000 Euro monthly payment has to buy those Euros with Polish Zloty that are worth substantially less. EG 3.59 Z/Eu on 2/1/2008, 4.42 Z/Eu on 2/2/2009 and 4.52 Z/Eu today. This translates into monthly payments of 3590 Z, 4420 Z and 4520 Z. That’s a 30% increase in mortgage payment from 2/1/2008 to today.
Was it foolish to take out the Euro loan? yes on both sides.
Shorter and “Tweet-er”: fuck the IMF.
My main acquaintance with these clowns comes from my days in DC, when families whose children attended private schools could count on the IMF [or World Bank] picking up their child’s ENTIRE tuition — because, you know, it’s SUCH a hardship to live in DC, especially on the inflated salaries these guys pull down.
Convinced me that much of the $$$ was going to “administrative costs,” not “help for developing countries.” Now that I see an additional rat hole our $$$ can be poured down, I’m even more opposed.
The object of the exercise is to protect the holders of wealth and screw everybody else. I’ll betcha the IMF wouldn’t impose the same conditions on the European banks that they did to countries like Chile and Argentina. Fuck ‘em.
The conservative block (EPP-ED, UEN, Ind/Dem & UK Conservatives) got 316 of 736 seats (~43%) vs 354 of 785 (~45%) in the current parliament.