Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Thursday, 19 January 2012 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)96. So, Why Has the IMF Asked for $500 Billion That it Probably Won’t Get?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/so-why-has-the-imf-asked-for-500-billion-that-it-probably-wont-get.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
An odd development today was that Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, put forward the idea of having members pony up $500 billion for rescue loans, since the agency said it foresees demand of $1 trillion over the next two years and it has only $387 billion uncommitted. It goes without saying that the most of the anticipated need is in Europe...There are two puzzling aspects of this story. One is that the IMF got a serious and predictable smackdown from the US, since any funding would be a fiscal outlay, which requires Congressional approval, which is just not happening with Washington embracing the new religion of deficit reduction. Even though Eurobanks are really big lenders in the US (they are the providers of cheap corporate loans) and they did get really sick from eating toxic US mortgage instruments, the message from the Administration was tart. Per the Financial Times:
The UK wasnt too keen either.
Since the objective was presumably to get some funds into Europe, that means the logical suspects are emerging economies. India and Brazil made positive noises, but advanced economies are cool on getting funding from China and the feeling is likely mutual. While some observers have suggested that China could simply recycle the annual amount it uses to maintain its currency-weighted peg (last estimate I saw was 70 billion euros, but growth and exchange rates have changed since then), the big stumbling block is that China wants concessions in return for its largesse. In addition, the Chinese want politically desirable but unrealistic assurances that its foreign currency holdings wont depreciate. Since China has said it plans to liberalize its peg, it is guaranteed losses on the currencies it is buying to manipulate its currency level...And thats even assuming the Chinese would play ball. They turned down a direct appeal by Sarkozy to invest in the EFSF. Why would China go through an international organization where it is chafing at its level of votes it has when it has the option of dealing directly?
All of the elements of this equation were known in advance. None of these reactions is a surprise. So why did Lagarde announce a measure that was likely to land like a lead balloon?
Lets consider the second puzzling part: Mr. Market is currently in a good mood because the ECB has been pretty aggressively lending to banks via its three year LTRO, and the banks can use the proceeds to buy government debt. So while the ECB cant lend to eurozone states directly, it can launder the loans through banks. And at least some readers of this blog have taken to arguing (effectively) that the ECB will act just as the Fed did in the 2007-2008 crisis, it will do what it takes to save the system, in particular, monetize debt...But if this were true, the IMF would NOT need to fund bailouts in the eurozone. The ECB has the capacity on its own. So Lagardes move would seem to say that the IMF does not think the ECB will go the distance, and the IMF will need to step up in a meaningful way. This is consistent with the take of some of my German-press-reading correspondents. Their interpretation of various official remarks is that while the ECB is clearly willing to do more than in the past, it is not willing to balloon its balance sheet to the degree the Fed did....So Lagardes request may indeed be a tacit admission that the IMF knows that the ECB wont go the distance, as well a precaution, not just on a practical level (to try to have as much firepower as possible) but on the political (to say she did what she could when the IMF is the target of blame-mongering, which is what will happen if/when a crisis breaks loose).
An odd development today was that Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, put forward the idea of having members pony up $500 billion for rescue loans, since the agency said it foresees demand of $1 trillion over the next two years and it has only $387 billion uncommitted. It goes without saying that the most of the anticipated need is in Europe...There are two puzzling aspects of this story. One is that the IMF got a serious and predictable smackdown from the US, since any funding would be a fiscal outlay, which requires Congressional approval, which is just not happening with Washington embracing the new religion of deficit reduction. Even though Eurobanks are really big lenders in the US (they are the providers of cheap corporate loans) and they did get really sick from eating toxic US mortgage instruments, the message from the Administration was tart. Per the Financial Times:
The IMF cannot substitute for a robust euro area firewall, the US Treasury said in a statement. We have told our international partners that we have no intention to seek additional resources for the IMF.
The UK wasnt too keen either.
Since the objective was presumably to get some funds into Europe, that means the logical suspects are emerging economies. India and Brazil made positive noises, but advanced economies are cool on getting funding from China and the feeling is likely mutual. While some observers have suggested that China could simply recycle the annual amount it uses to maintain its currency-weighted peg (last estimate I saw was 70 billion euros, but growth and exchange rates have changed since then), the big stumbling block is that China wants concessions in return for its largesse. In addition, the Chinese want politically desirable but unrealistic assurances that its foreign currency holdings wont depreciate. Since China has said it plans to liberalize its peg, it is guaranteed losses on the currencies it is buying to manipulate its currency level...And thats even assuming the Chinese would play ball. They turned down a direct appeal by Sarkozy to invest in the EFSF. Why would China go through an international organization where it is chafing at its level of votes it has when it has the option of dealing directly?
All of the elements of this equation were known in advance. None of these reactions is a surprise. So why did Lagarde announce a measure that was likely to land like a lead balloon?
Lets consider the second puzzling part: Mr. Market is currently in a good mood because the ECB has been pretty aggressively lending to banks via its three year LTRO, and the banks can use the proceeds to buy government debt. So while the ECB cant lend to eurozone states directly, it can launder the loans through banks. And at least some readers of this blog have taken to arguing (effectively) that the ECB will act just as the Fed did in the 2007-2008 crisis, it will do what it takes to save the system, in particular, monetize debt...But if this were true, the IMF would NOT need to fund bailouts in the eurozone. The ECB has the capacity on its own. So Lagardes move would seem to say that the IMF does not think the ECB will go the distance, and the IMF will need to step up in a meaningful way. This is consistent with the take of some of my German-press-reading correspondents. Their interpretation of various official remarks is that while the ECB is clearly willing to do more than in the past, it is not willing to balloon its balance sheet to the degree the Fed did....So Lagardes request may indeed be a tacit admission that the IMF knows that the ECB wont go the distance, as well a precaution, not just on a practical level (to try to have as much firepower as possible) but on the political (to say she did what she could when the IMF is the target of blame-mongering, which is what will happen if/when a crisis breaks loose).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
$10 TRILLION Liquidity Injection Coming? Credit Suisse Hunkers Down Ahead Of The European Endgame
Demeter
Jan 2012
#7
Speaking of the skunk, I just meandered over to Automatic Earth and found this.
Fuddnik
Jan 2012
#18
Yeah. What would be the corresponding statistics for the States? The Skunk, you see,
Ghost Dog
Jan 2012
#19
Well, ZH has a tendency to go way over the top, on occasion. The 'soundbite' is based on
Ghost Dog
Jan 2012
#20
I don't really "understand" any of it, Tansy - but I don't think it matters
bread_and_roses
Jan 2012
#62
Not as far back as our reptile brains. Just a hundred and fifty years of Western social progress,
Ghost Dog
Jan 2012
#65
The A-List: Jeffrey Sachs - Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism’s self-destruction
Demeter
Jan 2012
#37
Obama's "tax-policy", the new puppet-in-waiting and the collapsed UBS business model.
Ghost Dog
Jan 2012
#87