The Euro-Area Crisis

Weighing the options for unconventional International Monetary Fund interventions.

BY DOMENICO LOMBARDI, SARAH PURITZ MILSOM | DECEMBER 15, 2011

IMF Trust and Administered Accounts

In its 66 year history, the financial organization of the IMF has evolved to meet the ever-changing needs of the global economic and financial system. In doing so, the organization has offered a relatively wide spectrum of options in terms of risk and flexibility in the deployment of the financial resources made available by its international membership.

To date, the IMF's financial organization includes three key departments: the General Department, the Special Drawing Rights Department, and the Trust and Administered Accounts Department. The majority of the IMF's financial transactions with members are handled within the General Department, specifically the General Resources Account (GRA). The latter is financed mostly from members' capital subscriptions to the IMF and is subject to the strictest safeguards in terms of the IMF's own oversight. In case of default by a borrowing country, IMF-related claims would have privileged creditor status, while any residual burden would be shared by the membership in proportion to their quotas.    

The Trust and Administered Accounts Department is the least well-known of the three departments. The establishment of an account in the Trust and Administered Department requires executive board approval by a simple majority. The legal authority for the IMF to establish such accounts is based on Article V, Section 2b, of the Articles of Agreement:

"If requested, the fund may decide to perform financial and technical services, including the administration of resources contributed by members that are consistent with the purposes of the fund. Operations involved in the performance of such financial services shall not be on the account of the fund. Services under this subsection shall not impose any obligation on a member without its consent."


As their financing includes voluntary resources that are independent on IMF capital subscriptions as well as the institution's own resources, trust and administered accounts are legally and financially separate from the IMF's General and SDR Departments. They provide for a wide spectrum of accounts, ranging from those involving heavier executive board involvement (trust accounts) to those preserving substantial discretion of contributors (administered accounts).

Up until now, trust and administered accounts are known mostly for their role in providing resources to low-income members of the IMF. Beginning in the 1970s, the institution recognized that these members needed financial assistance on a concessional basis. This led to the establishment of the first trust account-the Trust Fund -- within the IMF, in 1976. The Trust Fund was financed solely from IMF profits generated from gold sales -- providing $3.3 billion for concessional loans. The original Trust Fund terminated in 1981; however, over the past 30 years other such arrangements have been established to provide assistance to low-income countries or members with special needs with resources from both IMF profits and bilateral member contributions. Examples include the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility Trust (1987-2009); the more recent Extended Credit Facility (2009-present); and the joint IMF-World Bank Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries debt-relief initiative (1996-present).

There are some key differences between trust and administered accounts. In the case of trust accounts, the executive board regularly overviews the allocation of their underlying resources. Typically, this entails board appraisal of a proposed lending program with its conditionality framework, as well as regular reviews of a member's performance with respect to the latter.

Administered accounts involve a lighter role for the IMF's executive board while preserving the greatest discretion to the contributors of the account. The first such account was created in 1989 following a request from Japan that the IMF set up a pool of resources to assist members with overdue financial obligations to the fund. The IMF acted as the trustee and the resources -- made available by Japan and other countries -- were distributed in amounts determined by Japan and the other members that Japan had identified. 

In the context of the euro-area crisis, the creation of similar trust or administered accounts would provide a rapid response mechanism and increase the financial resources that could be mobilized under the IMF umbrella. By potentially providing unprecedented latitude, the IMF could use those resources in a highly precautionary manner, even by intervening in secondary markets to stabilize bonds prices, subject to the parameters set by the contributors to the trust and administered accounts.

The unparalleled flexibility potentially afforded by these accounts would allow the IMF to develop a full-fledged regional approach to the euro crisis by rapidly reallocating resources across national markets with the objective of stabilizing the euro area. The accounts could also be used as "equity" in a "vehicle," which would then be leveraged to increase its overall financial capability.

While the IMF would be serving as a coordinating agency for these accounts, this "pooling" function would be broadly consistent with the traditional catalytic role that the institution has been typically acknowledged to provide -- albeit, in this case through highly unconventional instruments. Trust and administered accounts would also allow the contributing membership to leverage on the highly sought-after staff expertise of the IMF. In the case of trust accounts, this would include the fund's immunities and privileges, including its status as a privileged creditor. To date, trust claims have been recognized as having preferred-creditor status by the Paris Club and other creditors, although that could conceivably change, particularly if a trust were to engage in lending decisions quite different from standard IMF programs.

In the case of administered accounts, however, any default risk would be borne out exclusively by contributing members. Related claims have, in fact, never been given preferred-creditor status, even when all they did was disburse resources alongside an IMF program -- as in the case of the Spanish-administered account attached to the Argentina program in 2000-2001.

GEORGES GOBET/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Domenico Lombardi is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and president of the Oxford Institute for Economic Policy. Sarah Puritz Milsom is a research analyst at the Brookings Institution.

JEAN LABREK

8:23 PM ET

December 15, 2011

Crisis and more

BLAME THE BANKS, even the fed is private (see the documentary video -- (zeitgeist addendum) -- Public banks is the solution at the start.

 

HAMLET

8:24 AM ET

December 16, 2011

Damn Problems every where

Why is every thing going in crisis. Some one have to think over it as I think the war in this world on different countries and they took too much money and investment with it that is why I think bank are in crisis and with bank every business is getting hurt.

 

REHMANKHAN

4:32 PM ET

December 16, 2011

This is due to Nato attacks

A senior Pakistani military officer said a NATO air strike killing 24 Pakistani troops on the Afghan border last month was pre-planned and warned of more attacks, comments likely to fuel tension with the United States.

Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, was also quoted by newspapers on Friday as saying that Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally, would deploy an air defense system along the border to prevent such attacks.

Nadeem made the remarks to a Senate committee on defense on Thursday. Senator Tariq Azim, who attended the briefing, confirmed to Reuters that Nadeem had made the comments.

The Daily Times said Nadeem described the attack as a plot. Another newspaper quoted him as saying it was a "pre-planned conspiracy" against Pakistan.

"We can expect more attacks from our supposed allies," the Express Tribune quoted Nadeem as saying at the senate briefing.

U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened.

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression -- an accusation the United States has rejected.

Two U.S. officials told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination centre had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

Nadeem ruled out the possibility that NATO forces may have thought they were firing on militants, who often move across the porous frontier and attack Western troops.

One newspaper reported that he told the Senate committee that militants do not leave themselves exposed on mountain tops, like the ones where the Pakistani border posts were located.

Senator Azim also quoted Nadeem as saying that NATO helicopters singled out one army major as he was crossing from one border post to another after losing communications, and this also led the military to conclude the attack was planned.

Pakistan responded to the attack by suspending supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Idle drivers of trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to the neighboring country fear being attacked by Pakistani Taliban militants who oppose cooperation with NATO.

Militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at such trucks in the southwestern city of Quetta in Baluchistan province on Thursday night, setting fire to 29 vehicles, police officials said.

Washington, which sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan ahead of a combat troop pullout in 2014, has tried to sooth fury over the NATO incident.

President Barack Obama called Pakistan's president to offer condolences over the strike that provoked a crisis in relations between the two countries. He stopped short of a formal apology.

Pakistan boycotted an international conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan because of the NATO attack.

U.S.-Pakistani ties were already frayed after the secret U.S. raid in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
A senior Pakistani military officer said a NATO air strike killing 24 Pakistani troops on the Afghan border last month was pre-planned and warned of more attacks, comments likely to fuel tension with the United States.

Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, was also quoted by newspapers on Friday as saying that Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally, would deploy an air defense system along the border to prevent such attacks.

Nadeem made the remarks to a Senate committee on defense on Thursday. Senator Tariq Azim, who attended the briefing, confirmed to Reuters that Nadeem had made the comments.

The Daily Times said Nadeem described the attack as a plot. Another newspaper quoted him as saying it was a "pre-planned conspiracy" against Pakistan.

"We can expect more attacks from our supposed allies," the Express Tribune quoted Nadeem as saying at the senate briefing.

U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened.

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression -- an accusation the United States has rejected.

Two U.S. officials told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination centre had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

Nadeem ruled out the possibility that NATO forces may have thought they were firing on militants, who often move across the porous frontier and attack Western troops.

One newspaper reported that he told the Senate committee that militants do not leave themselves exposed on mountain tops, like the ones where the Pakistani border posts were located.

Senator Azim also quoted Nadeem as saying that NATO helicopters singled out one army major as he was crossing from one border post to another after losing communications, and this also led the military to conclude the attack was planned.

Pakistan responded to the attack by suspending supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Idle drivers of trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to the neighboring country fear being attacked by Pakistani Taliban militants who oppose cooperation with NATO.

Militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at such trucks in the southwestern city of Quetta in Baluchistan province on Thursday night, setting fire to 29 vehicles, police officials said.

Washington, which sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan ahead of a combat troop pullout in 2014, has tried to sooth fury over the NATO incident.

President Barack Obama called Pakistan's president to offer condolences over the strike that provoked a crisis in relations between the two countries. He stopped short of a formal apology.

Pakistan boycotted an international conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan because of the NATO attack.

U.S.-Pakistani ties were already frayed after the secret U.S. raid in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

A senior Pakistani military officer said a NATO air strike killing 24 Pakistani troops on the Afghan border last month was pre-planned and warned of more attacks, comments likely to fuel tension with the United States.

Major General Ashfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, was also quoted by newspapers on Friday as saying that Pakistan, a strategic U.S. ally, would deploy an air defense system along the border to prevent such attacks.

Nadeem made the remarks to a Senate committee on defense on Thursday. Senator Tariq Azim, who attended the briefing, confirmed to Reuters that Nadeem had made the comments.

The Daily Times said Nadeem described the attack as a plot. Another newspaper quoted him as saying it was a "pre-planned conspiracy" against Pakistan.

"We can expect more attacks from our supposed allies," the Express Tribune quoted Nadeem as saying at the senate briefing.

U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened.

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression -- an accusation the United States has rejected.

Two U.S. officials told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination centre had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

Nadeem ruled out the possibility that NATO forces may have thought they were firing on militants, who often move across the porous frontier and attack Western troops.

One newspaper reported that he told the Senate committee that militants do not leave themselves exposed on mountain tops, like the ones where the Pakistani border posts were located.

Senator Azim also quoted Nadeem as saying that NATO helicopters singled out one army major as he was crossing from one border post to another after losing communications, and this also led the military to conclude the attack was planned.

Pakistan responded to the attack by suspending supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Idle drivers of trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to the neighboring country fear being attacked by Pakistani Taliban militants who oppose cooperation with NATO.

Militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at such trucks in the southwestern city of Quetta in Baluchistan province on Thursday night, setting fire to 29 vehicles, police officials said.

Washington, which sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan ahead of a combat troop pullout in 2014, has tried to sooth fury over the NATO incident.

President Barack Obama called Pakistan's president to offer condolences over the strike that provoked a crisis in relations between the two countries. He stopped short of a formal apology.

Pakistan boycotted an international conference in Germany on the future of Afghanistan because of the NATO attack.

U.S.-Pakistani ties were already frayed after the secret U.S. raid in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Thanks

Travel for lifeKeyword | Travel agent discounts

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:07 AM ET

December 17, 2011

With an ally like Pakistan, US does not need an enemy

As much as US wants to ignore, Pakistani Army supported by Pakistan’s democratic government deliberately refuses to destroy Haqqani’s HQN and Mullah Omar’s QST who are firing from near Pakistani border posts.

As much as US wants to ignore, Pakistani establishment deliberately shelters and supports Al Qaeda, HQN, QST, Lashker-e-Taiba and countless other terrorist outfits on its soil.

As much as US wants to ignore, Pakistani establishment has been intentionally playing this duplicitous game of ’running with the terrorist hares while hunting with the American hounds’ since 2001 to milk Uncle Sam.

Adm Mike Mullen had had a reason to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011 that: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”

Following are verbatim quotes from what Gen (rtd) Jack Keane (a former Pentagon official) said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011:
1. "The truth is, the ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They (ISI) provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us".
2. "There's a direct relationship of ISI's complicity and the deaths of American soldiers and the catastrophic wounding of those soldiers. The chief of staff (General Kayani) of the Pakistani military is complicit. He used to be the director of ISI. He put the guy (General Ahmed Pasha) in there who is in charge now and he has full knowledge of what I'm just describing".
3. "There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan . 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan ."
4. "All of what I just said to you, when we confront them with this, they lie to us.”

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan had a reason to write in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

Poor America is blackmailed by Pakistan - US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001 because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

With an ally like Pakistan , US does not need an enemy to lose in Afghanistan.

 

SJ5917

7:11 PM ET

January 2, 2012

Let us Go Europe please

All we have to do is work out how we can be extracted from this mess. I am a technical consultant and the only thing that is keeping this country from disaster is the low mortgage rates.

 

YARINSIZ

12:56 PM ET

January 10, 2012

The profits repay banks,

The profits repay banks, provide new growth, and pay taxes. Workers with pay become customers and taxpayers. Taxes let governments pay interest, retire debts, and fund programs. The EU's big banks have too much bad paper from the mortgage-backed securities and other poor practices, and US big banks have invested in the EU's big banks, so no one wants to lend. The governments are unwilling to seslichat compromise on "free enterprise" and order the banks to lend or nationalize them if they don't lend, so the crisis drags on toward a 10-year depression in the EU and the US.

 

DOMINOES

9:27 PM ET

January 13, 2012

failed system

This EU experiment needs to be shut down. There was no way that this system was going to work long term. There are too many complexities working against the system and there are so many differences amongst all of the members that it is amazing that it even lasted this long. This EU debt crisis is a ticking time bomb and I hope that is does not lead to another global financial crisis. austin texasapartments It easily could lead to another melt down if the problem is not dealt with swiftly, but it takes a catastrophe for change to happen in our world as human beings do not like changing things unless there is a crisis. It will take entropy for the system to either collapse or reorganize to a higher level, but there is no way to tell what will be the outcome how to get rid of gas pains We will have to watch this one closely if we care, or put our heads in the sand and let whatever will happen follow through. I think I might just leave my head in the sand, because it is too much of a soap opera for me.