The Euro-Area Crisis

Weighing the options for unconventional International Monetary Fund interventions.

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

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)

Special Drawing Rights were established in 1969 to support the then prevailing Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. The SDR is an international reserve asset and can be thought of as a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF member countries. Since their creation, SDRs have played a limited role in the international monetary system. However, in the context of the current challenges facing the global economy, they represent a potentially useful policy option that warrants further examination.

SDR allocations have to be agreed on by a supermajority of IMF members representing at least 85 percent of the institution's total voting power. Allocations of SDRs are typically in proportion to the quota held by each member country and are determined on the basis of a long-term global need to supplement existing reserve assets. Since their creation, the IMF membership has voted in favor of allocations just four times -- the last two of which were in response to the 2008 global financial crisis. In August 2009, following a G-20 endorsement, a general allocation of SDR 161.2 billion or $250 billion was implemented. An additional special allocation for SDR 21.5 billion (about $33 billion) was also approved. Currently, the overall stock of SDRs issued totals SDR 204.1 billion or $322 billion, representing approximately 3.1 percent of total world non-gold reserves as of September 2011.

The IMF membership could decide on a general allocation of SDRs as a way to provide confidence and generate additional financing that could be partially mobilized toward the euro-area crisis. This would provide an important relaxation of the constraints currently complicating the financing of the European rescue fund -- the EFSF. Since the rescue fund relies on guarantees provided by the euro-area member states through their respective treasuries, any step up in the guarantees to the EFSF triggers a corresponding increase in the contingent liabilities to be borne out by that member's public-sector budget. For France, this could entail losing its AAA rating status.

If approved, the SDRs allocated to member countries through their fiscal agents -- typically, national central banks -- could be mobilized to this purpose, thus relaxing the constraint on the public-sector budget. Operationally, euro-area member countries could use their SDRs to provide a guarantee to an EFSF's "vehicle," which could in turn leverage such guarantees in order to further expand its financial capability.

Such an arrangement, where euro-area members use their SDR allocations to guarantee a vehicle, would bear zero cost for the guarantors as long as the SDRs were not called upon. If the guarantee was triggered, and assuming the counterpart was a non-official sector entity, then the SDRs would need to be exchanged with assets denominated in any freely usable currency, such as the euro. The transaction would trigger an "open" position in SDRs for which euro-area members would bear a cost equal to the SDR interest rate, which is indexed to money market rates. For the week of Dec. 5-11, the SDR annual interest rate stood at  0.15 percent, while yields on Italian one-year bonds stood at 5.33 percent, on Spanish bonds at 4.17 percent, and on French bonds at 0.66 percent.

A general allocation would provide euro-area members with SDRs in proportion to their quotas (they together hold 23 percent of total IMF quotas), which could be used in the way described above. This would also allow some smaller, developing economies to increase their liquidity buffers as a protection against global liquidity shocks that might arise if market turmoil continued. Other members, in particular those with large reserve assets, could join a "pool of the willing" by exchanging their SDR allocations to buy euro-denominated bonds issued by the vehicle described above. These euro bonds would yield some percentage on an annual basis, which would be a multiple of the SDR rate charged on the "open" SDR position. To give an idea, currently EFSF bonds yield approximately 3.5 percent against the SDR rate of 0.23, which an IMF member would be charged in "opening" its SDR position. Moreover, assuming that such members would have diversified in euros anyway, they would not need to hedge against exchange rate exposure.

Yet such a special issuance would pose substantial redistributive questions within the membership of the IMF. It would also cause non-negligible procedural problems, as it would require an amendment to the IMF's Articles of Agreement, for which a supermajority of "three-fifths of the members, having 85 percent of the total voting power" would be needed. To illustrate how arduous such a task would be, the latest quota reform package endorsed by G-20 leaders in Seoul in November 2010 and approved by the IMF board of governors one month later may not be ratified in time for the agreed-upon deadline of fall 2012. After almost a year, only slightly fewer than 25 IMF member countries have ratified the amendments embedded in the quota and governance reform package.

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.