The Export-Import Bank

[noviapriani]

Should it stay or should it go? It is little more than thinly disguised corporate welfare.

[zolace]

Which a number of our businesses depend on to compete overseas with foreign companies that have state backing like Chinese businesses. Take what little we actually help them out on away and they can't compete.

[polynesia]

Should it stay or should it go? It is little more than thinly disguised corporate welfare.

Exim banks of different countries would need to close down at the same time....
Otherwise, the country which closes it down will be at a disadvantage.

[Rigon]

What about the American businesses that are negatively impacted by the Export-Import Bank? If the US wants to be able to compete in the future in higher initial risk markets and against countries like China, Japan, and even South Korea and get its foot in the door in markets like Africa (which boasts the fastest growing middle class in the world) then we need something like the Ex-Im bank. That's what it is there for, and it is something that the private market has largely been unable to provide. Ex-Im isn't about short run profits; rather, it represents a long run investment into US business growth in emerging markets.

[Erdogan]

It should go.

[BTCfan668]

Should it stay or should it go? It is little more than thinly disguised corporate welfare.

Exim banks of different countries would need to close down at the same time....
Otherwise, the country which closes it down will be at a disadvantage.

This is exactly true.

It is technically corporate welfare, however it is benefiting corporations at home, giving them and the US a competitive advantage overseas. 

[zolace]

Ex-Im financing is a pretty niche market. It's subsidized loans aren't for competition against other US businesses (we leave that financing to the private market), they are for competition against foreign businesses which also enjoy much larger subsidies from their host countries.

[umair127]

Ex-Im financing is a pretty niche market. It's subsidized loans aren't for competition against other US businesses (we leave that financing to the private market), they are for competition against foreign businesses which also enjoy much larger subsidies from their host countries.

Some interesting comments from the CEO of Delta Airlines in Congressional testimony:

In trying to justify its aircraft financing program, the Bank has made numerous inaccurate and misleading arguments. Consider its argument that its financing supports jobs here at home. Delta knows firsthand that the Bank’s statements on this front are unreliable.

The Bank has repeatedly touted two deals it financed involving Delta TechOps and the Brazilian airline GOL, asserting that these guarantees “support[] an estimated 400 jobs at Delta TechOps, according to Ex-Im Bank’s jobs-calculation methodology” – which GAO has criticized. Contrary to the Bank’s public pronouncements, however, that financing did not support, much less create, a single job at Delta TechOps. The guarantees helped GOL to issue cheap debt in 2012, ostensibly to pay the costs of a Delta TechOps contract to provide maintenance service for GOL’s narrowbody aircraft engines. The truth is that the contract was signed in 2010 and the Bank’s support arrived only after the contract had been finalized, the work was underway, and payments were being made. If the Bank is willing to publicize a deal where it is so wrong on the facts, it raises the question of what the Bank is doing in the vast majority of transactions as to which it discloses little if any information. Worse, the Bank reported to Congress that the reason it approved these two guarantees was to “overcome maturity or other limitations in private-sector financing.” That statement is misleading (if not outright false) because it implies that GOL needed help to pay its bills or that Delta would have lost the deal without the Bank’s support. In fact, the contract was signed in 2010 for a five-year term, and was being fully performed, without GOL’s needing, seeking, or receiving Ex-Im support. Although the Ex-Im guarantees were nominally related to the 2010 TechOps contract, their actual effect was to provide GOL with low-cost working capital in 2012 and beyond. The Bank’s statutory justification and motive to provide financing for a contract that was already in place, was proceeding in a normal commercial manner, and did not involve competition from a subsidized foreign competitor is not apparent to us.

He also noted that the Ex-Im financing subsidies on widebody aircraft to foreign carriers costs Americans jobs with Delta and other American carriers. This is because the Ex-Im subsidies provide foreign carriers with essentially one free jet for every eight they purchase, while Delta and other American carriers get no similar subsidy on widebody, long-haul aircraft. This necessarily results in Delta being less competitive in the marketplace and reduces employment.

[lihuajkl]

Need to stay unless all the trading partners cancel this type of bank.

[zolace]

Ex-Im financing is a pretty niche market. It's subsidized loans aren't for competition against other US businesses (we leave that financing to the private market), they are for competition against foreign businesses which also enjoy much larger subsidies from their host countries.

Some interesting comments from the CEO of Delta Airlines in Congressional testimony:

In trying to justify its aircraft financing program, the Bank has made numerous inaccurate and misleading arguments. Consider its argument that its financing supports jobs here at home. Delta knows firsthand that the Bank’s statements on this front are unreliable.

The Bank has repeatedly touted two deals it financed involving Delta TechOps and the Brazilian airline GOL, asserting that these guarantees “support[] an estimated 400 jobs at Delta TechOps, according to Ex-Im Bank’s jobs-calculation methodology” – which GAO has criticized. Contrary to the Bank’s public pronouncements, however, that financing did not support, much less create, a single job at Delta TechOps. The guarantees helped GOL to issue cheap debt in 2012, ostensibly to pay the costs of a Delta TechOps contract to provide maintenance service for GOL’s narrowbody aircraft engines. The truth is that the contract was signed in 2010 and the Bank’s support arrived only after the contract had been finalized, the work was underway, and payments were being made. If the Bank is willing to publicize a deal where it is so wrong on the facts, it raises the question of what the Bank is doing in the vast majority of transactions as to which it discloses little if any information. Worse, the Bank reported to Congress that the reason it approved these two guarantees was to “overcome maturity or other limitations in private-sector financing.” That statement is misleading (if not outright false) because it implies that GOL needed help to pay its bills or that Delta would have lost the deal without the Bank’s support. In fact, the contract was signed in 2010 for a five-year term, and was being fully performed, without GOL’s needing, seeking, or receiving Ex-Im support. Although the Ex-Im guarantees were nominally related to the 2010 TechOps contract, their actual effect was to provide GOL with low-cost working capital in 2012 and beyond. The Bank’s statutory justification and motive to provide financing for a contract that was already in place, was proceeding in a normal commercial manner, and did not involve competition from a subsidized foreign competitor is not apparent to us.

He also noted that the Ex-Im financing subsidies on widebody aircraft to foreign carriers costs Americans jobs with Delta and other American carriers. This is because the Ex-Im subsidies provide foreign carriers with essentially one free jet for every eight they purchase, while Delta and other American carriers get no similar subsidy on widebody, long-haul aircraft. This necessarily results in Delta being less competitive in the marketplace and reduces employment.

This attempted argument has nothing to do with whether or not the Ex-Im bank helps US business compete with foreign ones and has nothing to do with your initial concern over hurting US businesses. This is about concerns with how Ex-Im calculates its job statistics which was already addressed by the Government Accountability Office in 2013 (and the Ex-Im Bank has already implemented their recommendations to add transparency in this area as per their 2013 reporting s).

[umair127]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

[zolace]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets.

[umair127]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets.

You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors.

[zolace]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets.

You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors.

That's because it doesn't in any meaningful way. Especially when a basic cost-benefit analysis is done and the fact that it only represents 2% of our overseas exports is taken into account. It is a pretty small (relatively) operation; like I said: a niche market, but vital to breaking into emerging higher risk markets and in competing with foreign companies that receive MUCH greater financial assistance from their home countries. It also netted over $1billion in government revenue last year. US businesses are already disadvantaged in overseas emerging market financing, take this away, and we'll be even less competitive which I highly doubt would be good for US jobs.

[umair127]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets.

You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors.

That's because it doesn't in any meaningful way. Especially when a basic cost-benefit analysis is done and the fact that it only represents 2% of our overseas exports is taken into account. It is a pretty small (relatively) operation; like I said: a niche market, but vital to breaking into emerging higher risk markets and in competing with foreign companies that receive MUCH greater financial assistance from their home countries. It also netted over $1billion in government revenue last year. US businesses are already disadvantaged in overseas emerging market financing, take this away, and we'll be even less competitive which I highly doubt would be good for US jobs.

So is the Export-Import Bank corporate welfare or a jobs program?

[Rigon]

In theory it should help create American jobs by expanding foreign markets for US goods.
In practice it is little more than corporate welfare. One company -Boeing has received over 50% of funds in recent years.

[zolace]

As a personal aside, I used to do legal work for one of the largest infrastructure construction companies in the world. It is based in a Western European country and has a market cap in the billions, but it still received Ex-Im financing for equipment purchasing in many markets in which it operates. This made it a more competitive bidder in developing world infrastructure projects than U.S.-based companies.

On my personal note: I have work experience with the US Ex-Im bank in helping US businesses establish footholds in Africa (like Caterpillar, and GE). We dish out about $15 billion in subsidized loans for our companies overseas and to companies that have purchase guarantees for US products. China meanwhile dishes out $111 billion. We can't even compete in subsidized financing with South Korea. Our Ex-Im operations are VERY modest when it comes to international markets.

You didn't really address the point about it costing U.S. jobs or putting U.S. businesses at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors.

That's because it doesn't in any meaningful way. Especially when a basic cost-benefit analysis is done and the fact that it only represents 2% of our overseas exports is taken into account. It is a pretty small (relatively) operation; like I said: a niche market, but vital to breaking into emerging higher risk markets and in competing with foreign companies that receive MUCH greater financial assistance from their home countries. It also netted over $1billion in government revenue last year. US businesses are already disadvantaged in overseas emerging market financing, take this away, and we'll be even less competitive which I highly doubt would be good for US jobs.

So is the Export-Import Bank corporate welfare or a jobs program?

Neither, It is a tool that the government uses to compete with other governments for market share in emerging higher risk markets. We just compete through the private market instead of bloated state enterprises.

[zolace]

In theory it should help create American jobs by expanding foreign markets for US goods.
In practice it is little more than corporate welfare. One company -Boeing has received over 50% of funds in recent years.

We lent Boeing only $291 million out of about $8 billion total in 2013. I think you are thinking more of guarantees that we use to help with risk management of which Boeing is a big benefactor.

[Ron~Popeil]

The way to compete is to out innovate the competition and find less expensive ways to make better products. The ex-im bank provides financing to companies that can finance this kind of thing very easily. End it.

[Rigon]

In theory it should help create American jobs by expanding foreign markets for US goods.
In practice it is little more than corporate welfare. One company -Boeing has received over 50% of funds in recent years.

We lent Boeing only $291 million out of about $8 billion total in 2013. I think you are thinking more of guarantees that we use to help with risk management of which Boeing is a big benefactor.

So you oppose free trade? Why not just increase tariffs then?