Fringe Benefit

The Export-Import Bank isn’t the boon the White House insists. But it could still help thwart competitors like China.

Kelsey Snell
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Kelsey Snell
March 22, 2012, noon

COR­REC­TION: An earli­er ver­sion of this story mis­stated the chain of com­mand for the Ex­port-Im­port Bank and the Com­merce De­part­ment. While closely re­lated and in­ter­act­ive, the bank does not re­port to the de­part­ment but to the pres­id­ent.

The Ex­port-Im­port Bank is fight­ing for its life. The tiny arm of the gov­ern­ment’s in­ter­na­tion­al trade sys­tem that fin­ances big and risky trade is un­der at­tack in Con­gress, where the Sen­ate last week de­feated a meas­ure to reau­thor­ize its fund­ing. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion de­fends the bank as a ne­ces­sary tool in its quest to double ex­ports by the end of 2014. But in truth, the bank is not as es­sen­tial as the White House as­sumes. And if it’s worth sav­ing, it’s not for the reas­on the White House sug­gests.

Ex­port cred­it agen­cies such as Ex-Im, which provide gov­ern­ment guar­an­tees to re­duce the risk of in­ter­na­tion­al com­merce, are a staple of glob­al trade. Amer­ica’s De­pres­sion-era in­sti­tu­tion steps in when busi­nesses want to make deals abroad but in­vestors are too skit­tish to bet on them — or when com­pet­i­tion for a for­eign con­tract is so in­tense (or so risky) that the U.S. bid­der needs some ex­tra in­cent­ive to prove that it is a bet­ter or more stable sup­pli­er than its rivals. All of this costs the gov­ern­ment noth­ing, be­cause Ex-Im backs in­ter­na­tion­al trade deals through a self-fin­an­cing sys­tem: Fees and in­terest re­coup more than 100 per­cent of every loan.

It’s a kind of trade sub­sidy, but sup­port­ers say that without it, the United States would fall be­hind. Every ma­jor ex­port­ing na­tion has an agency that does the same work — and they of­ten do it big­ger and bet­ter. Of­fi­cial U.S. sup­port can be the key to con­vin­cing skep­tic­al buy­ers that an Amer­ic­an com­pany is the best choice. Even in coun­tries where the United States is not held in great es­teem, a stamp of ap­prov­al from the world’s only su­per­power can turn even a small deal in­to a sure thing. That’s why power­ful busi­ness groups such as the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Man­u­fac­tur­ers and the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce blitzed Cap­it­ol Hill in re­cent weeks with ex­horta­tions to save the Ex-Im Bank.

But op­pon­ents (de­fi­cit hawks, lais­sez-faire types) point out that neither its mis­sion nor its track re­cord mer­its re­new­al. Ex-Im was re­spons­ible for back­ing just $40 bil­lion (2 per­cent) of the nearly $2 tril­lion U.S. ex­port mar­ket last year, ac­cord­ing to bank Chair­man Fred Hoch­berg. What’s more, about 80 per­cent of its funds went to gi­ant mul­tina­tion­als that hardly need in­cent­ives to stay act­ive in glob­al mar­kets. After all, big U.S. cor­por­a­tions wouldn’t sud­denly stop trad­ing in some iffy mar­kets if fed­er­al fin­an­cing dried up. Boe­ing would keep selling planes across Africa. Cater­pil­lar would keep send­ing back­hoes to dig ditches in Costa Rica. Gen­er­al Elec­tric would keep selling com­pon­ents across the globe.

In the end, the Ex­port-Im­port Bank is noth­ing but a pro­vider of cor­por­ate wel­fare, ar­gue Grover Nor­quist and his aco­lytes in think tanks and on the Hill. They say that Wash­ing­ton has no busi­nesses dol­ing out huge loans to help fin­ance in­ter­na­tion­al trade. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment shouldn’t pick win­ners and losers — let alone put the win­ners on an ex­press train to big con­tracts abroad.

Yet the bank does serve one cru­cial pur­pose that no oth­er or­gan­iz­a­tion can ful­fill: It helps to deny China a hold on the world’s de­vel­op­ing mar­kets. Ex-Im’s top ex­port tar­gets in­clude Brazil, Colom­bia, In­dia, In­done­sia, Mex­ico, Ni­ger­ia, South Africa, Tur­key, and Vi­et­nam. Today, none of those coun­tries ranks among the top 10 mar­kets for U.S. ex­ports, but the Ex­port-Im­port Bank de­voted 40 per­cent of its loans to them. It fun­ded 34 per­cent of all U.S. ex­ports to Colom­bia in the months be­fore the United States ap­proved a free-trade agree­ment with that coun­try. In an in­ter­view, Hoch­berg said that the bank fo­cuses on pump­ing aid and at­ten­tion to places with the hot­test eco­nom­ic activ­ity.

The bank can also help Amer­ic­an com­pan­ies beat com­pet­it­ors that don’t fol­low the same trade rules. In 2011, for in­stance, it stepped in­to a bid­ding war for a Pakistani lo­co­mot­ive con­tract between Gen­er­al Elec­tric and a com­pany in China, which does not abide by the rules against be­low-mar­ket pri­cing set by the Or­gan­iz­a­tion for Eco­nom­ic Co­oper­a­tion and De­vel­op­ment. Ex-Im ponied up $477 mil­lion to dis­count the Amer­ic­an trains, put­ting them on the same play­ing field as the Chinese ones. The deal re­quired an OECD waiver that only Ex-Im — or some oth­er U.S. gov­ern­ment en­tity — could get.

And al­though huge cor­por­a­tions won’t quit their glob­al busi­nesses, smal­ler com­pan­ies might face real trouble without Ex-Im. The bank can be cru­cial to get­ting new trade star­ted for cash-strapped small busi­nesses. It is of­ten the only lender for com­pan­ies that want to make deals where Wall Street-style fin­an­cing doesn’t ex­ist — growth mar­kets, such as the boom­ing met­ro­pol­ises in South Asia, that aren’t con­sidered safe or aren’t mem­bers of the World Trade Or­gan­iz­a­tion. These are the spots where China is set­ting up shop.

Hoch­berg and Com­merce Un­der­sec­ret­ary Fran­cisco Sanc­hez tell Na­tion­al Journ­al that help­ing small com­pan­ies to do busi­ness in small coun­tries is part of an over­all strategy. Those con­tracts can mean a foothold for Amer­ic­an busi­nesses. If the fu­ture of the U.S. eco­nomy de­pends on ex­ports and the fu­ture of Amer­ica’s stra­tegic ad­vant­age is in ex­tend­ing its eco­nom­ic might, then Con­gress will need to en­sure that the Amer­ic­an com­pan­ies that truly need help get it.

What We're Following See More »
Democrats May Sue to Keep Collins on Ballot
9 hours ago

"Democrats are threatening to take the GOP to court to keep Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), who’s been charged with insider trading, on the November ballot. New York Democrats believe they have a better shot of flipping the ruby-red, Buffalo-area seat if the embattled congressman’s name stays on the ballot, and want to keep Republicans from replacing him with a potentially less-toxic candidate." According to New York election law, must run for another office, move out of state or die to be removed from the ballot. A local Democratic leader called it "borderline fraud" to keep Collins on the ballot.

Sanders Won't Categorically Deny that Trump Used "N-Word"
11 hours ago
Manafort Defense Rests
14 hours ago
Judge Holds Witness in Contempt in Manafort Case
4 days ago

"A federal judge has found a witness in contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury hearing evidence in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell made the ruling Friday after a sealed hearing to discuss Andrew Miller’s refusal to appear before the grand jury. Miller is a former aide to longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone."

Gates Says He Committed Crimes with Manafort
1 weeks ago

Paul Manafort's former business partner Rick Gates said in court today that "he conspired with Manafort to falsify Manafort’s tax returns. Gates said he and Manafort knowingly failed to report foreign bank accounts and had failed to register Manafort as a foreign agent."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.