Trade Finance Monitor. International Monetary Fund / BAFT-IFSA 6th Annual Trade Finance Survey

Transcription

1 Trade Finance Monitor International Monetary Fund / BAFT-IFSA 6th Annual Trade Finance Survey November 211

2 2 The 6th IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey Key Findings and Observations International Monetary Fund November 211 In July the IMF and BAFT-IFSA initiated their sixth trade finance survey, administered by the IMF. 63 in advanced, emerging market, and developing countries participated in the survey (Table 1). 2 Value of trade finance: The demand for trade finance was strong particularly in emerging Asia (Figures 1 and 2), partly supported by strong demand for trade activities (Table 2). This is despite the slowdown in trade volumes observed since the spring (Figures 3 and 4). Pricing of trade finance: Interest rate spreads have risen especially since June, particularly in the Euro area (Figures 5 and 6), but remain below 28-9 trends. Trade finance spreads have reportedly risen for the second quarter of 211 relative to that of 21 (Figure 7 and Table 3). Anecdotal reports show that the trade finance spreads have continued to increase since July, but no more than those for other types of credit of similar maturity. Risk perception: Survey results show no change in risk perception at least till the second quarter of 211 (Figure 8). Nonetheless, some weak have large market shares in global trade finance and this has been a source of concerns especially since August (Table 4). Some European are reportedly trimming their balance sheets. But deleveraging does not appear focused disproportionately on trade finance. Moreover, concerns around tightening liquidity especially for dollars seem to be building. Practitioners are worried that short-term trade 1 The survey was launched in July 211, with responses collected until end October The respondents samples differ across surveys. The overall change in trade finance is computed as the weighted average of regional changes by activity level in respective regions.

3 3 finance could be a ready target for bank deleveraging as happened in late 28. While the reactivation of central bank swap lines in August by the ECB and the Swiss National Bank with the U.S. Federal Reserve seems to have helped ease some dollar-liquidity pressures, the evidence from some in October indicates that the finance has continued to tighten. Lending standards Survey results show that are tightening lending standards especially larger (Figure 9 and Table 5). Outlook Survey results also show the outlook for trade finance demand in the second half of 211 is less positive than for the first half, especially for advanced countries (Figure 1). Impact of the Basel III Survey results also show expect negative impact of Basel III on all trade finance products (Table 6) and the impact is considered larger than those on other bank products (Table 7). Banks are also anticipating changes to the trade finance portfolio (Figure 11). Official sector response Views on the official sector response continue to be largely positive. Some IFIs have indicated a readiness for immediate support, if circumstances warrant.

4 percentage change percentage change 4 I. MAIN SET OF TABLES AND CHARTS Table 1 Summary of Bank Survey Respondent Characteristics Table 1. Summary of Respondents 1/ Where are your trade finance activities focused Where is your trade finance branch Where is your global headquarters Industrial countries Sub- Saharan Africa Emerging Europe Southeast Europe and Central Asia Emerging Asia incl. China and India Developing Asia Middle East and the Maghreb Latin America What were your bank's most recent total assets (< $5 bn) (> $1 bn) worldwide Source: IMF/BAFT-IFSA Trade Finance Survey, August / The total number of respondents is 63. Source: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Figure 1 Overall Change in Merchandise Exports and Trade Finance 3 a. October 21 survey 3 b. August 211 survey Q2 CY9 vs. Q2 CY8 Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 Q2 CY11 vs. Q2 CY1 goods exports trade finance goods exports trade finance Sources: October 21 and August 211 IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys; Haver Analytics; IFS, and WTO.

5 percentage change percentage change Figure 2 Changes in Merchandise Exports and Trade Finance, by Country Group (percent growth) Industrial Countries Sub- Saharan Africa Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 Southeast Europe/ Central Asia Emerging Europe goods exports Emerging Asia incl. China and India Developing Middle East Asia and the Maghreb trade finance Latin America Q2 CY11 vs. Q2 CY1 Southeast Europe/ Central Asia 35 Sub- Emerging 3 Saharan Europe Industrial Africa 25 Countries goods exports Emerging Asia incl. China and India Developing Asia Latin Middle East America and the Maghreb trade finance Sources: August 211 IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys; Haver Analytics; IFS, and WTO. Table 2 Reasons for Increase in Value of Trade Finance All An increase in the demand for trade activities? More credit availability at your own institution? An increase in the price of transactions (e.g., commodity prices)? An increase in credit from international institutions for previously s More credit availability at your counterparty? An increase in support from Export Credit Agencies? A shift away from cash-in-advance transactions? A shift away from open account transactions? Other reasons Source: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey.

6 Index (January 27 = 1) Index (27M1 = 1) 6 Figure 3 Merchandise Trade Index January 27=1, in U.S. dollars Industrial countries 5 Emerging countries Developing countries Sources: Haver Analytics; IFS; and WTO. Note: Trade data on industrial, emerging, and developing countries are based on 29, 29, and 19 countries reporting to Haver Analytics. Figure 4 Merchandise Trade Index January 27=1, in U.S. dollars Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul EM Value EM Volume AM Value AM Volume Source: CPB Netherlands Bureau of Economic Policy Analysis..

7 LIBOR spread to OIS, basis points Rates, percentage Figure 5 Global Funding Pressure average of Euro Area, U.K., and U.S. rates, by percentage average policy rate average 3-month LIBOR Source: Bloomberg. Figure 6 Three-Month LIBOR Spreads in Advanced Markets Overnight index swap, in basis points US UK Eurozone Source: Bloomberg. Note: LIBOR = London interbank offered rate. OIS = overnight indexed swap.

8 basis points over cost of funds basis points over cost of funds 8 Figure 7 Change in Pricing a. Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 18 Letters of credit 11 Export credit insurance 16 Trade-related lending Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey b. Q2 CY11 vs. Q2 CY1 13 Letters of credit Export credit insurance 9 21 Trade-related lending

9 9 Table 3 Pricing Changes by Size of Bank All a. Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 b. Q2 CY11 vs. Q2 CY1 All Letters of credit Increased No change Decreased Mean change Median change Export credit insurance Increased No change Decreased Mean change Median change Trade-related lending Increased No change Decreased Mean change Median change Average across products Increased No change Decreased Mean change Median change Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Note: Mean figures are percentage point changes in the pricing margin above bank cost of funds. Mean and median figures do not include responses for which detailed pricing data were not provided.

10 percentage of respondents Figure 8 Change in the Probability of Default Decreased No change Increased a. Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY9 b. Q2 CY11 vs. Q2 CY1 13 Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Table 4 Global Trade Finance Loans (incl. sole bank loans): First Nine Months 211 Arranger Value ($ m) Equity (% ) BBVA 6, China Development Bank Corp 4,575 n.a. Credit Agricole CIB 4, HSBC 4, BNP Paribas 4, ING 3, Citi 3, SocGen CIB 3, Deutsche Bank 2, UniCredit 2, Total 74,923 Source: Bloomberg, Dealogic, and Fund staff estimates. Note: Off-balance sheet products (e.g., LoC) are not included.

11 percentage of respondents 11 Figure 9 Overall Change in Trade-Related Lending Guidelines, Q2 CY1 vs. Q2 CY Loosened No change Tightened Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Table 5 Reasons for Tightening Trade-Related Lending Guidelines All Become more cautious with certain countries Become more cautious with certain sectors Requested shorter tenors Requested more collaterals (including equity contributions and cash deposits) Faced more regulatory controls Requested more documentary collection or LC (including standby LC and confirmed LC) Requested stronger covenants Requested more Export Credit Insurance Other 4 14 Source: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Note: LC = letter of credit.

12 percent of respondents 12 Figure 1 Actual and Outlook for Trade Finance in 211, by Groups of Countries (percent of respondents indicating improvement ) H1 Actual 211H2 outlook Industrial Countries Sub-Sahara Africa Emerging Europe Southeast Emerging Europe and Asia incl. Central Asia China and India Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Developing Middle East Asia and the Maghreb Latin America Table 6 Impact of Basel III: by Trade Finance Products a. October 21 Survey b. August 211 Survey Letters of credit Export credit insurance Traderelated lending Letters of credit Export credit insurance Traderelated lending ly positive Positive Neutral Negative ly negative Not sure Sources: October 21 and August 211 IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys

13 percentage of respondents 13 Table 7 Negative Impact of Basel III: Trade Finance Relative to Other Bank Products a. October 21 Survey b. August 211 Survey All All Net Response Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 3 Not sure Sources: October 21 and August 211 IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys Note: Net response is defined as the sum of those that strongly agree and agree minus the sum of disagree and strongly disagree. Figure 11 Impact of Basel III: Possible Changes to Trade Finance Portfolio Not sure All To no extent To some extent To a large extent Sources: October 21 and August 211 IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys

14 14 Table A1. Reasons for the Increase in Prices II. ADDITIONAL TABLES AND CHARTS a. October 21 Survey b. August 211 Survey All All Own institution's increased cost of funds Increased risk of trade finance products relative to other working capital lending to the same nonfinancial corporate borrowers Increased capital requirements Other Sources: October 21 and August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys. Note: Data reflect only the views of respondents that reported an increase in pricing and that subsequently answered this question. Table A2. Impact of Basel II on Trade Finance Availability All a. October 21 Survey b. August 211 Survey All ly positive 5 67 Positive 1 1 Neutral Negative ly negative Other 1 25 Source: October 21 and August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys. Note: Includes only respondents reporting price increases due to increased capital requirements and that subsequently marked at least one option for the question. Table A3. Reasons for the Adverse Impact of Changes in the CCF All a. October 21 Survey b. August 211 Survey All Costs for trade finance products will increase The amount of trade finance products offered will decrease Alternatives such as credit insurance (etc.) will be offered Don't know 8 13 Other Source: October 21 and August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Surveys. Note: Includes only respondents reporting negative impact of the change in CCF.

15 percentage of respondents percentage of respondents 15 Figure A1. Ability to Satisfy All Customer Needs To no extent To some extent To a large extent 2 1 All Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey. Figure A2. Estimated Composition of the Trade Finance Industry Q2 CY9 Q2 CY1 Q2 CY11 Open account transactions Bankintermediated transactions Cash-in-advance transactions Sources: August 211IMF/BAFT-IFSA Survey.