O BNDES americano: vamos ver se seria diferente? - Americans For Limited Government

Ex-Im Bank's cozy relationship with private lender
By Nathan Mehrens
Americans for Limited Government, 29/05/2015

In the current Congressional debate over whether the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) should be reauthorized, one aspect of its activities has received little, if any attention.

Since 1970, the Ex-Im Bank has maintained a cozy relationship with the Private Export Funding Corporation (PEFCO). The "PEFCO is a private sector, tax-paying entity." It "was established in 1970 with the assistance of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) to supplement the export financing then available through Ex-Im Bank and from commercial banks and other lending institutions."

Instead of PEFCO performing its own risk analysis, Ex-Im Bank does that and makes U.S. taxpayers serve as the backstop for guaranteeing loans: "Since all loans made by PEFCO are guaranteed or insured as to the due and punctual payment of principal and interest by Ex-Im Bank or other U.S. government institutions, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation ("OPIC"), whose obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, PEFCO relies upon this U.S. government support and does not make evaluations of credit risks, appraisals of economic conditions in foreign countries, or reviews of other factors affecting collectability of its loans."

This has been the case since 1971, as PEFCO mentions in its 2014 annual report: "Under the terms of a Guarantee Agreement, DATED DECEMBER 15, 1971, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN PEFCO AND EX-IM BANK, DUE AND PUNCTUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON ALL FOREIGN IMPORTER NOTES ("GUARANTEED IMPORTER NOTES") EVIDENCING LOANS MADE BY PEFCO WITH THE APPROVAL OF EX-IM BANK WILL BE FULLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEED BY EX-IM BANK." (Emphasis added.)

Under this agreement, the Ex-Im Bank exercises a level of supervision over the activities of PEFCO, including the right to have a representative present at PEFCO board meetings, access to financial information, approval of loans, etc. PEFCO also pays "a semi-annual guarantee fee on the total interest accrued by PEFCO during the preceding semi-annual period on securities on which interest payments have been guaranteed by Ex-Im Bank."

When you look at who owns PEFCO, things get interesting. "PEFCO's stock is owned by 26 commercial banks, six industrial companies and one financial services companies (sic)." The largest "shareowner" as they call shareholders is JPMorgan Chase & Co. which owns 2,937 shares or 16.51 percent. Of particular note, the fifth-largest shareholder, and the largest owner among the industrial companies is The Boeing Company, which owns 1,425 shares or 8.01 percent. Boeing, as has been noted many times, is a major beneficiary of the Ex-Im Bank's activities, something that has earned the Bank the moniker, "Bank of Boeing."

On page four of its annual report, PEFCO states that it made 118 loan commitments totaling $1,562,000,000 in 2014. Of this amount, 84 percent, or $1,316,000,000, was for aircraft. Page six of the report states that $6,166,000,000 of their $7,342,000,000 in outstanding loans, or 84 percent, is for aircraft.

Boeing, as it just so happens, has been a beneficiary of PEFCO loans to its customers in the past for aircraft such as its 777-300ER, which "the national flag carrier of Angola, TAAG Angola Airlines (Linhas Aereas de Angola), is purchasing."

So it works like this: companies like Boeing through their involvement in PEFCO get risk-free, government-guaranteed investments, and those investments then go to purchase their own products. The company gets profits from their PEFCO ownership and sales because PEFCO finances purchases of their own products. 

Like 10,000 other things that most people have never heard about, does this sound like something in which the government should be involved? It is fine if a group of companies wish to band together to form a corporation to finance the sales of their own products. Just do it without having the federal government so woven into the fabric of the corporation that the line between public and private disappears.

Nathan Mehrens is President of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

Eximbank USA debate - Editorial Washington Post

Talvez alguns elementos de reflexão para avaliar o BNDES sendo convertido em algo similar, não semelhante...

The Post’s View

Impasse over the Ex-Im

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post, Monday, April 9, 12:47 AM

CREATED IN 1934, the Export-Import Bank of the United States provides direct loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to enable foreign purchases of U.S. products that private-sector banks might not finance. When trade credit dried up after the financial panic of 2008, Ex-Im’s lending soared from $14.4 billion in fiscal 2008 to $32.7 billion in fiscal 2011. As a result, the bank will hit its portfolio limit of $100 billion soon, perhaps before the agency’s legal mandate expires May 31.

A bipartisan Senate bill, supported by the Obama administration, would reauthorize Ex-Im through 2015 and increase its allowable portfolio to $140 billion. Backers say that Ex-Im sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs — while returning $1.9 billion in fees and interest to the Treasury in the past five years. But House Republicans are resisting, arguing that Ex-Im distorts markets and risks taxpayer money to aid big business.

Mere Tea Party ranting? Well, then-Sen. Barack Obama called Ex-Im “little more than a fund for corporate welfare” during his presidential campaign. He had a point: In fiscal 2011, more than half of Ex-Im’s loans and guarantees supported oil and gas or aerospace companies. For many years, Boeing has been Ex-Im’s leading customer.

Why can’t a blue-chip giant like Boeing sell planes without Washington’s help? Ex-Im supporters argue that even in normal economic times banks hesitate to extend long-term credit in emerging markets such as Vietnam and Colombia. Maybe so, but that contradicts another argument in favor of the bank — that it exposes taxpayers to little or no risk. Historically, Ex-Im’s default has been low — less than 2 percent. But it developed that record on the basis of a much smaller portfolio. To the extent that Ex-Im substitutes the U.S. government’s judgment for the market’s, it encourages emerging countries to over-invest in new aircraft and the United States to over-produce them. And that’s inherently risky.

What about job creation through export promotion, the rationale that converted Mr. Obama? Ex-Im surely creates jobs at Boeing, but whether it increases employment overall is another question. Delta Airlines has complained, with justification, that Ex-Im-backed jet sales to competing airlines abroad put Delta at a disadvantage (though a new Ex-Im loan will help a Brazilian airliner send planes to Delta for maintenance). Nor does Ex-Im necessarily increase net exports. Currency fluctuations, tax rates and other competitive factors probably swamp Ex-Im’s impact; it backed a mere 2 percent of U.S. exports last year. And if not channeled to Ex-Im’s clientele, those resources might well have paid for other U.S.-made goods.

There is one hard-to-refute argument for Ex-Im: Everyone else does it. Europe and Japan have long subsidized big-ticket exports. In recent decades, the United States and other developed nations have negotiated mutual reductions in export subsidies — but now China, Brazil and India are getting into the act.

Probably the United States ought not to disarm unilaterally. But in the short term Congress should reform Ex-Im, by abolishing the well-intentioned but impractical requirement that it devote 10 percent of its resources to renewable energy exports and by ending the protectionist requirement that Ex-Im-financed goods travel on U.S.-flagged ships. In the medium term, the United States needs to lead a redoubled global diplomatic effort to phase out these market-distorting practices.

A inacreditavel compulsao estatizante do governo

Nao apenas compulsão, talvez obsessão estatizante, em atividades perfeitamente voltadas para o mercado, que poderiam ser resolvidas pelo mercado.
As únicas coisas que só o governo pode fazer, que é reforma tributária, para desonerar empresas, ele não faz.
Talvez porque esteja muito ocupado criando estatais...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Eximbank amarrado
Editorial - O Estado de S.Paulo
25 de agosto de 2010

Todos os membros do governo que tratam do assunto, a começar pelo presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, defendem a urgência do início de operação do banco de financiamento do comércio exterior, o Eximbank brasileiro. Projeto discutido há décadas, a criação desse banco foi tardiamente anunciada no último dos oito anos do governo Lula. No entanto, previsto para estar em operação em outubro, o Eximbank, como outros projetos do governo do PT, corre o sério risco de não sair do papel, por discordâncias entre os Ministérios envolvidos.

A criação de uma instituição dedicada exclusivamente a financiar as exportações, como as que existem em outros países também com o nome de Eximbank (banco de exportação e importação), foi um dos principais itens do pacote de apoio ao comércio exterior anunciado em maio pelo governo, com o objetivo de estimular as vendas externas e conter a queda do superávit comercial brasileiro.

A nova instituição, de acordo com o modelo defendido pelo Ministério do Desenvolvimento (Mdic) e pelo BNDES - do qual será subsidiária -, deve oferecer serviços integrados de apoio ao exportador, incluindo garantia, seguro e financiamento. "Quando essas operações são combinadas, a instituição fica mais poderosa", disse há algum tempo o presidente do BNDES, Luciano Coutinho, citando o exemplo de bancos da Coreia do Sul e da China, que operam de acordo com o modelo por ele defendido.

O Ministério da Fazenda, porém, embora defenda a necessidade do seguro - "o Exim (brasileiro) não seria viável sem o seguro à exportação; é assim que os grandes países competem", afirmou o ministro Guido Mantega -, tem dito que empréstimos e seguros não devem ficar sob a responsabilidade de uma mesma instituição ou empresa.

Com base nesse argumento, o ministro da Fazenda anunciou, no mês passado, a criação também de uma nova estatal de seguros, argumentando que o setor privado - que não foi ouvido - é incapaz de atender às necessidades de seguros do País. Além de atender as empresas exportadoras, essa nova estatal deve oferecer todos os tipos de seguros oferecidos pelas companhias já em operação, com as quais concorrerá em regime ainda não devidamente explicado pelo ministro.

Agora, nem anda o projeto da grande seguradora estatal proposta pelo ministro, nem o do Eximbank brasileiro com competência para oferecer também serviços de seguros, defendido pelo Mdic e pelo BNDES.

Há, de fato, uma questão de competência legal que precisa ser resolvida. O Fundo de Garantia das Exportações (FGE), principal instrumento de seguro às exportações, é vinculado ao Ministério da Fazenda, tem como gestor o BNDES e tem suas regras definidas pelo Comitê de Financiamento e Garantia das Exportações (Cofig), cuja presidência cabe ao Ministério do Desenvolvimento. As operações do FGE são atribuição de uma empresa privada, a Seguradora Brasileira de Crédito à Exportação (SBCE), que tem como principal acionista a Coface, uma seguradora de capital francês. O Banco do Brasil e o BNDES também participam da SBCE. A nova seguradora proposta por Mantega substituiria a atual nas operações de comércio exterior.

Quaisquer que sejam os argumentos dos dois lados, a disputa mostra a dificuldade do governo para superar divergências internas que travam um projeto de interesse nacional e o desinteresse do presidente da República por questões que não digam respeito às eleições de outubro.

Ressalve-se, ainda, que, mesmo na remota hipótese de o governo do PT conseguir colocar em operação esse banco de apoio às exportações, ainda ficará devendo muito ao setor exportador. O sistema tributário, cuja reforma foi prometida no início do primeiro mandato de Lula, continua a onerar o setor, reduzindo-lhe dramaticamente a competitividade, os gargalos de infraestrutura - rodovias, ferrovias, portos e aeroportos - encarecem a logística das exportações e os controles burocráticos excessivos desestimulam as empresas que poderiam se interessar por exportar.