US Exposure to EU Bailout: $50 Billion and Counting

Topspin

Verified User
US Exposure to EU Bailout: $50 Billion and Counting
Published: Tuesday, 11 May 2010 * 1:25 PM ET Text Size By: Jeff Cox

US taxpayers could be on the hook for $50 billion or more as part of the European debt bailout, which is likely to be a close cousin to the strategy used to rescue the American financial system.

Determining the exact exposure at this point is nearly impossible until governments start stepping up to the window created by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund to stem the crisis in Greece and elsewhere on the continent.

But one rule-of-thumb formula puts potential US exposure at $54 billion should the entire IMF loan fund be tapped.

And that doesn't count the added exposure created by the Federal Reserve's decision over the weekend to participate in currency swaps to provide liquidity to jittery European banks. The swaps move resembles the Term Auction Facility the Fed instituted when the worst of the US financial crisis hit in 2007-08.

And the entire bailout package has been nicknamed "Le Tarp" by some for its similarity to the Troubled Asset Relief Program that bailed out US companies with taxpayer-backed loans.




Jeff Cox
Staff Writer
CNBC.com
US involvement in the European crisis already has drawn critics from Congress and economists who think the domestic financial issues should be cleared up first.

"Inflation and debt is not the answer to a problem caused by inflation and debt," said Michael Pento, chief economist at Delta Global Advisors and a critic of both the European plan and the Fed's approach to US fiscal stability. "It's a European problem that should have been dealt with by Europeans."

In Washington, the White House said taxpayers will not be liable for the European bailout.

But the US is a participant in the International Monetary Fund, which has agreed to work with the European Union to help countries that come under debt duress.

The IMF has pledged a one-third share of the 750 billion-euro ($952 billion) rescue package—typical of the fund's arrangements with central banks in such cases.

That would come to 250 billion euros, though that is only a rough figure and dependent on a variety of circumstances, according to an IMF official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the uncertainty still involved.


RELATED LINKS
Current DateTime: 09:27:56 11 May 2010
LinksList Documentid: 37085281
Rescue Could Work: RoubiniWhat Rescue Means for InvestorsA Trillion for Europe, With Doubts AttachedAfter EU Bailout, This Is ‘New Reality’ for Market
The US would be responsible for 17.09 percent, or $54 billion, of the cost using a quota contribution system the IMF uses in such instances. The US is the leading contributor under the quota setup.

But pinpointing the exact figure is difficult because all loans are not created equal, and will depend on the currencies in which they are issued and the arrangements between the parties.

Also, the basis of the loans won't be solely on the quota calculation, which accounts for only half the formula. The other half is a pro-rated basis for which the US does not currently have an agreement but is likely to in the future. That pool comes from wealthier countries with "useable resources," with the typical arrangement for the US being higher than the 17 percent for the quota share.

"How the fund actually raises the resources for the specific loan depend on a number of different criteria, one of which is currency that the country is borrowing in," the IMF official said. "Those details are somewhat complex."



The situation regarding the currency swaps is a different story.

The US has virtually unlimited exposure in that situation as it loans dollars to foreign banks in exchange for euros, which it then holds for a period that can range from overnight to three months. The currency is sent to central banks such as the European Central Bank as well as those in Japan, Switzerland and Canada, which in turn then direct the money to banks seeking the safety of the world's primary reserve currency.

That arrangement, too, has drawn criticism in part because of the danger of default and worries over the rapidly devaluing euro.

Defenders, though, say the swap trades are virtually without risk as the ECB is the entity responsible for backing up the swaps. The ECB is responsible for returning the money to the US along with a slight interest appreciation on the loan.

"These (swaps) operations will be a net positive for fiscal conditions," said Zach Pandl, economist at Nomura Securities International in New York. "They contain no credit risks whatsoever. The counterparty is the foreign central bank. There's basically no debt. The European Central Bank is going to pay back the loan."



The swaps, though, will make the Fed's balance sheet grow to perhaps $2.5 trillion from its current $2.3 trillion, said Delta's Pento.

Putting more US money into circulation at a time when the central bank is trying to shrink its balance sheet will only add to inflationary pressures down the road, he said.

"With an over-$2 trillion monetary base, the damage is already there," Pento said. "You've lit fire to a building that is already burned down."

Pandl said the swaps transactions could total as much as $100 billion, "which is nothing to sneeze at. But compared to the Fed's balance sheet, it's still a relatively modest sum."
 
its funny....libs don't like us to be the world cop, but have no problem with us being the world bank

disclaimer: many repubs, indeps, libertaries also feel that way
 
US taxpayers on the hook for $50 billion or more and pinheads like Topspin allowed to vote...what could be fuckin' worse for this country....nothing?...Right!
 
Last edited:
wow...you're really naive

how sad

Terrible comeback.

You're analogy was the usual Yurt-kind of analogy - completely false. I don't know how anyone compares financial assistance with putting lives on the line in a "world cop" kind of role.

Completely stupid.
 
Terrible comeback.

You're analogy was the usual Yurt-kind of analogy - completely false. I don't know how anyone compares financial assistance with putting lives on the line in a "world cop" kind of role.

Completely stupid.

STFU. The $50 Billion could simply be used to feed the poor and shelter the homeless, etc., much like plowing under fields and FDRing all that milk during the Depression (playing make-believe that it was helping the economy, for a second)...
 
1 trillion? For Greece alone?

Jesus. They really got themselves into a shithole. Why didn't anyone see this coming and tell them to slow down?
 
1 trillion? For Greece alone?

Jesus. They really got themselves into a shithole. Why didn't anyone see this coming and tell them to slow down?

No... not for Greece alone. Greece's total debt is about $236B.

The $1 Trillion package is for all of the PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain.
 
That $50 billion could be used to stop all the people in the US from dying without health care.

:good4u:

Sure; if you really believe our economy exists independent of the world economy, and that failures around the globe have no economic ramifications here.

The larger point, though, is that there is nothing inconsistent about not wanting America to be a world cop, and supporting financial assistance around the globe. I wouldn't even agree with the characterization that liberals have no problem with us being a "world bank," but for the sake of argument, I accepted that. It doesn't have anything to do with the philisophical positoin of using our military in a police role.
 
onceler is truly naive since really believes that the US would just be the world bank without being the world's police

so sad :(

Another Yurt classic, 2nd to the false analogy - the false inference of belief.

Just admit you made a false analogy in trying for another lib "gotcha."
 
Sure; if you really believe our economy exists independent of the world economy, and that failures around the globe have no economic ramifications here.

The larger point, though, is that there is nothing inconsistent about not wanting America to be a world cop, and supporting financial assistance around the globe. I wouldn't even agree with the characterization that liberals have no problem with us being a "world bank," but for the sake of argument, I accepted that. It doesn't have anything to do with the philisophical positoin of using our military in a police role.

you know better than that. I realize how connected we are... but again to push the problem into the future is NOT the answer. Will it allow us less pain NOW? Sure.

But it will hurt more later when it blows up, because it will then snow ball into everyone else. The graph depicted by the NY Times shows how intertwined the EU countries have become. To add the US to the mix (albeit a very tiny amount on a relative basis) is not a good idea.
 
you know better than that. I realize how connected we are... but again to push the problem into the future is NOT the answer. Will it allow us less pain NOW? Sure.

But it will hurt more later when it blows up, because it will then snow ball into everyone else. The graph depicted by the NY Times shows how intertwined the EU countries have become. To add the US to the mix (albeit a very tiny amount on a relative basis) is not a good idea.

That's your view; we could start another thread on the benefit of aid, or lack thereof, and probably have an excellent discussion in that regard. I assure you, the people who believe in aid believe that it will work, in both the short & long-term.

Again - that's beside the point. The only point I have here is that believing that & supporting it philisophically is about 180 degrees from supporting the idea of the U.S. using its military in a global policeman kind of role.
 
Back
Top