Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America

CARACAS, Venezuela — As Washington tries to rebuild its strained relationships in Latin America, China is stepping in vigorously, offering countries across the region large amounts of money while they struggle with sharply slowing economies, a plunge in commodity prices and restricted access to credit.

 

In recent weeks, China has been negotiating deals to double a development fund in Venezuela to $12 billion, lend Ecuador at least $1 billion to build a hydroelectric plant, provide Argentina with access to more than $10 billion in Chinese currency and lend Brazil’s national oil company $10 billion. The deals largely focus on China locking in natural resources like oil for years to come.

 

China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner after the United States. But the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence in the hemisphere.

 

“This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “The loans are an example of the checkbook power in the world moving to new places, with the Chinese becoming more active.”

 

Mr. Obama will meet with leaders from the region this weekend. They will discuss the economic crisis, including a plan to replenish the Inter-American Development Bank, a Washington-based pillar of clout that has suffered losses from the financial crisis. Leaders at the summit meeting are also expected to push Mr. Obama to further loosen the United States policy toward Cuba.

 

Meanwhile, China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America as it pursues not only long-term access to commodities like soybeans and iron ore, but also an alternative to investing in United States Treasury notes.

 

One of China’s new deals in Latin America, the $10 billion arrangement with Argentina, would allow Argentina reliable access to Chinese currency to help pay for imports from China. It may also help lead the way to China’s currency to eventually be used as an alternate reserve currency. The deal follows similar ones China has struck with countries like South Korea, Indonesia and Belarus.

 

As the financial crisis began to whipsaw international markets last year, the Federal Reserve made its own currency arrangements with central banks around the world, allocating $30 billion each to Brazil and Mexico. (Brazil has opted not to tap it for now.) But smaller economies in the region, including Argentina, which has been trying to dispel doubts about its ability to meet its international debt payments, were left out of those agreements.

 

Details of the Chinese deal with Argentina are still being ironed out, but an official at Argentina’s central bank said it would allow Argentina to avoid using scarce dollars for all its international transactions. The takeover of billions of dollars in private pension funds, among other moves, led Argentines to pull the equivalent of nearly $23 billion, much of it in dollars, out of the country last year.

 

Dante Sica, the lead economist at Abeceb, a consulting firm in Buenos Aires, said the Chinese overtures in the region were made possible by the “lack of attention that the United States showed to Latin America during the entire Bush administration.”

 

China is also seizing opportunities in Latin America when traditional lenders over which the United States holds some sway, like the Inter-American Development Bank, are pushing up against their limits.

 

Just one of China’s planned loans, the $10 billion for Brazil’s national oil company, is almost as much as the $11.2 billion in all approved financing by the Inter-American Bank in 2008. Brazil is expected to use the loan for offshore exploration, while agreeing to export as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day to China, according to the oil company.

 

The Inter-American bank, in which the United States has de facto veto power in some matters, is trying to triple its capital and increase lending to $18 billion this year. But the replenishment involves delicate negotiations among member nations, made all the more difficult after the bank lost almost $1 billion last year.

 

China will also have a role in these talks, having become a member of the bank this year.

 

China has also pushed into Latin American countries where the United States has negligible influence, like Venezuela.

 

In February, China’s vice president, Xi Jinping, traveled to Caracas to meet with President Hugo Chávez. The two men announced that a Chinese-backed development fund based here would grow to $12 billion from $6 billion, giving Venezuela access to hard currency while agreeing to increase oil shipments to China to one million barrels a day from a level of about 380,000 barrels.

 

Mr. Chávez’s government contends the Chinese aid differs from other multilateral loans because it comes without strings attached, like scrutiny of internal finances. But the Chinese fund has generated criticism among his opponents, who view it as an affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty.

 

“The fund is a swindle to the nation,” said Luis Díaz, a lawmaker who claims that China locked in low prices for the oil Venezuela is using as repayment.

 

Despite forging ties to Venezuela and extending loans to other nations that have chafed at Washington’s clout, Beijing has bolstered its presence without bombast, perhaps out of an awareness that its relationship with the United States is still of paramount importance. But this deference may not last.

 

“This is China playing the long game,” said Gregory Chin, a political scientist at York University in Toronto. “If this ultimately translates into political influence, then that is how the game is played.”

 

Simon Romero reported from Caracas, and Alexei Barrionuevo from Rio de Janeiro.

 

Tags:

UPDATE 1-Beijing's derivative default

* State-owned firms may default on commodity hedges - report
* Bankers dismayed, confused by report; seek more details
* Lawyers question legality of the move
* Traders suspect lurking losses may have prompted warning (Adds analysts
comments)


By Eadie Chen and Chen Aizhu


BEIJING, Aug 31 (Reuters) - A report that Chinese state-owned companies
will be allowed to walk away from loss-making commodity derivative trades
provoked anger and dismay among investment bankers on Monday as they
feared it may set a damaging precedent.


The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, the
regulator and nominal shareholder for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), told
six foreign banks that SOEs reserved the right to default on contracts, Caijing
magazine quoted an unnamed industry source as saying in an article
published on Saturday.


While the details of the report could not be confirmed, it was Monday's hot
topic in financial circles from Shanghai to Singapore as commodity marketers
feared that companies holding underwater price hedges could simply renege
on the deals, costing banks millions of dollars in profit.


The warning from SASAC follows a series of measures from Beijing this year
to crack down on the sale of derivative products by foreign banks to Chinese
enterprises, principally big consumers, who bought protection against higher
prices last year only to watch the market collapse -- leaving them with losses.
While many companies including top airlines have come clean on the losses,
some analysts fear another wave may follow.


"I wouldn't be surprised if more state firms emerge with big derivatives trading
losses, otherwise SASAC wouldn't come out with such a radical move," said
a Hong Kong-based derivatives analyst, who like most other industry officials
and bankers declined to be named due to the high sensitivity of the issue.


A SASAC media official said on Monday that he was waiting for the "relevant
department's" official comment before he can clarify to media. A government
official said that the Bureau of Financial Supervision and Evaluation under
SASAC was handling the issue. The official declined to be named and did not
elaborate.


Spokespersons at Goldman Sachs (GS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock
Buzz) and UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) declined
comment, and media officials at Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile,
Research, Stock Buzz) and JPMorgan (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research,
Stock Buzz) were not immediately available for comment. All are major global
providers of commodity risk management.


No bank were named in the Caijing report. The SASAC media officer alsodeclined to identify any specific banks.


"It's a handful of companies who are being encouraged by regulators to renegotiate,"
said a second banking source. "It's outrageous, but it's China, so everyone is treading very carefully."


DAMAGING PRECEDENT


For banks that are hoping to sell more derivatives hedges in China, the
world's fastest-expanding major economy and top commodities consumer,
the danger goes beyond the immediate risk to existing contracts to the
longer-term precedent that suggests Chinese companies can simply renege
on deals when they like.


The report follows an order from SASAC in July that required all central
government-controlled state companies engaged in trading derivatives to
make quarterly reports about their investments, including details of holdings
and performance.


But the reported letter opened several important questions that could not
immediately be answered.


"If we were among the banks receiving that letter, we would be very angry.
But now the key is to find out more details on the letter: In whose name the
letter was issued, the government or the corporate's? And under what was
the reason for defaulting?" said a Singapore-based marketing executive with
a foreign bank.


The source, whose bank did not receive a letter, said that Air China, China
Eastern and shipping giant COSCO -- among the Chinese companies that
have reported huge derivatives losses since last year -- had issued almost
identical notices to banks.


"If it's in the name of the government, the impact will be very negative," said
the source, who declined to be named.


Beijing-based derivatives lawyers said the so-called "legal letter" has no legal
standing -- SASAC as a shareholder has no business relationship with
international banks.


"It's like the father suddenly told the creditors of his debt-ridden son that his
son won't pay any of his debt," said a lawyer from the derivatives risks
committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association.


It's also unclear why Chinese state firms, which have complained that their
foreign banks sometimes did not disclose full information of potential risks
when selling them complicated products, did not seek redress through the
courts.


"If that is the case, these firms should seek through legal measures to
safeguard their rights, instead of turning to the authorities for political
interference," said a different lawyer.


SASAC took over the job of overseeing SOEs' derivatives trading from the
securities regulator in February after several Chinese firms reported huge
losses from derivatives.


For a factbox of China's derivatives debacles:[ID:nPEK206094] (Reporting by
Eadie Chen and Chen Aizhu in Beijing, Alfred Cang in Shanghai, George
Chen and Michael Flaherty in Hong Kong; Editing by Jonathan Leff)

 

 

Tags:

Are Safeguards Intended to Prevent Money Laundering Working?

 

QEarlier this month, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said his office was investigating some Venezuelan and Panamanian banks for allegedly providing Iranians access to the US financial system in violation of international sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. A 'mainstream' international bank is expected to reach a settlement within 30 days over the accusations, according to media reports. Do Morgenthau's actions reflect a case of anti-money laundering safeguards working well, as supporters of his probe suggest? Should international banks worry about global politics increasingly affecting their operations? What improvements could be made to the US role in regional antimony laundering efforts?

 

AMichael Diaz, Jr., a member of the Financial Services Advisor board and managing partner at Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP in Miami: "Morgenthau's actions, although commendable,are another example of shuttingthe barn door after the horse has alreadyleft the stable. Once again, this is a sadexample of how information, untimelyused, can have unintended consequenceson financial institutions. The Bush administrationreceived reports of the alleged'axis' between Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaraguaand its potential nexus to radical Islam andIran at least as early as 2002. Money laundererseverywhere want and need access tothe US financial system. That is no secretto the US regulators and law enforcementagencies. The use of OFAC-busting techniquessuch as 'nesting' (whereby bannedcountries and their financial institutionsindirectly obtain access to the US financialsystem) to launder funds is also not novel.From the North Korea-Delta Bank case, tothe current US government initiatives inthe Venezuela-focused Rosemont andAndorra DEA and Treasury investigations,money laundering is here to stay andbanks have no choice but to remain vigilant. As is often the case, however, banksbecome the unintended whipping boysof government inertia and uniformedbank regulators. If you really want tocombat money laundering, especiallyfrom OFAC-banned nations, our intelligenceand law enforcement agenciesneed to cull, vet and share informationin a timely way with bank regulators andthe financial institutions they supervise.A better educated banker or bank regulatormakes the best safeguard and tool incombating money laundering."

 

AEdward L. Monahan, Jr., a member of the Financial Services Advisor board and a director of Price water house Coopers in Boston and Miami: "During the past 20 years, US financialinstitutions have developed sophisticatedsystems to prevent money launderingand use of the US financial system tofinance acts of international terrorism.The US Treasury Department's Office ofForeign Assets Control imposes controlsand administers economic sanctionsagainst foreign countries and regimeswhich threaten the security of the US.Domestic and foreign financial institutionsin the US must fully implementOFAC sanctions. The interactionbetween government policy and financialinstitutions is evident in the activeuse of anti-money laundering and antiterroristtechnology to curtail the accessof Iranian banks to money center banksin the US. In January, the ManhattanDA's office reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the Lloyds TSB forviolations of OFAC sanctions related totransactions with Iran. The current investigation of Venezuelan andPanamanian banks operating in the UShighlights the importance of lawenforcement as a deterrent to regulatoryviolations. Both international as well asdomestic banks in the US are required tomaintain strong internal controls to preventthe execution of sanctioned activitiesand fraudulent conduct within theUS financial system. As an instrument ofgovernment policy, such sanctions areonly applied to extreme cases, most oftenfor circumstances in which internationalfunds transfers may be linked to nationalsecurity threats or drug trafficking. AsMr. Morgenthau has said in testimony tothe US Senate, regulations can have limitedimpact in the absence of strict, swiftand comprehensive enforcement."

 

ADavid Landsman, executive director of the National Money Transmitters Association in Great Neck, N.Y.: "There arebasically two things government can doto fight money laundering: regulate andprosecute. Threatening to prosecute abank is not a safeguard, but rather could be seen as a failure of safeguards.Prosecution is a backstop, retrospectivein nature, as opposed to regulationwhich is intended to prevent wrongdoing(or at least catch it early) by lookingahead and setting up rules to follow. Themain question we first must ask ourselvesis whether there is somethingmore we could be doing in regulatingfinancial institutions, so Mr.Morgenthau will not have to bring thesecases in the first place. If a bank or itsemployees have deliberately evaded lawsthat are meant to stop money launderingand criminal activity, as Mr.Morgenthau's most recent case alleges,one has less sympathy for the bank, andwe can move ahead quickly to gaugewhat level of corporate responsibilityexists. But Mr. Morgenthau's investigationsover the years have mostly involvedprogram violations—which are moreproperly the realm of regulators, so theseare the ones with the more troublingimplications. These investigations havealso consistently involved a foreign element,and this is where the action will bein the future. What are a bank's 'know your-correspondent' responsibilitieswhen dealing with financial institutionsfrom another country? FinCEN is nowproposing a rule that would declare allforeign-located money transmitters subjectto US requirements by virtue of thefact that they have a US-based bankaccount from which they make paymentsto third parties in the US. Thesedefinitions, trends and pressures willmake the 'know-your-customer' and'know-your-correspondent' tasks of USbanks more and more difficult as timegoes by, when dealing with foreign financialinstitutions."

 

ATom Haider, a member of the Financial Services Advisor board and a St. Paul, Minn.- based consultant on government relations and regulatory compliance issues: "It is interesting that theManhattan district attorney is leadingthis investigation rather than the USattorney. One would normally expectfederal authorities to lead an investigationinvolving international sanctions. Itcertainly adds confusion to any financialinstitution's compliance efforts whenthey must be concerned with localauthorities enforcing federal laws. Thishas happened on several occasions in thepast when state attorneys general havesought to enforce federal anti-moneylaundering laws. Such actions can lead toinconsistent interpretations of federallaws and challenging compliance issuesfor regulated entities. It is difficult to saywhether Morgenthau's actions indicateanti-money laundering safeguards areworking well. In the past couple of years,we have not seen as many large moneylaundering fines as those imposedagainst US financial institutions in thepreceding five years. No doubt that'spartly due to compliance improvementsmade by US institutions. But it may alsoreflect reluctance by federal officials toadd to the problems that financial institutionshave been dealing with. It wouldnot be surprising, however, to see federalofficials once again go after financialinstitutions for weak anti-money launderingcompliance, including sanctionsviolations. This stepped-up enforcementcould be driven by the actions of a localprosecutor like Morgenthau, as well asthe perception conveyed by FederalReserve Chairman Ben Bernanke thatthe financial crisis has ended. If that isthe case, then one could expect US-basedfinancial institutions, as well as foreignbanks with US operations, to comeunder closer scrutiny."

 

 

 

Tags: