global trade finance markets the road to recovery trade finance markets have shown signs of modest...

BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION FOR FINANCE AND TRADE

An affiliate of AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION

1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 3d Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: 202-663-7575 or 1-800-BANKERS Fax: 202-663-5538 www.baft.org

PROMOTING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS/RESPONDING TO REGIONAL CHALLENGES

Global Trade Finance Markets

The Road to Recovery

Report on the Current State of Trade Finance Markets and Next Steps for Recovery

September 2009

Global trade finance markets have shown signs of modest improvement during 2009. It remains

important to note, however, that the systemic dislocation of trade finance markets during the global

financial crisis continues to fuel the need for public-/private-sector cooperation. The World Trade

Organization (WTO) recently updated its forecast for global trade and estimated a contraction of ten

percent in volume terms for 2009. Experts have attributed the reduction in world commerce to a

variety of factors, including a decrease in overall global demand for goods and services, the

dependence on interconnected international supply chains, and the increase in protectionist measures

in countries around the world.1 The lack of available trade credit in the marketplace continues,

however, to be an obstacle in the overall recovery of global commerce. With World Bank President

Robert Zoellick estimating trade financing issues contributing to ten to fifteen percent of the decline in

trade thus far, the full revival of trade credit markets will be needed to revitalize the economy and

sustain growth in cross-border commerce. The Bankers’ Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT)

strongly encourages continued focus by all private- and public-sector stakeholders on initiatives to

revitalize trade finance markets for a full recovery.

Introduction:

BAFT provided leadership early in the crisis to address the market dislocations in trade finance and

continues to advocate for public-/private-sector partnership solutions. In January 2009, BAFT

prepared an industry position paper on trade finance market problems and held its first Trade Finance

Summit, which brought together leading representatives from banks, government ministries, export

credit agencies, private credit insurers, and multilateral agencies to assess the problems in trade

finance markets around the globe and to recommend solutions. Since the first Summit, BAFT has

closely coordinated with leaders in the international trade community, including the World Bank, the

International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the WTO to advance the public-/private-sector partnership

initiatives.

BAFT convened a second Trade Finance Summit (Summit II) in April following announcements on

trade finance program enhancements, including those mentioned at the April meeting of the Group of

1 World Trade Report 2009 http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report09_e.pdf

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report09_e.pdf

2

20 (G-20). Summit II built upon achievements from the first Summit by committing to provide timely

feedback to policymakers and key stakeholders on the current state of trade finance globally, and the

programs and enhancements designed to address the crisis.

This BAFT Report on the current state of trade finance markets provides an overview of current

trends, analysis of programs created or enhanced to address trade finance market dislocations, and

recommendations for continued efforts by government and private-sector stakeholders. BAFT

requests that government leaders, multilateral institutions, and industry representatives ensure that

public- and private-sector exchange continues to facilitate the resurgence of trade finance markets.

Current Trends:

BAFT and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently conducted a third global benchmark

survey of banks to provide major stakeholders with information on trade finance market trends2.

These surveys equip policymakers around the globe with helpful data and other resources for

deliberations on next steps to address the crisis.

The survey response indicated wide representation from around the world. The survey

was sent to banks in developed and emerging markets, and yielded responses from a broad

range of institutions in almost every region. The survey asked banks to compare the situation

in 2009 Q2 with 2008 Q4, as well as compare their conditions in 2008 Q4 with 2007 Q4.

Overall, it appears that the trade finance markets are beginning to stabilize, but there is no

evidence suggesting trade finance market dislocations are fully resolved. The key findings

are as follows: Banks around the globe reported a decline in value across all three product

lines evaluated—letters of credit (LCs), export credit insurance (ECI), and short-term export

working capital. Areas most affected were the Industrialized Countries and Latin America.

The price of trade instruments continues to rise, though at a slower pace. The value of

trade finance activities dropped an average of 11% for six out of ten banks in 2009 Q2 as

compared to 2008 Q2, but a year-to-year comparison (from 2007 Q4 through 2008 Q4)

showed a slight increase in value of 4%. Except for short-and medium-term lending

instruments, the increase in margins for trade finance instruments was lower than at the end

of 2008. The majority of respondents indicated that the increase in pricing is mainly due to

their own institution’s increased cost of funds.

Banks estimated that open account transactions again shrank as a share of the total to less

than 40 percent in 2009 Q2, as opposed to 45 percent at the end of 2007. An increasing

tendency toward cash-in-advance financing also contributed to the declining share of open

account financing. These trends appear to reflect increased risk aversion on the part of both

banks (increased margins) and nonfinancial corporations (the decline in the share of open

account).

The probability of default appears to be starting to stabilize. The majority of respondents

indicated that there was no change in the probability of defaults and net only 11 percent (i.e.,

the difference between the percentage reporting an increase and the percentage reporting a

decrease in defaults) reporting an increase in default risk. In comparison, the net figure for the

March survey was over 40 percent. However, perceived higher default risks continue to

2 See Appendix I for copy of BAFT/IMF survey report summary

3

increase the price of credit. The banks in Southeast Europe/Central Asia and Developing

Asia are the most optimistic regarding an improvement in the second half of the year.

Nearly six in ten banks said trade-related guidelines have changed since 2008 Q4. Of

these, the majority said the guidelines have become more cautious with certain countries and

sectors, and they have requested more collateral and shorter tenors.

A majority of banks indicated no change in reliance upon the secondary markets to

mitigate trade finance risks since 2008 Q4.

More than three quarters of banks could meet the increased demand for trade finance.

However, 41 percent of respondents also noted that less credit availability in their own

institution played a role in the lower value of trade finance activities, and 40 percent said

credit availability at counterparty banks played a role.

Among banks that indicated they had an increase in capital requirements, 43% said that

Basel II had a negative impact on their ability to provide trade finance. Banks in

industrialized countries were much more likely to cite the negative implications of Basel II

than the market average (60% vs. 43%).

A majority of banks considered a drop in the value of trade transactions to be most

influenced by a fall in the demand for trade finance as compared to a lack of credit

availability during Q2 2009.

Examining responses by bank assets reveals that while nearly all of the large banks ($100

billion plus in total worldwide assets) are experiencing a decline in demand, they are also

significantly more likely to be affected than smaller banks by less credit available at their own

institutions as well as at their counterparty banks. They are significantly more likely than

small banks to have experienced a drop in the price of transactions.

Respondents continue to encourage government intervention targeting trade finance

specifically, including the expansion of government guarantee programs and greater assistance

for trade in general.

Analysis of MDB Programs Launched or Enhanced to Respond to the Trade Finance Crisis:

As part of the global public-/private-sector partnership effort to address the crisis, the Multilateral

Development Banks (MDB) launched new programs or enhanced current programs to provide credit

and liquidity for the import/export marketplace. In April 2009, the G-20 Leaders communiqué

pledged to ensure the availability of at least $250 billion over the next two years to support trade

finance through export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs. As part of BAFT’s

commitment to providing timely feedback on programs designed to address the crisis, BAFT queried

members on the extent to which these program enhancements actually address market dislocations,

and whether there were significant gaps in program implementation. BAFT examined six major MDB

programs that were enhanced or initiated during 2009 to ensure these programs meet market needs. All

these programs provide valuable support to the international trade community and BAFT feels they are

essential to ensuring recovery.

4

Overall, the majority of the MDB programs are deemed to have a real, but limited, effect on providing

support to trade finance markets. The full extent of their impact on the recovery of trade credit is not

yet realized. BAFT members believe that enhancing both the funding and operational function of the

programs will have a net positive impact on the way business is conducted globally. As demand

returns, there may still be a lag in the revival of private-sector funding options and appetites. To that

end, it will be more important than ever to ensure that the MDB programs are fully engaged and

operating at maximum efficiency to fully support private banks and insurers in providing the necessary

funding for the increased volume of demand in goods and services.

Generally speaking, the multilateral programs considered most efficient and effective in meeting

market demands are programs that run on a portfolio basis, have pre-agreed risk-sharing with

flexibility up to 100 percent by the MDB, pre-agreed pricing and no country risk cap. By

incorporating these fundamentals with efficient processing times and a selection of increased and

diversified issuing banks, the MDBs will remain an effective complement to private sector funding

going forward.

1. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Trade Finance Facilitation Program

In January 2009, the IDB enhanced their Trade Finance Facilitation Program (TFFP) from

$400 million to a maximum of $1 billion. IDB also added loans to its offering of guarantees

and now supports non-dollar denominated trade finance transactions. The TFFP currently

comprises a network of 198 Confirming Banks from 70 different international banking groups,

and 41 Issuing Banks in 15 Latin American and Caribbean countries, with $756 million in

approved credit lines.

BAFT commends the work of the IDB in expanding the capacity and outreach of the TFFP.

According to BAFT members, the increase in the funding ceiling will increase the

effectiveness of the IDB in Latin America. The IDB should be encouraged to use this upper

limit to its maximum capacity. In order to make the program more efficient in addressing the

issues in the marketplace and working as a partner with private banks, the IDB should assess

its processing times and procedures in order to expedite approvals, add additional banks to its

list of approved issuing banks, and extend tenors on its loans and guarantees to address issues

in the medium-term market. Available loan tenors and pricing should also be published in an

accessible manner to facilitate a better understanding of the program by prospective

participants. The IDB should consider raising the pre-agreed level of risk allowed under the

program. Risk sharing between the IDB and the confirming bank at a 50/50 margin with

flexibility up to 100% would likely enhance use of the program.

2. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Trade Facilitation Program

In January 2009, the EBRD announced that it would raise the ceiling on its Trade Finance

Program (TFP) from €800 million to €1.5 billion to increase trade with and within Eastern

Europe, Central Asia, Russia and Ukraine. The TFP operates in 27 countries and comprises 80

issuing banks in the Bank's region of operations together with 500 confirming banks

throughout the world.

The EBRD has responded to the industry needs very well in the program region. To ensure the

program continues to meet market needs, BAFT members recommend that the EBRD consider

5

streamlining processing times and procedures, adding additional banks to its list of approved

issuing banks, and adjusting country risk caps.

3. Asian Development Bank Trade Finance Facilitation Program

In April 2009, the ADB increased the ceiling on their Trade Finance Facilitation Program to $1

billion. The ADB also increased the maximum maturity permitted under the program to three

years from two years to support developing member countries (DMC). The program has 72

international banks and 60 DMC banks and operates in over 40 countries in the Eastern

Hemisphere.

The ADB TFFP is a program with unique features which add a great deal of benefit to its use

by the industry. As loan limits are pre-approved, trade processing times and turnaround are

kept to a minimum. No commitment fee is required, which drives deal origination and there

are agreeable reporting requirements, as risk participated transactions are reported post facto on

a monthly basis. ADB’s unique risk-sharing program also provides the ability to fill gaps in

challenging markets. The TFFP could provide additional benefit by increasing the amount of

risk taken by ADB. Increasing flexibility on risk-sharing from 50% up to 100% would be

expected to increase program participation.

The ADB TFFP could also include additional countries into the remit of the program. Several

key regional economies are not covered. As a result, important markets often lack the benefit

of the public-/private-sector trade finance partnership. Likewise, due to the nature of the

region, some prospective issuing banks are state-owned enterprises and are therefore excluded

from the TFFP. Reassessing the parameters whereby state-run banks may use the guarantees,

loans and risk-sharing potential of the TFFP will further enhance the reach and effectiveness of

the program.

4. African Development Bank (AfDB) Trade Finance Initiative

In March 2009, the AfDB established a multi-phase $1 billion Trade Finance Initiative (TFI).

The AfDB launched a new trade finance line of credit (TF LOC) that will allow African

commercial banks and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) to use AfDB resources to

support trade finance operations. The Bank also launched a “multi-purpose” line of credit that

enables the borrower to use the proceeds for trade finance as well as long-term project and

corporate finance operations. The second phase of the program will be run in coordination with

the International Finance Corporation Global Trade Liquidity Program by investing $500

million to increase the share of the program resources targeted for Africa.

The TFI is a new initiative designed to improve trade finance flows in Africa. The majority of

BAFT banks have had limited interaction with the AfDB trade finance programs in the past.

BAFT welcomes the increased availability of diversified funding operations in the region.

Increased marketing to raise awareness of these and other programs would be helpful going

forward. The TF LOC has the ability to provide much needed flexibility for regional African

banks engaged in trade finance. Likewise, the partnership with the IFC Global Trade Liquidity

Program will help directly facilitate Africa trade at a time when essential funding is being

reduced. BAFT recommends that the AfDB also consider long-term options for improving the

flow of pan-African trade. As demand increases, the establishment of a trade finance

6

facilitation program similar to other development banks will help with trade expansion and

firmly establish a continental public-/private-sector partnership in support of African trade.

5. International Finance Corporation (IFC) Global Trade Finance Program

In November 2008, the IFC doubled its Global Trade Finance Program (GTFP) ceiling to $3

billion. The GTFP offers confirming banks partial or full guarantees covering payment risk on

banks in the emerging markets for trade-related transactions. The program comprises 148

issuing banks in 74 countries and operates in emerging markets throughout the world.

The GTFP is generally considered extremely effective by participating banks. The GTFP is

one multilateral trade finance program that takes up to 100% of the risk in a transaction. This

allows confirming banks the flexibility to support issuing banks in deals where a corresponding

relationship has not previously existed. The IFC program could be enhanced by changing

requirements in transactional deal approvals for tri-party agreement (between the IFC, the

issuing bank and the confirming bank). This particular requirement makes the program more

operationally intensive, with slower turnaround times for deal processing. As with other

programs, the GTFP would benefit from a wider pool of issuing banks and by including state-

owned banks in the program.

6. International Finance Corporation (IFC) Global Trade Liquidity Program

The IFC Global Trade Liquidity Program (GTLP) is the newest program to be instituted in

response to the global trade finance crisis. In May 2009, the GTLP was launched by the IFC to

address liquidity issues in trade finance. The program is designed to support up to $50 billion

in international trade in the next three years. In July, the program began dispersing GTLP

funds through the first four participating banks (Standard Chartered Bank, Citigroup,

Rabobank Nederland, and Standard Bank of South Africa) to provide trade finance through a

network of more than 500 banks in over 70 developing countries across all regions. Funds for

the program will be mobilized through the participating banks and the program partners,

including the AfDB, the UK, Canadian and Dutch governments, the Japan Bank for

International Cooperation, the OPEC Fund for International Development, and the Saudi Fund

for Development.

The GTLP is a step forward in addressing a lack of liquidity in the marketplace that has forced

some banks to use scarce funding to support “term” assets rather than self-liquidating short-

term trade transactions. Private-/public-sector partnership programs like these should be

supported and enhanced to address the secondary market and improve trade credit availability,

particularly in emerging market lending, to prevent further contractions in credit availability.

The program also has benefits in addressing credit and liquidity issues directly for tier-one

banks, alongside tier-two banks. BAFT encourages program development and expansion to

include more banks for the disbursement of the GTLP funds. Further evaluation of the

effectiveness of the GTLP is required as it grows. Initial reaction to the program was that,

because its network includes banks in emerging markets that are potentially high risk from a

credit standpoint, pricing on deals under the GTLP may make participation unprofitable for

some institutions. A reevaluation of the program’s risk profile alongside its goals to enhance

liquidity will be an important step to broaden and augment participation going forward.

7

Recommendations for Continued Action:

The work of private-sector institutions, multilateral development agencies, export credit agencies and

global leaders such as the G-20 to address the trade finance crisis has resulted in important

improvements in the overall state of the markets. The need for a sustained partnership to ensure a full,

meaningful, and timely recovery cannot be overstated. To that end, BAFT recommends the following

action:

Reject Protectionist Measures

o Trade-distorting, protectionist measures work against a global recovery. All trading

nations and blocs should recommit to resisting protectionist measures and reaffirm

pledges to not raise their applied tariffs and export taxes and restrictions above current

levels for at least the duration of the crisis.

Support Trade Finance as an Instrument of Growth

o Trade finance fuels global commerce and the availability of trade credit is crucial to

continued growth. Throughout the crisis, outstanding trade obligations should be of

paramount importance to banks and governments. All nations, free trade areas and

custom unions should reaffirm the value of trade and encourage others in the

international community to follow accepted international practice in prioritizing the

repayment of trade obligations. This support of trade finance should be extended to

ensure the strengthening of international fraud prevention in documentary transactions,

in order to preserve the integrity of the trade process.

Continue the Evaluation of Export Credit Agency Programs

o Export credit agencies (ECAs) can further facilitate the flow of trade credit.

Government guarantee programs should be expanded for credit risk mitigation. ECA

programs in developing and emerging markets should be expanded. ECA programs

should be adjusted to address short- and medium-term market needs and capacity

should be leveraged by increasing flexibility for multi-year programs.

Support and Enhance Multilateral Agency Trade Programs to Meet Market Needs

o Enhancements to multilateral trade finance facilitation programs have had a real but

limited impact on markets thus far. They are instrumental in supporting incremental

trade flows and replacing lost credit lines previously provided by private sector banks.

Multilateral Development Agencies help confirming banks continue to do business with

issuing banks during a downturn. As such, they will continue to provide important

support during a recovery when credit and risk limits may still be constrained but

volume has increased. In order for these programs to fully meet market needs, further

enhancements as outlined above are required to expand capacity and coverage.

Address Basel II Implications

o Basel II does not fully incorporate the treatment of trade finance instruments under

Basel I. Risk sensitivity under Basel II amplifies business cycle fluctuations, forcing

8

banks to curtail lending in recessionary climates in order to comply with capital

requirements. BAFT feels that a more rational treatment under Basel II of trade finance,

given its fixed, short-term, self-liquidating nature, will ultimately have a positive effect

on the trade finance markets. Clarification of trade finance treatment under the maturity

floor applied to lending facilities by Basel II, and of data requirements for trade finance

instruments in a number of jurisdictions would be helpful in advancing this goal. These

changes need to be made on country-by-country basis.

BAFT is a financial services trade association headquartered in Washington, D.C., whose membership

represents a broad range of financial institutions and service members throughout the global financial

community. For over 85 years, BAFT has advanced the growth and evolution of international

financial services. As a worldwide forum for analysis, discussion, and advocacy in the international

financial services community, BAFT plays a unique role in expanding markets, shaping regulatory and

legislative policy, developing business solutions and preserving the safety and soundness of the global

financial system. The BAFT website is www.baft.org and telephone number is 202.663.7575.

http://www.baft.org/

9

Appendix I

Market Research & Intelligence for Financial Institutions

Strictly Confidential – For Internal Use Only

Page 0

Trade Finance Services:

Current Environment &

Recommendations: Wave 2

A Survey Among Banks Assessing

the Current Trade Finance Environment

Sponsored by

The International Monetary Fund and the

Bankers’ Association for Finance & Trade

August 2009



Page 1

IMF/BAFT Trade Finance Study:

Wave 2, July 2009

Study Overview & Methodology

Group of Countries Where:

This study is a follow-up to a research initiative conducted in March 2009 to assess thecurrent market environment for global trade finance. As in March, the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and the Bankers’ Association for Finance & Trade (BAFT) havecommissioned FImetrix to conduct this worldwide survey using an Internet basedquestionnaire developed jointly by the IMF, BAFT, and FImetrix, along with commentsprovided by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). It was administered July7th through August 14th , 2009 using a sample of banks from the IMF, BAFT andFImetrix.

Representatives from 88 banks in 44 countries completed the questionnaire. The table,chart and listing below details the composition of the banks that responded to thissurvey.

Small:

Under $5 bil

40%

Medium:

$5 bil - $99.9 bil

32%

Large:

$100 bil +

28%

Total Worldwide Assets

Of Respondent BanksExpressed in US Dollars

Participating Countries

Argentina Ecuador NorwayArmenia France PeruAustralia Georgia PhilippinesAustria Germany PortugalBahrain Hong Kong RussiaBangladesh Ireland South AfricaBelarus Italy Sri LankaBolivia Jordan SwedenBosnia & Herzegovina Kazakhstan SwitzerlandBrazil Macedonia TajikistanCanada Malaysia UkraineChile Moldova United Arab EmiratesColombia Mongolia United KingdomCzech Republic Nepal Unted StatesDenmark Netherlands

TradeTrade Finance

Global HQ Department Activitiesis Located is Located are Focused

IndustrializedCountries 49% 52% 72%

Latin America 17% 26% 32%

Emerging Europe 13% 29% 43%

SoutheastEurope &Central Asia 9% 28% 33%

Developing Asia 8% 18% 36%

Middle East;Maghreb 2% 13% 29%

Emerging Asia,(incl. China, India) 1% 28% 89%

Sub-SaharaAfrica 1% 9% 17%



Page 2


Wave 2, July 2009

Key Findings

▪Banks reported a decline in value for letters of credit (LCs), export credit

insurance (ECI), and short- to medium-term trade financing. Areas most

affected were the Industrialized Countries and Latin America.

▪ The price of trade instruments continues to rise, though at a slower pace.

Except for short-and medium-term lending instruments, the increase in

margins for trade finance instruments was lower than at the end of 2008.

▪ The shift from open account to bank-intermediated trade finance has

continued. An increasing tendency toward cash-in-advance financing also

contributed to the declining share of open account financing.

▪ The probability of default may be starting to stabilize. However, perceived

higher default risks continue to increase the price of credit.

▪ A majority said trade-related guidelines have changed since 2008

Q4. Guidelines have become more cautious with certain countries and

sectors, and they have requested more collateral and shorter tenors.

▪ A majority of banks indicated no change in reliance upon the secondary

markets to mitigate trade finance risks since 2008 Q4.

▪ More than three quarters of banks believe they could meet the increased

demand for trade finance. However, 41% of respondents also noted that

less credit availability in their own institution played a role in the lower value

of trade finance activities, and 40% said credit availability at counterparty

banks played a role.

▪ Among banks that indicated they had an increase in capital

requirements, 43% said that Basel II had a negative impact on their ability to

provide trade finance. Banks in industrialized countries were much more

likely to cite the negative implications of Basel II.

▪ A majority of banks considered a drop in the value of trade transactions to

be most influenced by a fall in the demand for trade finance as compared

to a lack of credit availability during Q2 2009.



Page 3

(Sample pages from survey report follows)


Wave 2, July 2009



Page 4


Wave 2, July 2009

Changes in Value of Trade FinanceSurvey participants were first asked how the

value of their total trade finance activities has

changed over two specific time periods:

year-over-year comparing the 4th Quarter

2008 to the 4th Quarter 2007 (Qtr4’08 vs.

Qtr4’07) and the most recent time period

comparing the 2nd Quarter 2009 to the 4th

Quarter 2008 (Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08).

There was a small increase in value (+4%) of

total trade finance activities in the year-over

year-comparison between the 4th Quarter

2008 and the 4th Quarter 2007. In the more

recent time period, however, the value in

total trade finance activities has dropped an

average of 11%, with over six out of ten

banks (62%) reporting a decrease in value.

IncreasedNo ChangeDecreased

Total Trade Finance Activities

51%

7%

42%

28%

10%

62%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08

Overall Change in Value

Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 4%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 11%

41%

8%

51%

33%

9%

58%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08

Letters of Credit


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 2%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 8%

Export Credit Insurance

Short-term Export

Working Capital

Changes in Value of

Trade Finance by Product Line

20%

47%

33%

22%

43%

35%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 5%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 12%

38%

32%

30%

19%

34%

47%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 2%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 11%

Banks reported a decline in value across all three product lines evaluated for each of

the measured time periods. For Export Credit Insurance and Short-term Export

Working Capital there was a double digit decline in value over the course of the first

half of 2009.



Page 5


Wave 2, July 2009

Changes in Value of Trade Finance Business by Region . . . continued

Emerging Asia Sub-Sahara Africa

Southeast Europe &

Central Asia

Middle East & Maghreb

Developing Asia

IncreasedNo ChangeDecreased

Emerging Europe

Geographic Region

33%

30%

37%

19%

36%

45%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 1%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 9%

28%

37%

35%

27%

35%

38%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 2%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 6%

21%

37%

42%

27%

35%

38%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 5%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 2%

31%

38%

31%

25%

36%

39%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 1%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 6%

44%

12%

44%

43%

12%

45%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 1%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 0%

20%

48%

32%

15%

53%

32%

Qtr4'08 vs

Qtr4'07

Qtr2'09 vs.

Qtr4'08


Qtr4’08 vs. Qtr4’07 3%

Qtr2’09 vs. Qtr4’08 3%

global trade finance markets the road to recovery trade finance markets have shown signs of modest...

Documents