Example collocations logo

Lending in sentence

1319 examples of Lending in a sentence

Just a short time ago, the IMF seemed relegated to a sustained period of irrelevance as it failed to modernize either its euro-centric political representation or its arcane government-to-government lending facilities.
World leaders should be happy that the IMF stands ready to take the lead in the next phase of the global financial crisis, even if its lending resources of approximately $250 billion are inadequate to stem the current run on emerging markets.
But it would be a terrible mistake simply to super-size the IMF in its current guise by greatly scaling up its lending facilities, as many propose.
The IMF’s lending resources have shrunk dramatically relative to world trade and income compared over the past 50 years.
The IMF does not have an adequate framework for handling the massive defaults that could easily attend a huge surge in lending, much less the political will to distinguish between countries that are facing genuine short-term liquidity problems and countries that are actually facing insolvency problems.
As tempting as it may be to ramp up IMF lending on a long-term basis, this would be a strategic mistake for both the world and the Fund.
But super-sizing the Fund, without sufficient governance improvements and lending constraints, would give the world too much of a good thing.
We must end the vicious circle whereby the use of taxpayers’ funds – more than €4.5 trillion ($5.7 trillion) so far – to rescue banks weakens governments’ budgets, while increasingly risk-averse banks stop lending to businesses that need funds, undermining the economy further.
But in bad times, when it is important to keep banks lending, bank capital would automatically be increased by the debt-to-equity conversion.
This is particularly true with respect to lending in foreign currencies to economic agents that do not have revenues in those currencies.
After expanding across national borders with the creation of the euro, eurozone banks have now reduced cross-border lending and other claims within the eurozone by $2.8 trillion since the end of 2007.
A crucial part of this agenda is the removal of constraints on foreign direct investment and foreign investor purchases of equities and bonds, which are far more stable types of capital flows than bank lending.
Progress on this front would enable equity and bond markets to provide an important alternative to bank lending for the largest companies – and free up capital for banks to lend to SMEs and consumers.
Interbank lending rates are slowly coming down, but they are still far higher than they should be, share prices continue to be volatile, and conditions in global markets remain fragile.
It restrains excessive credit expansion during booms, while reducing the risk of bank failure or a much diminished capital base in recessions, thereby enabling bank lending to kick-start a sustainable recovery.
Even after the Soviet Union’s repudiation of czarist Russia’s debts – perhaps the twentieth century’s most notorious (and most misunderstood) debt default – certain creditors expressed interest in lending to the new regime, in part because Soviet agencies repaid debt that they considered legitimate.
There is nothing wrong with imposing market discipline on countries that follow unsound policies, but the risk-reward ratio for lending and investing has shifted too far against the periphery.
Aid for agriculture fell by more than half in the quarter-century after 1980, as the World Bank cut agricultural lending from $7.7 billion in 1980 to $2 billion in 2004.
Fear of default in distressed countries is then transformed into doubts about the sustainability of core countries’ banks, as their lending to the weaker economies comes under scrutiny.
Foreign goods are subject to national safety and product-information standards; capital flows are managed by controls on bank lending; and migration is limited by an array of checks and conditions.
In Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, the bad lending of German and French banks in the bubble years was primarily to local banks rather than to the government.
The final blow came when interbank lending, which is at the heart of the financial system, was disrupted because banks had to husband their resources and could not trust their counterparties.
It was not deficit spending by governments that fueled the economic collapse of 2007-2008, but excessive lending by banks.
This might stimulate real growth through several channels: by reducing lending rates, by raising the nominal value of public and private assets, and by weakening the euro against the dollar and other currencies.
For example, following criticism of the “Employing Workers” indicator, the International Finance Corporation (the World Bank’s private-sector lending arm) conducted a review and removed it as a contributing factor to the rankings.
Instead, US banks, widely blamed for the international lending boom that preceded the bust, were so intimidated and weakened that the flow of American credit stopped.
“Surplus” Chinese savings made possible America’s credit expansion between 2003-2005, when the federal funds rate (the overnight rate at which US banks lend to one another) was held at 1%.Ultra-cheap money produced a surge in sub-prime mortgage lending – a market that collapsed when interest rates increased steadily after 2005, reaching 5%.The financial crisis of 2008 was the start of a highly painful, but inevitable, process of de-leveraging.
As banks are encouraged to loosen lending standards, especially for middle-income households, an upswing in residential construction and debt-financed consumption should add further growth impetus.
Once they peak and begin to decline, lending conditions tighten, and banks find themselves repossessing houses whose value does not cover the value of the debt.
Banks began to slow their new lending, and defaults on mortgages began to rise.
BackNext