2012 508 accessible version - Export-Import Bank of the United States

Bank’s primary foreign ECA competitors. The “grade” awarded to a particular program
or aspect of Ex-Im Bank competitiveness is based on data and information collected on
the programs and policies of foreign ECAs from the ECAs themselves and other sources
outlined above. In addition, Ex-Im Bank uses the information collected through its
exporter and lender survey process and roundtable discussions to arrive at the
competitive assessment. See below for details on the Ex-Im Bank Lender and Exporter
Survey and Roundtable Discussion methodology. The resulting grade and rationale for
its award is explained in the “Conclusion” section of each chapter. A summary of all of
the grades can be found in Chapter 6. As far as the evaluation of the economic
philosophy and public policy issues, the Report only notes the direction (positive,
neutral, or negative) of their potential competitiveness impact on individual
transactions. See Appendix A for more information on the Report’s grading system and
letter grade definitions used in the calculation of the Ex-Im Bank Grade.
Data Qualification
The data in this report attempts to provide a balanced perspective on the size and scope
of G-11 MLT standard activity and activity associated with the additional OECD ECAs
that have been added to the scope of the 2012 report. This report also estimates the size
and significance of financing offered by non-OECD ECAs. As was done in the 2010 and
2011 reports, this year’s analysis makes a special effort to:
differentiate within the major OECD ECA population between standard, officially
supported export credits that are regulated by the OECD Arrangement, and
“unregulated” credits that could be export-related or those that are not subject to
the OECD Arrangement rules (i.e., untied financing and investment support by
OECD ECAs); and
more precisely quantify the volume of export financing by non-OECD BRIC
ECAs, which refers to commercially-based, “tied” export financing that is
functionally quite similar to activity covered by the OECD Arrangement but on
different – and in some cases more advantageous – terms.
If a foreign ECA provided revised data, that data was updated in the current report. This
explains any discrepancies between this report’s figures and past Competitiveness
Report activity estimates. 6
Once again, data for Chinese activity has been developed using an array of sources,
including published figures from the Chinese ECAs, periodical articles, and information
gained through bilateral exchanges. As noted last year, much of the Chinese activity is
translated from figures for programs which have no counterpart in OECD structures.
Hence, there is a considerable possibility for error in the translation. The lack of
6 Dollar volume data contained in the Report is in non-inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars.
12