Tag Archives: U.S.

Threats to Financial Hegemony

Leave a reply

The U.S. came out of World War II with the largest economy and a predominant place in the post-WW II international financial order. It was the only nation that could provide the international leadership that Charles Kindleberger wrote was necessary to avoid catastrophic events such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in return for stability the U.S. also received a degree of control, and that legacy is under attack today.

American financial hegemony evolved in the years following the end of WW II.  Capital flows were severely regulated under the Bretton Woods regime so that national governments could maintain autonomy over national monetary policy and also to avoid destabilizing speculation. But as international trade picked up the dollar served as a vehicle currency, which led to the U.S. serving in the role of what Emile Despres, Charles Kindleberger and Walter Salant called the “world’s banker.”

In 1971 President Richard Nixon revoked the U.S. pledge to accept dollars from foreign central banks in exchange for gold. But the end of this linkage did not diminish the use of dollars as an international reserve currency. Private capital flows continued to expand as governments deregulated their capital accounts and the dollar had a central role in the growing international financial markets.

Andrew Sobel identified the attributes of a financial hegemon in Birth of Hegemony. These include large and liquid capital markets and openness to foreign capital flows. In addition, Kindleberger in his account of the role of an international financial leader in The World In Depression specifically referred to the need for international liquidity. U.S. government actions, including those of the Federal Reserve, have been consistent with these principles (see here). Capital flows are largely unregulated, while the Federal Reserve has used swap agreements to provide dollars to foreign central banks which in turn could use them to maintain dollar funding in foreign financial markets.

Consequently, while other currencies such as the euro and the Japanese yen have been considered as possible rivals for the dollar, no single viable alternative has emerged. But Serkan Arslanap of the IMF, Barry Eichengreen of UC-Berkeley and Chima Simpson-Bell, also of the IMF, have shown in their IMF working paper, “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies,”  that the composition of international reserves has shifted away from the dollar over time. This decline has been offset by a rise in what they call nontraditional currencies, including the Chinese renminbi but also the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Swiss franc.

Two recent developments have reopened the question of the continued central role of the dollar. The first is the seizure of more than $300 billion of foreign currency assets of the Russian central bank in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This seizure, while not unprecedented, raises legal and political questions. To date the U.S. and its European allies have resisted confiscating these funds to assist the Ukrainian government, but the pressure to do so will mount as the war continues. The confiscation of the Russian central bank’s assets certainly causes other foreign central banks to reassess the composition of their foreign exchange holdings. Moreover, the People’s Bank of China has established its own swap lines to foreign central banks.

The second event is the debate that took place within the U.S. over the debt ceiling. This political theater was resolved, but the opposition of some Republican legislators to any increase in the U.S. Treasury’s borrowing authority triggered a reassessment of whether U.S. Treasury bonds are truly “safe assets.” When governments default on their debt, it usually is because economic conditions have curbed their ability to raise funds through domestic taxes or to roll over their debt. The U.S. situation is different: the government faced a self-inflicted attempt to force the Treasury into a position where it might not have made payments on its debt. Several bank failures had already, according to the IMF, shown the extent of U.S. financial fragility, and a debt default would have severely escalated the volatility.

Either of these events—the confiscation of Russian assets or the threat of a failure to raise the U.S. debt ceiling—is probably sufficient to increase the pace of currency diversification in central bank reserves.  But replacing  the U.S. dollar in the international financial system will be a more complicated task. First, as Michael Pettis has observed, the global role of the dollar allows the U.S. to offset the savings imbalances that exist in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. If the U.S. did not offset the current account surpluses of those and other countries, then either they would have to find a substitute or increase their domestic demand.

Second, international capital markets still deal in dollars. Bafundi Maronoti of the Bank for International Settlements points out in his examination of the international role of the dollar in the December 2022 issue of the BIS Quarterly Review that “About half of all international debt securities and cross-border loans issued in these offshore funding markets are denominated in USD.” It is difficult to imagine how any other currency could take the place of the dollar in these markets.

There are legitimate questions, therefore, about the dominance of the U.S. dollar in international finance. Central banks will continue to diversify the currency denominations of their foreign exchange holdings. But the dollar’s central role in global financial flows will not be easily replaced.

The Rising Dollar

Leave a reply

The foreign currency value of the dollar has been rising. The nominal broad dollar index of the Federal Reserve shows the dollar has incresed by by about 9% since its low point a year ago while other indexes register larger gains. What does this mean for the U.S. and other economies?

The appreciation reflects several factors. First, higher interest rates make investing in dollar-denominated assets more appealing, particularly since many other major central banks lag the Federal Reserve’s in its monetary tightening. The European Central Bank will not begin to raise its rates until July, while the Bank of Japan has no plans to change its accomodative policy stance. Second, the dollar’s “safe asset” status draws investors who fear the economic and political uncertainty due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Third, the COVID19 lockdowns in China have disrupted its economy, while the U.S. has not (yet) exhibited any significant slowdown.

A rising dollar will contribute to the increasing U.S. trade deficit. American consumers may be losing confidence because of inflation, but they are still purchasing foreign goods. Lower import prices will assist the Fed in combatting inflation, which could slow future hikes in interest rates..

 The dollar’s appreciation will also have an impact on the foreign-based revenues and profits of U.S. based multinationals. A 2018 S&P 500 research paper by Philip Brzenk showed that changes in the value of the dollar had an impact on S&P 500 companies with significant foreign activities. An appreciation (depreciation) of the dollar lowers (raises) the value of the foreign earnings of those companies with major foreign currency exposure, which is accompanied by decreases (increases) in the values of their share prices relative to those firms in the S&P 500 with little foreign exposure. A decline in foreign-sourced income will also affect the net income balance of the U.S. balance of payments, contributing to a further weakening of the current account.

The impact on foreign economies of the rising dollar is also mixed. On the one hand, those countries that export to the U.S. should benefit from lower prices for their goods. However, this effect is mitigated when their export prices are denominated in dollars.  Emine Boz, Camila Casas, Georgios Georgiadis, Gita Gopinath, Helena Le Mezo, Arnaud Mehl and Tra Nguyen of the IMF drew attention to the growing use of the dollar as a vehicle currency and the implications for trade balances in a 2020 IMF working paper, “Patterns in Invoicing Currency in Global Trade.”

Moreover, any expansionary effect due to increased trade can be offset by what has been called the “finance channel.” The financial channel reflects the impact of the exchange rate on the value of foreign currency liabilities, such as loans taken in a foreign currency. An appreciating dollar will raise the domestic value of those liabilities. Jonathan Kearns and Nikhil Patel of the Bank for International Settlements examined these channels in their article, “Does the Financial Channel of Exchange Rates Offset the Trade Channel?”, which appeared in the December 2016 issue of the BIS Quarterly Review. They found evidence that the financial channel partly offsets the trade channel for emerging market economies (EMEs) but that it is weaker for the advanced economies.

Similarly, Boris Hoffman and Taejon Park of the BIS reported that a dollar apperciation contributes to a deterioration of growth prospects of emerging market economies in their 2020 BIS Quarterly Review paper, “The Broad Dollar Exchange Rate as an EME Risk Factor.” They found that a dollar appreciation dampens investment growth, and even export growth. These effects were larger in countries with high dollar debt and high foreign investor presence in local currency bond markets, which conttibute to the financial channel.

Another examination of the impact of changes in the value of the dollar on emerging market economies was undertaken by Pablo Druck, Nicolas E. Magud and Rodrigo Mariscal of the IMF in “Collateral Damage: Dollar Strength and Emerging Markets’ Growth,” which appeared in the North American Journal of Economics and Finance in 2018 (IMF working paper version here). They found evidence of a negative relationship between the strength of the dollar and emerging markets’ growth. They attributed this empirical relationship to two channels of transmission: first, a negative linkage with commodity prices that depresses demand for the exports of commodity producers; second, an increase in the cost of imported capital imports that are necessary for growth. While supply shocks will keep commodity prices elevated, the price of capital imports has already risen due to widespread inflation.

The impact of the appreciation of the dollar will spread far outside U.S. borders. These effects will occcur in countries already grappling with higher food and energy costs, and the consequences of a slowing Chinese economy. A global recession is not inevitable, but the IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva is not exagerating when she says that the world economy faces “its biggest test since the second world war.”

When Safe Assets Are No Longer Safe

Leave a reply

The U.S. has long benefitted from its ability to issue “safe assets” to the rest of the world. These usually take the form of U.S. Treasury bonds, although there was a period before the 2008-09 global financial crisis when mortgage-backed securities with Triple A ratings were also used for this purpose. The inflow of foreign savings has offset the persistent current account deficits, and put downward pressure on interest rates. But what will happen if U.S. government bonds are no longer considered safe?

The word safe has been used to describe different aspects of financial securities. The U.S. government in the past was viewed as committed to meeting its debt obligations, although the political theater around Congressional passage of the federal debt limit has introduced a note of uncertainty. In an extreme case, the U.S., like other sovereign borrowers with their own currencies, has the ability to print dollars to make debt payments. However, there is also a constituency of U.S. bondholders who would vehemently object if they were paid in inflated dollars.

Safety has also been linked with liquidity. U.S. financial markets are deep and active. Moreover, there is little concern that the government will impose capital controls on these portfolio flows (although FDI is now being scrutinized to deny access to domestic technology). Therefore, foreign holders of U.S. Treasury bonds can be confident that they can sell their holdings without disrupting the bond markets and contributing to sudden declines in bond prices.

However, there has always been another implicit component of the safety feature of Treasury bonds. Bondholders expect that they can claim their assets whenever they need to use them. The decision by the U.S. and European governments to deny the Russian central bank access to its own reserves has shown that foreign holders of assets placed on deposit in the U.S. or the other G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom) may not be able to use these assets at precisely the times when they are most needed. The Russian central bank had accumulated about $585 billion, but approximately half of that amount is no longer available. The central bank still has access to about $80 billion held in China and $29 billion at international institutions, as well as its holdings of gold. But the latter will be hard to convert to foreign currency if potential buyers are concerned about retaliatory sanctions.

The loss of access deprives the Russian central bank of foreign currency that could have helped the government deal with sanctions on its foreign trade. Moreover, the monetary authorities have not been able to use their reserves to halt the rapid decline in the ruble’s value. The other sanctions, therefore, will have a deep impact on the Russian economy. The Institute of International Finance has issued a forecast of a drop in its GDP of 15% in 2022 and another decline the following year.

The use of sanctions to cut off a central bank’s access to its own reserves raises questions concerning the structure of the international financial system. Other central banks will reassess their holdings and consider alternatives to how they are held. But what other country has safe and liquid capital markets that are not subject to capital controls and are not vulnerable to U.S. and European sanctions?  The Chinese currency is used by some central banks, but it is doubtful that there will be a wide-spread transition from dollars to the renminbi.

Another concern has arisen regarding the ability of the U.S. government to meet its obligations. In order to satisfy a continued demand for safe assets, the government will need to continue to run budget deficits. But increases in the debt/GDP ratio leads to concerns about the creditworthiness of the government. This problem has been called a “new Triffin dilemma,” similar to the problem that emerged during the Bretton Woods era when the U.S. was pledged to be ready to exchange the dollar holdings of foreign central banks for gold. Economist Robert Triffin pointed out that the ability of the government to meet this obligation was threatened once the dollar liabilities of the U.S. exceeded its gold holdings. The “gold window” was finally shut in the summer of 1971 by President Richard Nixon.

These long-term concerns are arising just as the market for U.S. Treasury bonds has entered a new phase. The combination of higher inflation and changes in the Federal Reserve’s policy stance have led to increases in the rate of return on U.S. Treasury bonds to about 2.5%. With an annual increase in the CPI minus food and energy of approximately 6%, that leaves the real rate at -3.5%. Several more increases in the Federal Funds Rate will be needed to raise the real rate to positive values.

A fall in the demand for U.S. Treasury bonds by foreign banks and private holders would contribute to lower bond prices and higher yields. All this could affect the Federal Reserve’s policy moves if the Fed thought that it needed to factor lower foreign demand for Treasury bonds into their projections. Moreover, a shift from U.S. bonds would affect the financial account of the U.S., and the ability to run current account deficits.  The exchange rate would also be affected by such a transition.

None of these possible changes will take place in the short-run. Central bankers have more pressing concerns, such as the impact of higher food and fuel prices on domestic inflation rates, and foreign central bankers will focus on the changes in the Fed’s policies, as well as those of the European Central Bank. But the sanctions on the use of foreign reserve assets will surely lead to changes over time in the amounts of reserves held by central banks as well as their composition. The imposition of these measures may one day be seen as part of a wider change in the international financial system that marks the end of globalization as we have known it.

The 2021 Globie: “Three Days at Camp David” and “The Global Currency Power of the US Dollar”

Leave a reply

Fall is the time of the year to announce the recipient of this year’s “Globie”, i.e., the Globalization Book of the Year. The prize is strictly honorific and does not come with a check. But the award gives me a chance to draw attention to a recent book—or books—that are particularly insightful about globalization. Previous winners are listed at the bottom of the column.

This year there are two winners, Jeff Garten for Three Days at Camp David and Anthony Elson for The Global Currency Power of the US Dollar. Each book deals with the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the global financial system. Together they provide a fascinating account of how the dollar came to hold—and hold onto—this role.

Garten looks at the decision by President Richard Nixon in the summer of 1971 to end the link between the dollar and gold, a central foundation of the Bretton Woods system. Foreign central pegged their exchange rates to the dollar, which was convertible to gold by the U.S. government for $35 an ounce. This arrangement reflected the U.S. position at the end of World War II as the predominant economic power, able to use its influence at Bretton Woods to ensure a dollar-dominated system.

But the imbalance between the U.S. and the rest of the world shifted during the 1950s, particularly as Germany and Japan emerged as economic powers with growing trade surpluses. U.S. government spending resulted in growing foreign holdings of dollars. Yale Professor Robert Triffin pointed out that the ability of the U.S. to exchange its gold for dollars was deteriorating, and this incipient crisis became known as the “Triffin dilemma.” By 1971 this situation was no longer sustainable. Foreign central banks held about $40 billion in dollars while U.S. gold holdings had fallen to $10 billion. Speculators were taking positions on the response of the U.S. and other central banks in a global chicken game.

Garten describes the main players in the decision to end the link with the dollar. Nixon had appointed John Connolly as Treasury Secretary mainly because of Connolly’s political skills.  Connolly in turn depended on the expertise in international finance of Paul Volcker, then under secretary of the Treasury for international monetary affairs. George Schulz was known for his organizational expertise and served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Arthur Burns, Chair of the Federal Reserve, sought to serve Nixon while maintaining some semblance of institutional autonomy. Other participants in the decision included Paul McCracken of the Council of Economic Advisors and Peter Peterson of the White House Council on International Economic Policy.

These men (yes, all men) had different perspectives on the best way to handle the crisis. Volcker and Burns shared an appreciation of the existing framework, and wanted to consult with their counterparts in other countries on reforming the system. Schulz, influenced by his background at the University of Chicago, looked forward to a day when flexible exchange rates would replace pegged rates. Connolly, on the other hand, had no ideological agenda. He sought to promote American interests and Nixon’s re-election, and saw the two as entirely compatible.

Nixon, Garten makes clear, was concerned about the impact of the situation on his 1972 election campaign, and his response must be understood in that context. Nixon consulted with these advisors at Camp David on the weekend of August 13 – 15 on how best to meet the dollar crisis. After a broad discussion, the decision to end the link of the dollar with gold sales was made. The rest of the weekend was spent on deciding on how to present the issue to the American public and U.S. allies.

Nixon spoke that Sunday night, making the case on the need to achieve economic prosperity in the aftermath of the Vietnam war. Other measures he presented included a tax credit for investment, a freeze on wages and prices and the establishment of a Cost of Living Council to enact measures to control inflation, and a 10% temporary tariff on imports. He justified the latter on the “unfair edge” that competitors had gained while the U.S. promoted their post-World War II recovery.

The U.S. subsequently negotiated with the other leading advanced economies on establishing new fixed rates, but the effort was unsuccessful. By March 1973, almost all of the Western European economies and Japan had embraced flexible exchange rates. The Jamaica Accords of 1978 marked the official of the Bretton Woods exchange rate system. Central banks could continue to peg their currencies against the dollar, but there was no obligation on the U.S. to support the “non-system.”

Anthony Elson brings the story forward in time to explain the continuing dominant position of the dollar. It is doubtful that anyone in 1971 or 1978 would have predicted a key role for the dollar in the post-Bretton Woods era, and Elson shows that the dollar’s continued dominance reflects several factors. First, the dollar continues to be used for invoicing international trade, even for non-U.S. trade flows. The dollar is used for this purpose in order to minimize transaction costs, as well as its record of macro stability. Second, the continued dominance of financial markets in the U.S. draws foreign investors looking for safe and liquid markets. This in turn has encouraged the growth of dollar-based financing outside the U.S. Third, the dollar continues to the most commonly-used currency for the foreign exchange reserves of central banks. U.S. Treasury bonds are seen as a global “safe asset.”

All this, Elson points out, bring benefits for U.S. traders and investors, who can use the dollar to purchase foreign goods and assets. In addition, the government can finance a continuing current account deficit through its provision of U.S. Treasury bonds. The foreign demand  for these securities also lowers the cost of financing the fiscal deficits. On the political side, the government has learned how to use access to the dollar-based international clearing system as a tool of foreign policy, effectively “weaponzing the dollar.”

Can this system continue? The “new Triffin dilemma” has arisen as a result of the relative decline of the U.S. economy in terms of its share of world GDP at the same time as the demand for safe assets continues to grow. An increase in the issuance of U.S. securities to finance fiscal deficits coupled to the political posturing over the debt ceiling may threaten the confidence of foreign investors in the ability of the U.S. government to meet its obligations, much as the declining gold stock led to the 1971 crisis.

But what alternatives are there? The Eurozone and China have grown in size and importance and their currencies may serve as regional rivals for the dollar. But a multipolar reserve currency system may itself be unstable. The IMF’s Special Drawing Rights were designed to supplement the dollar, but their use has been limited, and it would take concerted intergovernmental action to encourage its use. Digital currencies may change how we view money, and central banks are actively investigating their use.

There is little history to provide a guide on the circumstances that lead to a change in the hegemonic currency. The dollar began to rival the British pound in usage in the 1920s as the U.S. economy rapidly grew. But the transition was finalized by the costs to Great Britain of fighting World War II. If a peaceful transition to a new reserve currency system is to take place, it will require more international cooperation than has been shown on other issues.

 

2020    Tim Lee, Jamie Lee and Kevin Coldiron, The Rise of Carry: the Dangerous Consequences of Volatility Suppression and the New Financial Order of Decaying Growth and Recurring Crisis

2019    Branko Milanovic, Capitalism Alone: the Future of the System That Rules the World

2018    Adam Tooze, Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

2017   Stephen D. King, Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History

2016    Branko Milanovic,  Global Inequality

2015   Benjamin J. Cohen,  Currency Power: Understanding Monetary Rivalry

The Global Impact of the Fed’s Pivot on Asset Purchases

Leave a reply

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced last month that the Fed would slow its purchases of bonds, most likely by the end of this year. The timing of the cutback will depend on several factors related to the economy, and last week’s disappointing employment report if repeated could push back the date. The financial markets will now begin anticipating the impact of the reduction in the Fed’s asset holdings.

The origins of the increase in the Fed’s holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securites can be traced back to the global financial crisis. The Fed’s assets grew from $870 billion in August 2007 to $2 trillion in early 2009. When the Fed introduced its quantitative easing program, it claimed that the purchases of bonds would lead to lower long-term interest rates more quickly than if it relied only on lowering the Federal Funds rate. In addition, the purchases showed the Fed’s commitment to keeping interest rates low in order to boost the economic recovery. This latter form of signaling was called “forward guidance.”

Subsequent quantitative easing programs eventually raised its holdings to $4.5 trillion by 2015. The Fed maintained that level until 2018, when it allowed its holdings to fall as bonds matured. But it reversed course in 2019, and the Fed responded to the pandemic in the spring of 2020 by ramping up its purchases of assets in order to support the financial markets. Its asset holdings now total about $8.3 trillion.

The Fed has not been alone in using asset purchases as a tool of policy. The European Central Bank increased its holdings of bonds during the period preceding the pandemic from 2 trillion Euros at the end of 2014 to 4.6 trillion Euros. It accelerated its purchases last year and now holds about 8.2 trillion Euros in assets. The Bank of Japan and the Bank of England have their own versions of asset purchase programs. Many of these central banks have also announced changes in the pace of their asset purchases.

When then Fed chair Ben Bernanke noted in 2013 that continued strengthening of the economy could lead to a cutback in asset purchases, this was interpreted as a sign that the Fed would also allow interest rates to rise. This led to the infamous “taper tantrum,” as financial markets overreacted to the prospects of higher interest rates. The response included capital outflows from emerging market countries such as India as their exchange rates depreciated and their own asset markets fell in value. Stability was eventually reestablished once the Fed clarified that it had no plans to enact a contractionary policy, but the incident demonstrated the volatility of financial markets, particularly in the emerging market countries.

Powell has sought to avoid such an outcome by explicitly delinking asset purchases from interest rates. He pledged to keep the Federal Funds rate at its current setting until “maximum employment and sustained 2% inflation” area achieved. The (lack of a)  response in the financial markets to Powell’s speech seemed to indicate that this promise was seen as credible, despite concerns about inflation.

But there will be consequences when the Fed cuts back on its asset purchases. The increases in the Fed’s balance sheet, as well as those of the other central banks, released a wave of liquidity with wide-ranging consequences. In the U.S. it has kept stock price valuations at elevated levels, which contributes to widening wealth inequality. For example, in 2019 families in the top 10% of the income distribution owned 70% of total stock values. Similarly, the provision of easy credit has contributed to rising housing prices that also reflects demand and supply conditions.

The increase in liquidity also benefited emerging markets and developing economies. In the period immediately before the pandemic the World Bank warned that the world had experienced a rise in debt, both private and government. Total debt in the emerging markets and developing economies had risen from 114% of their GDP in 2010 to 170% at the end of 2018. Part of this increase reflected accommodative monetary policies in the advanced economies and a search for higher yield by investors in those countries. A rising global demand for the bonds of the emerging market and developing economies countries was met by an increase in their issuance.

These countries suffered massive reversals of foreign capital in the spring of 2020. The “sudden stops” confirmed the existence of a global financial cycle that can overwhelm vulnerable economies. But the withdrawals were soon reversed, in part because investors were reassured by the rapid responses of central banks in the advanced economies to the financial meltdown.

There are many who voice concerns about the ending of the current financial cycle. Mohammed El-Erian, president of Queens’ College of Cambridge University, is worried about the excessive risk-taking that the financial sector has undertaken in response to its “unhealthy codependency” with central banks.  Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business is alarmed about the impact that future interest rate hikes could have on government finances. Jeremy Grantham of asset management firm GMO believes that the stock market will experience a massive crash. And IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva is concerned about a diveregence in the prospects of advanced economies and a few emerging markets versus those of most developing economies that could lead to a debt crisis.

Much of the impact of the policy changes at the Federal Reserve depends on how the financial markets respond to the slowdown in purchases, and whether the Fed is successful in delinking a cutback in asset purchases from its interest rate policy. The lack of a strong response in the bond markets suggests that there has not been a change in expectations of future interest rates. But ouside the U.S. there is always the prospect that a slowdown in economic growth and the continuation of the pandemic imperil the solvency of corporate and government borrowers. These developments would be enough to fuel a debt crisis despite the Fed’s careful footwork.

The Guardians of the Financial Galaxy

Leave a reply

The rapid expansion of the pandemic and the ensuing economic and financial collapses brought about responses by policymakers, including actions undertaken on an international basis. The Federal Reserve acted together with other central banks to ensure that an adequate supply of dollars was available to support dollar-based financing outside the U.S. Similarly, the IMF moved rapidly to provide financial support to its members. These national and international institutions constitute a “two tier” system in international finance that occupies the role of lender of last resort.

International cooperation has occurred before, and Michael Bordo of Rutgers University gives an account of these efforts in a new NBER working paper, “Monetary Policy Coordination an Global Financial Crises in Historical Perspective.” During the Bretton Woods era, central banks cooperated to sustain the fixed exchange rate system. In 1962, the U.S. established bilateral currency swaps with foreign central banks, which provided dollars to be used in support of their exchange rates.

The swaps continued in the 1970s after the termination of the Bretton Woods regime as policymakers sought to control the volatility of exchange rates. During the early and mid-1980s there were episodes of coordination of foreign exchange market intervention by central banks as governments in the advanced economies sought to stabilize the value of the dollar. But these occurred less frequently in the late 1980s as inflation fell in most of these countries and foreign exchange market intervention became less common.

The outbreak of crises in emerging markets in the 1990s required a joint response, and the IMF took on the role of crisis manager. During the Asian crisis of 1997-98, for example, the Fund provided credit to the governments of the countries in crisis. Their programs included conditions that required included cutbacks in government spending and credit creation, and frequently a currency devaluation. However, the IMF’s policies came under immediate criticism as inappropriate and overly severe. These were not crises based on excessive government spending, but rather financial collapses. The IMF paid a high price in its reputation for its handling of the Asian crisis, but learned a valuable lesson: financial instability can impose a serious cost.

The financial crisis of 2007-09 provided another major challenge to global financial stability and the need for a coordinated response. Banks in Europe and Japan had borrowed dollars to acquire dollar-denominated assets, such as mortgage-based securities. Their access to dollar funding was threatened as the interbank markets for dollars came under strain. In December of 2007, the Federal Reserve announced that it was establishing swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank. At the crisis escalated in 2008, the Federal Reserve set up similar arrangements with the central banks of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. It also arranged swap arrangements with the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore, emerging market economies with substantial exposure to dollar-based financing. The Federal Reserve and the foreign central banks exchanged currencies, and the foreign central banks lent the dollars to its domestic banks that needed them. At the conclusion of the swap period, the currency exchanges were reversed using the same exchange rate, and the central banks would pay the Fed a fee based on what it had charged their own banks.

These arrangements differed from previous efforts in that they were designed to address financial instability, not exchange rate values. The dollar had become the primary global funding currency, so a decrease in dollar liquidity would have had widespread effects. The joint activities of the Federal Reserve and its partner central banks were successful in bringing down the cost of dollar lending in the foreign markets and avoiding the collapse of foreign institutions with dollar liabilities.

The IMF was also active during the crisis. Not all central banks were able to exchange currencies with the Federal Reserve, and the IMF served as an alternative source of financing. During the period from September 2008 through the following summer, the IMF instituted 17 Stand-By Arrangements. The economic policies that were part of these programs reflected an awareness of the origin and severity of the global downturn. Credit was disbursed more quickly and in larger amounts than had occurred in the past and there were fewer conditions attached to the programs. Consequently, the IMF’s record during the great recession was very different from that of the Asian financial crisis.

During the current crisis, central banks and the IMF have built upon and expanded the policies they undertook in 2008-09. Once again, global dollar financing came under strain. In March the Federal Reserve renewed or set up swap facilities with the central banks of 14 countries. In addition, it established a repurchase facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA) that would allow them to temporarily exchange their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities for dollars.

These efforts were successful in preventing a collapse of dollar financing. Nicola Cetorelli, Linda S. Goldberg and Fabiola Ravazzolo of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York investigated the impact of the Federal Reserve’s facilities by comparing the foreign exchange swap basis spreads of currencies covered by the agreements with those on other currencies. They found that  ”… the swap lines have been an important factor helping to improve market conditions and expand access to dollar liquidity during the period of peak strains in global U.S. dollar funding markets.” They added that the Federal Reserve was engaging in a wide range of other actions that could also have impacted this market.

The central banks that obtained the dollars were able to use them to support banks that provided dollars to other parties in their countries. For example, Gianluca Persi of the European Central Bank showed that the Eurosystems’s use of the swap lines”…not only helped banks to satisfy their immediate U.S. dollar funding needs but also supported market activity.” He concludes that “The swap lines between central banks therefore helped to mitigate the effects of the strains in the U.S. dollar funding market.”

The IMF has also been active in meeting the needs of its members. The IMF has used its rapid financial assistance programs (Rapid Financing Instrument, Rapid Credit Facility) to make loans to 76 countries. These loans do not require full programs or reviews, and carry little conditionality. The IMF is also adjusting existing programs to meet the need for health-related expenditures.

The IMF is making special efforts for its low-income members. It is providing grants to its poorest members to cover the IMF debt obligations. In March the IMF and World Bank called on official bilateral creditors to suspend debt service payments from low-income countries. The Group of 20 governments responded by agreeing to suspend repayment of official bilateral credit from these nations until the end of 2020. The IMF, the World Bank and the G20 also called for private sector creditors to participate in similar debt relief on comparable terms.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the opening of this spring’s meeting pledged to use the Fund’s  $1 trillion lending capacity to support its members. She also urged governments to be active in addressing the needs of their citizens. In a speech at the London School of Economics on October 6, she pointed out that “flexible and forward-leaning fiscal policy will be critical for the recovery to take hold.” She also called for measures to deal with the debt of low-income countries, including “access to more grants, concessional credit and debt relief, combined with better debt management and transparency.”

A division of labor, therefore, has evolved between the Federal Reserve and the IMF during periods of widespread instability. The Federal Reserve provides dollars to other central banks in upper-income countries and selected emerging market economies to preserve stability in the global financial markets. Since the Federal Reserve lends to central banks, there is little concern about insolvency. In many ways it assumes the traditional role of lender of last resort as conceived by Bagehot and other nineteenth century economists.

In normal times the IMF lends to governments in middle- and low-income countries with balance of payments crises and possible insolvency. The Fund disburses credit in programs that operate over a time horizon at least a year and sometimes longer. However, during the global financial crisis and now the current crisis, the IMF ramps up its lending. It provides credit quickly at little if any cost, and its programs seek to stabilize economic activity. Moreover, the IMF takes public positions to advocate fiscal stimulus and debt relief.

Stanley Fischer, who served as First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF from 1994 to 2001, saw the need for an international lender of last resort for countries facing an external financial crisis, and claimed that the IMF had played that role in the 1980s and 1990s. In subsequent years it became clear that central bankers in advanced economies preferred to deal with each other and organize their own programs. There have been periodic calls for the IMF to become more involved in swap networks, but the central banks have shown no interest in involving the IMF in their networks. The two-tier system functioned relatively well in 2008-09 and to date has stabilized financial markets. But the number of coronavirus cases are surging, and there are concerns about another recession in the U.S. and Europe. The current system to back stop financial markets and institutions will be tested in new ways that may show its limitations.

The Return of Global Imbalances?

Leave a reply

The global economic contraction following the pandemic has led to a massive fiscal response. Governments have acknowledged the need to increase spending in order to offset the declines in consumption and investment. The decreases in public savings can lead to rising current account deficits that offset the capital inflows needed to cover the gap between savings and investment. But will these measures generate a return to the global imbalances that preceded the global financial crisis?

The IMF’s External Sector Report for 2020, subtitled Global Imbalances and the COVID-19 Crisis, appeared in August (see a summary here). The analysis was based on data from 2019, when the global current account imbalance (the absolute sum of all surpluses and deficits) fell by 0.2 of a percentage point to 2.9% of global GDP. But the report’s authors also considered the impact of the pandemic on countries’ balance of payments.

The IMF’s analysis suggested that about 40% of the 2019 current account positions were excessive. Larger than warranted surpluses were registered by Germany and the Netherlands, while deficits were larger than warranted in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. China’s external position was in line with its fundamentals and policies.

In the report the IMF anticipated that in 2020 the U.S. would report a current account deficit equal to 0.5% of world GDP. Canada and the U.K.’s deficits were each projected to be equal in value to about 0.1% of global output. China was expected to register a surplus of about 0.2% of world GDP, as were Germany and Japan. These forecasts come with a large degree of uncertainty, and the report’s authors acknowledge that global financial stress could lead to more capital flow reversals and larger imbalances.

More recent data show clearly that the U.S. and China are running the largest current account imbalances in absolute terms. Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations points out that Chinese firms have benefitted from the demand for electronic goods as workers stay at home, as well as the need for personal protective equipment. Moreover, the Chinese government has supported its firms that export, with less direct support for households. The U.S. has provided more direct support to households.

The fiscal responses of the two countries to the pandemic also differ. The Economist estimates that the 2020 U.S. budget balance will show a deficit equal to 15.3% of its GDP, while China’s deficit is estimated at 5.6% of GDP. Part of the U.S. fiscal deficit will be offset by household savings, which increased last spring to over 30% of disposable income. The savings rate has slowly come down since then, while households attempt to plan their spending in a world of uncertainty. If the recovery in the U.S. stalls and there is no additional fiscal stimulus, then households will be forced to dip into their savings.

The IMF’s current account forecasts are consistent with the analysis of  Matthew Klein and Michael Pettis in their recent book, Trade Wars Are Class Wars: How Rising Inequality Distorts the Global Economy and Threatens International Peace.  The authors claim that these imbalances reflect domestic policies that privilege the more affluent members of a country. The trade wars that divide nations reflect divisions within these countries between asset owners and workers.

Klein and Pettis attribute China’s surpluses, for example, to government decisions in the 1990s to foster development through investments and exports while suppressing Chinese consumption in order to generate savings. The government has since acknowledged this imbalance and sought to rebalance domestic spending, in part by promoting consumption expenditures while curbing shadow banking. But whenever economic growth has slowed, the government has responded by encouraging new investment, including housing, and total credit to the private sector has grown to 216% of GDP.

Similarly, Germany’s current account surpluses reflect its policies designed to encourage growth after the decade of the 1990s, when the costs of reunification weighed down the economy. There was a conscious decision to encourage savings, a shift that benefited capital owners at the expense of labor. Until this year the government took pride in its balanced budgets, despite a need for infrastructure spending. The high personal savings rate reflects in part a high degree of income inequality, with most gains going to those households more likely to save them. There was also an emphasis on the country’s external position, and wage increases were limited in order to hold down costs.

The increases in foreign savings were matched by capital flows to the U.S. These reflected the U.S. position as the financial hegemon, with the most liquid financial markets. Moreover, the U.S. provided something of great value: safe assets. U.S. Treasury bonds have been the preferred asset of central banks and European savers, although before the 2008-09 financial crisis mortgage backed securities with AAA ratings were seen as acceptable substitutes. The financial sector within the U.S. benefitted from the increase in domestic and foreign financial activity. But the capital inflows appreciated the dollar, which undermined the export sector. In the years leading up to the global financial crisis the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low in order to boost spending. A weak recovery after that crisis caused the Federal Reserve to continue its low interest rate policy.

The pandemic has brought a return to past conditions. Whether or not the most recent increase in the Chinese trade surplus is a transitory phenomenon, its current account is on track to record a surplus for the year (although at a much lower level than before the global financial crisis). Similarly, while Germany’s budget balance is forecast to show a deficit of 7.2% of its GDP for the year, its current account is expected to register a surplus equal in value to almost 6% of its GDP.  The U.S. current account deficit, which peaked at 6% of GDP in 2005, was equal in value to 3.5% of GDP in the second quarter of this year.

Klein and Pettis write that past global imbalances reflected a complementarity of interests between American financiers and Chinese and German industrialists, and reinforced inequality.  To change these patterns requires policy reorientations within these countries that will allow more income to be transferred to households. They admit that this is a difficult task, but point out that a new system was devised by the Allied nations at Bretton Woods in 1944 in order to guarantee living standards. The upheaval produced by the pandemic is global in nature and has the potential to bring about another policy transformation. The one necessary element that will be contested by those who profit from current arrangements is the political will.

The Challenges to the Dollar

1 Reply

The dollar’s position as the premier global currency has long seemed secure. The dollar accounts for about 60% of the foreign exchange reserves of central banks and similar proportions of international debt and loans. But recent developments raise the possibility of a transition to a stratified world economy in which the use of other currencies for regional trade and finance becomes more common.

Such a statement may seem to be inconsistent with the Federal Reserve’s activities to stabilize global financial markets. As it did during the global financial crisis of 2008-09, the Fed has activated currency swap lines with other central banks, including those of the Eurozone, Great Britain, Japan, Canada and Switzerland, as well as the monetary authorities of South Korea, Mexico and Singapore. Those central banks that do not have swap agreements can borrow dollars from the Fed via its new foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA) facility. Under this program, central banks that need dollars for their domestic financial institutions exchange U.S. Treasury securities for dollars through a repurchase agreement. These moves accompany the Fed’s extensive range of activities to support the U.S. economy, which include cutting the federal funds rate to zero, purchasing large amounts of Treasury, mortgage backed and corporate securities, and lending to corporations and state and municipal governments.

But other governments are uneasy with the U.S. government’s use of the dollar’s position in international finance to enforce compliance with its foreign policy goals. International transactions in dollars are cleared through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) banking network and the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The U.S. has denied foreign banks access to these systems when they wanted to penalize the banks for dealing with governments or companies that the U.S. seeks to punish. This practice has become more common under the Trump administration, which has used the sanctions to strike at Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela and others.

European leaders have made clear that they find this use of the dollar’s international role no longer acceptable. When the U.S. abandoned the agreements on nuclear weapons with Iran, European banks were forced to choose between defying the U.S. or their own governments, which encouraged them to continue their ties with Iran. In response, Britain, France and Germany have founded a clearing house, Instex, to serve as an alternative system, and several other European Union members will join it. Moreover, if the Europeans proceed with the issuance of a common EU bond, there will be an alternative safe asset to U.S. Treasury bonds that will foster the use of the euro in foreign exchange reserves.

China is also moving to encourage the international acceptance of its currency as an alternative to the dollar. The Chinese bond market is the world’s second largest, and the foreign appetite for Chinese bonds has increased. Foreigners bought $60 billion of Chinese government bonds last year, and now hold 8.8% of these bonds. Some of these bonds will be held by central banks diversifying the composition of their foreign currency reserves.

China’s Belt and Road Initiatives have expanded its economic presence in emerging markets, which also leads to a wider usage of its currency. Chinese investments in infrastructure and other projects in these countries increase the usage of the renminbi, as will the trade that follows.  The number of banks processing payments in renminbi has grown greatly in recent years, and most of these banks are based in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

There are obstacles to the wider use of both the euro and the renminbi. While Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has voiced support of a common European bond, the heads of other European governments have expressed their concerns.  China continues to maintain capital controls, although it has allowed foreigners to invest in the bond market through Hong Kong. But the imposition of a new security law for Hong Kong raises concerns about China’s willingness to allow financial concerns to affect its political goals.

The euro was once more widely seen as a viable alternative to the dollar. Hiro Ito and Cesar Rodriguez of Portland State University in their recent research paper, “Clamoring for Greenbacks: Explaining the Resurgence of the U.S. Dollar in International Debt”, examine the determinants of the currency composition of international debt securities. In their analysis they undertake a counterfactual analysis to examine what would have happened to the shares of the dollar and the euro in the composition of these securities if the global financial crisis had not occurred. They report that the predicted share of the euro in international debt would have been higher than it actually has been, while the share of the dollar would be lower.

When Ito and Rodriguez wrote their paper, they forecast that the dollar would continue to be the dominant international currency. But the Trump administration has damaged the international standing of the U.S., and this will have long-term consequences. Benjamin J. Cohen of UC-Santa Barbara has pointed out that “…there is palpable resentment over Trump’s indiscriminate use of financial sanctions to punish countries…” More generally, the U.S. government has sought to limit the county’s international interactions.

Harold James of Princeton wrote about the dominance of the dollar after the global financial crisis in his book, The Creation and Destruction of Value: the Globalization Cycle, which was published in 2009. At that time he foresaw the central role of the dollar as continuing because of the “political and military might of the U.S.”, as well as its economic potential. But he also stated that:

 “Such concentrations of power can be self-sustaining when they attract not only the capital resources, but also the human resources (primarily through skilled immigration) that allow exceptional productivity growth to continue.”

James warned that if a country closes itself off from exchanges with other nations, its relative decline can be hastened. He pointed out that:

“Since the isolationist impulse is a major strand in the American political tradition, it is impossible to close off this possibility; in fact, its likelihood increases as the economic and political situation deteriorates.”

The pandemic has the potential of serving as an inflection point, which follows a period of confrontations with other countries over trade. The fumbled response of the U.S. to the pandemic will encourage the governments of Europe and China to extend their influence in the financial sphere.  A world with several dominant currencies need not be inferior to one with a single hegemonic currency. But it will come about in large part as a result of the self-inflected damage that the Trump administration has perpetrated on the international standing of the U.S.

Is There a Future for FDI?—Update

4 Replies

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which recently reported on foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2019, has released a new study on the impact of the pandemic on future FDI. The OECD points out notes that FDI flows before the pandemic have been on a downward trend since 2015, and FDI flows in 2018 and 2019 were lower than any years since 2010, suggesting that the decline in FDI will not be reversed when the pandemic eases. This comes as policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere show concern over Chinese acquisition of domestic firms, and the Chinese government clamps down on Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The OECD report’s authors have optimistic, middle and pessimistic scenarios on the effectiveness of public health and economic policy measures, and their impact on FDI flows in the medium term. Under the optimistic scenario, public health measures are effective in controlling the spread of the virus and economic policies successful in restoring economic growth in the latter half of this year. FDI flows would fall between 30% to 40% in 2020 before rising by a similar amount in 2021 to their previous level. Under the middle scenario, public health and economic policy measures are partially but not completely effective, and FDI flows fall between 35% to 45% this year before recovering somewhat in 2021, but would remain about one-third below pre-crisis levels.  The pessimistic scenario is based on the need for continued measures to contain the virus and repair extensive economic damage, which would lead to drop in FDI flows of over 40% this year and no recovery in 2021.

The impact of an extended decline in FDI will be particularly severe for emerging market and developing economies, which have already seen the reversal of portfolio capital flows. The OECD report points out that the primary and manufacturing sectors, which account for a large proportion of FDI in these economies, have been particularly hard hit during the pandemic. Moreover, the corporate earnings that are a major source of the funding of new FDI expenditures by multinational firms fell in 2019 and will decline further this year.

The decline in FDI will be significant for these economies. FDI flows are usually more stable than other forms of capital flows, but even FDI collapses when it by global turbulence. The parent companies often have the financial resources to assist affiliates in troubled economies, but no advanced economy is escaping the downturn. The decline in spending not only affects the employees in the host country, but also harms domestic suppliers and others who benefit from the activities of the multinational.

The pandemic is also motivating governments to monitor and restrict the acquisition of domestic firms. Several U.S. Senators have urged Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to limit the purchase of U.S. firms with depressed stock prices by Chinese firms. The U.S. has already limited Chinese acquisition of domestic firms in critical sectors, and that will now most likely be expanded to include medical goods and services. Portfolio investment is also under scrutiny. The U.S. Senate has passed a bill that requires foreign companies to allow their records to be audited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in order to sell stock or bonds in the U.S., and the House of Representatives is considering a similar bill. While the bill will affect all foreign firms, it clearly is aimed at Chinese firms.

The U.S. is not alone in acting to restrict foreign investment. Several European countries have mechanisms to review foreign investment in order to protect critical technologies, as do India and Australia. These will now be extended to include medical goods and services. The European Union’s competition chief, Margrethe Vestager, has urged the governments of the EU’s members to purchase shares of ownership stakes in companies in order to prevent foreign takeovers.

FDI to China is also likely to suffer from the Chinese government’s enactment of a new security law for Hong Kong. U.S. Secretary of State George Pompeo’s response that the U.S. will no longer consider Hong Kong to have significant autonomy will not only imperil Hong Kong’s status as an international banking center, but also its role as the major source of FDI for China. The Chinese government’s willingness to forsake that source of funding suggests that it no longer believes that FDI has a critical role to play in the country’s economic development.

FDI, then, faces a range of barriers. The pandemic puts multinational plans for expansion, already scaled back, on hold. The division into a world of competing U.S. and Chinese spheres of influence further reduces the scope of foreign investment. Potential host nations can only hope to be viewed as a feasible site for production by multinationals once the world economy revives.

The 2019 Globie: “Capitalism, Alone” by Branko Milanovic

1 Reply

The time to announce the recipient of this year’s “Globie” is finally here. Each year I choose a book as the Globalization Book of the Year. The prize is—alas—strictly honorific and does not come with a monetary reward. But it gives me a chance to draw attention to a book that is particularly insightful about some aspect of globalization.  Previous winners are listed at the bottom.

This year’s winner is Branko Milanovic’s Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World. (This is the second Globie for Milanovic, who won it in 2016 for Global Inequality.) The book is based on the premise that capitalism has become the universal form of economic organization. This type of system is characterized by “production organized for profit using legally free wage labor and mostly privately owned capital, with decentralized coordination.” However, there exist two different types of capitalism: the liberal meritocratic form that developed in the West, and state-led political capitalism, which exists primarily in Asia but also parts of Europe and Africa.

The two models are competitors, in part because of their adoption in different parts of the world and also because they arose in different circumstances. The liberal meritocratic system arose from the class capitalism of the late 19th century, which in turn evolved out of feudalism. Communism, Milanovic writes, took the place of bourgeoise development. Communist parties in countries such as China and Vietnam overthrew the domestic landlord class as well as foreign domination. These countries now seek to re-establish their place in the global distribution of economic power.

Milanovic highlights one characteristic that the two forms of capitalism share: inequality. Inequality in today’s liberal meritocratic capitalism differs from that of classical capitalism in several features. Capital-rich individuals are also labor-rich, which reinforces the inequality. Assortative mating leads to more marriages within income classes. The upper classes use their money to control the political process to maintain their position of privilege.

Because of limited data on income distribution in many of the countries with political capitalism, Milanovic focuses on inequality in China. He attributes its rise to the gap between growth in the urban areas versus the rural, as well the difference in growth between the maritime provinces and those in the western portion of the country. There is also a rising share of income from capital , as well as a high concentration of capital income. In addition, corruption has become systemic, as it was before the communist revolution.

The mobility of labor and capital allows capitalism to operate on a global basis. Migrants from developing economies benefit when they move to advanced economies. But residents in those countries often fear migration because of its potentially disruptive effect on cultural norms, despite the positive spillover effects on the domestic economy. Milanovic proposes granting migrants limited rights, such as a finite term of stay, in order to facilitate their acceptance. He points out, however, the potential downside of the creation of an underclass.

Multinational firms have organized global supply chains that give the parent units in their home countries the ability to coordinate production in different subsidiary units and their suppliers in their host nations. Consequently, the governments of home countries seek to limit the transfer of technology to the periphery nations to avoid losing innovation rents. The host countries, on the other hand, hope to use technology to jump ahead in the development process.

The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization. President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within the U.S. Government officials are planning to limit the export of certain technologies while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of domestic firms in tech-related areas. New restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority to a merit-based system. Moreover, the concerns over migration are not unique to the U.S.

Milanovic ends with some provocative thoughts about the future of capitalism. One path would be to a “people’s capitalism,” in which everyone has an approximately equal share of both capital and labor income. This would require tax advantages for the middle class combined with increased taxes on the rich, improvements in the quality of public education, and public funding of political campaigns. But it is also feasible that there will be a move of liberal capitalism toward a form of political capitalism based on the rise of the new elite, who wish to retain their position within society.

Milanovic’s book offers a wide-ranging review of many of the features of contemporary capitalism. He is particularly insightful about the role of corruption in both liberal and political capitalism. Whether or not it is feasible to reform capitalism in order to serve a wider range of interests is one of the most important issues of our time.

2018    Adam Tooze,  Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

2017    Stephen D. King, Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History

2016    Branko Milanovic, Global Inequality

2015    Benjamin J. Cohen. Currency Power: Understanding Monetary Rivalry

2014    Martin Wolf, The Shifts and the Shocks: What We’ve Learned–and Have Still to Learn–from the Financial Crisis