CIRCUS of Ex-Im Proportions

It is highly ironic that as our country’s international business community is about to celebrate World Trade Week, one of the hottest political issues involves one of its key players, the Export-Import Bank of the United States and its Congressional reauthorization.   We have extensively covered this issue over the last few months on the pages of this blog, but it again boiled to the surface couple of days ago, as the House passed Ex-Im’s reauthorization, but it once again stalled in the Senate, where it was expected to pass without hinderance.
What follows below is a collage of articles and comments on the subject from a variety of media sources across the country – both right and left.  This issue has split the parties and the comments below range from radical communist, to scary lunatic, to ultra conservative.  After reading the articles I felt I was in a circus surrounded by many confused clowns.  Yet, two things clearly stand out throughout the entire debate – WE ARE EMBARRASSING OUR COUNTRY BY AIRING OUT THIS DIRTY LAUNDRY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES;  MOST PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE WOULD NOT KNOW AN EXPORT IF IT SAILED RIGHT PASSED THEM IN A CONTAINER AND SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN SOMETHING OF WHICH THEY HAVE ZERO PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Yes, Ex-Im Bank, like 99.9% of our Federal Agencies could use improvement in the ways it does business (it is the most difficult Export Credit Agency to deal with out of all OECD countries); yes, it is highly political and it is justly and commonly referred to as “The Bank of Boeing”.
Yet, the Bank is an absolute contributor to the Federal Treasury.  It makes money for the taxpayers and funds over $30 billion of U.S. exports per year, supporting tens of thousands of American jobs and allowing businesses to take risks and sell abroad where they would not ordinarily do so. Losses on the portfolio of loans guaranteed by the bank are around 1.5% – completely in line with sound commercial banking practices.  These are indisputable facts and all those commenting bellow to the contrary are simply ignorant, or are using the issue for their political gain.  What is also indisputable is that until such time as all other nations decide to do away with their respective Export Credit Agencies, doing away with Ex-Im bank in the U.S. will cause great economic harm to our nation and will put our companies into a severe disadvantage as they try to compete on the increasingly competitive global arena.  To my knowledge, only U.S. lawmakers have been trying to advance the idea of elimination of ECAs in other countries and the idea has zero support in the international community.
Thus far we aired dirty laundry, embarrassed our country, spend untold taxpayers money debating the issue, but there is a silver lining that we could hold on to and improve the Ex-Im Bank and our national export policy.  So what positive things do I think should  happen as result of this issue being forced to the forefront of our Nation’s debate
I sincerely hope that some of our airline union leaders (especially Delta Airlines) really rethink their position, stop pointing fingers and instead try to address their problem of bloated inefficiencies from within in order to become more competitive globally
I do believe the Bank would benefit more from having people with business experience decide its fate, not politicians who use it as a football. Congress should appoint a non-partisan oversight board, which would be comprised of different industry exporters and would be able to develop meaningful policies based on sound business principals and international experience exporting.  Something like this exists now in an informal corporate influence network, which exists around the bank. Why not formalize it, bring it to the surface and let the business help run the bank.
We also should look at other countries’ ECAs and adopt some of their lending practices.  The bank should become more nimble, its arcane content report policies should be completely reformed to reflect today’s reality.  It also should be given authority to expand its 400 or so staff by at least 50%.
Most importantly, the Senate should quickly and smoothly reauthorize the bank, and get this issue off the front pages of the newspapers. This way, we shall stop embarrassing ourselves to the world with half-baked ill supported arguments and insular protectionists views of some of our less informed political and media players. Our opponents relish when America suffers and debates like this play directly into their hands. Let’s stop the circus of Ex-Im proportions and get back to business of financing exports.
I hope you enjoy at least some of the articles below and welcome your comments.
‘Tea party’ lawmakers face quandary in House vote on export bank
By James Rosen / McClatchy Washington Bureau  |   Thursday, May 10, 2012  |

WASHINGTON – A vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives to pour billions into a little-known federal bank illustrates the divide among “tea party”-backed lawmakers torn between upholding anti-government principles and helping American companies compete in foreign markets.

The bill, to increase the financing cap of the Export-Import Bank, passed by 330-93. The congressional Tea Party Caucus split almost in half: Thirty-seven members opposed the measure, while 31 supported it.

The House vote arrived 18 months after dozens of tea party-supported candidates came to Washington, many for the first time, and it showed the challenge that politicians often face once elected: transitioning from campaigning against the government to becoming a part of it.

Compounding the pressure Wednesday was the fact that the bank supports industries that are key to some tea party-backed lawmakers’ states. Boeing, for example, is the bank’s largest loan recipient, and it recently built a plant in the conservative stronghold of South Carolina.

“Some of these issues are very difficult and very complicated,” said Rep. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who voted for the legislation. Scott, a tea party favorite and a leader of the large House Republican freshman class, added: “Some issues take more thought and time to figure out what’s right.”

Overall, all 183 Democrats who voted supported the reauthorization, along with 147 Republicans, while 93 GOP lawmakers opposed it. With the bank’s charter set to expire May 31, the Senate is expected to take up a similar bill reauthorizing the bank for three years in the next week or two. The expansion would increase the bank’s financing cap from $100 billion to $140 billion.

Scott said the measure had important revisions, among them freezing loans if the bank’s default rate exceeded 2 percent and committing the U.S. government to negotiate with other countries for decreased subsidies.

Scott’s congressional district is home to the new Boeing plant, which has just started making next-generation Dreamliner 787 aircraft. Hundreds of the planes have been sold in advance to foreign airlines, with 80 percent of those sales financed by the Export-Import Bank.

Freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney said he had resisted strong pressure from Boeing lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups in voting against the bill.

“The full-court press was on,” said Mulvaney, a Republican from Indian Land, S.C. “It’s hard for me to go back home and say we need to cut the FBI’s budget by 20 percent but in the next breath say we want to increase the size of the Export-Import Bank by 40 percent. It’s not consistent.”

Among South Carolina’s three other Republican House members, freshman Rep. Jeff Duncan of Laurens also voted against the measure, while first-term Rep. Trey Gowdy of Spartanburg and sixth-term Rep. Joe Wilson voted for it. House Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of Columbia also backed the bill.

The legislation’s supporters said the bank made money for taxpayers as its loans were repaid with interest, with almost $2 billion returned to the Treasury over the past five years.

“The Export-Import Bank doesn’t cost the American taxpayer a single penny,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. “The products American companies make are the best in the world. American workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone in the world if they have a level playing field.”

But opponents said the bank hurt many American firms that weren’t as politically connected as Boeing.

“Since 2007, almost half of its money has gone to support that plucky little upstart called Boeing,” said GOP Rep. Tom McClintock of California, a Tea Party Caucus member. “Air India got $5 billion to purchase Boeing aircraft, allowing them to undercut American carriers like Delta with their own tax money.”

John Kvasnosky, a Boeing spokesman, praised House passage of the legislation, calling the bank “a critical competitive tool for U.S. exporters.”

Most lawmakers in Washington state, where Boeing has large factories, and Illinois, where the aerospace giant is headquartered, voted for the measure.

“We cannot unilaterally disarm by ending the Export-Import Bank,” said Rep. Donald Manzullo, an Illinois Republican who has been backed by tea party supporters. “That would only empower our competitors.”

Rep. Rick Larsen, a Washington state Democrat whose congressional district is home Boeing’s jet-manufacturing plants in Everett, said the bank was necessary “to keep America in business.”

Many tea party-backed members who voted for the bill were influenced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, who has a strong following among conservatives.

“Make no mistake, I am no fan of government subsidies,” Cantor said on the House floor. “But to those who want to shutter the Export-Import Bank: I believe that amounts to unilateral disarmament. American businesses and American workers would suffer from unfair competition with subsidized foreign competitors.”

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau at

© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media.


Ron Paul Economic Superiority: GOP Show They’re Hypocrites With Export-Import Banks

by Scott Eastman

Ron Paul Economic Superiority: GOP Show They're Hypocrites With Export-Import BanksTexas Representative Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not going away, but he is shifting his focus. Even while Mitt Romney’s nomination as the GOP presidential nominee seems to be a foregone conclusion, Paul is continuing to draw delegates and is looking to use this success to bring about “a change in direction for the Republican Party.”

Judging by Wednesday’s vote in the House to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which was supported by 147 Republicans, a change in direction is much needed. The willingness of Republicans to support the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) shows that Paul’s limited government views are needed to remind the GOP what opposition to wealth redistribution actually entails.

Ex-Im is the official export credit agency of the U.S.. The mission of the Bank is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers.

American industries have lobbied to keep Ex-Im in existence because it boosts the ability of foreign nations to import their goods, and politicians have been receptive because of Ex-Im’s political benefits. For instance, South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn argues that “The Export-Import Bank fills an important financing gap for Boeing that helps level the global playing field and encourages foreign companies to buy American-made products like the Dreamliner.”

Clyburn also lauds Ex-Im for protecting jobs in South Carolina by encouraging foreign nations, through subsidies, to buy what these Boeing employees in South Carolina produce. It’s a win-win for Boeing who benefits from subsidies other industries do not get, and for Clyburn who can talk about all of the jobs he is protecting in South Carolina.

As Cato Institute scholar Sallie James points out, however, the industries supported by Ex-Im are not really “sure bets,” and this is demonstrated by unwillingness of private financiers to fund them. Ex-Im subsidizes industries that the private sector chooses not to invest in due to concerns about their profitability, and as a result, props up otherwise uncompetitive industries with taxpayer dollars.

Paul has been an ardent opponent of Ex-Im as a form of corporate welfare. In a 1997 speech, Paul lamented the resources taken from the private sector to “support the less efficient companies living on government subsidies.” Paul understands that, without Ex-Im, all companies would be pressured by the market to find ways of being profitable on their own, because they would not be able to depend on U.S. subsidized importers to buy their products. This would leave all industries in an equal position to compete and allow Americans to use their resources as they wish, and support the industries they actually believe are worth supporting.

As the overwhelming support for Ex-Im among Republicans shows, a good portion of the GOP has chosen to abandon its support for American taxpayers. Republicans that supported reauthorization, such as those in South Carolina that are looking out for Boeing, have placed the interests of corporations above those of American taxpayers. The GOP, if it is truly committed to reducing the burden of taxation on Americans, should learn from Paul’s opposition to Ex-Im and stop redistributing taxpayer dollars to other nations just so their favorite corporations can be kept from having to survive on their own, all at the expense of taxpayers.


Sen. Paul Urges Senate to Reject Re-Authorization of the Export-Import Bank
Congress steadily dishes out billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized loans to large, profitable companies. The ordinary middle-class family is struggling to get a home loan.

May 11,2012 – Sen. Paul Urges Senate to Reject Re-Authorization of the Export-Import Bank

WASHINGTON, D.C – Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. TRANSCRIPT:

The ordinary middle-class family is struggling to get a home loan. Tens of thousands of homeowners have lost their homes or are struggling to make payments on their home loans. Meanwhile, Congress steadily dishes out billions of dollars in taxpayer-subsidized loans to large, profitable companies. Eighty percent of these loans, these Export-Import loans, are given to companies that are in the Fortune 500. So we’re giving taxpayer loans to very profitable companies.

I’m a great believer in capitalism, in the jobs that corporations create. I defend profit and the benefit that accrues from leaving that profit large any in the private sector. I’m not one who clamors for punitive taxes, I’m not someone who thinks we need to punish corporations, but at the same time don’t construe that to mean that I believe we should be subsidizing profitable corporations.

I don’t think taxpayer-subsidized loans should go to profitable companies. Now, President Obama has been passing out loans to his campaign donors. He’s been using a campaign trough that he has set up over at the Department of Energy.

Very wealthy multimillionaires and billionaires are getting loans through the Department of Energy; Solyndra, Brightsource, people heavily involved in the President’s campaign have been getting subsidized loans. Republicans have been rightly criticizing the President for these loans, for these Department of Energy loans; to Solyndra, Brightsource and others.

Republicans have been correct in criticizing the President for trying to pick the winners and losers in the energy production. Yet now a majority of the Republicans are poised to vote for their own set of taxpayer-subsidized loans through the Export-Import bank.

In fact, they want to increase the Export-Import loans by nearly 50 percent and pick the winners and losers now in the export business. The horse traders may disdain consistency, but the American people value principled and consistent opposition to deficit financing.

The American people know hypocrisy when they see it. The American people know corporate welfare when they see it. The Export-Import bank in fact provided an $18 million to a steel mill in China. Our steel industry has been in decline for decades, and I would loan $18 million to our competitors?

Who in their right mind would subsidize our Chinese competitors with loans? It makes no sense. Can you think of anything more insulting than loaning money to our competitors? Well, come to think of it, I might. We actually give foreign aid to china. We actually send china economic development assistance. Is it any wonder that Congress has an 11 percent approval rating?

Many Americans are trying to hang on to their homes, struggling to make their payments on their own home mortgage, while very profitable big business is being given subsidized loans by the government. It makes no sense. What gives?

To add insult to injury,we are borrowing money from the same countries that we are lending the money to. So we borrow money from India, because I would run a deficit of the over $1 trillion a year, we borrow known from India and then we’re sending it back to them in the form of taxpayer-subsidized loans. It makes no sense.

Ex-Im loans like the loans to Solyndra and Brightsource are simply forms of crony capitalism. With trillion-dollar annual deficits, surely we can vote to end corporate welfare. If companies are making billions of dollars in profit, can we at least end the welfare that we’re sending to these corporations?

I urge a vote against reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank, and I hope my Republican colleagues will see the inconsistency of criticizing the President on one hand for his capitalism and then turning around and doing the same thing.

So I support not reauthorizing the Export-Import bank, admitting it is corporate welfare and trying to save the taxpayers some of their hard-earned money. Thank you Mr. President and I suggest the absence a quorum.

The New York Times

House Votes Overwhelmingly to Extend Export-Import Bank


WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, siding with business groups over conservative activists who wanted Republicans to let the bank’s charter lapse at the end of May.

The 330-to-93 vote is expected to propel the bill to final passage before May 31, when the bank’s statutory lending authority and its authorization expire. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader, said Tuesday that the Senate would quickly take up the House bill and try to pass it unchanged, obviating House-Senate negotiations on a final version.

That seemingly smooth path to President Obama’s desk belies the rancor that led to the House vote. Conservative political groups including Club for Growth, Heritage Action for America and the Cato Institute have spent months denouncing the government-chartered bank as a big business boondoggle that could become the next Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leaving taxpayers responsible for billions of dollars in loan guarantees. With the bank’s legal authorization expiring soon, the groups appealed to Republicans up to the last minute on Wednesday, saying they had a rare opportunity to kill a government institution.

On the other side, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers mobilized an army of business representatives to plead the case that the bank was vital to ensure financing for overseas customers. Without the bank, United States exports — one of the bright spots in the fragile recovery — would suffer greatly, they said.

Amid that clash, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader, and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the House minority whip, negotiated a compromise for a three-year reauthorization that would raise the bank’s lending limit to $140 billion over three years, a 40 percent increase from the current $100 billion limit that the bank has almost reached.

The agreement also would mandate a series of government audits and report requirements that critics say is necessary to ensure the institution is not exposing taxpayers to great risk, and it requires the Treasury secretary to begin multilateral negotiations with finance ministers around the worldaimed at ending government export subsidies internationally.

In the end, the vote appeared to show that old guard business groups still have muscle in the Tea Party era. Republicans cast all 93 no votes.

In an interview, Fred P. Hochberg, the president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, called the House vote “a big step forward to taking uncertainty away for American exporters.”

He said the bank would respond to concerns in Congress about its financial stability, ensuring that it kept defaults on its loans to a minimum. “I believe we have been prudent with taxpayer money,” he said. “But this is a reminder that we have to be mindful that if defaults were to run at a higher level, we have to continue to be responsible.”

Representative Tom McClintock, Republican of California, mocked the bank for subsidizing the sales of “that plucky little upstart called Boeing” and blasted colleagues for saying that ending the bank’s charter would amount to unilateral disarmament against other countries with even larger export banks. “Other nations want to impoverish themselves in this manner,” he said. “We don’t need to imitate them.”

But a majority of the Republican majority did vote for reauthorization. The Chamber of Commerce may have aided its cause with a wave of advertising, largely to support Republican candidates in the fall elections.

Established in the 1930s to facilitate trade with the Soviet Union, the bank helps arrange financing for foreign buyers of United States exports, with deals paid for by the trading partners.

Annie Lowrey contributed reporting.


Is Ex-Im Bank Another Fannie Mae Or Freddie Mac?

Posted 05/10/2012 07:07 PM ET

Politics: In an unusual display of election-year bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans have joined to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank. Political triumph? Hardly.

Ninety-three Republicans broke ranks with Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy to vote “no” on the renewal of the Ex-Im Bank. It still passed by a 330-93 vote, with 183 Democrats joining 147 Republicans on the “yes” side.

This is no shining example of bipartisanship, as it’s now being hailed. The Ex-Im Bank could justifiably be called the “Political Crony Bank,” because of its use as a piggy bank for politically favored companies.

Even so, not only did the House reauthorize the bank, but expanded its loan portfolio by 40% to $140 billion.

Haven’t heard of the Ex-Im Bank? It’s been around a long time. It began in 1934 as a way to help U.S. companies sell to the Soviet Union, where getting paid was often a dicey proposition. In recent years, it has mostly financed and guaranteed loans on U.S. exports.

Unfortunately, more recently, Ex-Im has become a political tool in President Obama’s hands, used to reward and subsidize favored companies, industries and groups.

Starting in 2009, Obama ordered the Ex-Im Bank to favor green projects — and to give no money to any energy project that involves fossil fuels. Women and minorities also get loan preference. Is this “pro business”?

Obama has even more changes in mind for the Ex-Im bank — including letting it make loans to domestic firms that don’t even do business overseas.

This is a clear violation of the bank’s charter.

And it lets the politically dominated Ex-Im bank lend to nonexporting companies on a “case-by-case” basis with no real controls. This is an open invitation to political corruption, bribes and favoritism.

Worse, the House bill puts the Ex-Im Bank into direct competition with private U.S. banks — which U.S. taxpayers just finished bailing out at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. This makes no sense.

Supporters call the Ex-Im Bank “pro-business.” In fact, it’s a subsidy machine, doling out taxpayer funds to favored companies at the expense of others.

“Past beneficiaries include such upstanding enterprises as Solyndra and Enron,” Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California said last month, in opposing the bill. “Since 2007, almost half of its money has gone to support that plucky little startup called Boeing.”

As an example, McClintock cites Ex-Im’s $5 billion gift to Air India to buy Boeing jets, enabling it “to undercut (U.S.) carriers like Delta with their own tax money.”

Like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the newly nationalized student loan program, the Ex-Im Bank is a risky proposition. Before it goes bust, it should be closed or privatized — along with other federal programs that distort markets and favor a select few.

We’re proud of the 93 Republicans who rejected the phony call to bipartisanship and voted against this.

With the U.S. struggling to cut soaring spending and to slash its $16 trillion in debt, cutting the Ex-Im Bank should be a bipartisan no-brainer. It’s a shame it isn

© 2012 Investor’s Business Daily

Washington Examiner  —-

May 10, 2012 4:34pm

This guy is fine with putting taxpayer money at risk to subsidize Boeing and Wall Street?

Yesterday, after the House voted to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, I noted how the GOP’s anti-corporate-welfare minority is growing.

Notably, Democrats are dropping their opposition to Boeing’s Bank.

Not a single Democrat yesterday voted against reauthorizing Ex-Im, a federal agency that subsidizes Big Business, mostly Boeing, by guaranteeing loans made by banks — mostly big banks.

Yup, Democrats voted 183-to-0 for an agency that even Barack Obama described as “little more than corporate welfare.”

A bunch (pretty liberal) Dems who opposed Ex-Im’s reauthorization when Bush was President supported it this week. Democratic congressmen Rob Andrews, Tammy Baldwin, John Conyers, Peter DeFazio, Jesse Jackson Jr., Marcy Kaptur, Jim Matheson, Jerry Nadler, Frank Pallone, Collin Peterson, Pete Stark, and Maxine Waters were all Nays in 2002 and Yays yesterday.

This strikes me as another example of Obama’s corruption of the American Left.


GOP BLOCKS EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION, HARRY REID LOSES IT – The House has come to a deal on reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, which has been a huge K Street clusterf*&% (we have to blank that out for spam-filter reasons, sorry), but Senate Republicans didn’t want to move forward. Harry Reid, in his regular form lately: “I have been here in Congress 30 years, but this is a new one. Even bills that they agree on, they want to mess around with. In years past, this would have gone through here just like this [snaps fingers]. Forget about what took place two months ago, but now the House passed something 330-93, and we’re here playing around with it?” Reid said on the floor. “These days, the far right, the Tea Party wing of the Senate Republican caucus, I used to just talk about the House wing of the tea party, but it’s over here now — who think that everything has to be a fight, everything.” He filed cloture. The vote’ll be Monday.




  By Nathalie Tadena, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Export-Import Bank Extension Likely Next Week

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an attempt by the Democratic majority to unanimously pass a three-year extension of the authority of the U.S. Export- Import Bank, a federal agency that helps U.S. manufacturers sell goods abroad.

Republicans are demanding the right to hold amendment votes on the legislation that would seek to place constraints on the bank’s ability to provide financing assistance to exporters.

Despite the political maneuvering, it is expected that an agreement will be reached between the parties that would allow votes on the bank’s extension to take place next week.

The House passed the three-year extension of the bank’s mandate earlier this week, lifting its financing cap gradually over that time to $140 billion from its current $100 billion.

The bank provides loan guarantees and some limited insurance to foreign companies seeking to buy U.S. manufactured goods. Every major American foreign trading partner operates a similar entity in their country providing assistance to domestic exporters.


About Alexander Gordin
An international merchant banking professional with over twenty years of business operating and advisory experience in the areas of export finance, international project finance, risk mitigation and cross-border business development. Clients include foreign governments, municipalities and state enterprises as well as Fortune 500 and small/medium enterprises. Strong entrepreneurial instincts, combined with leadership and strategic skills. Transactional and negotiations experience in over thirty five countries. Author of the highly acclaimed "Fluent in Foreign Business" book and creator of the "Fluent in OPIC", "Fluent in EXIM","Fluent In Foreign Franchising", "Fluent in FCPA",and "Fluent in USTDA" seminar/webinar series. Currently developing "Fluent In ......" seminars and publications. Co-author of the Fi3 Country Business Appeal Indices. Extensive international business development and project finance transaction experience in healthcare, aerospace, ICT, conventional and alternative energy infrastructure, distribution and hospitality industries. Experience managing international public and private corporations. Co-Founded three companies abroad. Strong Emerging and Frontier Market expertise. Published and featured in numerous publications including: The Wall Street Journal, Knowledge@Wharton,, The Chicago Tribune, Industry Week, Industry Today, Business Finance, Wharton Magazine Blog, NY Enterprise Report, Success magazine, Kyiv Post and on a number of radio and television programs including: Voice of America, CNBC, CNNfn, and Bloomberg. Frequent speaker on strategy, cross-border finance and international business development. Executive MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. B.S. in Management of Information Systems from the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. Specialties Strategic Management Advisory, Export Finance, International Project Finance & Risk Management, Cross-border Negotiations, Structured Finance transactions, Senior Government and Corporate officials liason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Ship Modeler

Ship Modeling News from Clare Hess

Site Title

“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” — Maya Angelou

Museum of International Trade & Merchant Banking (MoMBIT)

chronicling the importance of international trade and merchant banking in the global development

Fluent In Foreign Business

Helping To Grow Your Business Abroad

Emerging Market Insights

How to make a killing in Emerging Markets without losing your shirt?

Ideas That Work @ GIDASPOV.COM

Strategy | Creativity | Innovation | Fundraising | Marketing

Nu Leadership Revolution Blog

“Helping Emerging Leaders Gain the Competitive Advantage in the Future"

Mike Z's Blog

Exploring the causes of cancer throughout the world

Bucket List Publications

Indulge- Travel, Adventure, & New Experiences

FranchisEssentials by Franchise Foundry

Sharing Information, Insight and Perspective about Franchising, Small Business and Entrepreneurship

We Help Insurance Agencies Stand Out

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: