U.S. international transactions in 1997

The U.S. current account deficit widened further in 1997, reaching $166 billion. U.S. imports of goods continued to exceed exports by a substantial margin. However, goods trade accounted for only a small part of the deterioration in the current account balance last year. The shift of investment income from positive to negative (the first time since 1914) was the major contributing factor; it reflected the cumulative effect of deficits in the current account that have persisted since 1982 and the balancing net capital inflows. The financial crises in Asia in the second half of 1997 visibly affected U.S. capital flows but influenced the U.S. current account in only a limited way in that year. Their effect on the U.S. current account is likely to be more apparent in 1998.International trade ; Exports ; Imports

Adequacy of international transactions and position data for policy coordination

This paper examines the adequacy of data on current account positions and international indebtedness as indicators of the need for policy adjustments and coordination. Doubts about the adequacy of these data have been raised by the growth of the global current account discrepancy and the statistical discrepancy in the U.S. international transactions accounts. The paper includes a brief review of the conclusions of the IMF working party on the world current account discrepancy and a detailed examination of the data on U.S. international transactions and net investment position. Both investigations support the Conclusion that large shifts in reported data on current accounts and investment positions are likely to reflect real changes. ; However, even if data were completely accurate, a given current account or investment position may not clearly indicate the magnitude of necessary policy changes because of lags in the adjustment process or underlying trends. This point is illustrated by the tendency of U.S. net investment income to grow as a result of the continued expansion of both claims and liabilities combined with a higher average rate of return on claims. This underlying tendency is likely to counteract, in part, the negative impact on future net investment income of growing U.S. net indebtedness to foreigners.International trade ; Balance of payments

U.S. international transactions in 1990

Exports ; International trade

The Statistical Discrepancy in the U. S. International Transactions Accounts: Sources and Suggested Remedies

The statistical discrepancy in the U.S. international transactions accounts has tended to be both large and positive over the last decade and a half. In 1990 the statistical discrepancy rose by $45 billion to a record$64 billion and brought the cumulative discrepancy since 1960 to almost $250 billion. The size and persistence of this discrepancy has called into question the accuracy of the data on the U.S. current and capital accounts.This paper attempts to find clues to the sources of the statistical discrepancy by 1) reviewing past history, 2) examining the data sources for each major component of the U.S. international transactions accounts, and 3) using regression analysis. The paper concludes with a list of recommendations for data improvements.While inadequacies are evident in the data for a wide variety of international transactions, both current and capital account, the search for sources of the big increase in the discrepancy between 1989 and 1990 probably can be narrowed largely to the capital account. It seems unlikely that net exports of goods, services, or investment income increased by an additional$45 billion in 1990. On the capital account side, increases in foreign holdings of U.S. currency probably played a significant role, but the bulk of the increase in the statistical discrepancy in 1990 remains a mystery.</jats:p

U.S. Direct Investment Receipts and Payments: Models and Projections

The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors influencing direct investment receipts and payments and to make projects of net investment income. The models and techniques used are very similar, although the receipts side is disaggregated by industry, while the payments side is not. The paper is divided into three parts: direct investment receipts are analyzed in Part I, direct investments are analyzed in Part II, and the implications for net direct investment income are discussed in Part III.</jats:p