Financing Multinational Operations in Cross-border Nations Student`s
FinancingMultinational Operations in Cross-border Nations
National Financial System of the United States and other National Systems 6
National Financial System of the United States 6
National Financial Systems of Other Nations 8
Advantages and Disadvantages of Securing Financing for Cross-border Operation 9
Funding Opportunities from Global Financial Centers 10
Funding Opportunities from other Arenas 11
Currency Change Rates in Different Countries 12
The Current Worldwide Financial Crisis and the Challenges of MNEs 13
The current worldwide financial crisis 13
Challenges of MNEs 14
TheUnited States financial sector has made substantial strides inenabling the nation’s cross-border connections with othereconomies. The foreign extension of the United States’ financialorganizations over the past five years have reinforced theheightening trend in investments overseas. The same scenario ishappening among many nations as they see the essence of embracingcross-border linkages. Several countries’ corporations are chasingnew occasions of investments and markets, especially in the sectorsof energy, building, and construction, agriculture, and services. Thefinancial services offered by the financial institutions from othernations like the U.S. through region interconnection have beeninstrumental in their development and alliance of operations of theirbusinesses within and externally to other parts of the globe.
Theglobal character of the United States’ financial framework has beenboosted with the steady toleration during this era. 108 foreign banksfrom 51 nations have a presence in the United States. By extension,other countries also fortify their domestic financial institutionsaggressively, thus improving their capacity to promote their economyand recognize a stable growth. The paper is going to expound onsuperior operational flexibilities is today rendered to currentforeign institutions and how these reflect on performance as well ascross-border interconnections.
TheUnited States and Asia contribute more relevantly to globaldevelopment and take part in even superior intra-regional trade andopportunities for investment. Several financial institutions canefficiently act as intermediaries for the region’s additional fundsand profitable investments. The facilitation of cross-border capitalstreams and sustenance of the regional advancement of American andother nations’ corporations will arise to a larger extent. Beyondthe United States, evolving economies in other countries of the worldwill develop greater distinction in the economy at an internationallevel.
Itis very intriguing that deglobalization is an irresistible trend andwas founded long before even Donald Trump took the seat ofPresidency. The insistent aftermath of the previous financial crisisexperienced in the world like reduced cross-border lending from thebank, heightening conflict in Asia and the burden of restoringmanufacturing to the United States’ borders sparked updeglobalization (Cheng & Wu, 2015). The debate for maximumglobalization reached an accelerated stage before Trump’s plan ofeconomic nationalism began, in which he intended to rip off tradetreaties. The contemporary reality and the larger inclination of the21st century is a constant enormous expansion in the size ofcross-border relations within and across the parts of the globe andin the dimension of individuals and transaction of commodities,services, capital and information (Cheng & Claessens, 2016Manova, 2015). The great dilemma is whether the regulations beinginstituted in the United States today makes it escape the circle asthe remaining regions of the world intensify their relationships withone another. It is in this regard that the researcher is going toanalyze the funding of multinational operations in cross-bordernations.
Thereare two strategies of quantifying multinational financing operationsin cross-border nations: (i) approaches founded on pricing and (ii)volume-based methods (Arsanlap & Takahiro, 2012). The measuresbased on pricing assesses relationships of asset prices and proceedsacross nations, with cross-border financial correlations e capsulatedby the significance of global and regional factors in establishingfinancial returns. Substantially, approaches based on pricing isvoiceless on the level of global financial flows needed to createco-actions in asset prices (Avdjjey, Chui & Chin, 2014).Furthermore, if stockholders encounter same environmental contexts,heightened correlation may exist even in the absence of a realcross-border financial transaction through same moves in sentimentacross nations.
Oneof the crucial function of the financial system interconnects theflow of funds, both within the country across national borders. Inessence, when the transfer of payments, credit, and investment isnode smoothly and securely, it becomes relevant to the economic role(Foley & Manova, 2015). In scenarios when the United States’economy is open for international exchange and venture, it can permitsmooth flows of cross-border capital that are central for theblossoming of the nation. This study centers on volume-basedapproaches, resulting from the analyzed data on global financialstreams and global investment situations (Cheng & Claessens,2016). Global financial flows could impact both local macroeconomicand financial facts through a diversity of means, and also throughpricing of the assets. For example, cross-border financial resourcesoffer a substantial “balance sheet” transmission means by whichglobal surprises impact the worth of financial liabilities andassets, as it also substitute for susceptibility to subsidy andliquidity contexts in foreign financial markets.
National Financial System of the United States and other NationalSystemsNationalFinancial System of the United States
Chengand Wu (2015) determine that the interrelation of the United Statessystem with the other regions of the Global is still at a criticalposition as far as international stability is concerned. The GSIBs ofU.S. takes a portion of 22 percent aggregate GSIB assets (Hitt &Xu, 2016). As a matter of fact, the insurance market of the U.S. isthe leading internationally with premium volume amounting to a thirdof the international market. Also, the U.S. products market alsooccupy about 30 percent of the global market (Avdjjey, Chui &Chin, 2014). The banks’ external situations in the U.S. are stillconsiderable even following the crisis. The United States’financial system is one of four influences at the peak of the globalbank network and is also central as relating to the debt market,equity market, and price links systems.
Calculationsfounded on market process shows that challenges in the United Statesfinancial sector may press grievous impacts in financialorganizations in the foreign arena, whereas the alternatives areinadequate (Arsanlap & Takahiro, 2012). Therefore, it is ofessence that authorities insist on being engaged aggressively in thecurrent monitoring and evaluation of the effect of regulatoryrestructurings at the international level so as to enhance secure andclear markets and to deal with any material accidental outcomesshould they be spotted.
Accordingto Cheng and Claessens (2016), the financial system of the U.S. isstronger than what it was five years ago, but risks persist to, andregulators have the responsibility of finishing the restructurings.On the other hand, Gilman (2013) warns that the policy makers mustprevent tries to disannul some of the adjustments. The financialreform law has caused the nation to make significant strides inenhancing their supervision of financial firms. Arsanlap and Takahiro(2012) have been critical of this situation and suggests that throughthis law, some regulations have been tremendously weakened, forinstance, attempting to lessen the authorities of the ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau enacted by the statute.
Cetorelliand Linda (2014) observed that key restructurings of financialregulation and control had been executed, and work is in progress oncountering the disorderly incentives that caused the unwarranted risktaking in the nation. Even though this is the case, some fundamentalsusceptibilities still have not been settled, for instance, refittingthe housing finance framework and bringing down the exposure ofcompanies to money market shared funds (Buckley, Munial, Enderwick &Forsans, 2016). The extended moments of enormously low interest ratedspearheaded by Federal Reserve policy intended to enhancedevelopment, have driven some companies to take risks since they areopting for better investment revenues. Avdjjey, Chui and Chin (2014)noted that a thread of unions in the banking sector of the UnitedStates’ financial system had fashioned possible challenges, someforced by regulators whenever the system encounters a crisis. Big andinterlinked banks lead the system excessively than they did before. Reports from the IMF indicated that it was crucial that the UnitedStates come up with a “self-governing national watchdog” for theinsurance sector (Cetorelli & Linda, 2014). Currently, theinsurance industry is majorly supervised by state administrators thatare not efficient as expected. The Financial Stability OversightCouncil must be reinforced as well as organizations should completestipulating rules and regulations for multifaceted securitiesreferred to as derivatives.
In spite of the caution about the impacts of succumbing tolow-interest rates, the IMF stated in a different report has beenseen preventing the action of the central bank’s increase of thefundamental interim interest rate (Buckley et al., 2016). Notably,also, the federal fund`s rate of the United States has been aboutzero for a long time. A raised federal funds rate has a potential toamount to substantial market unpredictability and financialsteadiness effects that may go well outside the U.S boundaries.
NationalFinancial Systems of Other Nations
Beyondthe United States, evolving economies in other nations will have areputation that will position them well in the global economy(Cuervo-Cazurra,Newburry & Park, 2016). Consequently, it will boost the cross-border economic connectivityamongst other nations’ financial systems. Nations like Malaysia,Europe and among others prefer schemes that improve financial sectorconnections with other evolving economies to reinforcejointly-supporting development (Herring, 2014). As such, nations likeCanada and Brazil have supported their sustained development ofinternational Islamic financial frameworks to promote their globallinkages. Saudi Arabian and other Muslim dominated nations canflexibility consider investments in these foreign countries thataccommodate their financial system.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Securing Financing for Cross-borderOperation Globalfinancial amalgamation assures relevant advantages. The subsidy ofcurrent account disparities by net global financial streams canenhance welfare-boosting spending and cost-effective global allotmentof capital (Cerutti, Hale & Minoiu, 2015). Moreover, gross globalfinancial flows offer a significant framework by which global riskdivergence can be executed, while also allowing more penetratingcontest in the delivery of financial services. On the otherhand, global integration in financing can also appear expensive. Itmay aggravate home state financial system misrepresentations. Thathappens when the underprivileged local corporate administration andinsufficient financial rules allow incredibly ambitious entrepreneursand individual banks in the domestic arena to spread out morespeedily by venturing on global leverage (Cheng & Claessens,2016). In a similar manner, admittance to global financial marketsmay motivate unwarranted borrowing by governments that have to borrowto fulfill their national projects. In situations of such non-idealactions, spending volatility might heighten and good organization ofglobal capital subsidy decrease, as opposed to what the textbookssuggest. Even whenthere are no discrepancies, global financial incorporation also leadto new kinds of risks that relate to finances to nations. Financialsurprises received externally could stimulate a setback in theprogression and course of global financial flows, while changes inglobal asset prices and exchange tolls can produce significantvaluation impacts on the value of foreign assets and liabilities(Lane, 2014). Furthermore, the macro-financial effect of home statesurprises may be increased by the pro-recurring reaction of globalfinancial flows. On the partof liability, the rate of exchange devaluation elevates the actualweight of foreign-currency arrears. On the other hand, borrowing fromthe foreign nations can heighten the influence sequence by allowingan accelerated extension in debt but also augmenting the risk ofcompelled deleveraging if there is a burden to the bases of externaldebt subsidy (Arsanlap & Takahiro, 2012). Variations in externalequity funding may as well be distractive, both straightly (throughconnected regressions in local equity values) and as far asheightening the risk outline of the global balance sheet isconcerned, if foreign equity funding from other countries issubstituted by foreign debt subsidy. Intensifiedties with regional and global economies are foundational to mostcountries’ move in the direction of being a high value-added,accelerated income economy (Drehmann, 2013). For instance, the UnitedStates and any other nation will perform well in their financialsystems only if they have strengthened their cooperation with othercountries across the world (Avdjjey, Chui & Chin, 2014). Thus,strong cross-border connections with other nations have boosted tradeand investment occasions in the nation. The transnational linkagesextend the market for the ultimate demand, heightening capitalaccrual and enhancing factor output. Also, they generateopportunities for countries involved to maximize on the variousrelative benefits in the states. Funding Opportunities from Global Financial Centers Globalfinancial centers have deteriorated as a consequence, cross-borderlending between nations have declined. Global financial institutionshave loosened their global business frameworks toward more localbusinesses. Singapore has topped Hong Kong to be the highestfinancial center in Asia (Cuervo-Cazurra, Newburry & Park, 2016).It has also been ranked third among the main significant venues forfinanciers globally. Accordingto the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) report, Hong-kong wasranked number four in the whole world, with Tokyo following it at thefifth position. The top most financier was London that scored 800points (Dowling & Donnelly, 2013). New York resumed second place.The study noted that the two cities were more of harmonizing oneanother than entirely competitive places to interest financiersglobally. The GFCI is a research study that is done by the Z/YenGroup after every six months. The study involves more than 2,500financial services experts who survey financial institutions andranks them (Cheng & Claessens, 2016). Each financial centers areexamined on a scale of 1000 points, and they are examined based onthe following avenues of competitiveness: business surrounding,advancement of the financial segment, the excellence of labor force,rules and regulations and infrastructure. Thus, thestudy also revealed that Zurich, Washington DC, San Francisco, NewYork, Boston, and Toronto respectively were great financial centersfor investors in the world. Buckley et al. (2016) observed that halfthe number of the top ten financial centers in the world are nowNorth American. Most possibly that would indicate the flow in Fintechand blockchains. The blockchain is fundamentally the technologybehind the crypto-currency Bitcoin, and many financial organizationsare endeavoring to embrace it in their systems. Thus, a heightenedintegration of blockchain and other technological development in acity would imply a boosted financial performance.Funding Opportunities from other Arenas Globalcommercial banks offer strategic funds based on competitive merit tosustain economic advancement in different nations. They createplatforms to attract investment opportunities in foreign financialderivatives in deprived regions of the United States. Developingcountries receive funding from the global banking institutions tofacilitate construction works within their boundaries (Kim &Srobona, 2014). Investors are provided with rotating loan funddevelopments under the programs of these global banks. Grants andcooperative contracts that are passed on the grounds of theseprograms are intended to upgrade existing regional assets and sustainthe execution of economic advancement approaches (Andritsky, 2012).The improvement strategies are to leverage new concepts andinnovative strategies and lead to economic success in the investorsand less privileged nations. The moneymarket instrument is also availed to the investors by the financialinstitutions in the UK. The money market is an international marketthat facilitates the borrowing and lending for short periods of time,approximately within a year. On the other hand, the investors areprovided an option of longer-term funding of capital market (Arsanlap& Takahiro, 2012). In this, they are given bonds and equity.Banks like Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), ChinaConstruction Bank and Wells Fargo offer developing nations withlong-term loans for the advancement of their infrastructure. RoyalBank Canada and Bank of America provide investors with bonds andequity as well as money market for new projects. Currency Change Rates in Different Countries Exchangerates are significant while securing financing from variouscountries. Exchange rates are influenced by factors like interestrates, certainty, a current account on balance of payments,comparative inflation tolls and development of the economy (Avdjjey,Chui & Chin, 2014). The economies of the United States, China,and Asia have become comparatively more competitive. The implicationof this is that there is a huge demand for goods and services fromthese regions. That explains why the U.S. dollar has appreciated invalue in most of the countries. Theinflation rate in China as at 2015 was relatively lower than anywhereelse. The exports from the nation became increasingly competitive.There is an increase in China’s currency to acquire China goods.Currently, the country also considers buying fewer imports because ofthe appreciation in the worth of their currency as a country.According to Manova (2015), the rate at which Trump is running theUnited States, the dollar will fall in the forthcoming days.Consequently, the enhanced demand for the dollar may lead to a risein its value.The Current Worldwide Financial Crisis and the Challenges of MNEsThecurrent worldwide financial crisis Trump’sintended actions were to liberalize derivative trading, perminginvestment financial institutions to create big gambles with theirfunds again. The government of Trump also is committed to permittinginvesting in hedge assets, bringing down the capital and liquidityneeds and pulling to pieces the potential of regulators to overseethe broad shadow banking framework (Cheng & Claessens, 2016). Incase these moves are executed, it will not just leave the UnitedStates in a worse situation, but the entire world. Dodd-Frankwas the banking and financial restructure regulation certified byCongress because of the financial crisis that occurred in 2008 (Kim &Srobona, 2014). The reform was entirely insufficient. The regulationwas better than operating without any. In its capacity, the statutebarred investment financial institutions from executing enormous andrisky gambling with their money. It also enhances the protection ofthe customer and prevents the chances for bankers to benefitinappropriately by making unwarranted sales of financial products tothe unsuspecting American public. Nevertheless, President Trump doesnot appreciate the Dodd-Frank regulation (Hitt & Xu, 2016). He iscommitted to disassemble the legislation. That will put the economyof the world into a risk and predispose it to a financial crisis thatcould have been controlled. Challengesof MNEs
MNEsare those companies or business institutions that have ventures inmore than one nation. There are an increasing number of MNEs fromevolving economies like Africa, Asia, and Latin America. MNEs thatplace themselves in the evolving markets have better opportunities toground, develop and maintain themselves since such economies getbetter and firmer every year (Kim & Srobona, 2014). On the otherhand, MNEs are careful on their moves toward these markets that arevery volatile, unpredictable and less rewarding.
Essentially,globalization is one of the biggest challenges that MNEs have to dealwith. Surrounding market forces in the international arena in mutualvalues and established practices, and filling the voids in globalgovernance frameworks are some of the most substantial trials thatpolicymakers, as well as corporate leaders, deal with (Avdjjey, Chui& Chin, 2014). MNEs also find it difficult to adjust to thecultural disparities, values, and practices present in differentnations. Also, various nations are prone to political instabilityparticularly those that are just developing. Investors from alreadydeveloped nations will consider the economic risks like exchange rantrisk when they want to put their resources in developing nations.
ManyMNEs find it an enormous task to balance the price and quality.According to Cuervo-Cazurra, Newburry, and Park (2016), it is hard todetermine the impact of institutions like the judicial system,education system and a combination of traditional local culture andthe contemporary culture operating globally. Those MNEs that investin emerging markets must be prepared to deal with high pricesensitivity, local demands and limited purchasing ability (Haas &Lelyveld, 2014). As far as multinational operations in cross-bordernations are concerned, there may be no specialized go-betweens,regulatory system and proper techniques of implementing a contract tofacilitate these. Correspondingly, Kim and Srobona (2014) recognizethat CSR is an emerging test for MNEs investing in developingnations. MNEs have the task of harmonizing their functions ineconomic advancement with social responsibilities toward the nationin which they are carrying out their operations and be in a positionto sustain cross-border financing.
Nations’ financial sector emerge to be regional in positioning andglobally connected to transition between regional and cross-borderfinancial flows progressively. Some countries have adopted Islamicfinancial framework to reach all parts of the globe inclusively.Nations endeavor to make their financial institutions have a greaterpotential to sufficiently serve the requirements of theircorporations as they venture in foreign markets. A country like theUnited States has a well-placed financial structure to offer a fullcollection of products and services to sustain the financial needs ofglobal and regional corporations that invest and develop theirdealings in the Country. It is these considerations that makemultinational financing operations in cross-border nations possible.Liberalization among nations will offer new chances within theirfinancial segment and lead to a boosted trade and investmentconnections with other regions of the world.
Andritsky,R. (2012), “Government Bonds and their Investors,” IMFWorking Paper No.12/158.
Arsanlap,S., & Takahiro, T. (2012), “Tracking Global Demand for AdvancedEconomy Sovereign Debt,” IMFWorking Paper No. 12/284.
Avdjiev,S., Chui, M. K., & Shin, H. S. (2014). Non-financial corporationsfrom emerging market economies and capital flows.
Buckley,P. J., Munjal, S., Enderwick, P., & Forsans, N. (2016).Cross-border acquisitions by Indian multinationals: Assetexploitation or asset augmentation?.
Catao,L., & Gian, M. (2014), “External Liabilities and Crises,”Journalof International Economics 94(1),18-32.
Cerutti,E., & Claessens, S. (2016). The great cross-border bankdeleveraging: supply constraints and intra-group frictions. Reviewof Finance,rfw002.
Cerutti,E., Hale, G., & Minoiu, C. (2015). Financial crises and thecomposition of cross-border lending. Journalof International Money and Finance, 52,60-81.
Cetorelli,N., & Linda S. (2014). “Measures of Complexity of GlobalBanks,” FederalReserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 20(2).
Cheng,S. L., & Wu, L. Y. (2015, January). Corporate sustainabledevelopment in emerging-market multinational enterprises: Evidencefrom Taiwan. In Academyof Management Proceedings (Vol.2015, No. 1, p. 15531). Academy of Management.
Cuervo-Cazurra,A., Newburry, W., & Park, S. H. (2016). EmergingMarket Multinationals: Managing Operational Challenges for SustainedInternational Growth.Cambridge University Press.
Dowling,P. J., & Donnelly, N. (2013). Managing people in globalmarkets—The Asia Pacific perspective.
Drehmann,M. (2013). “Total Credit as an Early Warning Indicator for SystemicBanking Crises,” BISQuarterly Review (June),41-45.
Foley,C. F., & Manova, K. (2015). International trade, multinationalactivity, and corporate finance. Economics, 7(1),119-146.
Gilman,M. G. (2013). Thefinancing of foreign direct investment: A study of the determinantsof capital flows in multinational enterprises.Bloomsbury Publishing.
Haas,R., & Lelyveld, I. (2014). Multinational banks and the globalfinancial crisis: Weathering the perfect storm?. Journalof Money, Credit and Banking, 46(s1),333-364.
Herring,R. (2014). The challenge of resolving cross-border financialinstitutions. YaleJ. on Reg., 31,853.
Hitt,M. A., & Xu, K. (2016). The transformation of China: effects ofthe institutional environment on business actions. LongRange Planning, 49(5),589-593.
Kim,K., & Srobona M. (2014). “Real and Financial Vulnerabilitiesfrom Cross-Border Banking Linkages,” IMFWorking Paper No. 14/136.
Lane,P. (2014). “International Financial Flows and the Irish Crisis,”CESifoForum 2/2014,14-19.
Manova,K. (2015). Global value chains and multinational activity withfinancial frictions. TheAge of Global Value Chains,187.
No related posts.