Draft Communique from G20 Summit - Reuters March 30All pasted in here, for your convenience...note this is a DRAFT communique, not the final text...Note the reference to the Doha round in point 13.(Reuters) - The leaders of the Group of Twenty (G20) leading and emerging nations will agree at a summit on Thursday to refrain from currency moves that would hurt each other's economies, according to a draft statement.Following is the statement, dated March 26, 2009, obtained by Reuters.Introduction1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty met, for a second time, in London on 2 April.Over the last half century strong growth and increasing international trade has brought untold jobs and prosperity to our citizens. We now face the greatest challenge to the world economy in modern times, a crisis affecting the lives of ordinary men, women, and children around the world. A global crisis requires a global solution.2. We believe that an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions will ensure a sustainable globalization with rising prosperity for all. We are determined to restore growth now, resist protectionism, and reform our markets and our institutions for the future. We have agreed actions to meet these challenges as part of an integrated strategy that will restore confidence and ensure a lasting global recovery. We are determined to ensure that this crisis is not repeated.Restoring global growth now3. We are taking unprecedented and concerted fiscal actions to support growth and jobs. Acting together we strengthen the impact of this fiscal expansion, which amounts to a stimulus of more than this year and next and is expected to increase output by more than percentage points and employment by over million jobs. We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth while ensuring long-run fiscal sustainability.4. Our central banks have also taken exceptional action, cutting interest rates aggressively and to close to zero in many advanced economies. Our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies as long as needed, using the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional policy instruments, consistent with price stability.5. We are taking comprehensive action to strengthen our financial institutions in order to restore domestic lending and international capital flows. We have made available over of support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalize financial institutions, and address the problem of impaired assets. We are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions, acting within the agreed G20 Framework for Restoring Lending. These measures underpin and strengthen the impact of our fiscal and monetary policy actions.6. Emerging and developing countries, which have been the engine of recent world growth, are now facing shocks which threaten stability and jeopardize the global economy. It is imperative that capital continues to flow to them. We have therefore agreed to make of resources available through the international financial institutions. This will finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalization, infrastructure, trade finance, debt rollover, and social support. To this end:* we have agreed to increase the resources available to the IMF to $ through bilateral borrowing from members of $ subsequently replaced by an expanded New Arrangements to Borrow of $ and borrowing in the market of up to $ if necessary; * we support a substantial increase in lending of $ by the Multilateral Development Banks;* we will make available $ over the next two years to support trade finance through our export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs. We have asked our regulators to make use of available flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.7. We will ensure these resources can be used effectively to meet the needs of emerging and developing countries. The IMF should implement rapidly its new Flexible Credit Line for countries with strong policies and its reformed lending and conditionality framework. It should also double access to its low income country facilities.8. We have agreed a general SDR allocation of $ to strengthen global liquidity. 9. The world's poorest are most at risk from the crisis and we are resolved to support them. We remain committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals and to achieving our ODA pledges including commitments on Aid for Trade. We are making available $ in social protection for the poorest countries, alongside investing in food security, and we support the World Bank's Vulnerability Financing Framework. We call on the UN to establish an effective mechanism to monitor the impact of the crisis on the poorest and most vulnerable. We have also asked the IMF to bring forward, by the Spring Meetings, proposals to use the proceeds of agreed gold sales to support low income countries.10. These actions together constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus, the most comprehensive support program for the financial sector, and the greatest mobilization of resources to support global financial flows in modern times. Our objective is that they will enable the global economy to expand by by the end of 2010. We have taken and will continue to take the measures necessary to deliver this outcome. We call on the IMF to assess regularly the actions taken and the actions required.11. World trade is falling for the first time in. We need to sustain the benefits of globalization and open markets, and promote trade as a crucial driver of growth in the world economy. Therefore:* we reaffirm the commitment made in Washington not to raise new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, including within existing WTO limits, not to impose new trade restrictions, and not to create new subsidies to exports.We will rectify promptly any such measures. We extend this pledge for a further 12 months;* we will notify promptly governments and other relevant institutions of any measures which have the potential to cause direct or indirect trade distortions;* we will minimize any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions including action in support of the financial sector. We will not retreat into financial protectionism;* we commit to conduct our economic policies responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and to refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies.12. We call on the WTO, together with the IMF and other international bodies as appropriate, to report on our adherence to these undertakings on a quarterly basis.13. We are committed to reaching rapid agreement, on the basis of progress already made, on modalities leading to a successful conclusion of the Doha Round which would boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum.

Sounds about right for G20: a lot of big words and little actionable substance. I've gone short ahead of the meeting.

Here is some information on the Doha Round - what has taken place so far:WTO Doha Home The November 2001 declaration of the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, provides the mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects and other work. The negotiations include those on agriculture and services, which began in early 2000.In Doha, Ministers also approved a linked decision on implementation — problems developing countries face in implementing the current WTO agreements.The original mandate has now been refined by work at Cancún in 2003, Geneva in 2004, and Hong Kong in 2005. ***These were the key dates and action items for *2006*Doha Timelines - WTO site***And these are among the dates and deadlines set in the Doha Declaration, now missed:Deadline for Dispute Settlement Understanding negotiations: May 2003 Deadline for negotiations on registration system for geographical indications: 5th Ministerial Conference in 2003 (in Mexico) Stock taking: 5th Ministerial Conference in 2003 (in Mexico) Deadline for other negotiations: by 1 January 2005 as single undertaking Decision on adopting and implementing results: Special Session of Ministerial Conference — date not set yet ***Probably most of this is of little interest to quants, but any global macro guys who are lurking out there may appreciate the issues.This is also very interesting - Reuters does a nice job at times like this - a mapping of positions without alot of journalistic color...FACTBOX: Who wants what from the G20? - Reuters March 30Pasted in full for your convenience:"(Reuters) - Following are some of the key priorities of G20 states attending a London summit Thursday.ARGENTINA - Seeks more IMF voting power for emerging economies; fewer conditions and longer terms for IMF loans; increased effectiveness of IMF oversight mechanisms.AUSTRALIA - IMF resources should be at least doubled and China should get a more central role; G20 should play more prominent role in global affairs.BRAZIL - Seeks big increase in IMF funds and creation of $100 billion Fund credit line for international trade; rich nations should accept responsibility for bringing about the crisis; stronger voice for emerging economies; conclusion of Doha Round of trade talks.BRITAIN - Prime Minister Gordon Brown says summit must do "whatever is necessary to restore the world economy to the growth it needs"; priorities are reform of global banking system and creation of jobs. Wants G20 to reaffirm opposition to protectionism and clamp down on tax havens.CANADA - Seeks measures to restore global growth; commitment against protectionism; stronger banking regulation; boost to IMF resources.CHINA - Demands more IMF voting rights and firmer international financial regulation; last week it floated the idea of a new global reserve currency based on IMF special drawing rights, but this drew a cool response.EU - Favors more resources for IMF and more effective financial regulation; resistant to calls for new stimulus measures.FRANCE - With Germany, believes the need is not for more stimulus but tighter regulation, enshrined in a new global financial architecture; favors clamping down on hedge funds and tax havens.GERMANY - "All financial markets, products and participants, without exception" -- notably hedge funds -- should be subject to appropriate supervision or regulation; favors modified bank capital adequacy rules, reform of IMF.INDIA - With Brazil, Russia and China, wants more lending to emerging economies hit by collapse of private capital, and urgent reforms to improve their representation in IMF. Wants to implement confidence-building measures in world economy and discourage protectionism.INDONESIA - Wants G20 to state general principles on fiscal stimulus measures, with guidance on appropriate size in relation to GDP. Continues to demand a Global Expenditure Support Fund to help developing countries weather the crisis and continue to grow; wants to make IMF more representative of new world order.ITALY - Backs reform of global financial system and cooperation on regulation between the G8 (which it chairs) and G20.JAPAN - Says leaders should focus on saving the world economy rather than on longer-term efforts to improve financial regulation. "Although we are ready to discuss capital adequacy ratio regulations, we have to decide which problem has the priority," Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano said this month.MEXICO - Wants G20 to strengthen international financial organizations and bolster their support for emerging economies, and to coordinate fiscal measures against the global crisis. RUSSIA - Wants reform of IMF and World Bank; more say -- and more voting power -- for emerging economiesSAUDI ARABIA - Seeks reform of IMF; any increased contributions must be matched by greater influence; wants to avoid the global crisis further undermining demand for oil.SOUTH AFRICA - Wants stronger role and better resources for IMF, World Bank and regional development banks.SOUTH KOREA - Wants stronger commitment against erecting trade barriers, and agreement on how much fiscal stimulus is needed to counter recession.TURKEY - Seeks stronger European commitment to stimulate economies; pledges to avoid protectionism; rich nations should deliver on aid promises.UNITED STATES - Seeks "robust approach" to stimulus measures, approach to dealing with toxic assets, agreement on regulatory reform to prevent repeat of crisis. Backs greater transparency by tax havens.

A Lifeline for Nations Both Rich and Poor - Washington Post April 3LONDON, April 2 -- The $1.1 trillion pledged by world leaders to combat the worst economic crisis since World War II effectively amounts to a rescue package for both poor and rich countries, potentially including the United States. The bulk of that money will be channeled through the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, which emerges from the summit with a vastly redefined and enhanced mission. The IMF has long focused almost exclusively on helping developing nations in crisis. As part of Thursday's agreement, it will take the extraordinary step of effectively extending a $250 billion line of credit to boost liquidity in nations hobbled by the credit crunch, with the bulk of the funds going to the industrialized nations of Europe, United States and Japan. The fact that the United States, for instance, could draw as much as $42.5 billion of those funds to help jump-start domestic lending underscores the breadth of the global plan, which has both short- and long-term fixes for a crisis that has hit nations small and large, wealthy and not. ...Most of points of Thursday's agreement revolve around longer-term plans to try to prevent a new crisis by tightening regulation on banks, extending oversight to hedge funds and setting benchmarks on executive pay. But drafting such rules could take months if not years, and they are unlikely to provide any immediate relief from the current downturn. Though new rules could lead to promised global standards for financial institutions, even after countries agree on the details, each still has the right to accept, reject or change them to suit their needs. ...It also marked what some here are calling a turning point for U.S. economic influence. Rather than in U.S. dollars, for instance, the $250 billion credit from the IMF to be offered to countries including rich nations is coming in the form of the Fund's own independent "currency" known as Special Drawing Rights. Nations including the United States will be allocated a portion of those SDRs, which will be held in reserve by the IMF but could be converted into tradeable currencies like the dollar, yen or euro if withdrawn. Chinese and Russians have called for the IMF's currency to eventually replace the U.S. dollar as the basis for reserves in central banks worldwide. Though a proposal to discuss such a switch was sidelined by the United States and other nations this week, the IMF plan nevertheless marked a first small step in that direction, analysts said."

G20 Leaders' Statement - April 2At a Glance - the G20 Agreement

IMF Seems a Formidable Weapon - Forbes April 3 (all):"Newly flush with cash, the Fund is getting better at tackling a crisis and probably has more money than it needs. There's good news and bad news about the billions of new money that the G-20 said they would be pouring into the International Monetary Fund on Thursday. (See "G-20: More Than Just Claptrap.") Bad news first: the Fund is getting far less in new money than the $1.1 trillion figure bandied about the media on Thursday. The IMF coffers are actually only expanding to $750.0 billion, from the $250.0 billion it had before the economic crisis. The rest of the $1.1 trillion goes to other institutions like the Asia Development Bank and trade credits. And the only truly new money to be announced was $250.0 billion in Special Drawing Rights to be equally shared out between IMF members (making it easier for the troubled one to borrow money), and $40.0 billion in new funding from China. Some $100.0 billion had already been pledged by Japan earlier this year and $100.0 billion announced two weeks ago by the European Union. Here ends the bad news, for while it would seem that the global bank of last resort should be loaded with as much capital as possible, it probably doesn't need so much to begin with. Since the start of the financial crisis, the IMF has only spent around $50.0 billion on loans for countries like Hungary, Ukraine and Pakistan, points out Ivan Tchakarov, a former economist at the IMF whose policy proposals were implemented by Thailand after the Asian economic crisis. "I don't think there's a need for more money at the IMF," he said. He added that on top of $50.0 billion spent so far the Fund has another $100.0-120.0 billion for other countries to be voted on by its executive board, meaning the $750.0 billion is still an amply large buffer to deal with the crisis. The public pledging of such large amounts is intended more as a confidence measure, he added.Better news: the IMF is more adept at tackling a crisis, according to Tchakarov, who now works for Nomura. The multi-lateral fund was criticized during the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998 for being ineffective and too heavy handed with countries that needed funding. Tchakarov says that 30-40% of the structural conditions that the IMF had set on Thailand in 1997, such as closing factories and privatizing companies, were unnecessary. The fund has now become much less of a micro-manager, focusing on wider economic issues, fiscal policy, exchange rate policy and monetary policy. (See "A More Amenable IMF.") It complements the World Bank, which is better at meddling in structural policies that developing countries ought change. There used to be a "blurring of responsibility" between the two institutions but now it's clearer what value each can add, Tcharkarov said. Former colleagues of Tchakarov who worked at the IMF during economic boom times of the last decade and have faced criticisms that the Fund was increasingly irrelevant, are now "excited" by the new responsibilities their organization has taken on. "There's a lot of pressure on the IMF to deliver this time around. The IMF wants to prove it has learned from the mistakes it made during the 1997 and 1998 crisis," he said. "The signs I have seen so far are positive.""And one view on the results of the summit:Economix Blog "The Last European" Why the G20 Summit Was a Success - Simon Johnson of MIT April 3

Yeah, even G8 is a dead organization. What can I say about G20...