Transcript

Transcript of IMF Press Briefing

May 16, 2024

MS. KOZACK: Good morning, everyone, both to those of us here in person and also those joining us online. Welcome to this IMF Press Briefing. I am Julie Kozack, Director of Communications at the IMF. As usual, this briefing is embargoed until 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time in the U.S. I will start with some announcements and then we'll move to your questions in person, on Webex, or through the Press Center.

Today and tomorrow, the Managing Director is visiting Tajikistan to meet with the authorities and speak to various stakeholders on Tajikistan's economy and how the IMF is helping Tajikistan maintain macroeconomic stability and foster more sustainable and inclusive growth. The Managing Director will then be in London on Tuesday, May 21st, where she will participate in a press conference to present the findings of the UK Article IV consultation. During her trip, she will also hold bilateral meetings with the UK authorities. The Managing Director will then travel to Italy from May 21st to 23rd, where she will participate in the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting taking place in Stresa. The meeting provides an opportunity to discuss key issues, including multilateral responses to global challenges.

Our First Deputy Managing Director, Gita Gopinath, will be traveling to Beijing from May 26th to 29th to meet with the Chinese authorities as part of the 2024 China Article IV mission. She will brief the media at a press conference on May 29th. Further details regarding the press conference will be provided closer to the event. Our FDMD will then travel to Geneva for the UN's AI For Good Summit at the end of the month, delivering a speech on May 30th.

And with that, I will now open the floor to your questions. For those connecting virtually, please turn on both your camera and microphone when speaking. And now over to you. All right, let's start with you, since I didn't get to greet you when I first entered the room.

QUESTIONER: Good morning, Julie. Just wondering if you could give us the IMF's view on President Biden's new round of tariffs on Chinese imports. Electric vehicles, solar. These are products that the U.S. says are overproduced in China. Should they be allowed to just come into countries, or should countries take action to protect their own industries? And what does this do for U.S. -- the global climate goals, which will ultimately make solar products and EV's possibly more expensive?

And then secondly, a question on Ukraine. Looking at the debt sustainability analysis, what is the IMF's view if bondholders were to negotiate a restructuring deal that looks at just the baseline scenario and doesn't look at the downside scenario, and wondering if the IMF feels like that downside scenario is getting more likely given the increasing attacks on infrastructure there. Thank you.

MS. KOZACK: Okay, great. Thanks. So maybe before I respond, are there any other questions on the U.S., China, and the tariffs? Let me look online as well. QUESTIONER: Yes, Julie, just wanted to ask, following on the previous question, and given the IMF's criticism of and concern about fragmentation, how concerned is the IMF that there will be a Chinese response, or that just the U.S. action in itself will deepen the fragmentation that the IMF has underlined as a concern?

QUESTIONER: So do you see any impact of this -- the significant impact it would have on global trade?

MS. KOZACK: Okay, let me go ahead and respond on these questions. So, first, I think it is important to just step back and give our overall view, which is that the IMF supports an open and rules-based trading system. This system has been critical for economic growth and stability over the past few decades. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that not all communities and people have benefited equally from an integrated global economy. Greater attention does need to be paid to ensure that the benefits of trade are more equitably shared across societies.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in trade restrictions. In 2019, we document 1,000 trade restrictions, and that has increased to 3,000 trade restrictions in 2023. These kinds of restrictions can distort trade and investment. They can fragment the global economy and supply chains and trigger retaliatory actions. Fragmentation of this type can be very costly for the global economy.

As you know, we have done quite a lot of analysis on this topic of fragmentation. Our studies indicate that global losses from fragmentation, there's quite a wide range. They can range from 0.2 percent of global GDP all the way up to 7 percent of global GDP. And to put that in context, 7 percent of global GDP, which would be kind of severe fragmentation, it represents the combined size of Germany's and Japan's economies. And of course, the cost of fragmentation would be higher should there be, for example, technological fragmentation in addition.

With respect to the tariffs, our view is that the U.S. would be better served by maintaining open trade policies that have been vital to its economic performance. We also encourage the U.S. and China to work together toward a solution that addresses the underlying concerns that have exacerbated trade tensions between the two countries. And more broadly, we urge all countries to work within the multilateral framework to resolve their differences.

David, you had a question on Ukraine. Let me ask if anyone else has questions also on Ukraine. QUESTIONER: I just wonder when the next round of EFF review is scheduled this year. And from the IMF point of view, how the latest developments on the front lines and the latest recent mobilization law that was adopted in Ukraine -- will or could impact Ukrainian economy. MS. KOZACK: Okay. So, just stepping back to give the lay of the land on Ukraine. On March 21 of this year, our Executive Board completed the third review of Ukraine's program with the Fund. This enabled a disbursement of $880 million. The Ukrainian economy has shown remarkable resilience, although the outlook does remain subject to exceptionally high war related uncertainty. The authorities have made good progress toward their EFF commitments under very challenging conditions, with all structural benchmarks and all but one quantitative performance criteria met at the time of the last review, which was the third review.

Now, with respect to the next review of the EFF, we do expect a mission to take place in the coming weeks, and we expect then to be able to bring that review to our Executive Board by the end of June.

And in, I think, with respect to your question, so it is going to be in the context of that review in the coming weeks. That the team will, of course, assess all economic developments. They will, of course, as part of that, prepare an updated macroeconomic framework and an updated debt sustainability analysis. And that debt sustainability analysis will be published at the time that we publish the Staff Report following Executive Board approval of the next review.

QUESTIONER: Thank you, Julie. As IMF First Deputy Managing Director, Gita Gopinath, said, geopolitical spillover effects are dividing the world's economists into competing blocs. I am wondering if the Fund considers the possibility of significant worsening of the situation due to the worldwide crisis. Is fragmentation likely to reach a critical level in the short term? Thank you.

MS. KOZACK: Thanks very much for the question. So, I think our view on fragmentation is that there is a wide range of possible outcomes. And of course, we are encouraging countries to work together to resolve the differences that they do have so that we can limit the cost of fragmentation to that low end, that 0.2 percent of global GDP. And I think it is also important to recognize that we do acknowledge that there is a need to improve the security of supply chains. I think we saw during the pandemic that supply chains can fragment, that supply chains can break down. So, we do acknowledge that there is a need to improve the security of supply chains so that they can still function properly in the face of shocks. But we think that by working together, countries can achieve that appropriate balance.

QUESTIONER: In the last press release, regarding Argentina, the IMF said that monetary policy will evolve, and that foreign exchange policy will become more flexible. I was hoping you could give us a little bit more details about what does it mean. Specifically, if the IMF is going to keep validating more interest rates cuts by the central bank? The Fund has long advocated for positive real interest rates in Argentina. And secondly, if the so-called crawling peg, which is currently moving at 2 percent monthly, if we were to expect changes in that rate going forward. Thanks.

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Argentina?

QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I would like to know, what is your opinion regarding Argentina implemented a basket of currency? What is your opinion, and do you think it is possible to implement, and why are the reasons for that? Thank you.

MS. KOZACK: Anyone else on Argentina? QUESTIONER: Yes. I was wondering also if there has been any talks regarding new funding during this revision. And also, what's the IMF's take on the discussion that is going on in Congress regarding a new Ley Bases as we call it here, and the new fiscal chapter?

QUESTIONER: Yeah, sorry, just a quick question. Earlier this week, you reached a staff-level agreement with Argentina, obviously, still subject to Board approval, and in that, you cited faster than anticipated progress in restoring macroeconomic stability. My question is just about, you know, the consequences of that. There is a report that said that I think almost six in ten Argentinians are now living in poverty, according to a recent study. I just sort of wonder, as Argentina makes those economic changes, what more you think they can do to ensure that that situation does not get worse. And I have other questions, but I will come back.

MS. KOZACK: And anything else -- anyone else >on Argentina? And I see I have one question that has come in online. I am just going to read it out loud. It is from from El Destape. The question is, is there any chance of giving extra funding to Argentina besides the disbursements stipulated in the current program? Given that Monday's press release, the IMF strongly supported Javier Milei’s policies during the first quarter.

Okay, so quite a lot of questions on Argentina. I am going to try to give as comprehensive a response as I can. So, first, I am going to step back and give you a sense of where we stand. So, as you know, and some of you mentioned last week, we reached -- we released a staff-level agreement on the 8th review of the program. This is another important step in our ongoing engagement with the authorities.

Regarding progress to date. Strong ownership and decisive implementation by the authorities of their stabilization plan is yielding better than expected results. Notably, the authorities have delivered the first quarterly fiscal surplus in 16 years in Argentina, there has been a rapid turnaround in international reserves, an improvement in the central bank's balance sheet, and a rapid reduction in inflation.

Specifically on inflation, monthly headline inflation fell to 8.8 percent in April, and it was sitting at over 25 percent in December. That is month-on-month inflation. This will also be the first review of this program where all quantitative performance criteria have been met. So, these are all important steps in the right direction, and we expect the economy to start growing again in the second half of this year.

Having said all of this, the road ahead remains challenging. Sustaining and building on these early gains will mean that policies will need to evolve across several dimensions. And here I am going to talk about three dimensions: fiscal, monetary, and reforms.

So, first on fiscal as we have been saying, it is important to improve the quality of the fiscal consolidation to ensure both its durability and also its fairness. This means, more specifically, improving the efficiency and progressivity of the tax system. It also means continuing to ensure that social assistance is sufficient and well targeted to protect the most vulnerable, and also to ensure that the burden of the ongoing fiscal consolidation does not fall disproportionately on working families.

[The] second area is monetary policy. Monetary policy will need to continue to evolve to anchor inflation and inflation expectations in Argentina, and FX policy will need to become more flexible over time to safeguard a further improvement in reserve coverage. These policy changes will be necessary as the FX controls are gradually eased, based on conditions allowing, and as the authorities also transition to a new monetary policy regime. And in this case, that regime will involve currency competition, which is a regime by which the peso and other currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, can coexist and are freely usable. Other countries in the region, such as Peru and Uruguay, have systems like this.

And finally, the third area is reforms. These will be needed to support Argentina's economic recovery. It will be important to unlock barriers to entry for firms, promote formal employment in the economy, and also attract private investment. Importantly, it also, of course, remains critical to broaden the political support for stabilization and for reform. We do welcome the recent efforts to secure lower house approval of key fiscal and structural legislation.

And finally, let me just say a few words on next steps. I think we all know that staff-level agreement is not the last step in the process. The staff-level agreement is contingent on [the] approval of our Executive Board. We expect this to happen in the coming weeks and will, of course, provide updates in due course. With respect to the disbursement, as noted in the press release accompanying the staff-level agreement, the disbursement will be in line with those listed in the program, which means $800 million for the completion of this review. And current discussions, of course, with the authorities are indeed focused on this current review.

Oh, and I see, I just need to clarify one thing. I mentioned erroneously that we reached staff-level agreement last week, but in fact it was this week. So just to avoid any confusion. Okay, let us move on. Daniel, go ahead.

QUESTIONER: Just a quick one on Pakistan. I wondered if you could give us an update on the status of talks there and then just one on U.S. monetary policy, if I may. A few, sort of, Fed governors and presidents in the last few weeks have floated the idea that there could be no rate cuts at all this year. The IMF has previously said, or the Chief Economist has previously said, that they still expect rate cuts perhaps later this year. I just wonder, in light of the recent data, how you see the likelihood of those rate cuts later this year and what you make of the projected path of U.S. monetary policy by the financial markets. Thank you.

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Pakistan to start? No, and I do not see anyone online.

So, on Pakistan, on April 29th of this year, our Executive Board completed the second review of the Stand-by Arrangement for Pakistan, allowing a disbursement of about $1.1 billion. The completion by our Board of the second and final review of the Stand-by Arrangement reflected the authority's strong policy efforts during the time of the standby, which did help stabilization of the economy. Right now, a mission team led by Nathan Porter, our Mission Chief, is meeting with the authorities this week to discuss the next phase of our engagement with Pakistan.

Now turning to the U.S. Before I answer, any other questions on U.S. QUESTIONER: Just wondering about sort of the higher for longer situation. This was a big topic at the Spring Meetings, the pressures that emerging markets are going to face from this. If you could sort of talk about how those have developed since the Spring Meetings, and do you see increasing pressures as this goes on?

QUESTIONER: Good morning. Another question about federal governors and their messaging. Could you give us the IMF's perspective on the federal resource communication strategy in recent weeks and months, as we have seen a range of projections from zero rate cuts to three rate cuts this year?

QUESTIONER: If I can also ask -- pivoting back to Pakistan as a follow up. What do you expect to be the result of the mission currently there? Can we expect a staff-level agreement on a new loan? Is this a preliminary visit? Is it too early to have a staff-level agreement yet? We know that they have asked for a new program.

MS. KOZACK: Okay, we will come back to you. Okay. So, Eric, just briefly on Pakistan, given that there is a mission on the ground, we will wait for them to complete their work and we will communicate the findings of the mission in due course, including, I think, some answers to your questions.

On the U.S., as we have been seeing for quite some time, the U.S economy has been remarkably resilient, despite important shocks and the sharp tightening of monetary policy during 2022 and 2023. On inflation, the recent inflation data are overall higher than we would like to see. And this is a reminder, of course, that there are going to be bumps in the road as the U.S. brings inflation back to target. And this reinforces the need for the Fed to be cautious and data dependent in deciding policy in the coming months. And of course, this is all taking place, though, in a context where inflation is declining. And that decline and progress in the reduction of inflation from its peak, in the middle of 2022, is most welcome.

And maybe just as background, what I can say is that we have seen core PCE inflation, which is the Fed's preferred measure, was stable in March, and services inflation continued to remain relatively elevated.

QUESTIONER: I have a question, this time on Russian assets. So, as we see that the U.S. has moved forward and adopted the legislation that gave the U.S. president the right, the authority to seize Russian assets without notification to Congress. And taking into account that at the end of May, there will be a Ministerial G-7 meeting in Italy, could you please clarify if the IMF supports or opposes the idea to confiscate or otherwise use Russian assets to support and to fuel funding to Ukraine? And moreover, you have several times mentioned that there are risks for the international monetary system. So could you please specify what risks do you see in certain. MS. KOZACK: So, our position on the issue of Russian assets remains unchanged, which is that it is for the relevant courts and jurisdictions to determine. But what is important for the Fund of court, for us, is that any action that is taken has sufficient legal underpinnings and does not undermine the functioning of the international monetary system.

QUESTIONER: I have two questions about Latin America. One is about Mexico. Mexico is about to celebrate presidential elections. Do you see risks for the economy due to the increase in the fiscal deficit as a consequence of the increase in public spending? Another question about Ecuador. Do you think that political instability in the country could make it difficult to meet the goals of the agreement? And also, could you tell us something about the commitments that allowed the signing of the agreement?

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Mexico or Ecuador? QUESTIONER: I just wanted to ask a follow-up on Ecuador: whether you can say when the Board will hold its review or its meeting on the recently announced staff-level agreement with Ecuador.

MS. KOZACK: Okay, very good. Okay, let me start briefly with Mexico and then we will turn to Ecuador. So, of course, we do not comment on elections. These are a matter for, in the case of Mexico, for the people of Mexico with respect to the election. With respect to the economy, what we do see is an economy that is continuing to expand, and inflation is receding in Mexico. Inflation has subsided since early 2023, driven by a proactive monetary policy and a decline in global commodity prices. And growth in Mexico is being supported by domestic demand, especially investment.

On the policy side, like in many other countries, monetary policy should remain data dependent, given that there may be some upside risks to inflation. And on the fiscal side, like in many other countries, we are calling for a credible medium term fiscal consolidation plan aimed at preserving fiscal sustainability in Mexico. And of course, securing sustainable and inclusive growth in Mexico, like in many other countries, also will require a broad set of reforms. These include boosting labor, female labor force participation, better tackling corruption and crime, and expanding financial inclusion.

With respect to Ecuador -- so just stepping back. Staff -- IMF staff and the Ecuador, IMF staff and the Ecuadorian authorities reached staff-level agreement on an EFF arrangement for about $4 billion . The arrangement is subject to approval by our Executive Board. Amid a challenging environment, the new arrangement aims to support Ecuador as it continues to make progress in strengthening fiscal sustainability, safeguarding macroeconomic stability, and fostering strong and inclusive growth.

The Ecuadorian authorities have signaled their strong commitment to tackling the current economic challenges. They have already undertaken some measures. Most notably, they have implemented a VAT rate hike of three percentage points to help address some of the fiscal challenges. They have also implemented some transitory revenue measures, again aimed at addressing the country's fiscal challenges. These efforts have contributed to a sharp reduction in sovereign spreads from over 2,000 basis points in early 2024 to below 1,200 basis points. And the authorities have also taken some actions to stabilize the security situation.

I have some questions online. QUESTIONER: I wanted to ask about Zambia and why there was no staff-level agreement between Zambia and the IMF on the third review during or just after the visit to Lusaka. And if you can comment at all on what is outstanding that needs to be resolved. And also wanted to ask on Ethiopia, if there is any update on the loan and reform package, and if not, if there are no timeline updates, what the outstanding issues are.

MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Zambia? QUESTIONER: I wanted to ask if the Zambian government has requested an augmentation in their program due to the impact of the drought. And if so, by how much? Would this mean that the program timeframe would also be extended, given that it is due to end next year? And in terms of following up on the previous Zambia question, just what the country needs to do, to an IMF's words, durably sustain macroeconomic stability and restore fiscal and debt sustainability in line with the program parameters and how far outside those parameters you currently see the fiscal and debt sustainability in Zambia.

MS. KOZACK: Any online questions on Zambia? No? Okay, so let me start with Zambia and then Ethiopia, and then we will continue.

So, on Zambia. Zambia has made commendable progress in implementing its reforms. These include significant fiscal efforts while scaling up social spending. Reform efforts should continue to focus on sustaining macroeconomic stability, restoring fiscal and debt sustainability, and, of course, while addressing the humanitarian relief efforts that are needed to address the consequences of the drought.

An IMF team visited Lusaka from April 24th through May 7th. The team had productive discussions with the authorities on recent economic and financial developments, as well as policies that could underpin the third review of the program. Discussions are continuing virtually, and they include two broad areas. One is to better assess the economic impact of the drought, and the second is to agree on policies to support completion of the review, including in the context of very difficult financing conditions. And we will, of course, communicate more once those discussions have reached fruition.

And then on Ethiopia, I have just a very small update to say that an IMF mission visited Addis Ababa from March 19th through April 2nd to hold discussions on the authorities request for IMF support for their program. Discussions then continued during our Spring Meetings, which were held here in Washington in April, and have been continuing virtually since then. As these discussions evolve, we will continue to provide updates. What we can say is that we have made substantial progress towards establishing how the IMF can support the authority's economic program, and we will continue to work closely with the authorities in these virtual discussions .

All right, I see several hands up online. QUESTIONER: A question on Kenya. The Kenya review, 7th review, has been going on for about a month plus. What is the status update? Are there any hurdles being experienced on this? MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Kenya? QUESTIONER: On the Kenya authority, President Ruto, as well as the treasury minister, will be here in D.C. next week, and I was wondering if the IMF will meet with any of the authorities.

QUESTIONER: Just wanted to ask on Kenya, it seems that the 7th review has taken a very long time, and so, if you could talk about why that has been the case. And also, what sort of impact do you see from the severe floods on the economy and Kenya's adherence to the IMF program parameters?

MS. KOZACK: Any other [questions]. I do not see any other questions on Kenya. So let me start by saying that we really regret the loss of life and property due to the recent heavy rains and floods in Kenya. Discussions on the 7th review of the EFF program are ongoing, and they are indeed assessing the economic impact of these devastating events, in addition to the normal assessment of program performance to date, and the authorities plans for policies and reforms going forward. As discussions are ongoing, we will communicate further details in due course as the discussions continue.

And I do not have any update on your specific question, but we will come back to you if we have any further information that we can communicate.

QUESTIONER: So, I would want to ask: on Ghana's program, we have seen some recent depreciation of the currency against its trading against t major currencies, that is as well as the dollar. I would want to find out if there have been calls for of the economy. Is this something that the Fund would propose that the country embark on? And beyond that, what should be the synergy between the central bank and then the Finance Ministry in ensuring that any policy that is implementedis made durable?

MS. KOZACK: That was on Ghana. You had something?

QUESTIONER: My question is sort of related.So the IMF mission was recently in Ghana, so I wanted to ask if you could provide any updates on that, as well as Mali and Cote d'Ivoire . MS. KOZACK: So, let us go to Ghana. On April 13th, IMF staff and the Ghanaian authorities reached staff-level agreement for the second review of the program.The aim is to bring the review to the IMF's Executive Board before the end of June, and once approved by the Board, the review would give Ghana access to about $360 million.The authorities strong policy and reform efforts under the program are bearing fruit, and signs of economic stabilization are emerging.Growth, for example, in 2023, was higher than anticipated, and the growth projections are being revised upward. Inflation has been declining rapidly, the fiscal and external positions have improved, and exchange rate volatility has declined quite significantly. The authorities are making good progress on their comprehensive debt restructuring. The domestic debt exchange was completed last year, and on January 12th, the government reached agreement in principle with its official bilateral creditors. Ghana is also engaging with external private creditors to seek their support.

And then, you asked on Mali and Cote d'Ivoire. Let me see if I have something here. Yep, I have something. Okay. So, on Cote d'Ivoire, IMF staff and the authorities reached staff-level agreement on both -- this is on Cote d'Ivoire -- on both the second review of the EFF/ECF program and also the first review of the RSF and that staff-level agreement was reached with Cote d'Ivoire on April 8th. The two arrangements, the EFF/ECF and RSF -- I know it is a lot of acronyms -- are respectively in the amounts 3.5 billion and 1.3 billion. That is the total size of the arrangements. The authorities are advancing their reform agendas for safeguarding macroeconomic stability and deeper economic transformation through their national development plan, and for greater climate resilience through their adaptation and mitigation efforts. And all of these efforts, of course, are supported by our arrangements. Completion of the review by the Executive Board should lead to two disbursements under the EFF/ECF blended program. That would be about $493 million, and an additional $81 million under the RSF.

And then on Mali. So IMF staff and the authorities reached staff-level agreement on emergency financing through the emergency financing window, which is, what we call RCF, Rapid Credit Facility, and also concluded the Article IV on April 30th. Mali's economy, just stepping back, has been hit by multiple shocks recently, including related to the spillovers from Russia's war in Ukraine, spillovers from the disruptions in the Red Sea, and a regional funding squeeze.These shocks did contribute to a rise in import costs for essential goods, which include food, fertilizers, and materials needed to support dislocated populations.Consequently, there have been strains on the state budget and an elevated cost of living.So to support Mali, the Fund has been moving ahead, as I said, with emergency financing.

We have time for maybe one more question, and I have one online. QUESTIONER: My question is , basically, what is the status regarding Sri Lanka's review that is supposed to be taken up with the Executive Board?And also, there have been comments being made in Sri Lanka's political stage about revisiting the IMF program or changing the agreement. Could you please elaborate on that? Is there any possibility of Sri Lanka's program being revisited or changed by what -- this new government coming in? So, we are having an election year this year. What is the status of that as well?

MS. KOZACK: So, anyone else on Sri Lanka? QUESTIONER: I just wanted to ask, and I apologize, I had some trouble hearing the question online. But has the IMF vetted and approved the latest Sri Lanka bondholder restructuring proposal? What is the IMF's role on that consideration? And also, if the Fund has set a Board meeting date to conclude Sri Lanka's second review? Thank you.

MS. KOZACK: So, on Sri Lanka. So, just stepping back and giving the lay of the land. On March 21st of this year, the IMF staff and the Sri Lankan authorities reached a staff-level agreement for the second review of the program and also concluded the and also finished the Article IV mission. Completion of the review by the Executive Board of the IMF requires two things. The first is implementation by the authorities of the agreed prior actions, and the second is the completion of the financing assurances review, and that would confirm multilateral partners, financing contributions. And the financing review will also assess adequate progress with debt restructuring.

With respect to Sri Lanka's economic performance, macroeconomic policies in Sri Lanka are starting to bear fruit.Commendable outcomes include a rapid decline in inflation, robust reserve accumulation, and initial signs of economic growth, while also preserving stability in the financial system.Overall, program performance has been strong. The next steps with respect to the debt restructuring are to conclude negotiations with external private creditors and to implement the agreements in principle with Sri Lanka's official creditors. The domestic debt operations are largely completed . The initial debt restructuring negotiations with external bondholders ended in mid-April without an agreement, and discussions are continuing with a view to reaching agreement in principle. And on the official creditor side, these agreements in principle still need to be finalized.

And with that, I am going to wrap up. As you know, as usual, this briefing is embargoed until 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The transcript will be available on imf.org. And in the case of any clarifications or additional queries, please do reach out to my colleagues at media@imf.org. Thank you all very much, and I look forward to seeing you next time. Have a great day. Take care.

* * * * *