The Export-Import Bank of the United States (US Exim) is being outmuscled by rival export credit agencies and must tackle stringent content rules and staffing constraints to bolster its competitiveness, according to banks and exporters.

As revealed in US Exim’s latest annual competitiveness report, export credit agencies (ECAs) around the world provided US$115.4bn in medium to long-term (MLT) export credit support globally last year, a 20% rise from 2023.

China reclaimed its position as the world’s largest MLT export credit provider, with volumes reaching US$23.5bn. It was followed by Germany (US$18.6bn), Italy (US$16.9bn), France (US$12.1bn) and Korea (US$9.2bn), according to data provided by ECAs and third-party sources.

US Exim maintained its seventh-place ranking, providing US$5.9bn in MLT support last year, up from US$4.7bn in 2023.

But according to US Exim’s report, which also draws on a survey of dozens of US exporters and lenders, the agency is failing to keep pace with competitors that are developing innovative solutions and approaches.

“Exim is running a 20th century ECA now into the first quarter of the 21st century,” says James Cruse, US Exim’s acting president and chair.

“Policies and practices such as content, risk appetite, and processing requirements that were quite effective and competitive 30 years ago have been turned on Exim by a rapidly evolving official ECA world to the point that these policies and practices are referenced by competitors to buyers as reasons to not use Exim,” he adds.

Pointing to feedback from global trade heads and export finance bankers, Cruse says US Exim is the “ECA of last resort”.

“While Exim has taken some well-received actions, such as setting up the China and Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) as well as adding the Make More in America initiative and the Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative; these steps have been short-changed for resources and outfitted with very conservative policy tools,” he says.

According to the report, 64% of the exporters and banks surveyed found the agency is “far less competitive” or “slightly less competitive” than its major export credit counterparts – a rating that has not dropped below 60% since US Exim’s reauthorisation in 2019. Prior to that, the ECA was effectively shuttered for four years amid opposition from Republican politicians, leaving it without a board quorum and unable to sign deals larger than US$10mn.

“US exporters and lenders made perfectly clear that this rating will not change unless and until Exim addresses Exim’s main challenge to competitiveness: its domestic content restrictions,” it says.

“Policies and practices such as content, risk appetite, and processing requirements that were quite effective and competitive 30 years ago have been turned on Exim by a rapidly evolving official ECA world to the point that these policies and practices are referenced by competitors to buyers as reasons to not use Exim,” he adds.

Pointing to feedback from global trade heads and export finance bankers, Cruse says US Exim is the “ECA of last resort”.

“While Exim has taken some well-received actions, such as setting up the China and Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) as well as adding the Make More in America initiative and the Supply Chain Resiliency Initiative; these steps have been short-changed for resources and outfitted with very conservative policy tools,” he says.

According to the report, 64% of the exporters and banks surveyed found the agency is “far less competitive” or “slightly less competitive” than its major export credit counterparts – a rating that has not dropped below 60% since US Exim’s reauthorisation in 2019. Prior to that, the ECA was effectively shuttered for four years amid opposition from Republican politicians, leaving it without a board quorum and unable to sign deals larger than US$10mn.

“US exporters and lenders made perfectly clear that this rating will not change unless and until Exim addresses Exim’s main challenge to competitiveness: its domestic content restrictions,” it says.

As mandated by its charter, US Exim requires borrowers to prove that at least 85% of an export contract’s content is produced in the US.

Under its CTEP, the agency has more flexibility: it can reduce its domestic content requirement to 51% – or potentially lower – if in doing so it helps firms win contracts over Chinese competitors.

But US Exim’s clients and lending partners view this leniency as insufficient, the report shows, with 72% of respondents describing its content policy as having “negative” or “slightly negative” impact on the agency’s competitiveness – up from 64% in the previous year’s survey.

Rival ECAs have adopted domestic content requirements of as low as 20 or 30%.

Meanwhile, European ECAs are beginning to mimic their Asian counterparts, opting to consider a company’s domestic footprint and economic contribution rather than the exports generated by a single deal.

“Even Germany—with its well-known stringent German content requirements—joined the chorus of ECAs willing to cover transactions that are more flexible on content,” says the report, pointing to Euler Hermes “flex&cover” product that considers inputs such as tax contributions, employment and training.

Beyond policy, implementation is another area of concern. Some ECAs actively promote their flexible content requirements in a bid to secure “first mover” advantage in the early stages of a project, building a rapport with project sponsors and influencing supplier selection, the report states.

“ECAs effectively leveraged their initial letters of interest (also known as expressions of interest) to broadly provide an indication of financing terms potentially available for a project based on a limited review of information supplied by the sponsor. Foreign ECAs did not include detailed domestic content or other policy requirements in the letter of interest to encourage positive consideration of the tentative offer and instead opted for discussing eligibility criteria and other policy requirements if the letter of interest was accepted,” it notes.

Switzerland, Poland, the UK and Canada have all developed proactive approaches that help matchmake exporters with project developers, it adds.

US Exim’s lengthy and cumbersome approval processes were also cited as key hurdles to its competitiveness, with banks and lenders decrying its “major staffing gaps” and a lack of experience among personnel as potential contributors.

“We see other ECAs getting to a no or yes much faster, with greater predictability,” said one bank in US Exim’s survey.

“Once a transaction is… in-house, we note the deal teams are under-resourced or lack certain technical skills to move a transaction forward in a prudent manner. It is very challenging for lenders to manage borrowers, who need predictability on financing, and outside of certain sectors (i.e. aviation), it is very difficult to build out timelines that partners can rely on,” the financial institution added.

Survey respondents reiterated longstanding criticisms of US Exim’s stringent shipping requirements, which mandate the use of US-flagged ships for larger transactions.

During focus group sessions, banks and lenders also queried the impact of political instability on the agency’s offering.

US Exim will require further reauthorisation from Congress by December 31, 2026, to continue operating – a condition not faced by its ECA peers.

“Other ECAs do not have this requirement, which exporters and lenders viewed as a source of uncertainty,” the report states. “Lenders noted unease from clients reconsidering applying for future Exim support given the typically multiyear project lifecycle and the need for a reliable ECA partner to see it through.”