The IMF is happily insisting that austerity measures be imposed by all the countries who have to turn to it for help. One of those measures is cuts to pensions and raising of the retirement age, and this is imposed on people who don't have much to begin with. It is therefore curious to find that their site has this to say about their own pension arrangements
www.imf.org/external/np/adm/rec/policy/pension.htm#1QUOTE
Lifetime pensions are payable starting at age 50 with a minimum of three years of service. The normal retirement age is 62 and any pensions starting earlier are subject to early retirement penalties.
The IMF gets its money from member countries on quota basis. It has this to say about the quota rates
www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/finfac.htmQUOTE
Quotas are reviewed at least every five years. Ad hoc quota increases of 1.8 percent were agreed in 2006 as the first step in a two-year program of quota and voice reforms. Further ad hoc quota increases were approved by the Board of Governors in April 2008, resulting in an overall increase of 11.5 percent. The 2008 reform came into effect in March 2011 following ratification of the amendment to the IMF’s Articles by 117 member countries, representing 85 percent of the IMF’s voting power.
The Fourteenth General Review of Quotas was completed two years ahead of the original schedule in December 2010, with a decision to double the IMF’s quota resources to SDR 476.8 billion.
Doesn't even seem that their money is increased in line with the low inflation rate which is the central concern of the ECB.
In their accounts their net administrative expenditure was $813 million in 2009; in 2010 it increased by 6+% to $863 million: and in 2011 by a further 6+% to $917 million. That is nearly a billion dollars and it does not include capital expenditure. Projections for the next three years show an expected rise over the period of a further 10%.
ETA: the 2011 outturn is underestimated if international accountancy standards are applied: in that case net expenditure is $999 million: but I do not have the comparable figures for the previous year, so cannot show the percentage increase as adjusted.
In the financial year 2011 the financial statement and report boasts that staff recruitment has increased. They hired 195 people, as compared with 150 average in recent years. However in line with its recommendations for everybody, else many of those staff reflected their adherence to "flexible" employment, or, to put it another way "about two-fifths of new staff were hired on a limited-term basis.".
It is also interesting to note that they reduced the numbers of staff complement by 380 as part of the restructuring. As far as I can gather that means that they need 380 fewer staff according to the new budget targets: but they recruited 195 instead (or as well: that is not clear). In addition the IMF decided to focus recruitment on higher paid employees, apparently: at least that is what I take from:
QUOTE
To meet evolving business needs, the Fund recruited a higher proportion of midcareer economists, as well as staff with financial sector and fiscal/debt management skills.
I am sure it is coincidence that they are recruiting from the financial sector just when some of the people who formerly worked there are losing their jobs because they trashed the world economy. But it looks to me as if they are getting rid of support jobs and increasing staff in the higher paid positions: I have seen this before when "austerity" is required.
QUOTE
As of April 30, 2011, the IMF had 1,949 professional and managerial staff and 473 staff at the support level
Can you spell "top heavy"?
One of the "austerity measures" the IMF supports for other countries is pay freezes for public sector workers (or, indeed, for all workers if they can get away with it). So it is interesting to note that the accounts show that managers' remuneration is uprated annually, according to the Washington DC consumer price index. The average salary for senior officers was $305,615 a year. So you can see they could not possibly endure a pay freeze like the rest of us.
Maybe it is time they took some of their own medicine? I always like the idea that one should lead by example: and of course if the "austerity measures" are believed to promote efficiency this "bloated public sector" (all one word) organisations should be adopting them: I think at least a 7% efficiency savings target per year would be a good start?
Edited by FionaK - 29/5/2012, 13:16
