is the best way to manage your money. Go there now »

Sign up or log in to mint.com

European Spotlight: Understanding the Crisis (Part 1)

Share This

As Euro-zone finance ministers finalized the details on the 440 billion Euro ($527 billion ) bailout package for troubled EU economies on June 8, financial markets in the US faltered. Stocks fell to their lowest level in seven months as fears persisted that Europe’s sovereign debt crisis will thwart the global recovery.

Much like the meltdown of 2008, the underlying causes of this crisis are not immediately obvious. Many observers find it hard to imagine how entire governments can “go bankrupt,” yet Greece appears to be on the verge of that situation exactly. It is even less obvious how the downfall of one country’s bonds can affect the rest of the world. But put into context, the causes of Europe’s growing financial problems are not especially complex or difficult to understand.

Today, as US investors watch the direct effects of Europe’s financial mess shrink the size of their portfolios, we begin a three-part investigation into what caused it, the specific countries affected, and potential consequences for the rest of the world.

Debt Spending

At the root of Europe’s financial woes is the manner in which its governments are financed. Simply put, Greece (and most modern governments) rely heavily on debt to fund their operations. Everything – from the military to administrative offices to social welfare programs — costs substantial sums of money to run.

Few (if any) of today’s governments collect enough revenue from income, business and sales taxes to fund all of these obligations. Instead of scaling back government spending to the amount collected from taxes, Europe’s governments borrow the balance. Primarily, this borrowing occurs via the sale of national government bonds.

The basic idea behind bonds of struggling countries like Greece and Portugal is identical to that of savings bonds in America. The government in question sells bonds of various denominations, promising to pay a set rate of interest at a stated maturity date. Generally speaking, financing a government in this manner is quite standard. Investors view government bonds as stable and secure, because it is widely believed that no government would default on its outstanding debts.

Junk Bonds

Investors will happily buy up a government’s bonds – to a point. The problem arises when governments borrow more than they could ever hope to repay. This appears to have been the case in Greece.

Back in November 2009, the UK’s Guardian reported that Greece’s public sector debt (the highest of any country in the European Union) had ballooned to 12.5% of GDP. Worse yet, Greek public debt was projected to rise over 135% by 2011. Despite these ominous signs, bond rating agencies neglected to downgrade Greece’s bonds – temporarily. The fact that Greece was one of the Eurozone’s fastest growing economies from 2000-2007 made the skyrocketing structural debt easy to ignore.

On April 27, though, Greek bonds were downgraded to “junk” status. Junk status is, in layman’s terms, the worst thing that can happen to a bond. To rate bonds as junk is the rating agency’s way of communicating to investors that the bond issuer (Greece, in this case) is financially unstable and cannot be relied upon to repay its debts.

Once this happens, all but a few bargain-hunting investors completely avoid buying them. Naturally, this creates immediate and catastrophic economic problems for the bond issuer. For one thing, it is no longer possible to continue spending at the debt-supported levels of old. Because the country’s bonds are perceived as junk, there are no buyers and the country is thereby deprived of a way to spend more than it has.

Beyond Greece

Regrettably, the consequences of Greece’s profligate debt spending spread far beyond Greece. Stock markets around the world took an immediate dive once Greek bonds were downgraded. London’s FTSE 100 (an index of England’s 100 most capitalized firms) fell over 150 points. There were corresponding falls in New York, Frankfurt, New York and Athens.

Fears of Greece defaulting immediately prompted suspicion about similar problems brewing to the west, in countries like Portugal, Spain and Ireland. Bloomberg quoted Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff as saying these three countries were “conspicuously vulnerable” to default as a result of their own high debt ratios. Ireland, whose debts comprise 14.3% of GDP, actually had the euro region’s largest deficit in 2009. Meanwhile, Spain’s public debt consumed 11.2% of GDP, while Portugal’s swallowed 9.4%. The UK, too, boasts an unattractive debt ratio of 12.6%.

The European Union, to put things in perspective, mandates that member countries not allow their debts to surpass 3% of GDP.

The larger fear is that these are not merely the isolated problems of various countries, but the early workings of a full-blown contagion that will decimate Europe’s banking system.

The Details

The most ominous forecasts of what Europe’s financial crisis could lead to center around a handful of over-indebted countries.  Mint.com will probe deeper into the financial problems of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain in the next installment of this series. Broadly speaking, the crisis can be understood as the world market’s reaction to years of overindulgent borrowing on the part of these countries.

To learn more about investing in government bonds in this environment, read our story With Greece’s Troubles in Mind, Should You Invest in Foreign Bonds? To read more about junk bonds, see our story Moody Markets: What Happens When a Nation’s Debt is Graded as Junk?

Related Videos

6 Comments so far

leave a comment
  1. Branden

    One thing not touched upon, but hinted at, is HOW Greece was allowed to go so far down the hole. As you said, EU regulations require member countries to maintain debts to <= 3% GDP. So, the question that should naturally follow is, how did Greece go way beyond that?

  2. Dear Joshua,

    do you know the difference between a country’s budget deficit and its national debt? You shouldn’t be writing articles like this if you can’t keep the difference straight.

  3. Let’s try to correct a few mistakes:

    > Many observers find it hard to imagine how entire governments can “go bankrupt,” yet Greece appears to be on the verge of that situation exactly.

    Actually, that is pretty few knowledgeable observers. Most governments have gone bankrupt repeatedly over their history. Only within the last decade or so did we see bankruptcies by both the Argentine and Russian governments (one of many in each case).

    > Few (if any) of today’s governments collect enough revenue from income, business and sales taxes to fund all of these obligations.

    Indeed, for many governments it is not even enough adding in other, more important taxes, including value-added taxes, social security contributions (or their local equivalent), wealth taxes, tariffs, natural resource extraction taxes, etc.

    > The government in question sells bonds of various denominations, promising to pay a set rate of interest at a stated maturity date

    Actually most bonds are not zero-coupon. In other words, the interest is paid UNTIL the stated maturity date, when the principal is returned, rather than AT the stated maturity date.

    > Investors view government bonds as stable and secure, because it is widely believed that no government would default on its outstanding debts.

    I am sorry to use harsh language, but given the historical record, only an ignorant fool believes that. It is more accurate to say that most informed observers believe that certain stable governments, like that of the U.S., Japan, or Germany, are unlikely to default within the foreseeable future. This is all the more likely as these governments (except Germany) issue debt in their own fiat currencies and they can always avoid a default by printing all the money they need to pay off any maturing bonds, in effect defaulting-by-inflation which is arguably a preferable option to an outright default.

    > Back in November 2009, the UK’s Guardian reported that Greece’s public sector debt (the highest of any country in the European Union) had ballooned to 12.5% of GDP.

    Not it did not. This is the first instance of a repeated error throughout the article. If Greece’s national *debt* (that is the total amount owed by Greek government) was only 12.5% of GDP, the finances would be in fantastic shape, much better than practically all other industrialized countries. In fact, it was reported that Greece’s budget *deficit* (that is the amount the government’s expenditures exceeded revenues for the current budget year). In other words, the Greek government ADDED that (about) much to its debt IN ONE YEAR. That is a problem.

    > Worse yet, Greek public debt was projected to rise over 135% by 2011

    Yes. That is the *debt* to GDP ratio. If the debt this year was 12.5% (as you said in the previous sentence), it could hardly be 135% next year. That would have required the government to borrow over 120% of GDP in one year–about as plausible as a man claiming a 100 foot jump from a standing start.

    > Junk status is, in layman’s terms, the worst thing that can happen to a bond. … Because the country’s bonds are perceived as junk, there are no buyers and the country is thereby deprived of a way to spend more than it has.

    No, bankruptcy is the worst thing that can happen to a bond. In bankruptcy, bonds often become worthless.

    Generally, bonds rated junk are still likely to be repaid and it is not unusual for companies to issue bonds rated junk at issuance and informed investors still to buy them willingly–at appropriate interest rates reflecting the increased risks.

    > Ireland, whose debts comprise 14.3% of GDP, actually had the euro region’s largest deficit in 2009. Meanwhile, Spain’s public debt consumed 11.2% of GDP, while Portugal’s swallowed 9.4%. The UK, too, boasts an unattractive debt ratio of 12.6%.

    No, no, no. These are all projected *deficits*, not *debt* ratios. If they were just debts, things would be fine. In fact, Ireland’s debt ratio still is not too terrible.

    > The European Union, to put things in perspective, mandates that member countries not allow their debts to surpass 3% of GDP.

    No, the euro accession (not European Union) rules require *deficits* not to surpass 3% of GDP.

    @Branden “EU regulations require member countries to maintain debts to <= 3% GDP. So, the question that should naturally follow is, how did Greece go way beyond that?"

    Again, it is deficits, not debts; euro rules, not EU rules.

    As for your question, the answer is easy:

    Lying. There is almost no outside auditing so the Greek (and probably more than a few other member countries) government just lied about its deficits.

    And even if they had not, there is no enforcement mechanism, so national government just can and do flout the rule.

    The only restraint on national governments was the hard prohibition against EU bailouts. Hence, governments would have an incentive to stay out of trouble. Of course that was a lie too. Immediately a country (here, Greece) need a bailout it immediately got one, rules be damned.

    It is not an overstatement to say that if governments, both here and abroad, were held to the same accounting standards and penalties as U.S. public companies are today, practically every politician of every governing party in every jurisdiction could look forward to a lengthy prison sentence.

  4. Tiffany

    Thanks for giving us the low-down on what’s really going on.

  5. Branden

    Carl’s comment is excellent, and the answer to my question was correct – Greece lied. But, they were helped out by some very familiar names in banking; guess who….

  6. Bankman

    There is a push/pull relationship here. For so long, – these countires just kept on borrowing with the expectation that they will be able to sustain their debt level and eventually reduce it as well. After a while, the deficits just kept growing and I guess the alarms did not go off loud enough because the sheer size of the debt we are talking about here is deeply troubling. These numbers should have been scrutinized closely by the country itself. How can you keep borrowing when you know that the amount of money coming in will NEVER be able to repay current and future debt? Governments have a fiduciary responsiblity to closely examine these numbers and advise of course corrections and adjustments to avoid these scenarios. I don’t live in a bubble and part of this has to be political. When will it end? The same can be said of the US as our deficits and spending are extremely high – The world is much more interconnected than it was 50 years ago which explains the see saw stock market. The Dow was above 11k approximately a month or more ago and now we are under 10k. The concern is widespread. In my opinion, stability is the key in the short term and then debt reduction second.