03.01.2024 | Andere
market:outlook 2024
According to the OECD, government debt in the OECD area as a whole is likely to have levelled off at around 113 percent of GDP in 2023, remaining virtually unchanged from the previous year. In 2020, government debt was still around 128 percent of GDP. The high inflation of recent years has thus contributed to a noticeable decline in government debt. This year, however, a return to a rising trend and an increase in public debt to 114.5 percent of GDP is expected. Before the pandemic, public debt was still around 108 percent of GDP.
The question now arises as to whether rising government debt is a relevant factor for the financial markets at all. After all, government debt has been rising continuously since 1974 – when it was still around 36 percent of GDP – without causing any major problems.
The role of government debt in an economy is complex, so it’s necessary to look at the nature of our monetary system.
In its natural state, our monetary system is comparable to the game Monopoly. In Monopoly, the bank is always solvent and never goes bankrupt, only the players do. In Monopoly, taxes and levies have the function of reducing the outstanding money supply so that one of the players goes bankrupt more quickly.
In our monetary system in its natural state, the bank in Monopoly corresponds to the unity of government and the central bank. The central bank prints the money, the government spends it. Taxes then have the function of reducing the money supply created by government spending in order to limit inflation. Government bonds also have this function, as they park the money of the private sector so it doesn’t affect demand. For example, the German Empire first issued money to finance the First World War, and only later did it issue war bonds. When the private sector bought the war bonds it could not spend the money on goods and services. This was intended to prevent high inflation in Germany.
Government debt is therefore only an accounting figure and completely irrelevant. However, the major risk is that a government with access to the printing press could spend far too much money without collecting sufficient taxes. In the past, the result has often been inflation that is way too high.
High inflation is generally associated with major macroeconomic damage and a considerable loss of confidence in the political system. Accordingly, the monetary system has been modified to make it more resistant to inflation.
Sources: Metzler, ©stock.adobe.com/Tobias
Sources: Refinitiv Datastream, Metzler; as of September 30, 2023
Japan is a prime example of the second scenario. The private sector in Japan is so willing to save that it can finance a national debt of around 250 percent of GDP and even build up additional assets abroad at the same time. Japan is therefore not dependent on foreign investors and is free to decide whether it wants to follow the old or new monetary system. Japan is also characterized by weak consumption and structurally low inflation. The risk of a debt crisis is therefore very low. Should the Japanese people suddenly become more willing to consume, the government can still achieve budget surpluses again and reduce debt by increasing taxes.
China also fits into this category. Despite a total debt of over 300 percent of GDP, China has been able to increase its foreign assets every year. China is also characterized by weak domestic consumption and low inflation – partly due to the property crisis. The savings rate in China is therefore extremely high.
The Chinese government controls the central bank and the financial system and could therefore stimulate the economy at any time by producing money – i.e. returning to the old monetary system – without generating excessive inflation.
Obviously, there are reservations within the government about going down this path. However, the Chinese government always has complete freedom of action and will ensure that the crisis on the property market does not turn into a financial market crisis. Against this backdrop, we believe the Chinese economy will face a phase of stagnation lasting several years until the oversized property market has returned to normal.
Sources: Refinitiv Datastream, Metzler; as of September 30, 2023
The USA is a prime example of the third scenario, which is actually a combination of the first two. The USA can borrow entirely in its own currency, as the whole world wants US dollars. There is thus no threat of a debt crisis at any time. However, the USA is characterized by strong domestic demand and a low propensity to save and therefore has to finance around half of its national deficits through foreign investors. According to the official US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the national debt has already reached a level last seen after the Second World War – and could even double again by 2050. If foreign investors decide they are no longer prepared to finance US deficits, either the government would have to start saving more (recession) or the central bank would have to buy bonds (inflation).
Sources: CBO, Metzler; as at October 31, 2023
Two factors have a significant influence on the trend in government debt: 1) the difference between interest rates and economic growth and 2) the government deficit excluding interest payments. The CBO estimates that the average interest rate on outstanding government bonds will be lower than economic growth in 2024. As a result, government debt should actually decrease. However, the government deficit is estimated to be unusually high at 3.0 percent of GDP, meaning that overall, government debt is expected to increase by around 2.0 percentage points of GDP.
For the euro zone, on the other hand, the EU Commission estimates a decline in government debt of -0.7 percentage points of GDP, as the aggregate government deficit of all euro zone member states is low at around 1.0 percent of GDP. The euro zone is therefore in a much better fiscal position than the USA.
In the USA, baby boomers are retiring at an increasing rate and are increasingly utilizing state-funded pensions (Social Security) and healthcare (Medicare). The government deficit is therefore of a structural nature, making it all the more problematic. According to the fiscal theory of the price level, the expectation of future deficits is a decisive factor for the inflation outlook.
If the government deficit is currently high but financial market participants expect budget surpluses to be achieved again in the future and government debt to fall, there will be no impact on the price level. Countries have often had high deficits during wars and temporarily decoupled themselves from the gold standard. After the war, they have returned to the gold standard and reduced their national debt as a result of budget surpluses. Although the price level fluctuated time and again, it remained stable overall.
If the government deficit is currently high and there is an expectation of persistently high government deficits, there is a risk that confidence in monetary stability will be lost. Persistently high deficits are only possible if the central bank finances them, at least in part. However, a loss of confidence means that investors are quick to invest their money in tangible assets or taking it abroad to safety. Inflation can then occur immediately in the event of a loss of confidence.
Sources: CBO, Metzler; as at October 31, 2023
According to projections of the official US budget authority, the USA is facing considerable deficits in the coming years, which could even tend to increase. The yield on US government bonds has recently fallen noticeably and the US dollar is still strong, so investors are apparently still expecting politicians to be able to significantly reduce deficits again in the future.
The big risk, however, is that new promises to cut taxes or increase government spending will be made during the presidential election campaign. This could trigger a loss of confidence in the sustainability of US public finances, as the US is heavily reliant on foreign investors who generally react more quickly and sensitively to negative news.
A good example of how a loss of confidence can play out took place in the UK in autumn of 2022, when the then newly elected Prime Minister Liz Truss announced the biggest tax cuts ever in the UK and an increase in government spending. The UK is in a similar position to the US – debt in domestic currency but reliance on foreign investors. This announcement caused a loss of confidence among foreign investors who stopped investing in British government bonds. The result was a marked increase in government bond yields and a noticeable weakening of the British pound.
Sources: Refinitiv Datastream, Metzler; as of September 30, 2023
Although the Bank of England intervened to stabilize the situation and bought government bonds, the financial markets only calmed down after the government made a U-turn and suddenly discussed austerity measures. If the Bank of England had intervened but the government had stuck to its plans, the British currency would probably have crashed.
1 According to a study, it was worthwhile for foreign investors to invest in Argentinian bonds despite the ongoing debt crises. From 1802 to 2016, Argentinian US dollar government bonds generated an excess return of almost 6.0 percent per year compared to US government bonds. Josefin Meyer, Carmen Reinhart and Christoph Trebesch (2021): "Sovereign Bonds since Waterloo." Kiel Working Paper
This document published by Metzler Asset Management GmbH [together with its affiliated companies as defined in section 15 et seq. of the German Public Limited Companies Act (Aktiengesetz – "AktG”), jointly referred to hereinafter as “Metzler“] contains information obtained from public sources which Metzler deems to be reliable. However, Metzler cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Metzler reserves the right to make changes to the opinions, projections, estimates and forecasts given in this document without notice and shall have no obligation to update this document or inform the recipient in any other way if any of the statements contained herein should be altered or prove incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
Neither this document nor any part thereof may be copied, reproduced or distributed without Metzler‘s prior written consent. By accepting this document, the recipient declares his/her agreement with the above conditions.
The central banks have thus been made politically independent and money production is outsourced to private commercial banks. The printing press has been taken out of the hands of politicians, so to speak.
However, this has also changed the rules of the game. Countries now need the revenue from taxes and government bonds to finance their expenditure. And they can now also suffer a sovereign debt crisis like Greece in 2010 and Cyprus in 2013, when the ECB decided not to buy government bonds from these countries.
At the same time, however, the ECB has specified one condition: only those member states that pursue a fundamentally sound fiscal policy will be rescued. As long as the member states of the European Monetary Union do not have excessive government deficits, the potential purchase of government bonds by the ECB does not pose any inflation risks. There will then only be a reallocation within investors' portfolios – from government bonds to cash.
Furthermore, there is a fundamental tendency for governments to weaken the modified monetary system in order to regain more influence over money production. The best example of this is Turkey, where the central bank is de facto no longer independent and private commercial banks are under strong state influence. The result is excessive money supply growth and inflation rates of up to 85 percent. However, nobody in Turkey is talking about a debt crisis. Due to high inflation, public debt has recently fallen again to only around 34 percent of GDP.
Of course, there are also grey areas. For example, the ECB's TPI (Transmission Protection Instrument) can be interpreted as a relapse into the old monetary system, as the ECB buys the government bonds of countries affected by the turmoil on the financial markets. The ECB has thus eliminated the risk of a sovereign debt crisis.
However, the role of public debt must be considered not only in a national context, but in our globalized world, especially in an international context. Foreign investors can play a decisive role in the financing of states. There are basically three scenarios:
Argentina is a prime example of the first scenario. When domestic savings were not sufficient to finance government deficits. Argentina was forced to take out foreign currency loans, as foreign exporters did not accept payments in Argentine pesos.
As a rule, foreign investors financed Argentina for several years until the flow of capital from abroad came to a standstill – for various reasons, such as interest rate
hikes by the US Federal Reserve. The result was a sovereign debt crisis with a debt haircut. Despite numerous debt crises, it was worthwhile overall for foreign investors to invest in Argentina1. The big loser was the general Argentinian population.
Against this backdrop, it is completely irrelevant whether the new Argentinian President Javier Milei intends to “dollarize” the economy or not. The decisive factor for the success of his policy is to end the long phase of government deficits, especially since Argentina lacks the US dollars for dollarization anyway.
In principle, therefore, countries that finance their government deficits entirely with foreign currency loans are at great risk for a debt crisis. In a certain sense, they face the modified monetary system in its pure form, as they have no influence on money production and are completely dependent on foreign investors. Of course, there are many shades of grey here too – and Argentina is an extreme case.
