European sovereign debt crisis
Previously, unindustrialized nations garnered loans from civic means like World Bank and IMF, but afterward, in 1973, commercial banks had and the influx of capitals from oil-rich states and thought that sovereign debt was a safe venture. However, the Latin American Dues to commercial banks accumulated to a yearly rate of 20. 4% which led Latin America to multiply its foreign debt from US$75billion in 1975 to $316billion in 1983 (Feldstein 1998). Furthermore, Debt service multiplied even quicker as the international rates increased from $12 billion in 1975 to $66 billion in 1982. The 1982 Debt Crisis was one of the most serious in Latin America's history. However, Bretton Woods System crumbled in the late 1960s and early 1970s since the contributions of the participant nations to the IMF did not sure in the same rate as inflation (Diamond 2009).
The IMF purchasing power reduced instantly, and it was unable to monitor the currency exchange rates between nations which resulted in payment deficits and overvalued currencies. Additionally, the Bretton Wood System disintegrated which led to a tremendous increase to the loans granted to the sovereign countries by commercial banks. In the 1970s, financial bodies in the United States received an enormous amount of money deposited by wealth oil-producing nations, and they were, therefore, looking for the investment markets. However, Latin America exports increased in the first few years of 1970s which made it appear like a reliable target for investment. Regardless of the hazardous growth of international debt, the debt crisis commenced after the global capital markets realized that Latin America was unable to repay their loans.
These was after Jesus Silva-Herzog, Mexico’s finance minister, acknowledged that Mexico was not in a position to deal with its debt in August 1982. Mexico indicated that it was unable to clear its payments in the outstanding dates and needed a renegotiation of payment periods and new loans for it to meet its prior duties. Following Mexico’s sovereign failure to pay, most commercial banks significantly abridged lending to Latin America. Other Latin nations including Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil followed claiming that they were too incapable of servicing their foreign creditors (O'connor 2017). Debt-equity swaps and restructuring Even if bridge loans allowed sovereign debtors to keep paying the interests for their original loans, the banks also attempted to minimize their exposure to the more substantial default of the principal loan.
Small banks withdrew themselves from the more significant percentage of their exposure to sovereign debt without the necessity of extending new loans to pay off the old loans. The banks thus joined the debt-equity swap which was the allocation of a loan from one bank to the other or the third party for an equity venture in the debtor country. However, this was a common practice for small banks and involved small amounts of debts (Beirne 2013). Following the Sovereign debt crisis, therefore, debt restructuring was the most effective means of restructuring the principal loan. Brandy plan excluded the worry by banks that they would collapse if debtor states in the case the debtor states were forced to default their loans (Aizenman, 2013).
Moreover, investors who had purchased the bonds received payments periodically through a fund that was set up for this reason. Sovereign debtors also experienced numerous benefits from the scheme since the Brand bonds were dispensed at a discount from the original loans which reduced the debtor’s obligation. Additionally, the relationships had an extended maturity rate which ensured that the sovereigns had enough time to generate revenues and rebuilt their economies. The Brand plan also allowed individual investors to get involved and benefit from the sovereign debt market. References Aizenman, Hutchison, M. , & Jinjarak, Y. what is the risk of european sovereign debt defaults? Fiscal space, cds spreads and market pricing of risk. Journal of International Money and Finance, 34, 37-59. Beirne, J.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop