At the beginning of this year, there was a lot of concern about whether the government bond markets could absorb the record amounts of debt being issued by sovereigns. As one banker told me: ‘Governments became the borrowers of last resort. If they hadn’t been able to access the market, it would have had a huge impact.’ Indeed, it would have meant we were in a genuine 1930s style financial collapse.
But luckily, despite a failed auction here and there, sovereigns were able to access the markets and to sell trillions in debt – Eurozone sovereigns sold €950bn this year, the UK £220bn, the US $1.9tn and so on. As Paul Spurin, head of government bond trading at RBS, and vice-chair of the European Primary Dealer Association, told me: “The market has been through the biggest stress test imaginable.”
Well, get ready for an even bigger test. Sovereign issuance is likely to be at the same levels next year – but this time, without the benefit of central banks buying up most of the debt.
This year, for example, the Bank of England has bought up three quarters of all Treasury issuance. The Fed has bought up a similar amount of US Treasuries. The ECB’s Quantitative Easing programme, it turns out, is not quite as big as I’ve suggested here before, but the ECB has still lent hundreds of billions to banks at 0.5% via its liquidity auctions.
Stuart McGregor, head of public sector syndication at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, says: “There’s no question that QE has helped considerably in getting auctions done. When that stops, it will become more difficult. Everyone assumes that for debt to be sold next year, sovereigns will have to pay higher yields.”
I interviewed Robert Stheeman, CEO of the UK’s debt management office, who says he is confident that the UK will be able to meet its borrowing demands next year – he points out that yields are still at historical lows – but he’s worried about an orderly transition from a QE environment to a post-QE environment. He says: “Any big buyer distorts the market. But as the Bank slows down and yields may move up, presumably our debt will be more attractive to other investors. My main concern is that any market adjustment happens in as smooth, orderly and frictionless way as possible.”
On the positive side, the appetite for government debt is quite big, partly because the $3tn securitisation market has more or less disappeared, so there’s a lot of demand for AAA debt, even if western central banks are no longer buying.
But traders say the risk is that central banks will wait too long to put up rates, and that inflation will suddenly pick up. If that happens, expect to see demand drop suddenly for long-term sovereign bonds, at the very moment that sovereigns are trying to borrow less in short-term debt and more in longer-term bonds.
We could be in for a bumpy few months in the sovereign debt market.
China won much praise (and prestige) for its prompt and bold response to the unfolding global financial crisis, announcing a fiscal stimulus package worth 14% of its GDP in November 2008, well ahead of other major economies (this compares with a fiscal expansion of 2.5% of GDP for the US, 4% for Japan and Germany, and roughly 2% of GDP for G20 countries as a whole). On the face of it, the Chinese stimulus seems to have paid off: the economy has clearly bottomed out and is once again set on a high growth course. But, as I argue in a forthcoming article in the China Environment Series – versions of which are published on Policy Innovations and Chinadialogue – there are serious concerns about the sustainability (economic and environmental) of the stimulus.
– With the new EU President and High Representative finally decided, the FT wonders whether current Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, is the true victor from all the horse-trading. The Times has news that, consistent with the Lisbon reforms, the EU is attempting to strengthen its presence at the UN. Sunder Katwala, meanwhile, suggests that European member states still lack a fundamental sense of what they want to achieve as one in the global arena.
– As President Obama continues to review Afghan strategy, the WSJ assesses the impact on US-UK relations. Con Coughlin, meanwhile, paints a more pessimistic picture of the “exclusivity of [Obama’s] style of decision-making”.
– Elsewhere, Fyodor Lukyanov heralds Mikhail Gorbachev’s idealism, suggesting he was “the last Wilsonian of the 20th century”. Richard Haass, meanwhile, explains how lessons drawn from the Cold War could help address contemporary global challenges.
– Finally, World Politics Review has a series of articles on modernising the US State Department and creating a more integrated national security architecture. The Guardian, meanwhile, surveys the UK Foreign Office’s growing “brave new world of blogger ambassadors”.
From the UN, news of another respectable initiative with a rubbish name…
Network of Men Leaders
The engagement of men and boys is integral to achieving an end to violence against women and girls.
In this vein, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has announced the formation of a Network of Men Leaders who will work to inspire men everywhere through their commitment to eliminating violence against women and girls.
The Network will be launched by the Secretary-General on 24 November 2009 at the official UN observance of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
Men Leaders? I mean, how hard would it have been for UN officials to sit down and come up with a group title that didn’t sound like a camp biker gang? Why not just “Testosterone for Peace”? This is a serious, sensible initiative, and includes Desmond Tutu, the Spanish PM, etc. So one might just spend 5 minutes on branding?