Thursday, July 14, 2011

Default and Bankruptcy: Black, white and shades of grey

The talk of default is all around us, as we watch Greece and Italy struggle with impending disaster and the fight over debt limits in the United States fills the airwaves. But what is default? What are the consequences? And given a choice, when is default the best option?

Let's start with the most basic question. What is default? Most people would view it as the failure to meet an obligated interest or principal payment. That may technically be true, but it does not capture the shades of grey that characterize default. In fact, the ratings agencies seem to have thrown the Greek situation into tumult by viewing the country as being in default, notwithstanding the legislative approval of the
The ratings agencies have a solid argument here, since default cannot be defined narrowly as failing to make an obligated debt payment. It has to be defined more broadly as lenders accepting a drop in value in their positions, in return for letting the borrower escape technical default; this could include loosening debt covenants or restructuring the debt to the borrower's advantage, without being compensated adequately for these changes. Thus,  if lenders let borrowers sell secured assets to raise cash, delay later payments, borrow more money on already secured assets, or lend them more money at below-market rates, they are accepting a reduction in value of their loans, in return for on-time payments. I will let you make the judgment on whether Greece is in default, but this story is telling:
In effect, French banks are re-lending money to Greece at the rates that they set when Greece was viewed as a much healthier borrower. That is the equivalent of lending at below market rates and no amount of dancing around the truth will change that basic fact.

Why would lenders go along with this charade? In other words, why would lenders choose implicit default over explicit default? One reason is psychological. Explicit default casts as much light on lenders as it does on borrowers, since it reflects on the lenders' failure to assess credit risk adequately at the time of the original borrowing. Classifying a loan as being in default makes it impossible to deny that failure, while implicit default allows them to delay that recognition. The other is financial. Once a loan is classified in default, the rules on what follows are also more clear cut. Lenders have to write down the values of their loans to reflect the fact that default has occurred. This will have negative consequences for lending banks, which will take a hit to their regulatory capital holdings, and it will also lead to immediate losses for other investors who hold non-traded Greek debt in their portfolios. With implicit default, the rules are hazier and lenders can use the discretion built into the rules to put the best possible spin on the consequences. But implicit default has its own costs for lenders. By putting off the day of reckoning, it allows them to continue with the practices that led to the problems in the first place. In fact, if the price of implicit default is that lenders have to bring in fresh funds to cover past mistakes, it will make the eventual blow-up much bigger. (The best analogy that I can think off is the experience of Japanese banks in the early 1990s. Rather than accept the fact that the real estate loans that they had made during the boom years of the eighties were in default, they chose the path of implicit default, thus letting the problems fester and grow for another decade)

What about borrowers? Is implicit default better than explicit default for them? While there may be more shame and immediate cost associated with the latter, it is sometimes better to default, accept failure and move on to making the fundamental changes that need to be made. With implicit default, both borrowers and lenders remain locked into a dance, where fundamental changes are delayed or deferred. It remains an open question whether Greece is better off with its austerity package (and implicit default) or whether it would have better served by defaulting on its debt (even though that may mean exiting the European Union and giving up on the Euro). I know that there are many economists and investors who view the latter as a doomsday option, noting that default by Greece would have led to default by Spain, Italy, Ireland an Portugal. Well, guess what? Greece managed to avoid explicit default but that did not stop Italy from moving into the danger zone this week. Greece's actions may have bought some time for the EU to fix its problem states, but unless the fundamentals change, it has not changed the underlying dynamics that created these problems in the first place.

Postscript: The very first comment brought up a point that I should have addressed in my post, i.e., whether Greece's actions constitute a credit event in the Credit Default Swap market. That is not an academic question. If it is classified as a credit event, the sellers of the CDS are liable to cover potential damages. If not, life goes on... For the moment, it does not look like it meets the credit event criteria, but this post does a much better job than I ever could discussing the issue:
It also raises an interesting problem with default. When different entities define default differently, there will be more game playing around default... 


Jason DaCruz said...


Thank you for the interesting post. I was wondering how default is defined when it comes to CDS. In such cases, the Default would have to be well-defined in order to trigger payment. Since the ECB was worried about triggering a "credit event," it seems dancing around how CDS's defines default matters quite a bit.

Kriller said...

Greece will default somehow - so CDS will be paid from US to EU.

Losses are mark-to-market on a daily basis - so the money is currently made ready.

Maybe the same will happen in US….

A soft default people on street barely will notice - but which will give massive loss for CDS issuers.

Krishnan said...


Thanks for posting this; I am of the view that the Grecian bond holders take a cut, now rather than later. There is no other solution, an exit from the Euro, would be of no use, as Greece is no exporter, neither does a roll-over help (as you have pointed out).

Greece cannot repay its debt, it is bankrupt period. This is likely to snowball into a political issue in Germany (if not in France or even Italy), where a chap has to work well past his prime to pay for a chap who sits on the Govt dole and drinks Ouzo!


AJAYPAL said...

Again a great article. But i am of the view that sometimes just looking at the financial conditions and financial implications we ignore the bigger picture. I agree that there is a very high probability that sooner or later they will have to let Greece go, but don't you think that there is a hope that may be Greece will be able to fix its finances if you buy them some time. May be because market sentiments become less harsh towards Greece or may be that aid might be just enough to clear the hick up and again starts rolling Greece's economy.
May be i am sounding too optimistic but its worth trying before you let huge economies like Spain & Italy & eventually all involved get into financial turmoil. And we all know that taking risk with Greece is much less riskier than waiting to fix Spain or Italy.

Colin said...

The Eurozone needs create a Treasury system and issue Euro bonds. The countries should become more like states in the US with the Eurozone allocating a potion of the issued debt to each country.

This would lead to loss of sovereignty for each country, but that is what happens with a shared currency.

phua ahmed said...

My name is Mr Phua Ahmed, We give out legitimate loans to serious individual or business firm that are in need of loans, We are ready to talk with you about how we can meet your financial needs Contact us now via email:

phua ahmed said...


Do you need a quick long or short term loan with a relatively low interest rate as low as 2%? We offer business loan,personal loan, home loan, auto loan, student loan,
debt consolidation loan, project investment e.t.c. no matter your credit score, no collateral needed.

We are guaranteed in giving out financial services to our numerous clients all over the world. With our flexible lending packages, loans can be processed and
transferred to the borrower within the shortest time possible. Instead of beating yourself up, contact us to apply or any of our specialist for advice and finance

If you need a quick loan contact us via Email:

Full Name:
Amount Needed:
Duration of Loan:
Purpose of Loan:
Contact number:

Your's in Service,
Phua Ahmed