Beyond Bulls & Bears

Fixed Income

Quick Thoughts: The sovereign debt wave—an existential threat

The Sovereign Debt Wave is at a historic peak and appears set to continue growing. With higher inflation and reduced liquidity, some countries will be able to continue to issue debt easily, while some will not. Franklin Templeton Institute’s Stephen Dover and Kim Catechis discuss the different factors that will affect long-term investment returns for sovereign debt.

In our Deep Water Waves publication, we identified several powerful, connected and long-duration factors that will have a significant impact on investment returns over the next decades. One of these is the Debt Wave, driven primarily by a combination of economic, geopolitical and demographic pressures. We observe that the Sovereign Debt Wave is at a historic peak in terms of the US dollar value of the debt issued and appears set to continue growing. This was sustainable with low inflation and plentiful liquidity. These factors have both reversed, leading to a heightened urgency to raise capital. As a result, the traditional view on fiscal responsibility seems to have moved from the mainstream of political and economic policy debate to the fringes. Given several secular trends in place, this “wave” is apt to grow in depth and breadth. And that puts this debate at the center of policy decisions for a generation. This process drives an increasingly structural polarization between those countries that can easily continue to issue debt and refinance and those that cannot. Our paper on the subject can be accessed here.

  • Even before COVID-19, the debt-to-gross-domestic-product (GDP) ratio was growing around the world.1 In the countries that powered global economic growth in the last generation (the United States, Europe and since 2009, China) debt is set to keep growing, as aging demographics raise the cost of pensions and health care, and working-age populations shrink. For lower-income economies with relatively fragile sovereign financials, continued access to affordable credit is an existential requirement.
  • Many of the traditional mechanisms used to escape debt (economic growth through global trade) can no longer be taken for granted, due to the commingling of geopolitics and economics. In the long term, this is a challenge for China and the emerging markets. The policy of “friendshoring” and the drive to diversify supply chains eliminates some of the most powerful catalysts helping these countries climb the knowledge ladder. This trajectory points to a widening polarization between developed countries and the rest.
  • In these circumstances, developing economies are extremely exposed. The International Institute of Finance (IIF) calculates that the combined debt of the 30 large and developing countries has risen to US$98 trillion from US$75 trillion in 2019,2 pre-pandemic. Part of this surge is due to the collapse of their currencies against the US dollar, but the structural problem remains. Policy decisions made in the past have put them in financial quicksand, sinking deeper with every attempt to get out.
  • We examine the widely held theory of China’s predatory lending and provide two country case studies. The conclusion is that there is no evidence of a master plan using sovereign debt. History suggests that many borrowing governments have consciously chosen less-economically sensible credit to avoid scrutiny and conditionality. Observers find grounds for discomfort, but not for panic.
  • Finally, the chances of inserting a particular country into the crucial international supply chains are greatly improved if it can play the geoeconomic Great Game.3 A country needs a sizable population to attract foreign direct investments (FDI), a commercial and industrial ecosystem that is used to operating in international markets, as well as unexploited mineral wealth—especially if those minerals are relevant for the green transition or for electric vehicles (EVs) or defense. Mexico and Indonesia clearly have a window of opportunity, which implies they could take advantage of the current geopolitical climate to leverage financing and/or favorable market access.

We believe we need a massive reallocation of resources, which implies a need for positive real interest rates because there will be so much issuance from both governments and the private sector that there will be competition for investors’ cash. There is an opportunity for private debt to arbitrage, but default risk is probably higher overall. The traditional sources of long-term savings might be squeezed or even reduced over time, as the working populations in mostly high-income countries shrink and their costs increase. There will be increasing government intervention in most countries—not always efficiently or even usefully. In our opinion, this scenario makes every investment decision loaded with implicit factor weights that are not currently mainstream.


All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal.

Fixed income securities involve interest rate, credit, inflation and reinvestment risks, and possible loss of principal. As interest rates rise, the value of fixed income securities falls.

To the extent a strategy invests in companies in a specific country or region, it may experience greater volatility than a strategy that is more broadly diversified geographically.

International investments are subject to special risks, including currency fluctuations and social, economic and political uncertainties, which could increase volatility. These risks are magnified in emerging markets.

The government’s participation in the economy is still high and, therefore, investments in China will be subject to larger regulatory risk levels compared to many other countries.

Investing in the natural resources sector involves special risks, including increased susceptibility to adverse economic and regulatory developments affecting the sector—prices of such securities can be volatile, particularly over the short term.


This material is intended to be of general interest only and should not be construed as individual investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation to buy, sell or hold any security or to adopt any investment strategy. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. This material may not be reproduced, distributed or published without prior written permission from Franklin Templeton.

The views expressed are those of the investment manager and the comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as at publication date and may change without notice. The underlying assumptions and these views are subject to change based on market and other conditions and may differ from other portfolio managers or of the firm as a whole. The information provided in this material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region or market. There is no assurance that any prediction, projection or forecast on the economy, stock market, bond market or the economic trends of the markets will be realized. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up and you may not get back the full amount that you invested. Past performance is not necessarily indicative nor a guarantee of future performance. All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal.

Any research and analysis contained in this material has been procured by Franklin Templeton for its own purposes and may be acted upon in that connection and, as such, is provided to you incidentally. Data from third party sources may have been used in the preparation of this material and Franklin Templeton (“FT”) has not independently verified, validated or audited such data.  Although information has been obtained from sources that Franklin Templeton believes to be reliable, no guarantee can be given as to its accuracy and such information may be incomplete or condensed and may be subject to change at any time without notice. The mention of any individual securities should neither constitute nor be construed as a recommendation to purchase, hold or sell any securities, and the information provided regarding such individual securities (if any) is not a sufficient basis upon which to make an investment decision. FT accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from use of this information and reliance upon the comments, opinions and analyses in the material is at the sole discretion of the user.

Products, services and information may not be available in all jurisdictions and are offered outside the U.S. by other FT affiliates and/or their distributors as local laws and regulation permits. Please consult your own financial professional or Franklin Templeton institutional contact for further information on availability of products and services in your jurisdiction.

Issued in the U.S. by Franklin Distributors, LLC, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, California 94403-1906, (800) DIAL BEN/342-5236, – Franklin Distributors, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC, is the principal distributor of Franklin Templeton U.S. registered products, which are not FDIC insured; may lose value; and are not bank guaranteed and are available only in jurisdictions where an offer or solicitation of such products is permitted under applicable laws and regulation.

CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are trademarks owned by CFA Institute.


1. Source: International Institute of Finance (IIF) Global Debt Database, as of December 1, 2022.

2. Ibid.

3. Refers to the 19th Century struggle between Great Britain and Russia to gain control of Central Asia. It was referred to as The Great Game and ranged from Constantinople through Persia, Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.

Get Content Alerts in My Inbox

Receive email alerts when a new blog is posted.