Saturday Dec 28, 2024
Friday, 14 January 2022 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Sri Lanka is in a perilous, and perhaps inevitable, position with regard to restructuring her outstanding debt
The ongoing foreign exchange crisis has raised calls to restructure external debt. Recent articles, including “Reckless decision to repay sovereign bondholders” by Shanta Devarajan in the Daily FT on 10 January, advocate pre-emptive restructuring. While restructuring seems to be necessary at this time due to the low level of reserves, there are two paths Sri Lanka can follow.
One where it focuses on medium and long-term objectives, and implements a comprehensive process to regain the confidence of the international financial markets quickly and smoothly. A second path is where short-term objectives dominate, and where a partial and piecemeal restructuring agenda is followed. The latter can result in many years of difficult access to foreign capital markets, particularly by the domestic banking system, and, perhaps worse, repeated sovereign debt restructuring episodes every few years. This article sets out the kind of steps necessary to gain confidence through a robust process that can successfully restructure external debt.
First, restructuring of debt should be seen as only part of a solution to a fiscal problem (a high debt to GDP ratio and negative fiscal balance), rather than a solution to a liquidity problem (declining reserves or weakening exchange rate). While the latter can often be managed through short-term borrowing or swap lines, the fiscal problem itself requires a comprehensive set of policy actions in which restructuring is only one part. A negative current account and fiscal balance, coined the “twin deficits”, mean that however large a restructuring is made, the debt-to-GDP ratio will only continue to climb. Significant improvements in public sector finances, particularly in large loss-making public enterprises, is necessary for any path out of the crisis.
Second, restructuring of debt should be done in a coordinated way, affect all the outstanding foreign held liabilities (private, governmental, and multilateral), and be significant in the reduction of the outstanding debt. Hastily announcing restructuring or payment suspension may cause confusion among a disparate set of creditors, and create an environment where creditors who are owed debt further in the future attempt to secure repayment at the cost of creditors who are owed debt sooner. This inevitably leads to protracted and difficult negotiations with little ability to control the direction nor outcome of it.
Each sovereign debt restructuring episode is unique, however there are a few principles that could be of help to the current Sri Lankan situation in being able to 1) gain the confidence of current lenders in the restructuring process and hence shorten the time it will take and 2) to access international markets again in a timely manner. Relatively successfully completed restructuring programs can take up to nine months from the date of the first deferral of payment (temporary suspension of payments) while unsuccessful programs can take up to 36 months and lead to ‘sequential restructuring’ episodes over many years.
The following principles may be of particular relevance for the Sri Lankan case:
nInvolvement of the IMF is a prerequisite
An overarching issue preceding restructuring is the legal covenants of the outstanding privately held debt. If a Collective Action Clause (CAC) is in place, it is relatively straightforward to identify private bond holders and commence renegotiation procedures. If it is not, then additional mechanisms may be necessary including commitment to renege on debt held by those that do not participate in the renegotiation process.
Sri Lanka is in a perilous, and perhaps inevitable, position with regard to restructuring her outstanding debt. However, Sri Lanka is not alone, being among several countries that are currently in a similar position. The way the Government manages the restructuring process given the presence of large bilateral lenders such as China will have significant implications for the many developing and emerging countries with a similar debt profile, and in turn affect potential negotiation outcomes for Sri Lanka. While a path out of the current situation will be painful for Sri Lanka and her citizens, regardless of the choices made, it is critical that this path does lead to future active, positive, participation in the international financial markets.
(The writer is an Associate Professor of Finance at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), Moscow, and has a PhD in Financial Economics from Oxford University.)