Government Financial Assets And Debt Sustainability

Do government financial assets help improve public debt sustainability? To answer this question, we assemble a comprehensive dataset on government assets using multiple sources and covering 110 advanced and emerging market economies since the late 1980s. We then use this rich database to estimate the impact of assets on two key dimensions of debt sustainability: borrowing costs and the probability of debt distress. Government financial assets significantly reduce sovereign spreads and the probability of debt crises in emerging economies but not in advanced economies, and the effect varies with asset characteristics, notably liquidity. Government finacial assets also help discriminate countries across the distribution of sovereign spreads, thus signaling information about emerging economies’ creditworthiness.

Do government financial assets help improve public debt sustainability? To answer this question, we assemble a comprehensive dataset on government assets using multiple sources and covering 110 advanced and emerging market economies since the late 1980s. We then use this rich database to estimate the impact of assets on two key dimensions of debt sustainability: borrowing costs and the probability of debt distress. Government financial assets significantly reduce sovereign spreads and the probability of debt crises in emerging economies but not in advanced economies, and the effect varies with asset characteristics, notably liquidity. Government finacial assets also help discriminate countries across the distribution of sovereign spreads, thus signaling information about emerging economies' creditworthiness.

This paper introduces the Asset and Liability Management (ALM) compound option model. The model builds on the observation that the public sector net worth in a multi-period setting corresponds to the value of an option on an option on total government assets. Hence, the ALM compound option model is better suited for analyzing and evaluating the risk profile of public debt than existing one-period models, and is especially useful for analyzing the soundness of exit strategies from the large fiscal expansions undertaken by G-20 countries in the wake of the recent financial crisis. As an illustration, the model is used to analyze the risk profile and sustainability of Australia's public debt under different policies.

Government financial assets are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in assessing fiscal sustainability. However, very little research has been done on the dynamics of government financial assets compared to liabilities. In this paper, we investigate the impact of recent financial crises and macroeconomic shocks on government balance sheets, decomposing the separate effects on financial assets and liabilities. Using quarterly Government Finance Statistics (GFS) data, we analyze a panel of 27 countries over the period 1999Q1-2017Q1 through fixed effects and panel VAR techniques. Financial crises are shown to deteriorate the net financial worth of governments, but no significant impact is found on assets suggesting that they are not being used as fiscal buffers in bad times. On the contrary, countries that suffered both financial and banking crises experienced an “artificial” increase of their asset position through bank bailouts. Macroeconomic shock analyses reveal that government balance sheet items are countercyclical, but important asymmetries are found in their dynamics.

Modernizing the framework for fiscal policy and public debt sustainability analysis (DSA) has become necessary, particularly in light of the recent crisis and rising sustainability concerns in some advanced economies. While recognizing the inherently challenging nature of such analysis, this paper highlights areas where improvements are needed and makes both general and specific proposals on how this could be achieved. It also proposes to move to a risk-based approach to DSAs for all market-access countries, where the depth and extent of analysis would be commensurate with concerns regarding sustainability, while a reasonable level of standardization would be maintained.

When discussing debt reduction strategies, little attention has been given to the role of governments’ nonfinancial assets. This is in part because data are scarce. Drawing on various data sources, this paper looks at the size, composition, and management of state-owned nonfinancial assets across 32 economies, with particular focus on the advanced G-20 economies. We find that reported nonfinancial assets comprise mostly structures (such as roads and buildings) and,when valued, land. These assets have increased over time, mostly due to higher property and commodity prices, and are, in large part, owned by subnational governments. Many countries have launched reforms with a view to streamlining public administrations, but receipts and savings have been rather small so far. Governments tend to consider relatively small sets of assets to be disposable, though preferences could change in the future. A potential source for future revenues could be greater reliance on user charges, such as road tolls. In most cases, a first step for more effective asset management has to be the expansion and improvement of data compilation.

Many governments have faced serious instability as a result of their contingent liabilities. But conventional public finance analysis and institutions fail to address such fiscal risks. This book aims to provide motivation and practical guidance to governments seeking to improve theirmanagement of fiscal risks. The book addresses some of the difficult analytical and institutional challenges that face reformers tooling up to manage government fiscal risks. It discusses the inadequacies of conventional practices as well as recent advances in dealing with fiscal risk.