Germany lies at the centre of euro zone risk and recovery.
INTEREST rates are now close to zero throughout the developed world (the US, Europe, and Japan). But the global economy is slowing down and financial markets went into a tailspin during the northern summer. This suggests the problem is more profound than one of insufficient monetary stimulus.
The heart of any economy is the mechanism by which funds are channelled from savers to investors. In normal times, capital markets perform this function smoothly but these markets break down from time to time, owing to sudden large changes in perceptions about the riskiness of important asset classes.
In the US, this happened when investors discovered that even AAA-rated asset-backed securities were in reality risky. China experienced a similar surprise when the US government lost its AAA rating. But nowhere is the problem as acute as it is in Europe, or, rather, the euro zone, where German savers are suddenly discovering risk across the European periphery.
What is true of Germany is also true of most of the countries of northern Europe, many of which now run current-account surpluses that are even larger as a proportion of GDP. These countries' households continue to save, accumulating deposits at their local banks and buying bonds from their local wealth managers. But they feel that the euro zone has become such a dangerous place that they no longer dare to invest abroad.
Greece, Ireland, and Portugal are off-limits because their bonds no longer rate as investment-grade, which means that banks are not allowed to sell them to individual savers.
But even investment-grade Spain and Italy have now suddenly been classified as precarious, implying risk managers everywhere are telling investors to cut their exposure. The fundamental problem is simple: the market cannot be brought back into equilibrium when savers do not want to lend to those who would be willing to take these savings.
Lower interest rates are not a solution to this dilemma. In the US, demand has not recovered, despite almost three years of near-zero interest rates. In Europe, lower rates risk aggravating the problem by lowering the returns for savers. When the yield on German government bonds falls to 2 per cent, which is negative in real terms, German savers must redouble their efforts to achieve a certain target for retirement income.
This is why the spiral of ever-lower interest rates in Germany (and northern Europe) and higher risk premiums for most of the rest of the euro zone are so destructive. Lower interest rates can thus lead to lower consumption in surplus countries, thereby increasing the supply of loanable funds. But higher risk premia elsewhere force the rest of the euro zone to cut spending, thus reducing their demand for these funds.
Indeed, stock markets are tanking precisely because investors fear that ever-increasing risk premia in the euro zone's peripheral countries will force them to stop consuming and investing, leading to lower German rates and thus inducing German households to reduce their consumption as well. But a weaker German economy makes adjustment in the periphery even more difficult.
The most radical way to break this vicious circle would be to introduce eurobonds. National risk premia would then disappear, and German savers would have no problem investing their savings in the euro zone's periphery, knowing that the German government would ultimately underwrite these countries' government bonds. The euro zone economy could then recover quickly.
This is why market participants like to repeat that only eurobonds will end the crisis. But eurobonds would also create huge incentive problems, because debtors in the euro zone periphery would no longer have to fear any punishment by the markets and might thus be induced to consume and invest too much.
What Europe needs is a mechanism that lets the capital market work most of the time, but that enables intervention when it ceases to function. In other words, the euro zone needs a European Monetary Fund that prevents this vicious circle from tightening by providing bridging finance when capital markets break down. Europe now has such an institution in the form of the European Financial Stability Facility - but the EFSF needs to be much better financed to allow it to fulfil this function.
But even the creation of a European Monetary Fund cannot save the world economy if confidence between China and the US breaks down. The US government's loss of its AAA rating is a first sign that the most important outlet for excess Chinese savings might be losing its lustre.
The general lesson from the euro crisis and the US rating downgrade is simple: given that so many countries have chronic excess savings (Germany, Japan, China, oil exporters), the world economy cannot recover without finding ways to channel these excess savings to economies that are both creditworthy and willing to borrow. Both sides will have to make an effort: creditors must accept some risk, and debtors must enhance their creditworthiness through structural fiscal adjustment and reforms that improve their growth prospects.
Daniel Gros is director of the Centre for European Policy Studies.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What are eurobonds and could eurobonds end the euro zone crisis?
Eurobonds are jointly issued bonds backed by euro zone governments so national risk premia disappear. The article says eurobonds could restart cross‑border lending by assuring German savers that the German government would underwrite peripheral debt, which might quickly restore growth — but they would also create big incentive problems (moral hazard) because borrowers might overconsume or overborrow without market punishment.
Why are German savers so important to the euro zone recovery and my investments?
German and other northern European households run large savings and current‑account surpluses. They currently prefer safe domestic assets and avoid peripheral euro‑zone bonds, so capital isn’t flowing to countries that need it. That breakdown in cross‑border lending reduces investment and growth across the euro zone — a key risk everyday investors should watch.
How do low interest rates and higher risk premia together affect euro zone markets and investors?
The article explains a destructive spiral: very low yields in surplus countries cut savers’ returns (discouraging spending), while higher risk premia in peripheral countries force them to cut spending and investment. The combined effect lowers demand across the euro zone and pressures asset prices — something bond and equity investors should monitor.
What is the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and why does it matter to investors?
The EFSF is an existing euro‑zone rescue vehicle that can provide bridging finance when capital markets fail. The article argues it needs much bigger funding to perform like a proper European Monetary Fund, so investors should watch its size and capacity because that affects how crises are contained and how safe peripheral bonds may become.
Why aren’t lower interest rates alone enough to fix the euro zone capital‑market breakdown?
Lower interest rates reduce borrowing costs but can hurt savers’ real returns and fail to restore demand. The article points out that near‑zero rates in the US didn’t fully revive demand, and in Europe lower yields can deepen the imbalance between risk‑averse savers and risky borrowers, so rates alone aren’t a reliable fix for investors to rely on.
What would a European Monetary Fund do and how could it help markets?
A European Monetary Fund would act as a backstop that lets capital markets work normally most of the time but intervenes with bridging finance when markets break down. According to the article, this could prevent the vicious circle of falling demand and rising risk premia, making markets less volatile and more predictable for investors.
How could eurobonds create moral hazard and what does that mean for my portfolio?
If eurobonds remove national market discipline, peripheral governments might feel free to borrow and spend without fear of market penalties. The article warns this incentive problem (moral hazard) could lead to excessive borrowing and weaker creditworthiness — a potential long‑term risk for investors holding sovereign or bank debt from those countries.
What global factors beyond Europe could still derail a euro zone recovery, and what should investors watch?
The article stresses that global confidence matters: the US losing its AAA rating and possible strains between China and the US undermine a major outlet for excess savings. It recommends watching global confidence, capital flows from surplus countries (Germany, Japan, China, oil exporters), and efforts by debtors to improve creditworthiness — all of which influence euro‑zone asset risk and returns.