More from the Author

• Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

  Undisclosed Debt Sustainability

  Laura Alfaro and Fabio Kanczuk

  Over the past decade, non–Paris Club creditors, notably China, have become an important source of financing for low- and middle-income countries. In contrast with typical sovereign debt, these lending arrangements are not public, and other creditors have no information about their magnitude. We transform the traditional sovereign debt and default model to quantitatively study incomplete information arrangements and find they greatly reduce traditional/Paris Club creditors’ debt sustainability. Disclosure of nontraditional debt would imply significant welfare gains for the recipient countries but would reduce its sustainability. We discuss the implications of nontraditional lending on standard assumptions of sovereign debt models.

  Keywords: Sovereign debt; transparency; sustainability; Sovereign Finance; Borrowing and Debt; Information; China;

  Citation:

  Alfaro, Laura, and Fabio Kanczuk. "Undisclosed Debt Sustainability." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-043, September 2019.  View Details

  CiteView Details Read Now

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | July 2005 (Revised September 2019)

  The U.S. Current Account Deficit

  Laura Alfaro, Rafael Di Tella, Ingrid Vogel, Renee Kim, Sarah Jeong, Matthew Johnson and Jonathan Schlefer

  Investors and policymakers throughout the world were confronted with the risk of painful economic consequences arising from the large U.S. current account deficit. In 2007, the U.S. current account deficit was $731 billion, equivalent to 5.3% of GDP. The implications of the deficit were debated with intensity. At one extreme, it was argued that large deficits would eventually resolve themselves smoothly, even if they persisted for many more years. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was among those expecting a "benign resolution to the U.S. current account imbalance." Other analysts, such as economists at the World Bank, believed the large deficits raised the risk of a sharp and disorderly fall of the dollar and that necessary macroeconomic adjustment could be painful, for the United States as well as for the rest of the world. The Financial Times asked: "How long will foreigners be prepared to make such generous 'gifts' to the US?" In this environment, Berkshire Hathaway, run by legendary investor Warren Buffett, postulated that current account imbalances would lead to "some chaotic markets in which currency adjustments play a part" and announced to shareholders a plan to increase investment in overseas companies to protect against this risk. It remained to be seen what the short- and long-term implications of the current account deficit would ultimately yield.

  Keywords: Macroeconomics; Borrowing and Debt; Currency; Foreign Direct Investment; Business and Government Relations; United States;

  Citation:

  Alfaro, Laura, Rafael Di Tella, Ingrid Vogel, Renee Kim, Sarah Jeong, Matthew Johnson, and Jonathan Schlefer. "The U.S. Current Account Deficit." Harvard Business School Case 706-002, July 2005. (Revised September 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | June 2018 (Revised August 2019)

  Renegotiating NAFTA

  Laura Alfaro, Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason and Sarah Jeong

  January 1, 2019 marked the 25th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Twenty-five years after the landmark trade pact was signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, considerable debate surrounded it. Trade and trade agreements were a focal point of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. NAFTA came into effect on January 1, 1994, after being backed by the Republican administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush and the Democratic administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton during its implementation. It created the largest free trade area in the world at the time. Since implementation, total trade between NAFTA countries grew 280%; in comparison while trade to non-NAFTA partners grew by 195%. Critics of NAFTA claimed that it had contributed to a loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, increased inequality in all countries, and undercut environmental laws. Those who supported NAFTA, however, noted that in addition to trade, output, and overall employment, investment among the three nations increased, and productivity also grew. Furthermore, the agreement led to lower prices. By 2018, all countries experienced low unemployment rates. With changes in NAFTA looming, many questioned whether the accord had brought more benefits than costs to its signatories. Could the costs be minimized under a new agreement without reducing the benefits? Did buying local goods help create the most jobs in a country? What was the role of business? Everyone wondered what the potential ramifications of the new NAFTA, or lack of, would be.

  Keywords: Trade; Negotiation; Agreements and Arrangements; Cost vs Benefits;

  Citation:

  Alfaro, Laura, Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason, and Sarah Jeong. "Renegotiating NAFTA." Harvard Business School Case 318-143, June 2018. (Revised August 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related