Pricing terms in sovereign debt contracts: a Greek case study with implications for the European crisis resolution mechanism

Abstract

An open question that sits at the intersection of law and finance is the extent to which provisions in standardized financial contracts, such as bond covenants, are priced. Financial economists believe that contract terms, and particularly those that reduce agency costs, are valued by the markets. Lawyers, including experienced practitioners, tend to believe that the market does not price individual contract provisions; and especially not those that are boilerplate. These assumptions about pricing accuracy have come to the fore in the public debate over the current financial crisis, with many, including prominent economists, complaining that models built on unrealistic assumptions about the abilities of markets to price risks were a major factor leading to the crisis. One significant part of the current global crisis is the Eurozone debt debacle, which began with Greece. In this article, we examine whether, and when, the markets woke up to the risks associated with the differential contract terms in various Greek debt issuances. One of the results of the recent Eurozone financial crisis has been the decision, led largely by Germany, to put in place a mechanism to ensure an ‘orderly debt restructuring mechanism’ for the future that will set up proper incentives for investors and hopefully avoid the need for taxpayer bailouts in the future.1 And one of the likely early users of this mechanism is the Hellenic Republic. Our findings have implications both for the design of this European Crisis Resolution Mechanism (ECRM) and, more specifically, the likely restructuring of Greek debt.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.