Latest on IMF and debt restructuring- II

by Jayampathy Molligoda

Further to my article published in ‘The Island’ recently, IMF Executive board has just approved the EFF arrangement for Sri Lanka at its meeting held on 20th March ‘23. In the meantime, our Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) in consultation with the financial advisory group hired for negotiations have finalised the latest position of Sri Lanka’s Public Debt as at end 2022 just prior to commencement of debt restructuring negotiations with creditors. The financial advisory group, Lazard was hired by former President, Sri Lanka in May 2022, along with international lawyers Clifford Chance, to guide the government through the process of restructuring its debt, for which estimates range from $70- 90 billion. According to Reuter reports published last September ’22, Sri Lanka was expected to formally reach out to private creditors who hold about $15 billion in bonds. My understanding is ‘Lazards’ is now working on different permutations and combinations.

The purpose of this paper is to critically review the latest position on the debt restructuring negotiations, because various conditional requests and diverse views are being made by ISB bond holders, Bi -lateral creditors and other stakeholders. I hope our high powered ‘negotiators’ have the competence and commitment to seek ways of avoiding the adverse results stemming from the concerns expressed here that are likely to crop up in the debt restructuring process.

Latest conditional request from the group of bond shareholders:

Having perused the document uploaded to the Ministry of Finance (MOF website) recently, the total public debt stock has skyrocketed to US $ 83.6 Billion, which includes total foreign debt of US$ 45.6 billion and the local debt of 38 billion in US $ equivalent. The total debt as a % of GDP as stated in the above MOF doc is 128%.

Latest conditional request from the group of bond shareholders places a cap on domestic borrowing component in the overall gross financing need of the government budget @8.5%. And if the total deficit financing need is @ 13%, means a MINIMUM of 4.5% of foreign debt financing component. This places serious restriction to our earlier thinking of reducing the foreign borrowing component as well as indirectly places restrictions on earlier thinking of asking higher ‘haircut’ for foreign debt holders. Previously, there was no such requirement came from India and bilateral debt holders.

Resist touching banks’ domestic debt:

In the circumstances, my own view is we are reluctantly compelled to restructure local debt i.e.; TBs and, it’s inevitable that the local debt of US $ equivalent of 38 billion would also need to be taken into consideration for debt restructuring – otherwise there is no way of reducing the total public debt stock to the level that is required as per IMF conditions. This would create a serious issue for our ‘financial system stability’ and the deposit holders including pension funds are badly affected.

This cannot be allowed and therefore the government/MOF/CBSL/Lizards need to negotiate hard on this aspect. We need to convince through hard negotiations to try and get away without ‘haircuts for Treasury bills/bonds.

As far as Sri Lanka’s domestic debt is concerned, CBSL top officials view at that time was that they should be able to get away without ‘hair-cuts’. It could come in the form of re profiling debt, i.e., bundle up short term debt instruments to long term T Bonds and ask people to hold to Maturity-may be with a coupon payment; at least to be confined to CBSL debt, EPF plus ETF and Insurance holdings. They have to know fully resist touching banks’ domestic debt. Whether they can sell this to ISB and other debt holders is another matter.

‘Alternative economic approaches’ offered by eminent economists:

Having said all these negative narratives, my concern is whether we have any other viable and practical option as a solution except IMF supported programme? As stated in my article, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank, and Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz, has slammed the IMF for unleashing riots on nations the IMF is dealing with He has been a critique of IMF causing great damage to countries through the economic policies it has prescribed countries to follow, in order to qualify for IMF loans.

However, in my view, neither Stiglitz nor any other eminent economist has come out with a practical and alternative policy framework to overcome the most serious economic and financial crisis faced in the 75 years of Sri Lanka’s independence. Nevertheless, some contradictory views shared through ‘alternative economic approaches’ are that the only sustainable solution could have been based on domestic self- reliant effort supported by proper planning for accumulation, productivity growth and international competitiveness, supported where necessary by friendly nations. An eminent economist, having extensive knowledge on Federal Reserve banking/CB operations world over and development economics/finance has promptly responded to the writer that this question (alternative solution) should have been seriously considered before the decision to go for IMF assistance was taken and the pre-emptive declaration of the country’s debt default, but it is too late now. Social unrest is reaching the boiling point.