跳转到文章内容

In our Deep Water Waves publication, we identified several powerful, connected and long-duration factors that will have a significant impact on investment returns over the next decades. One of these is the Debt Wave, driven primarily by a combination of economic, geopolitical and demographic pressures. We observe that the Sovereign Debt Wave is at a historic peak in terms of the US dollar value of the debt issued and appears set to continue growing. This was sustainable with low inflation and plentiful liquidity. These factors have both reversed, leading to a heightened urgency to raise capital. As a result, the traditional view on fiscal responsibility seems to have moved from the mainstream of political and economic policy debate to the fringes. Given several secular trends in place, this “wave” is apt to grow in depth and breadth. And that puts this debate at the center of policy decisions for a generation. This process drives an increasingly structural polarization between those countries that can easily continue to issue debt and refinance and those that cannot. Our paper on the subject can be accessed here.

  • Even before COVID-19, the debt-to-gross-domestic-product (GDP) ratio was growing around the world.1 In the countries that powered global economic growth in the last generation (the United States, Europe and since 2009, China) debt is set to keep growing, as aging demographics raise the cost of pensions and health care, and working-age populations shrink. For lower-income economies with relatively fragile sovereign financials, continued access to affordable credit is an existential requirement.
  • Many of the traditional mechanisms used to escape debt (economic growth through global trade) can no longer be taken for granted, due to the commingling of geopolitics and economics. In the long term, this is a challenge for China and the emerging markets. The policy of “friendshoring” and the drive to diversify supply chains eliminates some of the most powerful catalysts helping these countries climb the knowledge ladder. This trajectory points to a widening polarization between developed countries and the rest.
  • In these circumstances, developing economies are extremely exposed. The International Institute of Finance (IIF) calculates that the combined debt of the 30 large and developing countries has risen to US$98 trillion from US$75 trillion in 2019,2 pre-pandemic. Part of this surge is due to the collapse of their currencies against the US dollar, but the structural problem remains. Policy decisions made in the past have put them in financial quicksand, sinking deeper with every attempt to get out.
  • We examine the widely held theory of China’s predatory lending and provide two country case studies. The conclusion is that there is no evidence of a master plan using sovereign debt. History suggests that many borrowing governments have consciously chosen less-economically sensible credit to avoid scrutiny and conditionality. Observers find grounds for discomfort, but not for panic.
  • Finally, the chances of inserting a particular country into the crucial international supply chains are greatly improved if it can play the geoeconomic Great Game.3 A country needs a sizable population to attract foreign direct investments (FDI), a commercial and industrial ecosystem that is used to operating in international markets, as well as unexploited mineral wealth—especially if those minerals are relevant for the green transition or for electric vehicles (EVs) or defense. Mexico and Indonesia clearly have a window of opportunity, which implies they could take advantage of the current geopolitical climate to leverage financing and/or favorable market access.

We believe we need a massive reallocation of resources, which implies a need for positive real interest rates because there will be so much issuance from both governments and the private sector that there will be competition for investors’ cash. There is an opportunity for private debt to arbitrage, but default risk is probably higher overall. The traditional sources of long-term savings might be squeezed or even reduced over time, as the working populations in mostly high-income countries shrink and their costs increase. There will be increasing government intervention in most countries—not always efficiently or even usefully. In our opinion, this scenario makes every investment decision loaded with implicit factor weights that are not currently mainstream.

Stephen Dover, CFA
Chief Market Strategist,
Franklin Templeton Institute



Copyright ©2025 富蘭克林鄧普頓。版權所有。

本文件僅供一般參考。本文件不應被視作個人投資建議或買賣或持有任何基金股份或證券的要約或招攬。有關本文所提及的任何證券的資料並不足以用作制定投資決策。投資涉及風險。投資價值可升或跌,過往業績不代表或不保證將來的表現。投資收益是以資產淨值計算,已考慮股息再投資及資本增長或損失。投資收益以所示貨幣計價,該等貨幣可能是美元/港元以外的貨幣(「外幣」)。因此,以美元/港元交易的投資者需承受美元/港元與外幣之間匯率波動的風險。投資者應仔細閱讀銷售文件,以獲取進一步資料,包括風險因素。

本文件所載的數據、評論、意見、預測及其他資料如有更改恕不另行通知。不保證投資產品目標將會實現,亦不保證所示預測將會實現。表現亦可能受貨幣波動影響。流動性下降或會對資產價格產生不利影響。貨幣波動可能會影響海外投資的價值。如果投資產品投資於新興市場,風險可能高於投資於已發展市場。如果投資產品投資於衍生工具,則需承擔特定風險,這可能會增加投資產品承受的風險水平。如果投資產品投資於特定行業或地區,回報的波動程度可能高於更多元化的投資產品投資。富蘭克林鄧普頓不就使用本文件或其所載的任何評論、意見或估計而導致的任何直接或間接後果性損失承擔任何責任。在未得到富蘭克林鄧普頓的事先書面同意下,不得以任何方式複製、派發或發表本文件。

名稱中包含「(已對沖)」的任何股份類別將嘗試對沖本基金基礎貨幣與股份類別計值貨幣之間的貨幣風險,但不保證可以成功對沖。在某些情況下,投資者可能涉及額外風險。

若閣下對其中任何資料有疑問,謹請與閣下的財務顧問聯絡。

只適用於UCITS基金: 此外,投資者權利概要可從這裡獲得。根據 UCITS 指令,基金/子基金被通知在不同地區進行營銷。 基金/子基金可以使用 UCITS 指令第 93a 條中包含的程序隨時終止任何股份類別和/或子基金的此類通知。

只適用於AIFMD基金:此外,投資者權利摘要可從這裡獲得。根據 AIFMD 指令,基金/子基金被通知在不同地區進行營銷。 基金/子基金可以使用 AIFMD指令第 32a 條中包含的程序隨時終止任何股份類別和/或子基金的此類通知。

為避免疑問,如果您決定投資,即代表您將購買本基金的單位/股份,並不是直接投資於本基金的相關資產。

本文件由富蘭克林鄧普頓投資(亞洲)有限公司發行,並未為香港證監會所審閱。

除非另有註明,所有資料截至上述日期。資料來源:富蘭克林鄧普頓。

CFA® 及Chartered Financial Analyst®為特許金融分析師協會擁有的商標。