Download

Audience for the document: Share Class: Language of the document:

Download

Share Class: Language of the document:

Change Details

If you need to change your email address please contact us.
Subscriptions
OK
You are ready to start subscribing.
Get started by going to our products or insights section to follow what you're interested in.

Products Insights

GIPS® Information

T. Rowe Price ("TRP") claims compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®) and has prepared and presented this report in compliance with the GIPS standards. T. Rowe Price has been independently verified for the twenty four-year period ended June 30, 2020, by KPMG LLP. The verification report is available upon request. A firm that claims compliance with the GIPS standards must establish policies and procedures for complying with all the applicable requirements of the GIPS standards. Verification provides assurance on whether the firm’s policies and procedures related to composite and pooled fund maintenance, as well as the calculation, presentation, and distribution of performance, have been designed in compliance with the GIPS standards and have been implemented on a firm-wide basis. Verification does not provide assurance on the accuracy of any specific performance report.

TRP is a U.S. investment management firm with various investment advisers registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, and other regulatory bodies in various countries and holds itself out as such to potential clients for GIPS purposes. TRP further defines itself under GIPS as a discretionary investment manager providing services primarily to institutional clients with regard to various mandates, which include U.S, international, and global strategies but excluding the services of the Private Asset Management group.

A complete list and description of all of the Firm's composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS® standards are available upon request. Additional information regarding the firm's policies and procedures for calculating and reporting performance results is available upon request

Other Literature

You have successfully subscribed.

Notify me by email when
regular data and commentary is available
exceptional commentary is available
new articles become available

Thank you for your continued interest

Please enter valid search characters

Why the EU Recovery Fund is No Panacea

Tomasz Wieladek, T. Rowe Price International Economist

Public debt sustainability remains a key challenge

Key Insights

  • The European Union’s EUR 750 billion recovery fund is a historic move that could pave the way for fiscal integration for the bloc.
  • The macroeconomic reforms linked to the fund will not, however, be enough to generate long‑term growth or solve the debt problems of poorer members.
  • The only way for southern European nations to grow out of their debt burdens is through stronger long‑term growth.

The European Union’s (EU’s) EUR 750 billion coronavirus recovery plan is a bold and historic move that will facilitate fiscal transfers from richer to poorer members—a possible first step toward fiscal integration for the bloc. It is not, however, a magic formula for conjuring up long‑term growth or making the debt burdens of cash‑strapped southern European countries disappear—those are challenges that will require longer‑term solutions.

When the EU’s 27 leaders signed off on the Next Generation EU (NGEU) fund to help countries recover from the coronavirus recession, they agreed to something that would have been unimaginable prior to the pandemic. The agreement gives Brussels the power to borrow huge sums from capital markets and hand it out as budgetary support to member countries. Significantly, EUR 390 billion of the EUR 750 billion will be distributed as grants and will therefore not add to governments’ debt burdens—enabling the EU to target the money at the countries that need it most. While the grants will be made available to the countries most affected by the pandemic, the liability for the repayment of the EUR 750 billion NGEU will be shared by all member states. This will be the first time that some member states benefit more than others from commonly borrowed funds.

The grants are not “free money,” however. They will be linked to national recovery plans, which will be assessed by the European Commission based on criteria including the growth potential, job creation, and economic and social resilience of the member state. Payments of grants will be conditional on recipient countries hitting key targets and can be temporarily held back if any government in the bloc believes those targets are not being met, although the final decision will be left up to the European Commission. 

Debt Sustainability Remains a Major Challenge
Six EU countries’ debt as a percentage of gross domestic product

As of August 17, 2020.
Source: European Commission AMECO Database. 2020 and 2021 figures are projections.

This Time It’s Different

The fact that such a groundbreaking agreement was reached after only one round of serious negotiations came as a surprise to EU observers—typically, the EU can only agree on significant change after tortuous discussions spanning several summits. Why was it different this time? There are several reasons. First, EU leaders have learned from the past that delayed decisions can lead to costlier solutions. Second, Germany currently holds the EU presidency and Chancellor Angela Merkel possesses strong powers of persuasion. Third, negotiations over the NGEU occurred concurrently with discussions about the next EU budget, making it possible for financial concessions to be made that meant every country could claim a political win.

Opening Quote The UK’s absence has shifted political power from northern to southern European countries... Closing Quote

Finally, this was the one of the first major EU summits to be held without UK participation. The UK’s absence has shifted political power from northern to southern European countries, making it more difficult for the “Frugal Four”—Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, and Denmark—to impose tight spending constraints on EU policies. It remains to be seen whether this latter factor becomes a permanent feature.

From a budgetary and political perspective, the NGEU fund makes sense. The symmetry of the coronavirus shock across countries with uneven fiscal positions, but which are members of a currency union, meant that a coordinated policy response was always the best solution. A strong, synchronized fiscal response will help to support the eurozone economy and limit the size of future fiscal deficits through a stronger overall tax take. Moreover, assuming that the more fiscally conservative northern European countries would have to bail out members with future unsustainable deficits, there is clear logic in helping heavily indebted southern European countries before they reach that tipping point.

No Magic Solution

The NGEU fund will not automatically solve the EU’s biggest structural challenges, however.

While gra