What Is Austerity?

The term austerity refers to a set of economic policies that a government implements in order to control public sector debt. Governments put austerity measures in place when their public debt is so large that the risk of default or the inability to service the required payments on its obligations becomes a real possibility.

In short, austerity helps bring financial health back to governments. Default risk can spiral out of control quickly and, as an individual, company, or country slips further into debt, lenders will charge a higher rate of return for future loans, making it more difficult for the borrower to raise capital.

How Austerity Works

Governments experience financial instability when their debt outweighs the amount of revenue they receive, resulting in large budget deficits. Debt levels generally increase when government spending increases. As mentioned above, this means that there is a greater chance that federal governments can default on their debts. Creditors, in turn, demand higher interest to avoid the risk of default on these debts. In order to satisfy their creditors and control their debt levels, they may have to take certain measures.

Austerity only takes place when this gap—between government receipts and government expenditures—shrinks. This situation occurs when governments spend too much or when they take on too much debt. As such, a government may need to consider austerity measures when it owes more money to its creditors than it receives in revenues. Implementing these measures helps put confidence back into the economy while helping restore some semblance of balance to government budgets.

Austerity measures indicate that governments are willing to take steps to bring some degree of financial health back to their budgets. As a result, creditors may be willing to lower interest rates on debt when austerity measures are in place. But there may be certain conditions on these moves.

For instance, interest rates on Greek debt fell following its first bailout. However, the gains were limited to the government having decreased interest rate expenses. Although the private sector was unable to benefit, the major beneficiaries of lower rates are large corporations. Consumers benefited only marginally from lower rates, but the lack of sustainable economic growth kept borrowing at depressed levels despite the lower rates.

Special Considerations

A reduction in government spending doesn’t simply equate to austerity. In fact, governments may need to implement these measures during certain cycles of the economy.

For example, the global economic downturn that began in 2008 left many governments with reduced tax revenues and exposed what some believed were unsustainable spending levels. Several European countries, including the United Kingdom, Greece, and Spain, turned to austerity as a way to alleviate budget concerns.

Austerity became almost imperative during the global recession in Europe, where eurozone members didn’t have the ability to address mounting debts by printing their own currency. Thus, as their default risk increased, creditors put pressure on certain European countries to aggressively tackle spending.

Types of Austerity

Broadly speaking, there are three primary types of austerity measures:

• Generating revenue generation through higher taxes. This method often supports more government spending. The goal is to stimulate growth with spending and capturing benefits through taxation.
• The Angela Merkel model. Named after the German chancellor, this measure focuses on raising taxes while cutting nonessential government functions.
• Lower taxes and lower government spending. This is the preferred method of free-market advocates.

Taxes

There is some disagreement among economists about the effect of tax policy on the government budget. Former Ronald Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer famously argued that strategically cutting taxes would spur economic activity, paradoxically leading to more revenue.

Still, most economists and policy analysts agree that raising taxes will raise revenues. This was the tactic that many European countries took. For example, Greece increased value-added tax (VAT) rates to 23% in 2010. The government raised income tax rates on upper-income scales, along with adding new property taxes.

Reducing Government Spending

The opposite austerity measure is reducing government spending. Most consider this to be a more efficient means of reducing the deficit. New taxes mean new revenue for politicians, who are inclined to spend it on constituents.

Spending takes many forms, including grants, subsidies, wealth redistribution, entitlement programs, paying for government services, providing for the national defense, benefits to government employees, and foreign aid. Any reduction in spending is a de facto austerity measure.

At its simplest, an austerity program that is usually enacted by legislation may include one or more of the following measures:

• A cut or a freeze—without raises—of government salaries and benefits
• A freeze on government hiring and layoffs of government workers
• A reduction or elimination of government services, temporarily or permanently
• Government pension cuts and pension reform
• Interest on newly issued government securities may be cut, making these investments less attractive to investors, but reducing government interest obligations
• Cuts to previously planned government spending programs such as infrastructure construction and repair, health care, and veterans’ benefits
• An increase in taxes, including income, corporate, property, sales, and capital gains taxes
• A reduction or increase in the money supply and interest rates by the Federal Reserve as circumstances dictate to resolve the crisis.
• Rationing of critical commodities, travel restrictions, price freezes, and other economic controls, particularly in times of war

Criticism of Austerity

The effectiveness of austerity remains a matter of sharp debate. While supporters argue that massive deficits can suffocate the broader economy, thereby limiting tax revenue, opponents believe that government programs are the only way to make up for reduced personal consumption during a recession. Cutting government spending, many believe, leads to large-scale unemployment. Robust public sector spending, they suggest, reduces unemployment and therefore increases the number of income-tax payers. 

Economists such as John Maynard Keynes, a British thinker who fathered the school of Keynesian economics, believe that it is the role of governments to increase spending during a recession to replace falling private demand. The logic is that if demand is not propped up and stabilized by the government, unemployment will continue to rise and the economic recession will be prolonged.

But austerity runs contradictory to certain schools of economic thought that have been prominent since the Great Depression. In an economic downturn, falling private income reduces the amount of tax revenue that a government generates. Likewise, government coffers fill up with tax revenue during an economic boom. The irony is that public expenditures, such as unemployment benefits, are needed more during a recession than a boom.

Examples of Austerity

United States

Perhaps the most successful model of austerity, at least in response to a recession, occurred in the United States between 1920 and 1921. The unemployment rate in the U.S. economy jumped from 4% to almost 12%. Real gross national product (GNP) declined almost 20%—greater than any single year during the Great Depression or Great Recession.

President Warren G. Harding responded by cutting the federal budget by almost 50%. Tax rates were reduced for all income groups, and the debt dropped by more than 30%. In a speech in 1920, Harding declared that his administration “will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing…[and] will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility.”

Greece

In exchange for bailouts, the EU and European Central Bank (ECB) embarked on an austerity program that sought to bring Greece’s finances under control. The program cut public spending and increased taxes often at the expense of Greece’s public workers and was very unpopular. Greece’s deficit has dramatically decreased, but the country’s austerity program has been a disaster in terms of healing the economy.

Mainly, austerity measures have failed to improve the financial situation in Greece because the country is struggling with a lack of aggregate demand. It is inevitable that aggregate demand declines with austerity. Structurally, Greece is a country of small businesses rather than large corporations, so it benefits less from the principles of austerity, such as lower interest rates. These small companies do not benefit from a weakened currency, as they are unable to become exporters.

While most of the world followed the financial crisis in 2008 with years of lackluster growth and rising asset prices, Greece has been mired in its own depression. Greece’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 was $299.36 billion. In 2014, its GDP was $235.57 billion according to the United Nations. This is staggering destruction in the country’s economic fortunes, akin to the Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s.

Greece’s problems began following the Great Recession, as the country was spending too much money relative to tax collection. As the country’s finances spiraled out of control and interest rates on sovereign debt exploded higher, the country was forced to seek bailouts or default on its debt. Default carried the risk of a full-blown financial crisis with a complete collapse of the banking system. It would also be likely to lead to an exit from the euro and the European Union.

What Is an Amortized Bond?

An amortized bond is one in which the principal (face value) on the debt is paid down regularly, along with its interest expense over the life of the bond. A fixed-rate residential mortgage is one common example because the monthly payment remains constant over its life of, say, 30 years. However, each payment represents a slightly different percentage mix of interest versus principal. An amortized bond is different from a balloon or bullet loan, where there is a large portion of the principal that must be repaid only at its maturity.

Understanding Amortized Bonds

The principal paid off over the life of an amortized loan or bond is divvied up according to an amortization schedule, typically through calculating equal payments all along the way. This means that in the early years of a loan, the interest portion of the debt service will be larger than the principal portion. As the loan matures, however, the portion of each payment that goes towards interest will become lesser and the payment to principal will be larger. The calculations for an amortizing loan are similar to that of an annuity using the time value of money, and can be carried out quickly using an amortization calculator.

Amortization of debt affects two fundamental risks of bond investing. First, it greatly reduces the credit risk of the loan or bond because the principal of the loan is repaid over time, rather than all at once upon maturity, when the risk of default is the greatest. Second, amortization reduces the duration of the bond, lowering the debt’s sensitivity to interest rate risk, as compared with other non-amortized debt with the same maturity and coupon rate. This is because as time passes, there are smaller interest payments, so the weighted-average maturity (WAM) of the cash flows associated with the bond is lower.

Example of Amortizing a Bond

30-year fixed-rate mortgages are amortized so that each monthly payment goes towards interest and principal. Say you purchase a home with a $400,000 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 5% interest rate. The monthly payment is $2,147.29, or $25,767.48 per year.

At the end of year one, you have made 12 payments, most of the payments have been towards interest, and only $3,406 of the principal is paid off, leaving a loan balance of $396,593. The next year, the monthly payment amount remains the same, but the principal paid grows to $6,075. Now fast forward to year 29 when $24,566 (almost all of the $25,767.48 annual payments) will go towards principal. Free mortgage calculators or amortization calculators are easily found online to help with these calculations quickly.

Straight-Line vs. Effective-Interest Method of Amortization

Treating a bond as an amortized asset is an accounting method used by companies that issue bonds. It allows issuers to treat the bond discount as an asset over the life of the bond until its maturity date. A bond is sold at a discount when a company sells it for less than its face value and sold at a premium when the price received is greater than face value.

If a bond is issued at a discount—that is, offered for sale below its par or face value—the discount must be treated either as an expense or it can be amortized as an asset. In this way, an amortized bond is used specifically for tax purposes because the amortized bond discount is treated as part of a company’s interest expense on its income statement. The interest expense, a non-operating cost, reduces a company’s earnings before tax (EBT) and, therefore, the amount of its tax burden.

Effective-interest and straight-line amortization are the two options for amortizing bond premiums or discounts. The easiest way to account for an amortized bond is to use the straight-line method of amortization. Under this method of accounting, the bond discount that is amortized each year is equal over the life of the bond.

Companies may also issue amortized bonds and use the effective-interest method. Rather than assigning an equal amount of amortization for each period, effective-interest computes different amounts to be applied to interest expense during each period. Under this second type of accounting, the bond discount amortized is based on the difference between the bond’s interest income and its interest payable. Effective-interest method requires a financial calculator or spreadsheet software to derive.

What Are 3P Oil Reserves?

3P oil reserves are the total amount of reserves that a company estimates having access to, calculated as the sum of all proven and unproven reserves. The 3Ps stand for proven, probable, and possible reserves.

The oil industry breaks unproven reserves into two segments: those based on geological and engineering estimates from established sources (probable) and those that are less likely to be extracted due to financial or technical difficulties (possible). Therefore, 3P refers to proven plus probable plus possible reserves. This can be contrasted with 2P oil, which includes only proven and probable reserves.

Understanding 3P Oil Reserves

The 3P estimate is an optimistic estimate of what might be pumped out of a well by an oil company. The three different categories of reserves also have different production probabilities assigned. For example, the oil industry gives proven reserves a 90% certainty of being produced (P90). The industry gives probable reserves a 50% certainty (P50), and possible reserves a 10% certainty (P10) of actually being produced.

Another way to think about the concept of different reserve categories is to use a fishing analogy where proven reserves are the equivalent of having caught and landed a fish. It is certain and in hand. Probable reserves are the equivalent of having a fish on the line. The fish is technically caught, but is not yet on land and may still come off the line and get away. Possible reserves are a bit like saying, “there are fish in this river somewhere.” These reserves exist, but it is far from certain that an oil company will ever fully discover, develop, and produce them.

Energy companies update their investors on the amount of oil and natural gas reserves they have access to through an annual reserve update. This update typically includes proven, probable, and possible reserves, and is similar to an inventory report that a retailer might provide to investors.

However, there is no legal obligation for companies to report their 3P reserves. In recent years, oil and gas startups and exploration companies have taken to reporting their 3P reserves. This is because the third “P” (i.e., possible reserves) can artificially inflate reserves figures and result in an acquisition by a bigger player. The cost benefits of investing in hiring a 3P reserve calculation versus putting money into a costly exploration operation works out in their favor.

Independent Consultant Resource Assessment

Several consulting firms provide oil companies with independent assessments of their oil reserves. These audits are also beneficial to investors who want the assurance that a company has the reserves they claim. One such firm is DeGolyer and MacNaughton and another is Miller and Lents, who have served the oil and gas industry with trusted upstream insights and reservoir evaluation for many years.

Investors in oil and gas companies, as well as independent oil projects, rely on consulting firms like these to provide accurate and independent assessments of a company’s full reserve base, including 3P reserves. Crucial information includes things like estimations of reserves and resources to be recovered from discoveries and verification of hydrocarbon and mineral reserves and resources.

Rapid Classification Changes in Proven Reserves

Understanding the natural resource extraction industry can be challenging because proven reserves are just one of three classifications. Most people assume proven oil and gas reserves should only go up when new exploratory wells are drilled, resulting in new reservoirs being discovered. In reality, there are often more significant gains and losses resulting from shifts between classifications than there are increases in proven reserves from truly new discoveries. For this reason, it is useful for investors to know a company’s proven, probable, and possible reserves rather than just the proven reserves.

If an investor does not have the data on probable reserves, proven reserves can suddenly change in a number of different situations. For example, if a company has a large amount of probable reserves and a relevant extraction technology improves, then those probable reserves are added to the proven reserves.