Sometimes, when it rains, it pours. That seems to apply now in the early days of 2023, with the looming risk of recession, heightened geopolitical risk, and a protracted outlook for higher inflation now getting the added bonus of brinkmanship in the U.S. House of Representatives over raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. Treasury has once again embarked on what it calls “extraordinary measures” to meet its obligations for another few months but warned that it would run out sometime toward midyear 2023 unless the ceiling is raised or suspended once more. While we think there’s very little likelihood of the United States defaulting on its obligations, it's possible that political gridlock will unnerve financial markets between now and when the issue is addressed.
A century of political wrangling
A limit on the national debt isn’t a concept that exists in the U.S. Constitution. Congress enacted the original debt ceiling legislation in 1917 as a way to gain the support of reluctant members for entering World War I. Involvement in the war would be more palatable, the thinking went, if there was a limit to the financial commitment.
Beginning around the time of World War II, the debt ceiling legislation required frequent modification to meet the growing obligations of the country, everything from social safety net programs such as welfare to a permanently larger U.S. military and pandemic relief measures. Congress has acted to raise, modify, or temporarily suspend the debt limit 102 times since the end of WW2, nearly once for every year the legislation has been in existence.
For most of its history, adjusting the debt ceiling was a routine matter that neither made the news nor rattled financial markets. In more recent times, the action has been linked to political debate about fiscal prudence and the dangers of a growing national debt. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have contributed to rising debt—through increased spending and revenue-depriving tax cuts—and both legislative majorities have overseen the raising or temporary suspension of the debt ceiling many times.
The debt ceiling and federal debt have grown under both political parties
Each time they’ve come close to crossing this fiscal Rubicon, members of Congress have found a way to pull back from the edge and, as a result, the United States has never defaulted on its obligations. But the process has become increasingly messy. In 2011, rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the national debt from its highest AAA rating to AA+, citing the prolonged debate over the debt ceiling and the growing national debt. According to the rating agency, “More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.”
Indeed, the U.S. government went on to endure two highly disruptive shutdowns in October 2013 and in the winter of 2018 because neither legislation appropriating funds for the coming fiscal year nor a continuing resolution bill for the prior year’s appropriation was passed by the deadline. In each case, the shutdowns furloughed thousands of federal employees, closed national parks, and were a source of short-term market volatility.
Does the debt ceiling matter?
The idea of placing a nominal dollar debt limit on a federal government is rare in today’s global economy; Denmark is the only other developed economy that does it. Yet deficits are something that every country worries about and seeks to manage—some better than others.
Some economists believe deficits should be less of a concern. As long as the economy is growing at a rate faster than the level of real interest rates, the argument goes, growth should naturally shrink the ratio of debt to GDP over time. Others argue that debts ultimately have to be paid and that a large and growing national debt, such as we have today, requires increasingly greater interest payments to service, can exacerbate higher interest rates and lead to lower credit ratings, and crowds out other potentially more productive investments.
Fortunately, most appear to agree that allowing the United States to default on its existing commitments would have grave and unprecedented consequences, from a decline in the value of the dollar to substantial market volatility and negative credit rating revisions. And that’s why we think Congress will likely find a way to once again raise or suspend the debt ceiling in 2023.
Investing involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Financial markets are volatile and can fluctuate significantly in response to company, industry, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. The information provided does not take into account the suitability, investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific person.
All overviews and commentary are intended to be general in nature and for current interest. While helpful, these overviews are no substitute for professional tax, investment or legal advice. Clients and prospects should seek professional advice for their particular situation. Neither Manulife Investment Management, nor any of its affiliates or representatives (collectively “Manulife Investment Management”) is providing tax, investment or legal advice.
This material is intended for the exclusive use of recipients in jurisdictions who are allowed to receive the material under their applicable law. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and are subject to change without notice. Our investment teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. These opinions may not necessarily reflect the views of Manulife Investment Management. The information and/or analysis contained in this material has been compiled or arrived at from sources believed to be reliable, but Manulife Investment Management does not make any representation as to their accuracy, correctness, usefulness, or completeness and does not accept liability for any loss arising from the use of the information and/or analysis contained. The information in this material may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, management discipline, or other expectations, and is only current as of the date indicated. The information in this document, including statements concerning financial market trends, are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Manulife Investment Management disclaims any responsibility to update such information.
Manulife Investment Management shall not assume any liability or responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage or any other consequence of any person acting or not acting in reliance on the information contained here. This material was prepared solely for informational purposes, does not constitute a recommendation, professional advice, an offer or an invitation by or on behalf of Manulife Investment Management to any person to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment approach, and is no indication of trading intent in any fund or account managed by Manulife Investment Management. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risk in any market environment. Diversification or asset allocation does not guarantee a profit or protect against the risk of loss in any market. Unless otherwise specified, all data is sourced from Manulife Investment Management. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
A widespread health crisis such as a global pandemic could cause substantial market volatility, exchange-trading suspensions and closures, and affect portfolio performance. For example, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has resulted in significant disruptions to global business activity. The impact of a health crisis and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future, could affect the global economy in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. A health crisis may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks. Any such impact could adversely affect the portfolio’s performance, resulting in losses to your investment.
Manulife Investment Management
Manulife Investment Management is the global wealth and asset management segment of Manulife Financial Corporation (“Manulife”). We draw on more than a century of financial stewardship to partner with clients across our institutional, retail, and retirement businesses globally. Our specialist approach to money management includes the highly differentiated strategies of our fixed-income, specialized equity, multi-asset solutions, and private markets teams—along with access to specialized, unaffiliated asset managers from around the world through our multimanager model.
This material has not been reviewed by, is not registered with any securities or other regulatory authority, and may, where appropriate, be distributed by Manulife Investment Management and its subsidiaries and affiliates, which includes the John Hancock Investment Management brand and Hancock Natural Resource Group.
Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, Stylized M Design, and Manulife Investment Management & Stylized M Design are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by it, and by its affiliates under license.