Everything You Need to Know About the Emerging-Market Currency Collapse

Money poured into developing economies after the financial crisis, and now it's starting to pour out. How much should we worry?

Here we go again.

First, money poured into emerging markets when it looked like they offered juicy returns. Then it poured out after they didn't. Currencies are collapsing. Stock markets are falling. And central banks are sacrificing the real economy to save the exchange rate.

We've seen this movie before. It was called the East Asian financial crisis, back in 1997. But, for once, the sequel won't be worse than the original. Emerging markets don't have enough foreign-money debt this time around to make their falling currencies much of a concern. What is a concern is whether their central bankers realize this. They might overreact—they might already be—and raise rates to prop up their currencies, when they should be lowering them to prop up their economies.

Now, emerging market currencies have been in a world of pain since last May. That's when Ben Bernanke first hinted that the Fed would soon draw down—or "taper"—its bond purchases. If that meant the Fed would start raising rates sooner too, as markets assumed it did, there wouldn't be any need to park money overseas to get a decent return. You could do that in the U.S. So investors pulled their money out just as quickly as they had moved it in—and emerging market currencies fell. You can see just how much they fell against the dollar in the chart below, which I've updated from The Economist.

So how did we get here, and just how much should the non-currency traders among us worry?

1. It actually began before the financial crisis. Capital gushed into emerging markets—particularly commodities—between 2004 and 2008, even as the Fed raised rates from 1 to 5.25 percent. It was BRICs euphoria, and nothing could stop it. Nothing except Lehman. But once it became clear the world would not, in fact, end, capital went back overseas to rekindle the old magic (and find better returns than the Fed's zero percent interest rates).* It went back to emerging markets. Higher growth and higher interest rates there looked like no-brainers compared to the low growth and low rates in the at-best-moribund U.S. and Europe.

2. That left the emerging markets with a dilemma: They could raise rates and get a foreign credit boom, or cut rates and have a domestic credit boom. If their central banks kept, or raised, rates high where they "should" have been, it would have only attracted more "hot money"—quick, speculative capital looking for the best return—from abroad. This would have made their exports even less competitive by pushing up their currencies more, and set off a lending boom that could reverse itself at the click of a mouse.

But it was a bit of a catch-22. If their central banks kept rates lower than they should have, it would have made their economies less attractive to yield-hungry foreign investors. Less capital would have flowed in, and their exports wouldn't have been as priced out by a too-high currency—but persistently too-low rates would have risked inflation and a credit boom of their own making.

They chose door number 2. They chose it, because they had seen what hot money could do to an economy when it got scared: the East Asian financial crisis had created mini (and in Indonesia's case, not-so-mini) depressions back in 1997. Instead, emerging markets decided to try to keep their currencies low to run big trade surpluses, and build up rainy day funds of foreign reserves. So when the Fed lowered rates in 2003, they did too. The same in 2008. But, as you can see in the chart below from the World Bank, these low rates that made sense for the U.S. didn't make sense for emerging markets. They were too low.

3. But there was a door number 3. Emerging markets could have stopped hot money from coming in. Such "capital controls" would have let them raise rates as needed without worrying about foreigners pushing up their currencies or blowing bubbles. Indeed, China uses them, and Brazil kind of did too with its now-defunct financial transactions tax. But most emerging markets didn't. Capital controls were too heretical, just not what you were supposed to do (even though now even the IMF thinks they're okay).

Presented by

Matthew O'Brien

Matthew O'Brien is a former senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Business

Just In