Asia's 1997 Financial Crisis: Why Foreign Investment Poured In

The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 was a period of financial turmoil that engulfed much of East and Southeast Asia. It began in Thailand in July 1997, when the government ended the Thai baht's peg to the US dollar, leading to a rapid devaluation of the currency. This triggered a chain reaction across the region, with Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia also experiencing significant currency devaluations as they succumbed to speculative market pressure. The crisis spread to South Korea, where a balance-of-payments crisis brought the country to the brink of default. The crisis was marked by a slowdown in capital inflows, declining currencies, and economic recessions.

Several factors contributed to the crisis, including current account deficits, high levels of foreign debt, climbing budget deficits, excessive bank lending, poor debt-service ratios, and imbalanced capital inflows and outflows. The crisis was exacerbated by government policies that encouraged investment but also created high levels of debt. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) played a crucial role in mitigating the crisis by providing bailouts to affected countries, but it imposed strict spending restrictions as conditions for its assistance. The Asian Financial Crisis serves as a valuable case study for understanding the interconnectedness of global markets and the impact of economic policies on currency values and national economies.

Thailand's currency devaluation

Thailand's decision to devalue its currency, the baht, in July 1997, was the trigger for the Asian Financial Crisis.

The Thai baht was pegged to the US dollar at 25 baht to the dollar. However, the Thai government lacked the foreign currency reserves to maintain this peg, and was forced to float the baht, allowing its value to be determined by currency markets. This resulted in a rapid devaluation of the currency, which halved in value, reaching its lowest point of 56 baht to the dollar in January 1998.

The Thai economy had been growing rapidly in the years leading up to the crisis, fuelled by an influx of foreign capital. This led to an asset price bubble, particularly in the real estate sector, and excessive borrowing. Thailand's persistent high economic growth contributed to the banking sector's inability to adequately assess risk. The country also had a persistent current account deficit, which stood at $14 billion prior to the crisis.

The devaluation of the baht was the result of a speculative attack by large institutional investors, who focused on fragile economic fundamentals, such as the excessive current account deficit and high levels of short-term debt. This led to a loss of confidence in the currency, and a rush to sell. The Bank of Thailand was forced to spend $24 billion of its international reserves (two-thirds of the total) to try to defend the value of the baht, but eventually had to let it float.

The impact of the devaluation was severe. The Thai stock market dropped by 75%, and the country's largest finance company, Finance One, collapsed. Poverty and inequality increased, while employment, wages and social welfare all declined. The crisis also had political repercussions, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

High current account deficits

The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was caused by a variety of factors, including high current account deficits in Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea. These deficits were caused by an influx of private capital into these countries, often in the form of loans for investments, particularly in the real estate sector. This created an asset price bubble, leading to increased capital and debt.

At the time, Thailand carried out monetary policy under a Fixed Exchange Rate Regime, which created stability for financial markets but also led to an underestimation of the risks associated with capital inflow. This resulted in an imbalance between the banking sector's financial instruments and debt, as well as an imbalance between the amount of foreign currency in the private sector's balance sheets.

The high current account deficits contributed to the overall fragility of the economies in the region and made them more susceptible to external shocks, such as the devaluation of the Chinese renminbi and the Japanese yen, and the raising of US interest rates. As the US economy recovered and interest rates rose, it became a more attractive investment destination relative to Southeast Asia, leading to a withdrawal of capital from the region.

The combination of high current account deficits and external shocks ultimately triggered a region-wide financial crisis, with Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea being the most affected.

Excessive bank lending

In the years leading up to the crisis, there was a significant inflow of private capital into Thailand, stemming from loans for investments, particularly in the real estate sector. This created an asset price bubble, which led to increased capital and debt. Thailand carried out monetary policy under a Fixed Exchange Rate Regime, which created stability for financial markets but also led lenders and borrowers to grossly underestimate the risks associated with capital inflow. This resulted in an imbalance between the banking sector's financial instruments and debt, and between the amount of foreign currency in the private sector's balance sheets.

The persistent high economic growth of the Thai economy also contributed to the banking sector's inability to adequately assess risk. Credit regulations lacked robust considerations of various risks, and rules and regulations for financial institutions were not restrictive enough. For example, licenses were easily approved for the establishment of financial institutions, which resulted in abundant bankruptcies or forced shutdowns once these institutions faced liquidity issues from foreign outflows.

The problem of excessive bank lending was not limited to Thailand. In South Korea, the sharp depreciation of the won beginning in late 1997 added a new and more troublesome dimension to the crisis, given the significance of Korea as the eighth-largest economy in the world. The magnitude of the depreciation of its currency took place in less than two months, and the Korean Central Bank succeeded in maintaining the peg until the first devaluation of the Thai baht.

The Asian financial crisis was also characterised by a domino effect, where the initial crisis in Thailand triggered a series of devaluations in other Southeast Asian countries. This was due in part to competitive devaluations, where international mutual funds sold Asian stocks and bonds in both crisis-hit and non-crisis-hit countries in an effort to raise cash.

To address the excessive bank lending and other structural weaknesses exposed by the crisis, aid was contingent on substantial domestic policy reforms. These included measures to deleverage, clean up, and strengthen weak financial systems, as well as to improve the competitiveness and flexibility of economies. Monetary policy had to be firm enough to resist excessive currency depreciation, which had damaging consequences not only for domestic inflation but also for the balance sheets of domestic financial institutions and non-financial enterprises with large foreign currency exposures.

Foreign exchange rate pegs

The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was caused by a variety of factors, one of which was the fixed exchange rate regimes of several Southeast Asian countries. Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea had large private current account deficits, and their maintenance of fixed exchange rates encouraged external borrowing and led to excessive exposure to foreign exchange risk in both the financial and corporate sectors.

Thailand, for example, had pegged its currency, the Baht, at 25 to the US dollar. However, due to a lack of foreign currency reserves, the Thai government was forced to float the Baht, causing it to lose more than half of its value.

Similarly, Indonesia's currency, the Rupiah, was pegged to the US dollar, and when the Thai Baht was floated, the Indonesian Rupiah came under severe attack, causing it to drop in value.

Malaysia also had a fixed exchange rate regime, with the Ringgit pegged to the US dollar at 3.8. When the Thai Baht was floated, the Malaysian Ringgit became the target of heavy speculation, and its value dropped by 50%.

The fixed exchange rate regimes in these countries created an imbalance between the amount of foreign currency in the private sector's balance sheets and the banking sector's financial instruments and debt. This made the economies vulnerable to capital outflows, and when the Thai Baht was floated, it triggered a chain reaction of devaluations in other Southeast Asian countries with fixed exchange rates.

To prevent further depreciation of their currencies, some countries raised interest rates to extremely high levels, which had a damaging effect on their economies. Eventually, these countries were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and allow their currencies to float, which led to a substantial increase in foreign currency-denominated liabilities, further deepening the crisis.

The crisis highlighted the risks associated with fixed exchange rate regimes, particularly in the context of excessive borrowing and exposure to foreign exchange risk. It also demonstrated the importance of sufficient foreign currency reserves in maintaining a pegged exchange rate.

Moral hazard

The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was a period of financial turmoil that affected much of East and Southeast Asia. The crisis began in Thailand, where it was known as the Tom Yum Kung crisis, and quickly spread to other countries, causing a ripple effect of economic distress across the region.

The crisis was triggered by a combination of factors, including an asset price bubble, excessive borrowing, and weak corporate governance. Thailand's decision to float the Thai baht due to a lack of foreign currency to support its currency peg to the US dollar sparked a chain reaction, leading to capital flight and a rapid devaluation of currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices in the region.

Market participants, such as investors and financial institutions, also faced moral hazard decisions during the crisis. With the knowledge that governments might intervene to prevent the collapse of major companies, investors may have been incentivised to continue investing in risky assets, hoping for potential gains without bearing the full consequences of losses. This behaviour could have contributed to the contagion effect of the crisis, as investors withdrew funds from the region, exacerbating the economic downturn. The expectation of government support created a moral hazard situation where investors were less cautious in their decision-making, knowing that potential losses could be mitigated by external intervention.

Additionally, financial institutions themselves faced a moral hazard dilemma. With the knowledge that governments might provide bailouts, these institutions may have been less stringent in their risk management practices and continued engaging in risky lending practices. The potential moral hazard here is that financial institutions shifted the burden of their risky lending decisions to taxpayers, assuming that governments would ultimately step in to prevent widespread financial collapse. This dynamic could have contributed to the excessive credit availability and asset price inflation observed in the lead-up to the crisis.

The role of moral hazard in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis highlights the complex interplay between market forces and government intervention. While government bailouts may have been necessary to stabilise the economy and prevent widespread hardship, they also created an environment where market participants were less accountable for their actions. This dynamic underscores the challenges faced by policymakers in striking a balance between mitigating economic crises and preserving market discipline to prevent moral hazard.

The aftermath of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis provided important lessons for managing moral hazard. Recognising the potential pitfalls of unconditional bailouts, governments and regulatory bodies implemented measures to mitigate the likelihood of similar situations arising in the future. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 in the United States aimed to address the "too big to fail" mentality by requiring large corporations to create contingency plans and stipulating that taxpayer-funded bailouts would not be repeated. These steps were designed to increase accountability and reduce the moral hazard associated with government interventions.

Frequently asked questions