South Korea, known for its relentless ambition to be recognized as a developed nation, has long sought to gain membership in the prestigious Economic Cooperation and Development Organization (OECD), often referred to as the "rich nations club." In 1996, after years of persistent applications, Korea achieved this significant milestoneAt that time, the OECD was predominantly composed of Western developed countries, and Korea’s entry signified a validation of its financial markets by Western capital.

The aftermath of Korea’s OECD accession bore immediate benefits; the country’s banks and conglomerates gained relatively easy access to dollar loans in the international financial marketIn 1996, the dollar index was at a historical low, making dollars plentiful and affordably pricedThis situation prompted a borrowing spree among Korea’s chaebols and banks, all eager to leverage this favorable financing environment for extensive investments worldwide.

However, the audacious bets made by these South Korean companies often fell flat

For instance, the giant Samsung ventured into the automotive sector using borrowed dollars but faced catastrophic lossesMeanwhile, the Daewoo Group sought to expand into the former Soviet Union, establishing factories from Eastern Europe through to Central Asia, ultimately leading to wasted investmentsKia Motors, too, poured substantial resources attempting to penetrate the American market, only to find themselves mired in crippling financial challenges.

What’s worth noting is that Korea primarily borrowed short-term debts while engaging in long-term investments—a strategy often termed "short-term loan for long-term investment." When Western capital became hesitant to roll over these loans, Korea found itself stranded in a precarious plight.

Between 1994 and 1997, the external debt of Korea’s top 30 conglomerates surged from $43.9 billion to $120.8 billion, with a staggering 60% of this debt being short-term

• November Non-Farm Payrolls Exceed Expectations
• How to Conduct International Futures Trading?
• Dollar Dives, Gold Soars, U.S. Stocks Rally
• Hedging Strategies for Crude Oil Futures
• Bitcoin: Ushering in a New Era for US Finance?

By early 1997, the U.SFederal Reserve initiated a monetary tightening policy, making dollar loans significantly more difficult to obtainThe mounting debt pressures compelled major conglomerates to confront reality; even one of the distinguished shadows of history—the Hanbo Group—experienced a debt default.

The crisis escalated in March, when the infamous hedge fund manager George Soros led over a hundred global hedge funds in a massive short-selling campaign aimed at the Thai bahtFaced with insurmountable pressure, Thailand abandoned its fixed exchange rate on July 2, triggering the onset of what became known as the Asian Financial CrisisBy October, the influential rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded both South Korean national bonds and corporate bonds.

The repercussions of this financial storm reached South Korea rapidly, as Western capital fled, and the rollover of short-term loans ceased

With no means to re-borrow these short-term loans, Korea was left scrambling to pay off their debts with foreign exchange reserves—a sum that paled in comparison to their massive external liabilitiesThis triggered a rapid depletion of Korea’s foreign exchange reserves, leading to rapid depreciation of the South Korean won, which plummeted from 886 won per dollar in July 1997 to 1701 won per dollar by December of the same year—an astounding 100% depreciation within just six months.

For South Korean enterprises, settling the same amount of dollar debt now required double the amount of won, leading to a rampant wave of bankruptcies among its debt-laden firmsAs desperation set in, the Korean government turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance, marking a critical moment in the ensuing financial saga.

Indeed, the IMF agreed to provide a lifeline, but imposed three daunting conditions

Among these, the most notable mandated Korea to open its financial markets, raising the foreign ownership limit in Korean banks and conglomerates from 50% to 100%. Faced with dire circumstances, Korea had little choice but to acquiesce to these demands, signing the surrender that would bring $55 billion in loans from the IMF.

Post-crisis, U.Sinvestors acquired significant stakes in numerous Korean banks and chaebolsFor instance, the U.Sfirm Newbridge Capital bought a controlling 51% stake in Korea First BankAdditionally, a sale of Hanseong Bank to HSBC fell through due to excessive greed on the part of the British bankUltimately, over a third of all commercial banks in Korea fell into foreign control, leading to a situation where foreign entities not only held shares but gained control over the essential economic arteries of South Korea.

One of the most telling developments post-1997 was the transformation of Samsung Electronics into a company heavily influenced by American interests

Today, foreign shareholders own a staggering 55% of Samsung’s common stock, and an astonishing 89% of its preferred sharesConsequently, a majority of Samsung’s annual dividends flow into foreign pockets, leading to a sentiment that isn’t entirely off the mark when one claims Samsung is effectively working for American stakeholders.

The scenario in East Asia closely resembles this, where many engage in arduous work for meager returns while often suffering the consequences of American economic maneuversSuch a stifling economic paradigm inevitably leads the youth to lose motivation in pursuing material success and reaping the rewards of ambition, thereby contributing to the continous decline in birth rates across the region.

The bond market, too, has had its share of horrors, evident in two chilling phenomena: the short-selling of Japanese government bonds and the bullish trend seen in Russian government bonds

Japan, after the burst of its economic bubble, adopted a sustained policy of interest rate cuts, eventually lowering rates to zero, and subsequently negativeThis environment saw Japanese bond prices rise consistently, but traders who shorted them saw catastrophic losses, leading the practice to be referred to derogatorily as the "widowmaker" trade.

Conversely, investing in Russian bonds has had its own set of challengesSince the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia faced a staggering three crises concerning bond payments, and the ruble experienced three explosive periods of depreciation, with the most extreme being the staggering loss of over 2000 times its value from 1990 to 1995.

Complicated by the difficulties in bond repayment and continuous ruble devaluation, those who ventured into Russian government bonds often ended up incurring heavy losses

In 1995, while Japan's central bank maintained a benchmark interest rate of 0.5%, Russian government bonds were yielding close to 20%. This glaring interest rate differential created an attractive opportunity where borrowing in yen then converting to rubles for investment in Russian bonds appeared to guarantee easy returns.

Beginning in 1995, American hedge funds began a widespread strategy to short Japanese bonds while simultaneously going long on Russian bonds, aggressively plundering Russian wealthHowever, such favorable conditions lasted only two years, as the Asian Financial Crisis exploded in 1997 and rapidly engulfed Russia as well.

On August 17, 1998, at a critical juncture in Hong Kong’s financial defense battle, the Yeltsin administration suddenly declared a domestic default on Russian government bonds while halting interest payments to foreign investors

This unexpected move caught Western capital off guard, leading to the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital Management, America’s largest hedge fund, due to its enormous exposure to Russian bonds.

Financial risk cascaded rapidly through the structures of American finance, with banks tightening credit in uncertainty over who would incur the next falloutNumerous banks stopped funding hedge funds, and in the tightening liquidity environment, borrowing costs surged sharplyPowerful financiers like George Soros were forced to cut back on their short positions in Southeast AsiaAs a result, the financial pressure on Asia's financial markets eased significantly, leading to improved conditions in Hong Kong’s interbank market and rising indices.

By the end of August 1998, after a year-long struggle, the unusual Hong Kong financial defense effort concluded shortly after the Russian bond crisis began

That crisis had profound implications; on one hand, it indirectly salvaged the Southeast Asian countries engulfed in crisis, but on the other, it delivered a heavy blow to Russia's national creditFrom that point on, foreign interests became extremely hesitant to engage in investment ventures in Russia.

Yet, what led such a sprawling entity like Russia to the point of government bond default? The reasons are twofoldFirstly, Russia inherited a massive burden following the collapse of the Soviet UnionNot only did it assume much of the previous Soviet Union's assets, but it also inherited significant debt, including approximately 1 trillion rubles in internal debt and $120 billion in external debt.

Secondly, the shock therapy implemented under Yeltsin drained Russian resourcesIn 1992, he aggressively pushed for shock therapy domestically, effectively collapsing the economy and causing a staggering 40% plunge in GDP within a short period

This strategy effectively stripped the nation of its economic foundation, ultimately leading to the debt defaults.

So, what exactly is shock therapy, and why was Yeltsin so adamant about implementing it? It traces back to Bolivia in 1985, where successive economic policy failures led to an inflation rate of an astonishing 24,000%. To combat this, the Bolivian government enlisted Harvard University Professor Jeffrey Sachs as an economic advisorOften regarded as the "father of shock therapy," Sachs used Bolivia as a testing ground for his radical economic reform agenda.

Implementing shock therapy in Bolivia required only a week to stabilize runaway pricesA year later, inflation fell below 15%, and GDP recorded its first positive growth in yearsThis success caught the attention of neighboring nations.

In 1989, Sachs was similarly appointed by Poland’s government, leading again to a quick stabilization of prices and a successful transition from planned to market economy

With the Soviet Union dissolving and Russia grappling with soaring inflation, the successes of Bolivia and Poland placed Sachs’ methods prominently in the view of Russian leadership.

However, Russia faced a severe structural problem, with heavy dependence on large-scale industry and dramatically underdeveloped light industryBy the time of its independence in 1991, food prices had skyrocketed by 1500%, resulting in long lines at storesThe then-government, paralyzed by the crisis, desperately needed a designer to steer economic reform.

On October 28, 1991, Yeltsin declared that the nation would embark on shock therapyHe appointed the young, Western-influenced Yegor Gaidar as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and enlisted the renowned Sachs as an advisorTogether, they spearheaded the implementation of shock therapy across Russia.

Shock therapy effectively sought to convert the planned economy of the former socialist state directly into a market economy

In order to understand its implications, it’s crucial to distinguish between planned and market economiesThe planned economy is fundamentally characterized by public ownership, wherein all means of production, including land and factories, are owned by the state.

For example, in the case of bread production, farmers are directed by state orders to grow wheat, which they then deliver to designated bakeries that are also state-run, leading to a non-market distribution process where no direct pricing is necessary.

In stark contrast, a market economy is characterized by private ownershipHere, land and production entities are privately held, and decisions are made based on profit maximizationFarmers decide what crops to plant based on price signals, and production levels are determined by consumer demand.

Thus, the major distinctions between these two types of economies reside in the presence of a comprehensive pricing system and the ownership of property

Transitioning from a planned to a market economy necessitates two crucial steps: deregulating prices and advancing privatization reformsStrikingly, these two components epitomize the essence of shock therapy in practice.

Within reform, two strategies exist: the gradual, experimental approach of incremental change and the radical transformation of shock therapyOne of the critical reasons for Russia’s plight in the 1990s lay in its choice of the latter over a more cautious, step-by-step reform approachThe first step in shock therapy involves comprehensive price liberalization.

According to Sachs’ theory, once prices are deregulated, a temporary period of inflation is expected; however, this rapid increase should suppress consumer demand while simultaneously incentivizing production expansionOver time, as demand decreases and supply rises, prices would stabilize again.

On January 2, 1992, under Sachs’ directive, the Russian government liberalized prices for 90% of consumer goods and 80% of producer resources in a single sweep

Surprisingly, contrary to expectations, prices went ballistic, skyrocketing uncontrollablyBy mid-1992, wholesale prices for industrial goods had surged by a staggering fourteenfold.

As production costs surged, numerous Russian businesses entered deeper into the red, failing to expand operations and instead cutting backThis created a vicious cycle marked by skyrocketing prices and dwindling supplyAs dissatisfaction mounted among the populace, the Yeltsin administration found itself in a deepening crisis.

Seeking to stabilize prices, Sachs proposed a bold second step for the shock therapy: a combined fiscal and monetary tightening approach to curtail overall social demandHe theorized that the rampant inflation stemmed from unchecked total demand, thus necessitating drastic administrative measures to quell consumer demand and enterprise investment demand, theoretically restoring equilibrium.

However, this approach was fundamentally flawed, given that supply-side limitations were the primary reason for the inflated prices

The solution lay in enhancing production and boosting supply, rather than constraining demandThus, Sachs' proposals countered what was genuinely needed.

During the second stage of shock therapy, the Central Bank of Russia vastly increased interest rates while the Ministry of Finance simultaneously raised value-added taxes and eliminated various subsidiesThe consequence? A deterioration in the economic environment for Russian businesses, resulting in a wave of bankruptcies and an explosive rise in unemployment, deepening the existing supply shortages.

The inflation issue intensified, culminating in a year-end consumer price index skyrocketing to an astronomical 2510%. The ruble evaporated in value; earlier stages of shock therapy had plunged the economy into turmoil, yet the core aspect of this program, privatization of state enterprises, ultimately benefitted only oligarchs and government officials, overshadowing Russia’s long-term economic trajectory.