What Happens to Bank Stocks If Country Defaults
The prices seem very low even considering the risk? The prices are low because of the risk. Nothing happens to the banks if the sovereign defaults. However, the sovereign debt holders - lose some or all the money they lent to that sovereign. Incidentally, many banks invest in the treasury bonds of various countries, especially those they're located in. They also invest in other companies that rely on the government, or the currency. If that dependency is too high - the bank may fail. If the dependency is not high, or non-existent - the bank will survive. If the bank fails - yes, your shares will be wiped out, that's what happens with bankrupt companies. If you considering investing in banks in a country that you think may default - research them and see how much investments they have that will be affected by that default. Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.
Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation.  SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market. Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation.   Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty.   Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians.  EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense. I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation. "Yes, except many, many Icelanders still owe debt on assets they purchased in krona (the Icelandic dollar) before it collapsed.  Now many are stuck with homes, vehicles, etc. on which they owe twice the underlying value.  You'll often see this referred to as ""private debt overhang"" in financial news articles, and it is not reported on nearly enough.  Just letting the banks fail doesn't unwind all of the ridiculous currency speculation that took place in Iceland.  They may be on their way to recovery...eventually...but they're still in terrible shape in the short term." "My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like   treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that   they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity   of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the   company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock   ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo   announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between   13% and 15%.  Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so   led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of   additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and   placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in   risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican   interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican   peso.  Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations   began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling   off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To   discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments,   the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing   costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency.  For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35.   The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing   individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in   United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The   act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce   to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)?  The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, ""does the real value of my stock ownership go down"" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much ""it depends"" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this.  The best answer is to say, ""Look at history and what happened"" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics." "If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (""We're not paying interest on our bonds"") then make sure you pay off your house.  There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment.  If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes." "This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, ""what if"" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading ""A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy""" Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? It does seem strange that there is a correlation between government debt and the stock market.  But I could see many reasons for the reaction.  The downgrade by S&P may make it more expensive for the government to borrow money (i.e. higher interest rates).  This means it becomes more expensive for the government to borrow money and the government will probably need to raise taxes to cover the cost of borrowing.  Rising taxes are not good for business.  Also, many banks in the US hold US government debt.  Rising yields will push down the value of their holdings which in turn will reduce the value of US debt on the businesses' balance sheets.  This weakens the banks' balance sheets.  They may even start to unload US bonds. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? I don't know.  I think they have proven they are practically useless.  That's just my opinion.  Many, though, still think they are a credible ratings agency. What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Theoretically the government has to stop borrowing money once the debt ceiling is reached.  If this occurs and the government does not raise the debt ceiling then the government faces three choices: It's impossible to know for sure, which I'm sure you know, but paying these large debts all at once will leave very little assets in comparison to what they had.    Issuing new shares like this is called dilution which means the price will be forced downward because the same (or in this case less) net earnings must be divided by more shares outstanding. A secondary offering almost always lowers stock price.   http://wiki.fool.com/What_Happens_to_the_Share_Price_When_New_Shares_Are_Issued%3F Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock.  It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds.  Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing.  Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market.  The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen.  The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc. Huh? What does a flight to safety (cheaper US borrowing rates) have to do with the crisis not spreading if something goes wrong in Italy? It won't be the same over here - it will hit the banking system and companies tied to Europe rather than the sovereign market, but if something happens in Italy we'll feel it. "Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money.  When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money).  Deposit and savings account are considered ""on-demand"" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time.  This is a strange type of loan, is it not?  No other loan works this way.  There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc..  The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending." Still a tough sell when the banking sector is so underwater. IDBI reported that 20% of their loans were non performing. Think on that, 1 in 5 loans are probably going to default and need to be written off. While it's the extreme case, the NPL ratio for the public banks is about 10% which is an insane ratio.  This isn't an issue that's going to go away, the government says they want to consolidate but that just means you're forcing a bad bank to merge with a bank that's even worse off. a bank doesn't lend you money if it hasn't made sure that you can repay your debt in full (plus interests). That's not entirely correct. The bank issues a lot of loans and expects almost all people will pay their debts. The few people who go bankrupt and cannot pay are (more than) compensated for by the people who do pay their debts. The same holds for brokers, e.g. here is an example of the rates they calculate when you trade on margin, effectively borrowing money from them. "Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why ""junk"" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term ""paper"" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of ""breaking the buck"" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme."