Shockwaves and Safe Havens: How Geopolitical Risks Reshape Euro Area Sovereign Debt Markets

 Based on ECB Working Paper No. 3303 (October 2026) by Othman Bouabdallah, Anisa Tiza Mimun, and Aurelian Vlad.

Executive Summary

When geopolitical shocks—ranging from military escalations to economic sanctions—strike, how do sovereign debt markets digest the uncertainty? While traditional literature focuses on immediate movements in government bond yields, a crucial question remains: who is actually buying or selling the debt when risk escalates?

Using confidential, granular securities holdings data from the Eurosystem (Securities Holdings Statistics by Sector, or SHSS), this analysis dives deep into the dynamic responses of nine distinct investor classes across four highly indebted euro area nations: Belgium, Spain, France, and Italy.

The core finding? Investor composition acts as either a shock absorber or an amplifier. Domestic investors, particularly banks and households, often step in as market stabilizers, whereas foreign investors exhibit pronounced risk aversion, triggering cross-border retrenchment.

Structural Mind Map: Transmission & Investor Dynamics

                                  +------------------------------------+
                                  |    COUNTRY-SPECIFIC GPR SHOCK      |
                                  | (Caldara & Iacoviello AR(4) Proxy) |
                                  +-----------------+------------------+
                                                    |
            +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
            |                                                                               |
            v                                                                               v
+-----------------------+                                                       +-----------------------+
|  DIRECT UNCERTAINTY  |                                                       |    YIELD-MEDIATED     |
|        CHANNEL        |                                                       |        CHANNEL        |
| Risk aversion spikes  |                                                       | Spreads widen, risk   |
| regardless of yields  |                                                       | premia increase       |
+-----------+-----------+                                                       +-----------+-----------+
            |                                                                               |
            +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
                                                    |
                                                    v
                                  +------------------------------------+
                                  |   INVESTOR BASE REALLOCATION FLOWS |
                                  +-----------------+------------------+
                                                    |
           +----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
           |                                                                                 |
           v                                                                                 v
+-----------------------------------+                                     +-----------------------------------+
|        DOMESTIC INVESTORS         |                                     |       NON-DOMESTIC (EA) INVESTORS |
|      (Stabilizing Dynamic)        |                                     |      (Destabilizing Dynamic)      |
+-----------------------------------+                                     +-----------------------------------+
| • Banks (MFIs): Medium-term buy-  |                                     | • Investment Funds (IFs):         |
|   in; zero risk-weight & carry    |                                     |   Persistent exit; yield-chasing  |
|   trade incentives.               |                                     |   constrained by redemptions.     |
| • Households (HHs): Impact buying |                                     | • Money Market Funds (MMFs):      |
|   (retail flight-to-safety).      |                                     |   Sharp initial contraction.      |
| • Insurers/Pension Funds (ICs/PFs)|                                     | • Insurers/Pension Funds:         |
|   Liability-driven initial hedge, |                                     |   Cross-border retrenchment &     |
|   subsequent retrenchment.        |                                     |   geopolitical fragmentation.     |
+-----------------------------------+                                     +-----------------------------------+

Econometric Methodology & Rebalancing Measurement

To isolate how different holder types behave following unanticipated geopolitical shocks, the authors utilize a two-step quantitative framework:

1. Extracting Exogenous Geopolitical Risk Innovations

Using the country-specific Geopolitical Risk (GPR) index developed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2022), the unexpected component of geopolitical risk $GPRC_{c,t}$ for country $c$ at time $t$ is extracted via a fourth-order autoregressive process:

$$GPRC_{c,t} = \alpha_{c} + \sum_{k=1}^{4} \beta_{c,k} GPRC_{c,t-k} + \epsilon_{c,t}$$

The estimated residual $\epsilon_{c,t}$ represents the exogenous geopolitical risk shock.

2. Local Projection Estimations

Dynamic impulse responses over a 6-quarter horizon ($h = 0, 1, \dots, 6$) are estimated using Local Projections (Jordà, 2005):

$$y_{i,c,t+h} = \alpha_{c,h} + \beta_{c,h} shock_{c,t} + \gamma_{c,h} X_{c,t} + \epsilon_{i,c,t+h}$$

Where:

• $y_{i,c,t+h}$ represents the logarithm of sovereign bond holdings for holder type $i$ in country $c$.

• $X_{c,t}$ is a vector of macro-financial controls: $\ln(\text{GDP})$, $\ln(\text{HICP})$, $\ln(\text{Gross Debt})$, EuroStoxx50, and VStoxx.

3. Pure Portfolio Rebalancing (IHS Transformation)

To separate active trading (purchases/sales) from mechanical mark-to-market valuation changes, net nominal transactions $\Delta N_{i,c,t} = N_{i,c,t} - N_{i,c,t-1}$ are transformed using the Inverse Hyperbolic Sine (IHS) transformation:

$$\hat{\Delta N}_{i,c,t} = \operatorname{arcsinh}(\Delta N_{i,c,t}) = \ln\left(\Delta N_{i,c,t} + \sqrt{\Delta N_{i,c,t}^2 + 1}\right)$$

Because transaction flows expressed in millions of euros operate in a quasi-logarithmic regime, the estimated coefficients $\hat{\beta}_{c,h}$ act as semi-elasticities, allowing for symmetric treatment of net purchases and net sales.

Detailed Breakdown: How Sectoral Behavior Differs

1. Domestic Banks (MFIs) & The Diabolic Loop

• Behavior: Banks typically display a slight contraction or muted reaction on impact, followed by a strong medium-term expansion in sovereign bond holdings (observed notably in Spain and Belgium).

• Driver: Sovereign bonds retain a zero risk-weight under Basel capital rules. As geopolitical shocks cause yields to jump, banks engage in carry trades. However, this accumulation deepens the classic sovereign-bank diabolic loop (Brunnermeier et al., 2016).

2. Domestic vs. Foreign Institutional Investors (ICs & PFs)

• Domestic ICs/PFs: Show an initial expansion (driven by liability-driven hedging strategies to lock in higher yields), followed by gradual retrenchment as capital constraints under Solvency II bind due to market volatility.

• Foreign ICs/PFs: Exhibit immediate, sustained reductions in exposure (especially in Spain and Italy), demonstrating pronounced cross-border retrenchment.

3. Investment Funds (IFs) & Money Market Funds (MMFs)

• Investment Funds: Highly sensitive to end-investor redemption pressures. IFs display pro-cyclical sell-offs initially. In core/semi-core markets like Belgium, they re-enter later to capture yield spreads, but in high-vulnerability settings, retrenchment persists.

• Money Market Funds: Show immediate structural vulnerability. Non-domestic MMFs aggressively trim short-term positions to prevent run risks, particularly under constant net-asset-value (CNAV) regulations.

4. Retail Investors / Domestic Households (HHs)

• Behavior: Domestic households in Belgium and Italy step in as impact buyers, absorbing primary debt issuance.

• Driver: A classic retail flight-to-safety motive, bolstered by national retail bond initiatives and domestic savings buffers.

Empirical Comparison Across Euro Area Sovereigns

Country	Domestic Banks (MFIs)	Domestic Households	Foreign Investor Base	Primary Transmission Risk
Belgium	Initial decline $\rightarrow$ Strong expansion	Strong impact buyer; gradual reduction later	Substituted into non-domestic EA holdings	Low-to-Moderate (High absorption capacity)
Spain	Immediate and sustained expansion	Muted initially $\rightarrow$ Substantial buy-in after Q3	Marked retrenchment across IFs, ICs, & MMFs	High (Foreign capital capital flight)
France	Early contraction $\rightarrow$ Strong medium-term rebound	Muted response; slight delayed expansion	Mixed; foreign ICs increase long-term debt	Moderate (Market depth provides cushion)
Italy	Contraction over Q1-Q2 $\rightarrow$ Rebound thereafter	Mild initial increase $\rightarrow$ Pronounced decline	Widespread cross-border sell-off across sectors	High (Sovereign-bank loop & yield sensitivity)

Key Policy Takeaways for Debt Managers and Regulators

1. Investor Base Composition Matters as Much as Debt Volume: Relying heavily on foreign non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) increases vulnerability during geopolitical crises.

2. Debt Issuance Strategy Calibration: Sovereign debt management offices (DMOs) in high-debt nations should nurture buy-and-hold domestic retail and institutional investor bases capable of acting as shock absorbers.

3. Macroprudential Stress Testing: Stress-testing models must explicitly incorporate cross-border capital flight dynamics and liability-driven constraints (Solvency II) under geopolitical risk scenarios.

References

• Afonso, A., Alves, J., & Monteiro, S. (2025). Echoes of instability: How geopolitical risks shape government debt holdings. Economic Change and Restructuring, 58(3), 1–28.

• Bank for International Settlements. (2023). Insurance companies' holdings of sovereign debt. BIS Quarterly Review Box, March 2023.

• Bellemare, M. F., & Wichman, C. J. (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 50–61.

• Bouabdallah, O., Mimun, A. T., & Vlad, A. (2026). The effects of geopolitical risk on sovereign debt holders in the euro area. ECB Working Paper Series, No. 3303.

• Brunnermeier, M. K., Garicano, L., Lane, P. R., Pagano, M., Reis, R., Santos, T., Thesmar, D., Van Nieuwerburgh, S., & Vayanos, D. (2016). The sovereign-bank diabolic loop and ESBies. American Economic Review, 106(5), 508–512.

• Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225.

• Converse, N., & Mallucci, E. (2023). Differential treatment in the bond market: Sovereign risk and mutual fund portfolios. Journal of International Economics, 145, 103811.

• Dieckelmann, D., Kaufmann, C., Larkou, C., McQuade, P., Negri, C., Pancaro, C., & Rößler, D. (2024). Turbulent times: Geopolitical risk and its impact on euro area financial stability. ECB Financial Stability Review (Special Feature), May 2024.

• European Central Bank. (2024). Financial markets and investor behaviour in times of stress in euro area sovereign bond markets. ECB Financial Stability Review Box, November 2024.

• Jordà, O. (2005). Estimation and inference of impulse responses by local projections. American Economic Review, 95(1), 161–182.

• Koijen, R. S. J., & Yogo, M. (2019). A demand system approach to asset pricing. Journal of Political Economy, 127(4), 1475–1515.