- Bondholders could make more than $60 billion profit out of the global debt crisis, according to new research by Debt Justice and Christian Aid.
- BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan are the three known companies set to profit the most, with BlackRock and its clients standing to make an average of 64% more than if it had lent to the US, for example.
- With lower-income country debt payments at a 30-year high, governments are cutting investment in health, education and combatting the climate crisis.
- Ahead of the UN Financing for Development conference, the charities are urging the Government to change UK legislation to compel private lenders to restructure debt and ensure crisis-hit countries can no longer be sued while they apply for debt relief.
- Sarah Champion, Chair of International Development Select Committee, has backed the call, saying it is a “a cost-free measure this Government should get done”.
Asset manager BlackRock could make $2.1 billion profit on its loans to countries in or at high risk of debt distress, according to new research by Debt Justice and Christian Aid who are calling for urgent reform of global financial architecture.
Despite lower income country debt payments rocketing to a 30-years high, BlackRock – which stands to gain an average of 64% more than it lent for itself and its clients – tops the table of known bondholders profiting.
Goldman Sachs ranks second with J.P. Morgan third. UBS and PIMCO which are the fourth and fifth largest known bondholders are also set to make significant profit. Goldman Sachs and its clients are set to make $900 million, J.P. Morgan and clients $700 million, UBS and PIMCO and their clients around $500 million.
Debt Justice and Christian Aid pointed to the recent suing of South Sudan in the UK – a country where three quarters of the population need humanitarian assistance – for $657 million after defaulting on its loans to profit-making Afreximbank as an example of the “absurd” and “unjust” nature of the global financial system that perpetuates the debt crisis.
Jennifer Larbie, Head of UK Advocacy, Christian Aid, said: “Suing crisis-hit South Sudan when millions don’t have enough food to eat highlights the absurd and unjust nature of the global financial system. Changing UK legislation to hold private creditors to account wouldn’t cost the Treasury a penny. The UK Government has a choice: it can stand in solidarity with countries facing debt and climate crises, or cling to outdated power structures that continue to extract more than they give and turn its back on millions of people across the globe.”
Tim Jones, Policy Director, Debt Justice, said: “Private companies lent at high interest rates because they claimed loans to lower-income countries are high risk. In recent years that risk has happened – Covid, interest rate increases, climate disasters and now increases in US tariffs have all hit lower-income countries. Yet rather than offering to reduce the amount of debt owed, or supporting improved systems for debt relief, private lenders have continued being paid in full. Given high interest rates, this means private lenders are making large profits.”
James Wani, South Sudan Country Director, Christian Aid, added: “In this context the government cannot and should not prioritise maintaining onerous debt repayments over investments in the basic needs of South Sudan’s citizens. Yet, it seems that instead of our country getting debt relief to help deal with these crises, we are getting sued by the creditor. This is intolerable.”
The analysis looks at the low- and lower-middle income countries which are either rated as at high risk or in debt distress by the IMF and World Bank, and/or have external debt payments over 18% of government revenue and are continuing to pay in full.
The fact that most of the bonds are believed to be governed by English law means a change in UK legislation could compel private creditors to come the table over 99% of bonds, researchers said, in relation to the 15 countries assessed in their report.
Sarah Champion, Chair of International Development Select Committee, said: “The UK has a unique role to play in unlocking debt relief for lower income countries, because it is where the debts of private lenders are governed. As my committee recommended two years ago – and is just as relevant today – the Government could and, now more than ever, should, bring in legislation to ensure private creditors provide more debt relief enabling low-income countries to invest in areas such as health, education and tackling the climate crisis. This is a cost-free measure that this Government should get done.”
Of external debt payments by low- and lower-middle income countries since 2020[2], some 39% are to private lenders – not including Chinese lenders – 34% are to multilateral lenders, 13% are to Chinese public and private lenders and 14% are to other governments.
Some 32 African countries spend more on external debt payments than healthcare and 25 African countries spend more on debt than education, according to Christian Aid and Debt Justice.
ENDS
Methodology:
The full resesarch is available at: https://debtjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Soaring-profits-and-deadly-debts_12.25.pdf
The IMF and World Bank do not provide a risk rating for all low- and lower-middle income countries. Where they do, countries are classed as high risk of debt distress if external debt payments are over 14%, 18% or 23% of government revenue, depending on country specific characteristic. We have therefore chosen 18% as the midpoint of this.
We look at foreign currency bonds owed by these countries, as it is possible to find interest rate and maturity information that allows us to calculate the profit for lenders if the debts continue to be paid in full. In total there are 15 low- or lower-income countries which meet criteria a) or b) and have foreign currency bonds and are continuing to pay the debts in full.
There is no publicly accessible information on who owns bonds.Paid-for data providers do have information on bond ownership disclosed to regulators, primarily by asset management companies. This only covers a portion of bond ownership. We have used Refinitiv to find what data is available on bondholders for the 15 countries covered by this research. It only covers 23% of the bond ownership.[3] Where asset managers are making profit from bonds, the profit accrues to themselves and the clients whose funds they are managing.
These profit estimates assume the companies have bought and held bonds since issuance. If they have bought bonds more recently, the absolute profit is on average lower, but the percentage profit compared to amount spent on the bonds is higher (and the profit per year bonds are held will be higher too).
Table: All 15 countries, top five bondholders and aggregate figures
| Top five bondholders | Amount of bonds owned, $ million | Percentage of bonds owned | Amount of profit bondholders stand to make, $ million |
| BlackRock | 3,321 | 2.9% | 2,137 |
| J.P. Morgan | 1,168 | 1.0% | 704 |
| Goldman Sachs | 1,089 | 1.0% | 906 |
| UBS | 798 | 0.7% | 501 |
| PIMCO | 795 | 0.7% | 491 |
Source: Debt Justice/Christian Aid. Data accessed via Refinitiv on 19 May 2025.
[1] https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/Compromiso%20de%20Sevilla%20for%20action%2016%20June.pdf
[2] Calculated from World Bank International Debt Statistics database.
[3] As well as only partial data being available for each bond, no data on ownership is available for recently issued bonds.