As we're all a bit forecast weary by this  point in the year, here's a list - not of prognostications - but rather  of potential risks that may come into even greater focus this year.  These risks – whether they intensify or pass – will likely play an  important role in driving the performance of global stock markets in  2012. 
1) The Persistence of Wide Spreads Among European Debt – Even if Bond Holders are ‘Rescued' 
There are two components of the European credit  crisis - debt levels and economic growth prospects. While the  conversations to this point have leaned mostly toward reducing debt  levels, economic growth prospects and the overall viability of a common  currency will likely get a closer look this year, especially as Europe  heads for recession. 
During this two-year crisis investors have  continually called on the ECB and euro area leaders to ‘fix' the debt  issue: by wiping out half of Greece's debt, by protecting Italy's access  to debt markets through bond purchases, or by suggesting a levered  EFSF, the euro area's rescue vehicle. 
But even if the ECB does bend to the will of the  bond markets this year, and begins to buy sovereign debt directly, the  single currency is left with all of the same weaknesses that existed  prior to the crisis: the inability to tailor interest rate policy for  each individual economy, the lack of foreign currency adjustment needed  to offset differences in competitiveness, and growth-limiting trade  dynamics throughout the area. 
Martin Feldstein, a long-time euro skeptic, in  this month's Foreign Affairs magazine made the point this way: “During  the past year, Germany had a trade surplus of nearly $200 billion,  whereas the other members of the eurozone had trade deficits totaling  $200 billion. A more comprehensive measure that factors in net  investment income reveals that Germany has a current account surplus of  nearly five percent of GDP, whereas Greece has a current account deficit  of nearly ten percent of GDP. Put another way, Germany can invest in  the rest of the world an amount equal to five percent of its GDP,  whereas Greece must borrow an amount equal to nearly ten percent of its  GDP to pay for its current level of imports”. 
One of the strongest benefits at the introduction  of the common currency was that investors priced government debt  similarly across the euro area. During this period investors thought of  the euro area as a group of countries that would not only share a  currency, but also share economic performance and long-term outcomes.  Smaller countries and those of southern Europe experienced the greatest  amount of benefit from converging yields. Yield on Greek debt fell by  more than half in less than 10 years. Even stock market valuation ratios  converged. The spread between the countries with the highest and lowest  PE ratios dropped by more than half during the period. 
While this period could have been used to improve  some of the issues surrounding productivity, competitiveness, and trade  dynamics among countries, what occurred instead was that governments  took on larger amounts of liabilities, and as interest rates fell,  housing bubbles formed. With that period passed, it's difficult to  imagine that investors will soon return to the mindset that Portugal,  Ireland, or even Italy, will soon again converge materially – in either  economic performance or level of credit risk - with Germany. 
I highlighted this risk and the graph below early in the European credit crisis ( The Great Divergence ).  At that point the sovereign debt of Portugal was priced at 200 basis  points above German bunds, compared with 1100 basis points today. Here  is an updated graph. 

There is a long history prior to the period of the  shared currency where spreads among countries and with Germany were  dramatically and persistently wider than even today. This was because  expected economic growth rates, inflation expectations, and the real  rates required by investors differed. Now that investors have been  reminded of the structural weaknesses of a common currency – even  outside of the discussion of high debt loads - persistently high spreads  may be here to stay. Those spreads will surely play a role in the  potential long-term growth rates of economies and euro area stock market  valuations. 
2) Sovereign Debt Rollover Risks 
When the history of the European Credit Crisis is  written, it'll likely be in two parts. The first part will cover the  debt crisis of the smaller European countries – mainly the woes of  Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. It will cover Greece's admission that its  accounting didn't add up. And how Ireland's bad bank debt was turned  into sovereign debt – which tripled its debt to GDP ratio in just three  years. It will also cover the trajectory of peripheral sovereign bond  yields in the face of investor uncertainty, where yields were first  pushed above seven percent, and then eventually to much higher levels,  forcing a rescue program. 
The second part of the story will be about Italy  and Spain, and potentially France, and how they were either pulled into  the fiscal debt maelstrom or whether the ECB and euro area leaders were  able to ring-fence them from the more troubled smaller euro countries.  It will cover whether investors pushed these core countries from  liquidity concerns to solvency concerns. While these chapters are still  being written, the outcome may very well be available to historians (and  investors) much sooner than many are expecting. One reason is because  of the vast amount of sovereign and bank debt that is due to mature this  year, all of which will needed to be rolled over because of existing  budget deficits. The two countries that pose the greatest risks for  rolling over this debt are Italy and Spain. 
The chart below gives some sense of the relative  importance of Italy – and to a slightly lesser degree Spain – in meeting  its rollover demands this year versus the smaller euro area countries.  The graph shows the cumulative amount of debt that will mature this year  in the countries listed. (These totals count all government debt coming  due – including shorter term notes – and are therefore larger than  estimates of only long-term debt.) The graph shows the limited bond  market needs (and therefore rescue funds needed) of Greece, Portugal,  and Ireland, relative to those of Italy. Also, notice how steep the line  is for Italy's maturing debt during the first four months of the year –  when almost half of this year's total debt will mature. 

It will be important to watch bond auction demand  in Italy and Spain in the beginning of the year. The recent bid to cover  ratio – a measure of the eagerness of bond investor to participate in  an auction – for Italy's 10-year notes has mostly been in line with  results from early last year. Of course, the level of yield will also  matter. The chart below shows the weighted coupon of the existing debt  outstanding for each country (in blue) versus the current yield (using  the weighted maturity of existing debt) of its bonds (in red). For many  years during the Euro's first decade, borrowing costs continued to fall  versus the average cost of the existing debt of these countries. This  trend has now changed for most of Europe, except Germany and France.  This will likely continue to further widen economic divergences among  countries. 

This is one more benefit Germany is deriving from  the crisis. In addition to a weaker euro, which helps fuel its  export-oriented economy, the cost of financing its sovereign debt  relative to its existing debt continues to fall while the smaller  countries struggle with rising financing costs. 
3) The Depth of Italy's Recession 
It would be difficult to overemphasize the  importance of Italy retaining access to the bond markets, and mitigating  further losses in its sovereign bonds. According to the Bank for  International Settlements, foreign claims on Italian debt total $936  Billion – that's larger than the combined foreign claims on the debt of  Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. And core Europe is long a mountain of  Italian debt. French banks, for example, hold 45 percent of Italy's  liabilities. Much more is at stake than France losing its Triple-A  rating if Italy moves from a liquidity concern to a solvency concern. 
What eventually would force that shift is if  investors come to believe that the country's ability to handle its debt  load over the long term is compromised. Those concerns can be partly  alleviated if Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti delivers a balanced  budget by 2013, which he promised this week. Unfortunately, near-term  economic risks could make these goals difficult to meet in practice. 
This year economists expect the Italian economy to  contract only slightly – by 0.3%. The graph below shows the  year-over-year change in the OECD composite leading indicator for Italy  (lagged by six months) versus the year-over-year change in Italian GDP.  The change in the leading indicator is currently -9.8 percent. That's  suggesting a much deeper contraction in the Italian economy than current  forecasts. Following any decline of greater than 5 percent in the  year-over-year change of the leading indicator has led to an average  contraction in the Italian economy of about 3 percent six months later. 
Even assuming austerity measures might ease some  of the country's debt load, it would be difficult to offset this steep  of a decline in output. Hold debt levels static, and that rate of  economic decline would force Italy's debt to GDP ratio to rise to 122%  from 118% – clearly the wrong direction if the hope is to ease long-term  solvency concerns. 

Investors in Italian stocks may have moved some  distance toward pricing in a deeper recession than what is currently  expected by economists. The FTSE MIB Index declined 40 percent peak to  trough last year (the index fell 25 percent on a calendar basis). But a  deeper decline in Italy's economy this year that pushed debt to GDP  ratios materially higher would likely catch bond investors' attention,  and then ultimately the attention of global stock investors. 
4) The ECB, LTROs and European Bank Funding 
Will the ECB's three-year long-term refinancing  operations (LTRO) work as a stealth quantitative easing program? Will  banks borrow long-term funds from the ECB and turn around and buy  sovereign debt? That's the hope. But there are strong tides of data  pushing back against this idea. 
While there was much fanfare last month after the ECB loaned 523 banks 489 billion euros, the actual amount of new   funds was a more modest number. This is because two earlier loan  programs expired on the same day as the three-year LTRO was held, and  banks probably rolled these funds into the three-year operation. The  earlier operations included a 3-month loan of 141 billion euros offered  in September, and a net 112 billion euros of overnight loans. The ECB  also allowed banks to shift 45 billion euros from an October operation  into the 3-year LTRO. Of the 489 billion Euros operation, that left  about 191 billion euros of fresh loans. (See this link  for ECB euro operation results.) 
Will this smaller figure be used by banks to buy  sovereign debt? Any purchases will probably not in be in large amounts.  That's because, as Bloomberg Economist David Powell recently pointed  out, the 191 billion euros of new loans are less than the value of bank  debt scheduled to come due this quarter alone. And with the unsecured  debt markets essentially closed to many of these banks, the ECB loans  will be needed to fund existing assets. 
Up to 700 billion euros of European bank debt  comes due this year, with about 200 billion euros coming due the first  quarter, according to Bloomberg data. The financing needs coming due in  the first quarter “imply that euro area banks will not have extra money  as a result of the three-year auction to purchase European sovereign  bonds, using a carry-trade strategy, because the amount of fresh cash is  less than the amount of bank debt that will mature during the quarter”,  Powell wrote recently. 

Meanwhile, the ECB's balance sheet continues to  grow. At 2.7 trillion euros, it's now levered 33 times to its own  capital, versus a leverage ratio of 25 back in September. For investors  holding out hope that the ECB becomes more involved in the debt crisis,  it's clear that the central bank is already deeply involved. 
As the size of the ECB's balance sheet grows, the  quality of its collateral is declining. Open Europe, a Brussels-based  think tank, estimates that through government bond purchases and  liquidity provisions to banks, the ECB's exposure to Greece, Portugal,  Ireland, Italy, and Spain has reached 705 billion euros, up from 444  billion euros in early summer - a 50 percent increase in six months  (their note was published prior to the December 21 three-year LTRO,  which likely further boosted lower quality collateral). They also  remarked, “the number of banks which are becoming reliant on the ECB is  alarming and hopes that the functioning of the European financial  markets will ever return to normal are diminishing – creating a  long-term threat to Europe's economy.” 
5) Widespread Global Slowdown 
Risks exist outside of Europe, too. Leading  indicators suggest that the risks of a synchronized global downturn are  building. (See John Hussman's recent discussion on this topic: When "Positive Surprises" Are Surprisingly Meaningless .  ) The year-over-year changes in the OECD's Composite Leading Indexes  for the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Europe have all  turned negative to varying degrees. Of these, the OECD's index that  tracks Europe's major economies is declining at the fastest pace (-6.5),  with the 12-month change in the US index falling just below zero in the  latest release of the data. 
Now that negative leading indicator readings for  these four major regions of the world are in place, stock market risks  have climbed considerably. The graph below is one way to show the  typical outcome when all of these leading indicators are negative. The  red bars (right scale) represent drawdown – or the decline from each  prior peak - in the MSCI World Index. The blue bars (left scale) are  just a sum total of the number of regions where the year-over-year  change in the OECD leading indicator is positive. The large blocks of  blue areas reaching the top of the graph represent periods of widespread  economic growth, such as the late-1980's and -1990's, when the leading  indicators for all four regions were positive. The large blocks of white  space represent those periods where economic contraction was widespread  – such as in 1974, the early 1980's, in 2000, and in 2008. Importantly,  the sum of positive leading indexes has dropped to zero once again. 

Probably the best way to summarize this chart is  that when the majority of developed economies have negative leading  indicators on a year-over-year basis, investors should at least allow  for large stock market declines. The declines beginning in 1974, 1990,  2000, and 2007 all began from periods when the leading indicators of all  four regions had – or were about to - turn negative. The worst of those  - 1974, 2000, and 2007 also began from very rich market valuations. The  stock market collapse in 1987 is the only example of a large decline  without at least some notification from the OECD's leading indicators of  oncoming weakness. The 1980-1982 period, where global stocks fell more  modestly, can be explained by the extremely low levels of valuation  during that period, unlike today's higher levels. 
The above global composite of OECD leading  indicators also does a surprisingly good job of providing a coincident  signal of US recession. Here are the dates where all four indicators  first turned negative along with the actual month a US recession began  in parenthesis: December 1973 (November 1973), February 1980 (January  1980), December 1990 (July 1990), December 2000 (March 2001), and  November 2007 (December 2007). The indicator warned 5 months into the  1990 recession, and 3 months early in 2001, but within a month of each  other recession (missing only the 1981 recession). This composite  indicator turned negative with the October data. 
Debt loads and economic growth vulnerability  probably sum up this list of risks best. While these were topics  investors focused on in 2011, this year will raise the stakes. Large  quantities of debt will need to be rolled over and coincident indicators  are likely to follow the currently downbeat leading ones. Both will  need to be watched closely.