Economics

Nuevos instrumentos para inversión en infraestructura

Mar 4, 2015 Justin Yifu Lin , Kevin Lu, and Cledan Mandri-Perrott

SINGAPUR – Los proyectos de infraestructura están entre las inversiones más productivas que puede hacer una sociedad, y tienen una relación evidente con el crecimiento económico de los países. Pero para los inversores privados no es tan sencillo. Aunque son una inversión bastante segura (con rendimientos inferiores a la media), faltan instrumentos financieros que permitan estructurarlos de modo que sean competitivos respecto de otras inversiones tradicionales, como la renta variable y la deuda.

En la reunión anual del Foro Económico Mundial en Davos, Suiza, celebrada en enero, Walter Kielholz, presidente de Swiss Re, y el ex primer ministro británico Gordon Brown pidieron la creación de una nueva clase de activos para proyectos de infraestructura (algo que también nosotros hemos hecho). En concreto, ¿qué puede hacer el mundo para canalizar hacia este tipo de proyectos el potencial del ahorro privado?

El pastel es enorme, y también lo son las oportunidades para la inversión privada. Se calcula que el valor del flujo de proyectos de infraestructura en mercados emergentes ya supera el billón de dólares, de los que probablemente 150.000 millones saldrán de fuentes privadas. En los mercados maduros, la inversión en infraestructura puede llegar a cuatro billones de dólares en 2017.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

jagjeet sinha Mar 12, 2015

This asset class is an unknown to Fund Managers in the Private Sector domain.
This asset class is a quintessential hallmark for Public Investments.
This asset class is funded essentially by capital gains created by Infrastructure.
This asset class is why China Development Bank (CDB) is the engine room that transformed China.
This asset class is why East India Company was the engine room that transformed The Anglosphere.
This asset class is the reason why Public Sector is warranted - to undertake challenges Private Sector alone cannot.
Thank you Justin et al for sharing your minds.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Octavio Colmenares Mar 10, 2015

NOthing new in this articule. We have always been looking for different way to fund the infraestrucutre projects and we, the ones in charge of getting thos funds, try to combines alla de possibilities in order to get teh best conditions: rate, amount, time, payments schedule, etc. One of the most important issues is the garanties giving by the government and the clause on changes in porject conditions. What makes this project complicated to fund are: time, country risk, type of infraestrcuture ans managment control over all.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Prasanna Srinivasan Mar 10, 2015

The discussion about Pension Funds being suitable for long term investments in infrastructure has been doing the rounds for just about ever. But its clearly not translating into as much of investments. One part of the problem could be Funds' managers trying to look for higher returns rather than safety for less risks. A lot of the project cash flow risks for core infrastructure are underwritten to a fair degree (take the National Highways project structures in India, for instance), while gestation period risks are manageable. (FUnds could buy in when the project construction is complete replacing shorter term funds). It'd be interesting to hear why the Pension Fund managers opt for riskier investments.
- Blair Cowper-smith Mar 14, 2015
  
  Some good thoughts here.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
O S Mar 10, 2015

I read this article several times in order to understand this supposedly new asset class's features and novelty, but failed to do so. Is it mezzanine debt (i.e. between debt and equity)? Nothing new here. Is it supposed to be guaranteed by the state? If so, it should be super-senior, not junior to standard debt, and with very low returns. Construction risk? Sure it is a standard issue, but (i) it is usually taken (in equity) by constructors, who may also guarantee its debt (or the public sector can do it, or debt can be grossly covered by indemnities if construction is not completed correctly), and (ii) some (debt) investors start taking construction risk (in some project bonds).
I've seen a fair bit of financial creativity on these matters as well as on public debt, public procurement contracts or public accounting from a lot of brilliant minds but with no practical, hands-on, expertise, but I'm surprised to see that these guys (apart from the first one) should be in real-life investing and should know better...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joaquim Aragao Mar 7, 2015

I do not think this proposal is new, nor that it will work substantially. A relevant core risk in large infrastructure project is market risk, which in the rule is pushed away to the Public Administration, endangering severely its fiscal sustainability. It´s time to think of a kind of second generation of PPP, which would involve not only isolated projects but also a pack of related investment projects, both public and private, (but most of it private) in a given territorial circumscription. I think that, to the benefit of the (private) cash flow of the project, the Government could advance the construction and concede it to the private sector together with other related assets, under a new type of contract that would be concession for economic performance. As a counterpart for this, the contracted private party, a multifuncional and multisectoral consortium,should undertake the different commercial actions (and also encourage other private parties) to produce a general growth result (number of employments, contracts with local companies, all along the respective supply chains) and a net fiscal result that would pay the public investments and dispenses. All the financial public engagements should be accounted separately from the general fiscal control duties (limit of deficits), as long they are included in such a territorial program, and the results are supervised by the fiscal authority. It´s time to get out of the mental gridlock which we are trappend in!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank Aten Mar 5, 2015

The can be productive but they can, and historically have been, nothing more than boondoggles. Bureaucratic creation of a "new" asset class will not in fact bring additional private sector funds. The idea of BHE is a non-starter in my opinion. Saying it will garner equity like returns is nothing more than a narrative and impossible to predict. There is no basis of say "risk would be further reduced by participation by large, influential investors". It is blatantly false that that would reduce the project risk of any investor. This is a fail from the start...keep trying.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.