Connect with us


Risk and Capital Requirements for Infrastructure Investment in Emerging Market and Developing Economies

Joaquim Levy



Mobilizing private investment in infrastructure will be key to increase growth and resilience in developing countries. Well-planned infrastructure can raise potential output growth and help reduce the carbon footprint of progress. Directing excess savings from advanced economies towards emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) helps address the low investment returns of institutional investors in developed economies while supporting achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Infrastructure is a natural match for insurers’ long-term liabilities. Long-term fixed income instruments fit well with the long-dated liabilities of insurance companies, especially for those offering life insurance and annuity products. Infrastructure projects tend to yield long-term, predictable cash flows, with low correlation to other assets and relatively high recovery value in case of repayment arrears. This match is so significant that some regulators provide special treatment for insurers that hold them to maturity. The recent update of Europe’s Solvency II Directive, for instance, provides for a “matching adjustment” that allows insurers to discount their liabilities by the rate of return of infrastructure-linked instruments, which tends to be higher than the market-implied discount rates, thus reducing the present value of these liabilities and the business cost for insurers.

However, insurance companies still allocate less than 2.5 percent of assets under management to infrastructure investment, in part because of insufficient understanding of the risk profile of this asset class. There are many reasons for the low participation of infrastructure, including the limited supply of fully operational infrastructure projects issuing debt. There is also an informational hurdle, with investors’ perception of infrastructure being risky, despite the long tradition of regulated utilities of yielding low-risk cash flows. This perception is also reflected in some regulatory frameworks, which require insurers to allocate sizeable amounts of capital to support investments in long-term debt, especially for unrated transactions, thus reducing the internal rate of return and the profitability of holding these instruments.

More recently, European regulators have acknowledged the particular risk properties of infrastructure, reducing the capital charge on this type of finance. Following the advice of the European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority (EIOPA), which performed a comprehensive analysis of historical data of infrastructure risks in advanced economies, the European Commission in September 2016 revised down the standard formula for capital charges on qualifying infrastructure debt (and equity) investments under the Solvency II Directive. This calibration resulted in a significant relief of infrastructure debt relative to equivalent corporate bonds and loans. However, this more favorable regulatory treatment remains restricted to investments in countries that are members of either the European Economic Area (EEA) or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). So, infrastructure projects in many EMDEs do not benefit from it.

New empirical analysis of infrastructure debt in EMDEs offers an opportunity to widen the perimeter of a more favorable regulatory treatment. Recently, Moody’s Investor Service published a detailed analysis of the historical credit performance of project finance bank loans, which account for 80 percent of the funding of project finance transactions originated globally since January 1, 1983. The study reviewed data of more than 6,000 projects from a consortium of leading sector lenders (Moody’s Project Loan Data Consortium), of which more than 1,000 are projects in EMDEs.

The study shows that credit performance of project loans in EMDE debt is not substantially different from that of comparable debt in advanced economies. As in advanced economies, the risk profile of project bank loans in EMDEs improves over time. Specifically, the marginal default rate–i.e., the likelihood that an infrastructure loan performing at the start of a specific year will default within that year–exceeds the level for non-investment grade corporate exposures by the time of the financial closing of the project, but it steadily declines as the loans mature, when projects reach “brownfield stage”. Cumulative default rates of infrastructure become flat like those of investment grade instruments, while rates for originally equivalent corporate debt continue to rise throughout their lives (Figure 1).  After five years, the marginal default rate of project loans is consistent with that of “AA/Aa”-rated corporates and, actually, on average lower in EMDEs than in advanced economies. For PPPs, the cumulative rate of return over the first 10 years of project loans in EMDEs is virtually the same as those in advanced economies, at less than 6 percent. Also, recovery rates for EMDE project loans average about 80 percent, and, thus, are like those for senior secured corporate bank loans.

Figure 1: Cumulative Default Probability of Unrated Project Loans in Advanced and Developing Economies

Sources: Moody’s Investors Service (2017) and Jobst (forthcoming). Note: based on the shortened study period between 1995 and 2015; the sub-samples “EEA or OECD,” “EMDE-A” and “EMDE-B” correspond to the samples selected in the Moody’s report and cover EEA and OECD member countries, all non-high income countries, and all non-high income countries without EEA or OECD members (i.e., Bulgaria, Croatia, Mexico, Romania, and Turkey).

Applying the relevant data from the recent Moody’s report to two important solvency regimes for insurers shows sufficient scope for reducing the capital charge for investments in infrastructure debt. World Bank staff in the finance area have recovered the credit risk parameters from the published  data on project loans and applied them to the relevant elements of the Solvency II Directive and the International Capital Standard (ICS) for internationally active insurers, which will be implemented by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). We apply these data to these solvency regimes, differentiating the properties of infrastructure loans from the standard corporate exposures without adjustments to current regulatory methodologies. Only the intrinsic risk profile of infrastructure debt vis-à-vis the standard risk assumptions on long-term debt was considered. When doing so, we find that the capital charges would decline significantly when these differences in risk are considered. Specifically, for a 10-year risk horizon, the annual expected loss of project finance loans (1.6 percent) is half of the expected losses implied by “Ba/BB”-rated non-financial corporates, and the implied capital charges would decline from 23.5 to 13.3 percent under Solvency II (Table 1). Under ICS, it would drop from 12.7 to 10.7 percent, consistent with the estimated economic capital within the range of 10.5 to 13.8 percent (based on the 99.5 percent conditional tail expectation).  Additional analysis of rated EMDE infrastructure debt securities, using data from another Moody’s Investors Service report published earlier in 2017, indicates some flexibility to lower capital charges on these instruments under Solvency II. For instance, the charge for “Baa/BBB”-rated securities, would come down from 20 percent to about 16 percent.

Table 1: Credit Risk and Estimated Capital Charges for Unrated Project Loans (using standard risk parameters and differentiated infrastructure risk profile) *

Sources: BCBS (2017), European Commission (2015 and 2017), IAIS (2017), Moody’s Investors Service (2017) and Jobst (forthcoming). Note: recovery rate refers to ultimate recovery rate; */calculated over 10-year horizon with recovery rate consistent with unsecured senior claims; **/ reduced capital charge if qualifying infrastructure exposure in EEA or OECD country; 1/ fixed risk factors of the Solvency II SCR Standard Formula — Spread Risk Sub-Module for fixed income investment, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/35 (October 10, 2014) and EU Regulation 2017/1542 (June 8, 2017); 2/ credit risk factor under the proposed International Capital Standard (ICS) is assumed to follow the advanced internal ratings-based (A-IRB) approach for specialized lending (project finance) using the cumulative PD with/without a floor for PD and LGD and full application of the maturity adjustment; 3/ based on credit risk (PD and LGD) of global non-financial corporate debt issuers; 4/ based on 99.5% conditional tail expectation (CTE).

Even a modest reduction in capital requirements for long-term infrastructure investments can significantly boost return-on-equity (RoE) under a prudent but differentiated regulatory treatment. For instance, considering a stylizing illustration for a European regulated insurer holding a 10-year infrastructure loan yielding 4.6 percent annually (less the insurer’s borrowing cost of 1.0 percent and an income tax rate of 35 percent), reducing the capital charge of 23.5 percent (under the current standard formula approach applied to corporate exposures) to about 14 percent (under a differentiated approach) would raise the RoE of investing in such an instrument from 10 percent to more than 17 percent. The latter figure is more than 50 percent above the average RoE of European life insurers in 2016.

Figure 2.  Return on Equity of Infrastructure Debt Investment as a Function of Regulatory Capital Charges

Sources: Bloomberg L.P., Moody’s Investors Service (2017) and Jobst (forthcoming). Note: The calculation is based on the annual yield (less the risk-free rate of 1.0 percent) after tax (35 percent); 10-year U.S. government debt yield at 2.31 percent as of end-Sept. 2017 and median RoE of European life insurers as of mid-2016 (EIOPA, 2017); 1/ average infrastructure loan rate in the U.K. (4.3 percent) according to Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (2015) at end-2014 and scaled to EMDE consistent with infrastructure bonds (4.6 percent); 2/ based on the Solvency II Spread Risk Sub-Module (European Commission, 2015, 2016 and 2017), assuming unrated exposure is treated like corporate exposure (loans/bonds) with credit quality step (CQS) of 5 (‘B’) and assumed maturity of 10 years (OECD, 2015).

Lower capital charges can help maximize finance for development, unlocking an important source of long-term capital for global growth. Although regulatory disincentives for infrastructure investment in EMDEs may be just one of the impediments to growing exposure to this asset class, the evolution of these regulations can be an important step forward.  By helping to increase the rate of return of holding infrastructure-linked instruments potentially by up to 50 percent, it may help insurers and other institutional investors to accelerate the rebalancing of their assets in ways that will help crowd-in resources in quality climate-smart infrastructure projects in EMDEs.  These projects are an important part of strategies to increase the resilience of these economies while helping eliminate extreme poverty and produce shared prosperity.

First published in World Bank

Note: The capital charges computed here were reached by using the implied transition probabilities for infrastructure loans and  (i) mapping the current reduction factors for qualifying (unrated) infrastructure investment for EEA/OECD countries under the Solvency II SCR Standard Formula — Spread Risk Sub-Module to the expected loss of project loans in EMDEs and (ii) calibrating expected loss to the credit risk stress factor for ICS (IAIS, 2017) following the advanced internal ratings-based approach according to the finalized Basel III framework. For details, refer to Jobst, Andreas A., forthcoming, “Credit Risk Dynamics of Infrastructure Investment—Considerations for Insurance Regulation,” Working Paper (Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group).

Continue Reading


Retirees worldwide will outlive their savings by a decade – and women will fare worse

MD Staff



Retirees in six major economies can expect to outlive their savings by years. Women should prepare to bear the brunt of such shortfalls, going without retirement savings for at least two years longer than their male counterparts.

As government and employer-sponsored retirement plans are under strain globally, individuals have found themselves to be increasingly responsible for their retirement savings. Despite this, savings have not accelerated fast enough to make up for the deterioration of traditional retirement plans, suggests a new report by the World Economic Forum, Investing In (and for) Our Future.

In six economies analysed, most male retirees can expect to live past their savings by nearly a decade. Women can expect to go even longer without their savings, as they will likely live more than 10 years without retirement savings to rely on due to their longer average lifespans.

These shortfalls can vary greatly by country and gender; men in the United States are expected to outlive their savings by about eight years while women in Japan will live nearly 20 years past their savings account. Despite these vast differences, the average retiree in Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, or the US will not be able to last through retirement on savings alone.

Image: Investing in (and for) our Future, World Economic Forum

These shortfalls must be addressed, by both individuals and policy-makers, to ensure that seniors can enjoy life throughout their non-working years.

Governments must act to create retirement landscapes that prevent savings shortfalls. Currently, retirement policies in many countries, including India and China, can often hinder optimal retirement savings and investments.

Though governments should act, they would be wise to avoid implementing one-size-fits-all retirement policies as individual retirement needs can vary greatly from person to person. Instead, governments should change, or even roll back, their regulations to allow individuals to make investments that will increase their long-term returns.

A new report from the World Economic Forum identifies two key investment changes governments should allow so individuals can most effectively address their savings gaps. Both identified actions aim to optimize investment so retirement savers can achieve higher yields from their savings.

1. Consider risk from the perspective of someone saving for retirement

“The real risk people need to manage when investing in their future is the risk of outliving their retirement savings,” said Han Yik, Head of the Institutional Investors Industry, World Economic Forum. “As people are living longer, they must ensure they have enough retirement funds to last them through their longer lives. This requires investing with a long-term mindset earlier in life to increase total savings later on.”

Many people are far too risk-averse in their retirement investing. While consistent saving is important to build retirement money, being mindful of long-term returns on retirement portfolios is crucial to ensuring that an individual doesn’t outlive their savings. Many young to middle-age savers should change their risk outlook, understanding that outliving their savings is a far greater risk to them than short-term investment risk.

2. Diversify the investment of saving accounts, by geography and asset type

While focusing on long-term returns is often beneficial for retirement savers, diversification can preserve those returns by mitigating overall investment risk.

Currently, most retirement investment vehicles are largely based on traditional equity and fixed-income investments that have the advantages of being easy to value as well as having high liquidity. However, given the long-term nature of retirement savings, that liquidity comes at a cost. Although they require adequate understanding and sound financial advice, investment in alternative assets, particularly illiquid assets, can bring strong diversification benefits to a retirement investment portfolio.

In this area, again, policy-makers must ensure their retirement policies do not hamper the ability of individuals to make the best long-term choices for their portfolios. In most countries, default retirement options focus on liquidity and the ability to perform daily valuations at the expense of long-term growth. Governments should consider changing or even rolling back these regulations to allow retirement savers to invest in the assets best suited to their individual retirement goals.

In addition, many retirement portfolios also tend to have a heavy domestic focus. Diversifying the geography of investments in portfolios can reduce risk to home country economic events. By expanding the locations of their investments, retirement savers, particularly savers from smaller economies, can protect themselves from market or economic slumps in an individual economy while still maximizing their returns.

Decumulation, or spending in retirement, is another key area of well-being after the working years yet there is far less research dedicated to it.

For instance, today’s retirement spending projections are based on the rule that retirees will withdraw 4% of their portfolio each year they are retired. However, the World Economic Forum and Mercer suggest that this estimate does not match how retirees spend in the real world, with much higher spending in early retirement years and less as retirees age. This spending volatility highlights the need for new retirement solutions that both allow for flexible spending while also ensuring savings that last through retirement.

“With populations around the world living longer than ever before, we need far more creative decumulation solutions for longevity protection” says Rich Nuzum, President, Wealth at Mercer. “There are some alternative solutions emerging such as pooled annuity funds, but older individuals are going to need a more diverse range of financial tools to help protect against longevity risk.”

Some countries, such as the UK and the Netherlands, have begun to recognize the importance of robust policies for the decumulation period and are even considering rolling back regulations for retirement savings. However, there is much more to be done in this area to ensure that seniors can thrive during their period of enjoying the funds they have worked so hard to save over their working years.

Continue Reading


Sustainable development: Within reach in Iran and Asia and the Pacific

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana



Climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of natural disasters in Asia and the Pacific. The tragic loss of life and the destruction wrought by recent flooding in the Islamic Republic of Iran is a reminder of the threat to lives, livelihoods and societies posed by extreme weather events. A reminder that only an integrated response to economic, social and environmental challenges can pave the way to sustainable development.

The floods which swept across the Islamic Republic of Iran in spring this year were devastating. They affected 10 million people and 500,000 people were displaced of which half were children. Hospitals and schools were destroyed, denying 100,000 children and education and thousands access to basic health care. Large sections of the country’s road network were affected, which will weigh on the economy, but also impact on many families’ daily lives. Damages have been estimated at $4.7 billion, a third of which concern the agricultural sector, critical to many livelihoods.

Yet as tragic and costly as the recent floods have been, they are also part of a wider phenomenon: the increasing risk of natural disasters outpacing resilience in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in Asia and the Pacific. Sand and dust storms, drought, desertification and wind erosion are all expected to rise in South-West Asia by 2030. Intensified by climate change, these disasters are becoming increasingly frequent. They hit the poor and vulnerable hardest, particularly in informal settlements. Some of Iran’s least developed provinces have suffered the most, with successive sand and dust storms destroying crops and infrastructure, and undermining people’s health, study and work.

These challenges exemplify why economic, social and environmental considerations must be considered together, if we are to effectively mitigate the consequences of natural disasters and achieve sustainable development. Evidence from across the globe tells us ignoring the social impact of economic growth can place a huge strain on societies, and at its worst lead to instability and conflict. Ignoring the environmental cost of economic growth in many parts of our region has led to climate change and an increased risk of natural hazards, which entrench poverty and perpetuate inequality. Nowhere is an integrated, multilateral response needed more than in Asia and the Pacific, the most disaster-prone region in the world.

With this in mind, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) has worked with the Islamic Republic of Iran to establish the Asian and the Pacific Centre for the Development of Disaster Information Management (APDIM) in Tehran. It will deliver targeted capacity development for disaster information management and knowledge sharing. A regional cooperation mechanism for combatting the sand and dust storms has already been adopted. This will work to reduce the causes of risk of multiple hazards, develop a sand and dust storms alert system and tap regional partnership networks to enhance technical support where it is most needed.

My ambition is for APDIM to fit into a broader regional development and cooperation effort. One to reduce the inequality and environmental degradation which have accompanied recent exponential economic growth in our region. Our analysis shows the investment needed to achieve sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific is within reach. Developing countries’ investment needs stand at an additional $1.5 trillion per year, or five percent of their combined GDP. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, we estimate investments needed to climate-proof basic infrastructure are equivalent to roughly 1 per cent of Iran’s GDP in 2018. Further investment would be required in education and people centered approaches to build resilient communities and economy.

Sustainable development which balances economic growth with the need for social inclusion and environmental protection is essential to ensure a prosperous Iran today and a clean, compassionate and safe future for our children. Investing in people, as well as investing in skies, land and water can ensure that future. The Islamic Republic Iran has the means and the will. Yet persistence will be required to achieve this ambition, and the United Nations family stands ready to assist in any way it can in the months and years ahead.


Continue Reading


A sustainable greener future needs green employment skills

Olga Strietska-Ilina



Climate change and environmental degradation are among the greatest challenges of our times. The signatory states of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change  recognized the need for urgent action. But a commitment to environmental sustainability by itself is not enough. On the one hand, climate change and environmental degradation reduce productivity and destroy jobs and the effects fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable. On the other hand, the transition to a green economy has the potential – if handled correctly – to create tens of millions of sustainable jobs.

So far 183 countries have committed to the Paris Agreement target (of keeping the rise in global temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius) by submitting national determined contribution (NDCs) documents that detail the adaptation and mitigation measures they plan. However, while two-thirds of these NDC’s recognize the importance of boosting capacity development and public knowledge of climate change, fewer than 40 per cent include any plans for skills training (or retraining) to support their implementation. What’s more, more than one in five have no plans for any training or capacity development measures at all.

This should ring alarm bells. Commitments to greening economic sectors such as energy, agriculture, waste management, manufacturing and transport can’t advance into concrete change if the necessary skills are not available. It is women and men with the right knowledge and skills who will take the decisions, and develop and maintain the technology, green production processes and sustainable investment strategies that are outlined in the NDCs and other policy documents.

Skilling, reskilling and upskilling covers not just technical skills but, core/soft skills (such as environmental awareness, analytical skills, teamwork, innovation, communications, leadership, negotiation abilities, and management and entrepreneurship skills), which can offer a comparative advantage because they can easily be transferred across occupations. Other most wanted skills include sales and marketing, customer handling, repair, digital skills, scheduling and budgeting, to mention just a few examples.

These issues will be discussed at the Global Forum, Boosting Skills for a Just Transition and the Future of Work  (6 June), where the Key Findings of a forthcoming report Skills for a greener future  (to be published later this year) will be discussed. The report includes information from 32 countries. The aim of the Forum is to highlight the need for concrete action on skills, identify occupational needs, skills gaps, and response strategies related to a sustainable future of work, and discuss possible multi-lateral collaboration that can advance green human capital.

We know this will require massive investment. But it can create millions of new jobs and repurpose many existing ones. Particular attention must be paid to ensuring that women are included in relevant skills training, so that these measures help reduce the gender gap and combat gender stereotypes rather than entrenching them. The number of high-skilled and – especially – middle-skilled jobs have the potential to grow if there is investment in relevant skills training. Workers in construction, manufacturing, agriculture and sales may gain employment if the green transition is supported by skills development. This requires good coordination across different ministries and between public and private sectors. Yet, our review of 32 countries shows that current policies are often piecemeal and lack subsequent action.


Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy