|
|
How fossil fuel-producing nations can turn into infrastructure investors
|
|
|
|
Top Stories |
|
|
|
|
Taponeel Mukherjee | 28 Mar, 2018
The "Global Energy & CO2 Status Report", published by the
International Energy Agency (IEA), states that "renewable energy saw the
highest growth rate of all energy sources in 2017 and met around a
quarter of global energy demand growth" -- a significant statistic by
any standard and one that clearly points to the fact that renewable
energy is here to stay.
This has serious ramifications for fossil
fuel-producing nations. While fossil fuels still contribute a large
part of the global energy needs, the fact that a "structural shift" is
in process is clear. It is clear that over a medium- to long-term
horizon, fossil fuel-dependent nations will have to rethink their
strategy to boost and manage their economies.
A quick look at the
largest sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in the world tells us that
approximately 50 per cent of them are fossil fuel-based economies.
Significant pools of capital are available with these SWFs and it should
not be a surprise to see them diversify into various asset classes.
The
next few decades may see fossil fuel-dependent countries go from being
providers of energy and capital to focusing significantly more on being a
source of capital, i.e., an investor. This switch towards investing is a
visible trend, with SWFs being a source of significant capital across
asset classes such as equity, private equity and infrastructure. The key
takeaway is that SWFs, especially those from fossil fuel-producing
countries, can be significant financiers of infrastructure.
Infrastructure
as an asset class has two elements that make it attractive for SWFs:
Fixed cash-flow profile and large market. Infrastructure assets, by
their very nature, are highly regulated assets with fixed income type of
cash flows. Such a structure works well for SWFs that are looking to
match liabilities, i.e., cash outflows, on their balance sheets. In
addition, infrastructure needs that countries face are large enough
markets for SWFs to invest into in meaningful size to generate returns.
The
large fossil fuel-driven SWFs are of significant size. Estimates by the
Sovereign Wealth Funds Institute say the top 10 SWFs globally are
managing more than $200 billion each, and four of these are fossil
fuel-driven. Therefore, given the long-dated investment horizon of the
SWFs, the nature of liabilities on their balance sheets, and the large
size of capital that needs to be deployed, infrastructure as a broad
sector is attractive.
For fossil fuel-producing countries,
switching from being an energy supplier to a supplier of capital lets
them reduce their exposure to fossil fuel price volatility in the short
term and play a larger role in boosting trade ties with other nations
through infrastructure creation in the long run.
For nations that
need financing for infrastructure creation, the global shift towards
renewables and its consequent impact on fossil fuel-producing countries
to turn investors is an opportunity not to be missed.
There are
also important lessons to be learnt by both investors and infrastructure
destination nations from the Norwegian government's decision against
allowing unlisted infrastructure investments by its Sovereign Wealth
Fund. The reason given was that the fund wasn't equipped to deal with
the risks involved, especially from a political and regulatory
perspective.
This points towards the urgent need for
infrastructure destination nations to, one, improve regulations around
unlisted infrastructure assets and, two, create mechanisms that allow
for listed infrastructure assets to grow.
The issues faced by the
Norwegian Sovereign Fund are generic issues that all SWFs face. It is
important that in a highly competitive global capital market, countries
expedite the creation of an enabling environment for infrastructure
creation.
Clearly, the global changes in the energy markets also have significant ramifications on the financial markets.
The
energy transition from a world dependent on fossil fuels to one driven
by renewables does not necessarily need to have winners and losers. In a
global economy besieged by the fear of "trade wars", switching roles
for fossil fuel-producing nations from major energy suppliers to large
providers of capital is worth considering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy supplier to Capital supplier
kodandaramaiah k | Thu Apr 5 11:17:00 2018
This is a well argued strategy for fossel fuel driven SWFs to switch and sustain in fast changing energy markets. Need for managing their economies and SWFs to generate sustainable returns out of long term investment in sectors like agriculture, transport, communication and infrastructure and their technological up gradation can not be less emphasized. its an opportunity of SWFs to use their investments for environment sustainability. Concentrating on development activities within their economies and in economically weak ones paves way for high degree of human development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customs Exchange Rates |
Currency |
Import |
Export |
US Dollar
|
84.35
|
82.60 |
UK Pound
|
106.35
|
102.90 |
Euro
|
92.50
|
89.35 |
Japanese
Yen |
55.05 |
53.40 |
As on 12 Oct, 2024 |
|
|
Daily Poll |
|
|
Will the new MSME credit assessment model simplify financing? |
|
|
|
|
|
Commented Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|