Urgency needed in infrastructure

There is an urgent need for infrastructure investment that cannot wait, according to Jim Yong Kim, former president of the World Bank and now partner and vice president of Global Infrastructure Partners.

In emerging markets around $2.7 trillion a year is needed in infrastructure investment, he told the Milken Global Conference in April.

“People say money is not the issue but now I’m in this new role I see it is as I have to convince people they can get the return,” he said. “There is a lot of interest in emerging markets infrastructure but there is a huge mismatch in the understanding of the countries and the way managers and owners are thinking. I think we can fill the gap.”

He said that investors needed to consider the bigger picture, for instance the lack of development in Africa will have a huge impact on European life.

“People in Africa will need jobs and they can see on their iphones how the rest of the world lives. I think pension funds in Europe would be interested in investing in infrastructure in Africa because it is meeting such a critical need for the long term.”

Kim said the problem of instability in Africa and problems of climate change, which are not way into the future but happening now, meant urgency was required for investment in infrastructure.

Sponsored Content

“We can’t wait, we have to invest now,” he said.

Hiro Mizuno, chief investment officer of the $1.6 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund of Japan, said the sustainable development goals were difficult to invest in, but the risk of not doing so is too high.

“If we fail to meet the SDGs by 2030 then what type of risks will our portfolio be facing?”

Mizuno said infrastructure should be at the top of the list of the finance ministers meeting at the G20, which Japan is hosting in June.

Angela Rodell, chief executive of Alaska Permanent Fund questioned how to get creative and find mechanisms to invest in.

“We need to figure out how to capture the economic value in the return equation and add it into the bottom line of whether to invest in things that are vitally important,” she said pointing by way of example to the third tunnel between New York City and New Jersey.

“It is too expensive, but the cost of not doing it is too high,” she said.

The argument that the risk of not doing something is too high was a compelling argument at the World Bank, Kim said, but for investors it is different.

“One of the reasons I’m doing what I’m doing now is we just have to put the deals together,” he said. “There’s no point saying there’s a need without having the real deals to invest in.”

Different investors have different purposes for investing in infrastructure.  For instance for GPIF, which started investing in infrastructure about five years ago, the decision was driven by the need to diversify fixed income given the low interest environment.

“The need came as we were in a low interest rate environment and can’t rely on fixed income. Core infrastructure has a stable cash flow, and we were attracted to it as a good alternative to the fixed income portfolio,” Mizuno said.

“We think infrastructure is very important and we are trying to expand our approach to invest in emerging markets and greenfield projects.”

But the problem of investing in emerging markets according to Mizuno was there was no comparability.

“We don’t know what we expect in returns because all projects are so different,” he said. “Investors can’t get their head around risk/return tradeoff in emerging markets because there is nothing to compare it to. None of our peers have the answer to what return we require to make an infrastructure investment in emerging markets.”

Mizuno said asset allocators always compare investments so lack of comparability is a big challenge

 

 

Leave a Comment

The twin forces rewriting the rules of investing

The twin forces rewriting the rules of investing

Portfolios built for the old world will be severely tested as emerging forces rewrite the rules of investing. The Fiduciary Investors Symposium heard that geopolitical and macroeconomic upheaval, together with the disruption wrought by AI, should force asset owners to rethink the structure and composition of portfolios.

Sort content by

Aware Super mulls return to infra funds; builds AI-driven data edge

Aware Super is considering a return to infrastructure funds after years of favouring direct investments. The infrastructure allocation currently stands at $15 billion and the fund sees benefits to access a “broader set of offerings” and opportunity sets via fund commitments to GPs, its head of infrastructure Mark Hector says.

Treasurer Steiner on Oregon’s private equity future

Top1000funds.com editor Amanda White speaks to Oregon State Treasurer, Elizabeth Steiner, about the future role and expectations of private equity, how a maturing of the asset class puts pressure on returns, and the private/ public asset mix in the fund’s four-yearly asset allocation review which has just begun.

Why asset owners should not outsource innovation

Asset owners have traditionally counted on external asset managers to pursue bold innovations rather than stretching their limited internal resources to do so. But leading Stanford academic Ashby Monk has warned in a new paper that this long-standing model is distilling short-term thinking in pension management.

HOOPP: Light covenants in private credit are a growing source of concern

The boom in private credit has been accompanied by a spike in lighter covenants, reducing protection and guardrails for lenders says Jennifer Shum, senior managing director, structured and private credit at HOOPP, and warns of mounting risks in private credit.

West Yorkshire prepares to up the pressure on Shell and BP

A new approach to holding the major oil companies to account will see the West Yorkshire Pension Fund, together with a cohort of other UK and European pension funds, demand BP and Shell explain their business plans in a world of declining demand for fossil fuels.

NBIM quantifies the portfolio threat of economic fragmentation

An economically fragmented world, where different economic blocs refuse to collaborate, impose tariffs and restrict foreign investments, would have disastrous consequences on the $2.2 trillion portfolio of Norges Bank Investment Management. Its latest stress test offers a rare glimpse into the concrete portfolio impact of deglobalisation.

Previous