Equity, Debt, and Sovereign Bonds
(The following article appeared on CNBCTV18 online on July 11, 2019, URL below:
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/equity-debt-or-sovereign-bonds-what-is-the-best-way-forward-3969741.htm )
We have also made foreign equity investments somewhat stable, by our inclusion into global equity indices such as MSCI. We are yet to include our debt into global debt indices, and that leaves foreign debt investments far more unstable.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/equity-debt-or-sovereign-bonds-what-is-the-best-way-forward-3969741.htm )
Equity,
Debt, and Sovereign Bonds
Consider
this. You are the shareholder of a company that is growing nominally at 11-12%
annually. The company can raise debt at 7% per annum. The company needs growth
capital. Would you prefer that the company take in more of debt or equity?
This
is the context that we - as shareholders of our nation – face. What is the
ideal mix of debt and equity savings we should target from overseas, to fund
our growth?
Mathematics,
Value & Trust
The
simplistic mathematical answer could be to take in as much debt as possible.
Why would we dilute ownership, when we could borrow well below our expected
growth rate? Would we not leverage as much as we could?
However,
the real-world answer is, it depends.
For
one, if the equity infusion comes with additional value, such as access to
technology, markets, processes, job creation etc., that will override math. We
would usually welcome such Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) over any other form
of capital.
Second,
how confident are we of growing at 11-12% on a sustainable basis, while
maintaining a stable economy and a manageable exchange rate?
After
all, foreign debt investors have to be paid back in full in hard currency,
along with interest, irrespective of how we perform.
In
contrast, foreign equity investors take on the real risk of us not living up to
our potential. There is no guarantee whatsoever – not on their earnings, not
even on their principal.
The
more risk averse we are and the less we trust ourselves, the more we might
deviate from the mathematical answer of taking in as much debt over equity as
possible.
The
Story So Far
From
the time India opened up to foreign savings, how have we done on the debt &
equity mix? Let us consider the data.
Foreign
Portfolio Investments
As of
today, we have USD 60 bn of Foreign Portfolio Investor (FPI) investments in
debt. This is about 3.3% of our total outstanding debt across government &
non-government paper.
Against
this, FPI investments in equity are worth USD 428 bn – seven times the
outstanding in FPI debt. This is a breathtaking 41% of the total National Stock
Exchange (NSE) Free-Float Market Capitalization (FFM-Cap).
Beyond
FPI
Beyond
FPI debt, we also have USD 154 bn of overseas loans, and USD 103 bn in overseas
trade credits. Put together, this USD 316 bn of debt (across FPI, loans and
trade credits) is 7.8% of our gross debt across banks, non-banks and debt
capital markets.
On
equity, beyond FPI equity investments, we have had USD 220 bn of net FDI
investments come in – which have grown substantially in value over time. The
total equity investments across FPI and FDI is at least USD 648 bn, or 62% of
NSE FFM-Cap.
Foreigners
practically own India Inc.
Summary
– Across Debt & Equity
Whichever
way we cut, slice and compare the data, we have taken in more equity
investments than debt – both in absolute and relative terms.
We have also made foreign equity investments somewhat stable, by our inclusion into global equity indices such as MSCI. We are yet to include our debt into global debt indices, and that leaves foreign debt investments far more unstable.
In
short, debt is the stepchild when it comes to attracting foreign capital. This
has a bearing on the current debate around Sovereign Bonds (SBs) as well.
We
appear to have overridden mathematics with other considerations – perhaps risk
aversion and perhaps doubts about our ability to manage our economy.
The
Price of Saying “No”
Finance
is replete with brutal examples of things going wrong when people say “Yes”,
when they should have said “No”.
Thus,
examples of Latin American countries that said “Yes” to excessive foreign debt
and paid the price are often quoted, and rightly so.
India
has avoided this error, by saying “No” to foreign debt from early on.
This
stood us well during times of global deleverage – such as during the Asian
crisis or the Global Financial Crisis.
However,
there is also the much less documented price of saying “No”, when we should
have said “Yes”.
Having
too little leverage implies that we enjoy much less growth and prosperity than
we could – and that is not a small price to pay for a developing country.
More
directly, an excessive reliance on equity capital also means that we have sold
our economic crown jewels cheap. As we argued earlier, foreigners now own India
Inc., as a result of our conscious choice to prefer equity capital inflows over
debt.
Foreigners
who perhaps had more faith in our abilities that we ourselves, have benefitted
from that confidence – both with substantial ownership of the country’s economy
and with double-digit dollar returns over time.
The
Way Ahead
Perhaps
our current balance is too risk averse. Perhaps there is a better Goldilocks
mix across foreign debt and equity possible, going forward.
To
rebalance the mix, however, we must instill confidence that we will manage our
economy on a sustainable basis over time.
In
this regard, it does not help if we cite “low cost” as the reason for a
Sovereign Bond (SB) issuance. SB is not low cost now. On a currency hedged
basis, it is 1% more expensive than local currency debt. And no, this is not
altered even if the Rupee stayed stable over time. We would still be better off
borrowing in Rupee and selling forward USD against Rupee instead.
We
could rather argue that we need to attract global savings in debt, that a
prudent amount of SB is a cheap form in which the country can attract foreign
currency debt, that such SBs would free up domestic savings for productive
investments, set a benchmark for other Indian issuers, and perhaps help instill
some policy discipline.
Likewise,
we would do well to shore up our policy credibility. As an example, local
stakeholders may publicly applaud the fiscal balance and restrict any impolite
remarks about it to gossip at the water cooler. Even foreigner investors may do
the same, as long as it suits them. But at the first sign of trouble, those
trading in India Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on the back of SBs would tear us apart
on any perceived or real credibility gaps.
Conclusion
We
could do with a better mix of debt and equity across the foreign savings that
we attract. This should help us grow better, without selling our economic crown
jewels cheap. To increase the quantum of debt inflows, we do need more
confidence in our abilities, and we do need to fiercely protect policy
credibility to instill such confidence.
Hey, Thanks for sharing this Tips About Financial Planning. I just see your blog and impressed. keep the same alltime. I am looking daily Yes Bank news.
ReplyDelete