1万亿美元的亚洲基础设施投资机会

Despite bright economic prospects, most emerg- ing Asian countries—China, India, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)— continue to suffer from underdeveloped infrastructure. In India, for example, electricity generation is 16 percent to 20 percent short of what is needed to meet peak demand, thanks to persistent underinvestment and poor mainte- nance. In Indonesia, infrastructure investments dropped from 5 percent to 6 percent of GDP in the early 1990s to 2 percent to 3 percent of GDP for much of the last ten years. We estimate that the consequent deterioration in energy, transport, housing, communications, and water facilities has restrained economic growth by 3 to 4 percent- age points of GDP. Naveen Tahilyani, Toshan Tamhane, and Jessica Tan Asia’s $1 trillion infrastructure opportunity We believe that situation is about to change. Across the Asian region as a whole, we calculate that around $8 trillion will be committed to infrastructure projects over the next decade to remedy historical under- investment and accommodate the explosion in demand. Traditionally, most Asian infrastructure projects have been funded by governments or domestic banks. Foreign investors were mostly excluded. Those that were allowed to participate faced severe restrictions, including complex regulatory and legal regimes, uneven workforce quality, and occasional political interference. Foreign investors are finding more open doors than in the past. But the way forward is far from clear. M A R C H 2 0 11 f i n a n c i a l s e r v i c e s p r a c t i c e 2Asia’s $1 trillion infrastructure opportunity In the wake of the financial crisis, however, we have started to see signs that global private capital is increasingly welcome. The combined effects of increased stimulus spending and reduced tax receipts have increased deficits, with the result that restrictions on foreign investment are easing and a growing number of projects are being carried out under public–private partnerships (PPP). We estimate that over the next ten years fully $1 trillion of the $8 trillion of projected infrastructure projects will be open to private investors under PPPs. The questions for owners of global capital are how to identify the opportunities, how to mitigate the main risks, and how to develop appropriate entry strategies. Growing demand for outside capital More than 80 percent of the demand for infrastructure investment in emerging Asia over the next ten years will come from energy and transport, the sectors most critical to supporting heightened economic activity. Exhibit 1 shows the full breakdown. Our analysis suggests that much of this new invest- ment will be in advanced technologies. For example, Asia may leapfrog developed economies in its adoption of clean-energy technologies, thanks to falling costs and improving effectiveness. Several countries, such as China and Malaysia, have sufficient financial depth in their domestic private-capital markets to meet their infrastructure funding requirements (Exhibit 2). Foreign investors should therefore focus on countries such as India, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines, where the financial markets have less capacity. Although the environment is changing, even in these countries the bulk of infrastructure investments will likely remain effectively closed Exhibit 1 Investment needs for Asia’s identified and pipeline infrastructure projects, 2010–20, $ trillion Annual growth rate in investment spending, 2008–18, % Energy and transport sectors will provide much of the demand for infrastructure investment. MoCIB 11 2010 Asian infrastructure Exhibit 1 of 5 Source: Asian Development Bank; Clean Edge; World Bank Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database; McKinsey analysis 4.1 Energy Telecom 1.1 Transport 2.5 Water and sanitation 0.4 Total 8.1 Infrastructure (global) Infrastructure (Asia-Pacific) Clean energy (global) Clean energy (Asia-Pacific) 6.0 8.2 10.9 18.9 2.3x 3 March 2011 to private investment. The obstacles are varied. Many governments, for instance, have ill-defined PPP policies that, because of their vagueness, inhibit private participation, while capital controls frequently deter investors who worry that they may not be able to repatriate their cash flow. Weak regulatory or legal systems intensify the risk, and while shallow or illiquid capital markets make private investment necessary, they also compli- cate exit strategies. Exhibit 3 calculates the effect of restrictions on foreign direct investment in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Despite all this, Asia remains an exciting place for infrastructure investment over the next ten years. India alone is set to spend $500 billion on projects from 2007 to 2011, thereby raising its infrastructure investment from 4 percent to 8 percent of GDP per annum. Domestic capital markets will finance some but not all of this demand: as in other parts of the region, global investors will have an opportunity to fill the gap. Key risks to be managed Once they have decided to invest, foreign firms must overcome several risks. Thanks to political pressures, environmental considerations, and local issues, there are often long delays between planning and project approval; this can severely affect capital deployment and productivity. The Hangzhou Bay Bridge project in China, for example, was held up for 10 years, and the Bandra-Worli Sea Link in Mumbai, India, required more than 20 years before approval was finally given. Exhibit 2 G ap in in fr as tr uc tu re sp en d in g ,1 % Foreign capital required Thailand Philippines Indonesia Vietnam Brazil India Hungary Chile Malaysia China South Africa Turkey Egypt Mexico Peru Colombia Tunisia Nigeria Slovakia Morocco CroatiaBulgariaRomania Argentina Russia Pakistan Funding can be largely sourced domestically Financial depth,2 % In much of Asia, demand outstrips financing. MoCIB 11 2010 Asian infrastructure Exhibit 2 of 5 1 Gap in needed vs actual infrastructure spend as % of GDP, 2009. 2Value of bank deposits, bonds, and equity as % of GDP, 2009. Source: McKinsey Global Institute 9.0 0 5.0 20 400 4.5 60 4.0 100 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 36012080 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 4Asia’s $1 trillion infrastructure opportunity As in other parts of the world, infrastructure investors in Asia should have long invest- ment horizons and should be prepared to have capital locked up for many years. They need to be wary of—and ensure they make changes to—partnership agreements that are often poorly structured and drafted due to a lack of skills or experience in government departments. They should plan for the possibility of continuing political, legal, and regulatory uncertainty with respect to foreign ownership restrictions, capital controls, and partnership terms. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, for example, several countries suddenly imposed capital controls, which in some cases were only lifted many years later. And global investors must find ways around capital markets that lack the full range of financial instruments for risk mitigation. For example, the foreign-exchange (FX) markets for some emerging Asian currencies might not be liquid enough to allow full hedging of a currency exposure, while local derivative instruments may be insufficient to offset particular risks. Offshore products or structures domiciled in financial centers like Singapore and Hong Kong Exhibit 3 % United States1 India IndonesiaUnited Kingdom Vietnam Thailand Philippines Restrictions vary on private-sector participation and foreign direct investment. MoCIB 11 2010 Asian infrastructure Exhibit 3 of 5 1 No limitations. However, critical infrastructure projects are subject to congressional review. 2100% for building railway infrastructure; rail operations are run solely by government. 349% applies to fixed-line infrastructure; limit for mobile infrastructure is 65%. 4100% for greenfield projects; 40% for brownfield projects. Source: Ministries and government departments for investment planning and business development Power Airports Railways Telecom Water Irrigation Ports Roads 100 1004 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 100 100 0 0 100 49 100 74 100 100 100 100 100 40 100 100 100 49 100 49 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 49 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1004 100 100 100 49 100 55 100 1002 100 100 100 100 100 40 100 100 49 49 100 493 100 74 100 100 100 100 100 1004 100 100 49 0 100 95 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 1004 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 100 100 Max FDI <50% Max FDI <30% Max FDIMax private 5 March 2011 could be a solution when local currencies are illiquid. One example is the use of a Singaporean dollar fund (or fund of funds) that then invests in, say, Vietnamese infrastructure assets. The cur- rency risk between Vietnamese đόng (VND) and the Singapore dollar (SGD) is mitigated by a simultaneous synthetic contract that is renewed annually. While this does not completely do away with the currency risks, it reduces the volatility significantly. Another option is to set up a holding company in a tax-friendly jurisdiction rather than have the investment in the underlying infra- structure special-purpose vehicle (SPV), which is a domestic asset. The fund-raising entity enters into a contract outside the country, which at least partially helps to reduce the sovereign risk. Third, partnerships between foreign players and a dominant local institution—SBI-Macquarie Fund in India and the CIMB-Principal fund in ASEAN are two examples—can help. Selecting the right form of participation In addition to mitigating the inherent risks, investors must choose the right participation model if they are to maximize. Exhibit 4 explains the choices, several of them suitable for use in a PPP. Foreign investors and institutions typically follow an equity-led entry strategy in the initial years, since their local balance sheets tend to Exhibit 4 Description There are eight infrastructure participation models. MoCIB 11 2010 Asian infrastructure Exhibit 4 of 5 Source: Interviews; bank and annual reports; McKinsey analysis Equity Integrated Debt 1 Project lending Participates in project finance purely as a lender, with access largely limited to interest income 2 Balance-sheet-heavy lead arranger 2A Mandated lead arranger (MLA) provides primarily lending, syndication capabilities 2B MLA provides significant transaction banking cross-sell capabilities 3 Balance-sheet-light lead arranger 3A Primarily offers debt capital markets, structuring, and advisory skills 3B Focuses on fee-based income from debt syndication, advisory, structuring and placement, and transaction banking 4 Advisory Primarily offers investment banking products, including debt and equity syndication 5 Advisory with equity investment Provides equity advisory, syndication, and strong placement capability and participates in project equity 6 Equity fund management Manages own or third-party equity funds, with access to fund-management fee as well as performance fee 7 Debt-led integrated model Offers products across the project-finance value chain, leveraging strong balance-sheet and lending capabilities 8 Equity-led integrated model Offers products across the project-finance value chain, with emphasis on equity-investment and fund-management ability 6Asia’s $1 trillion infrastructure opportunity be insufficiently capitalized to support debt-led models. Domestic and regional banks, by contrast, typically use their strong local balance sheets to engage in debt financing. In recent years, savvy financial institutions with a well-rounded suite of financial services have begun adopting integrated models for infrastructure investment. For example, besides funding the construction of an airport, an inte- grated player might also offer transaction banking services and insurance to the airport operator. Such cross-selling can deliver significant value, as our research suggests an estimated 40 percent of potential revenues from infrastructure projects come from nonlending sources (Exhibit 5). Even better, this extra value opportunity comes with relatively little additional risk—after all, Exhibit 5 Revenue pools generated, 2010–141 Product category As % of total pool Revenue pools, $ million Comments Approximately 40% of the potential revenues from infrastructure projects come from nonlending sources. MoCIB 11 2010 Asian infrastructure Exhibit 5 of 5 1 Includes power, ports, roads, railways, airports, storage, gas, and water sectors. Source: Interviews; Planning Commission; McKinsey analysis Total 11,925 Advisory 148 • Preproject advisory and project appraisals are offered by most players at a low price to get a foothold into the deal Lending 7,103 • Interest rates have been below prime, yielding net interest income of 200–250 basis points • Maturities are 12–15 years 59 Transaction banking 3,180 • Bank guarantees are used extensively during construction • Trust and retention accounts and collection services are used during regular operation 27 Debt fund-raising 190 • Syndication is the prominent (90%) debt-raising tool • A few big developers also carry out debt arranging by themselves 2 Equity fund-raising 94 • Penetration of public and private equity varies significantly across sectors, depending on promoter profiles and ticket sizes 1 Equity fund management 774 • Private-equity players will hold 10–30% of equity across sectors, and the majority of the equity will earn both management and performance fees 6 4General insurance 536 • Infrastructure is a significant piece of the general insurance pie 7 March 2011 the operation of an airport, or indeed a power plant, once up and running, is relatively straightforward compared with getting it built in the first place. It is critical, however, to note that infrastructure investment requires significant dedication of time, organizational resources, and management focus. The example of Macquarie Group provides a good illustration of how a global infrastructure- investment business can be built. Macquarie first developed its expertise in infrastructure by capitalizing on the wave of Australian privatization of national infrastructure in the 1990s. Armed with the knowledge built up, Macquarie then launched its international expansion. Despite its expertise, however, it still took Macquarie more than six years for infrastructure to become a significant international platform. Along the way, it has developed sophisticated risk- management techniques to oversee activities in disparate markets. Despite the challenges and risks, Asia’s infra- structure growth over the next ten years is an attractive opportunity for global investors and financial institutions. There will be more than $1 trillion of infrastructure projects open to foreign investment, and further value can be captured by offering a full range of associated financial services besides lending. To tap into this growth, global capital players must select the appropriate participation model and dedicate sufficient resources to build up their expertise and familiarity with Asian infra- structure markets. Naveen Tahilyani is a principal in McKinsey’s Mumbai office, where Toshan Tamhane is an associate principal; Jessica Tan is a principal in the Singapore office. Copyright © 2011 McKinsey & Company. All rights reserved.