Beyond the BRICs: the 'Next 11' and even further beyond

ONE THE eve of my graduation (when I was supposed to be ironing my clothes for it), I opted to attend a talk by Jim O'Neill at my university. You probably have heard of him before, but he is the recently retired Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and the famous coiner of the BRICs acronym - the 4 emerging market giants of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Entitled ' The Changing World: an overview of dynamic and adapatable capitalism in a world beyond the BRICs', his talk of coure focussed on the BRICs but also shed substantial light on the 'Next 11' or 'N-11' - the 11 countries to watch out for as they make make their ascent towards wealth and full industrialisation, all with the potential of becoming the largest economies of the 21st century and the BRICs of tomorrow. 

These include:

The BRICs of tomorrow?

And notably, the 'MIST' (Mexico, Indonesia, South [Korea] and Turkey) nations make up 73% of the total of the N-11's GDP. 

For people my age and younger, it is all very easy to get excited about the BRICs, MISTs and the N-11 knowing that these nations will have increasing influence on our lives, no matter where we are in the world. The thing about emerging markets is that despite several commonalities, they are all different. The differ in area size, population size, rates of growth, patterns of economic reform, political, economic and legal regimes and styles of government which may pose as a threat or opportunity for investors. For example, you can probably tell from the word cloud that some N-11 members are far more industrialised than others already. 

South Korea aside (being an already highly developed nation), I believe that Nigeria, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam are the best positioned to grow into the largest economies over the next 30 years+. I have chosen a few countries to blog a some quick words about...

Nigeria, being the most populous nation in Africa and the 7th most populous country in the world, still faces huge challenges including poverty, some corruption, poor infrastructure and power supply among its 170 million people. However, for the past 6 years, the country has grown at an average 7%. Its large and young workforce means productivity won't be in short supply, attracting investment from both home and abroad. Sectors within each country grow at different rates and thus offer different opportunities for growth. Sector-wise, I know the food & beverage sector here is very vibrant at the moment and is projected to grow into the coming years, mainly driven by a wealthy middle class ready to consume with increasing disposable income. Energy is the hottest sector there (no pun intended), and still will be in the next coming decades with the oil and gas resources attracting international investments particularly as more state owned power and oil companies are set for privatisation. The banking sector is another industry ready for growth, having undergone extensive regulatory and restructuring.  

Whilst growth and attracting FDI or home investment is likely to be the top of the policy agenda for Nigeria's current and successive governments, I believe that solving the social and infrastructure related challenges faced by the country should certainly receive near equal status as part of the path to growth into an international economic force. 

Philippines, has an educated and young work force which I believe is a blessing given this characteristic cannot be replicated so easily in other countries also competing for investment and growth. Philippines is a strong exporter of electronic products, garments, petroleum products and fruits and they can continue to hold this status in the next coming years. Philippines, only very recently has become a popular destination for foreign investment given that its credit rating was raised to investment grade by Fitch and S&P not so long again. Bullish growth was a cause of this, but also due to President Aquino's rather successful bids to tackle corruption; now, there is a shift towards transparency creating more confidence among foreign investors. 

Corruption is still widespread nevertheless, and if Aquino and success governments can push for more anti-corruption measures and policies for welfare improvement, Philippines will see more investment and growth as investors tap into the work force and into the ever growing middle class. 

Indonesia, is a country I am often guilty of confusing it with the Philippines. These two countries have many commonalities but also a lot of differences. Indonesia is the world's 4th most populous country and has the largest economy in South-East Asia, with a growth rate of 6% per year. There is a thriving banking sector, with many local private equity and investor setting up, with more opportunities for growth in both banking and private equity well into the future.  The country has a large and young work force which creates an excellent source of productivity. Low wages in the country also make Indonesia an attractive destination for manufacturers  The most attractive point about the country is its 'open door' policy towards investment, where it actively welcomes investment and simplifying the legal framework (from the 1980s) to do so. Given that it is a democracy, it is also fairly easy to move money in and out of its borders (in comparison to China, for example). However, unlike the Philippines  the work force is not as educated and thus investors have trouble finding suitable management here. Therefore, should policy makers focus on improving its primary-tertiary education system, possibly modelling it on the Singapore or Filipino systems,  Indonesia could be become a serious magnetic force for attracting global investments. 


Vietnam, is an exciting place I feel as while it is a developing and generally agrarian economy, it is one which is shifting from a centrally planned economy into a more market orientated one. GDP growth is around 5%, and there is a lot of M&A activity and FDI in the country, particularly in manufacturing related sectors as suppliers seek a lower wage market as China and other Asian economies experience wage inflation. I expect Vietnam to be a major exporter of agricultural and food produce. As trade links improve with the rest of the world, the food and beverage industry could be a strong target for investors. Aside from the growth of manufacturing ( food processing, cigarettes, garments chemicals, and electronic consumer goods), I expect the tourism industry to grow as the Vietnam National Administration of Tourism is implementing a large scale diversification of the tourism industry to attract foreign exchange (as well as attracting more tourism). This sector therefore offering investment opportunities for local investors and those from further afield. Like several other N-11 members, Vietnam however faces the challenge of tackling corruption and providing experienced management due to its young population. 


With regard to Bangladesh, the country faces several large challenges that other N-11 countries do not face. Over population is the main issue which contributes to a largely uneducated country with widespread poverty. The tragedy of the garment factory incident and a general lack of regard for industrial safety reminds us that Bangladesh has a lot to do, although some action is slowly being taken. Time will tell if these actions are prolonged.  Out of all the N-11 nations however, Bangladesh has the one of the biggest opportunities to grow. Currently, although investment activity is nascent, there is growing interest in the country due to the large work force and the expanding economy (at more than 6% per annum) coupled with a growing middle class and their ever-growing disposable income. It is only ranked second to China in clothing exports, and will this industry will gain momentum into the future years as manufactures seek to move away from China into lower wage economies such as Bangladesh; it is one of the cheapest places to manufacture. 

There are high hopes of Iran and Pakistan as they are one of the largest producers of natural commodities in the world. Political and foreign policy challenges in both countries however will detract Western investors. Nevertheless, I believe we will see a thawing of relationships between the US/Europe with Iran and Pakistan over the next coming decades; Iran 's new leadership could pave a way for nuclear disarment and building a relationship with the US. As the 'war on terror' ends, Europe and USA could focus on strengthening a business and commercial partnerships with both countries. 

*****

Jim O' Neill's talk also made me think outside of the box a bit. What nations are beyond the BRICs and the N-11 to challenge the G7 of the world then? Will these nations be the emerging nations of the world when I'm spending my days playing bridge and bowling on greens?

This is very difficult to say many countries can potentially fit into this category and as for each country,  a whole host of social, political and economic factors and risks will come into force throughout my lifetime. At present however, to take a few, I believe Mongolia could fit into this category. As can Kazakhstan, Angola, Zambia, Botswana and Iraq. I've created a mind map of my thoughts as this post has been pretty wordy and long already. Take a look (click to enlarge)...

JH

Some thoughts on microfinance

MICROFINANCE IS the umbrella term encompassing microcredit, microinsurance, microsavings, remittances and other financial services for the poor in primarily developing regions of  South Asia, Latin America, South East Asia and Africa. 

Microfinance is different from conventional consumer banking products as the underlying aim is one of financial inclusion, targeting the financially undeserved.  Microfinance is provided by ‘microfinance insitituions’ (MFIs), credit unions and through rural/village banks.

Take microcredit (often used interchangeably with 'microfinance' and confused together). Microcredit is different from plain money-lending as it targets the poor (who are traditionally excluded from formal financial markets due to high transaction costs from banks’ perspective) and female clients (who have difficulties accessing loans in often patriarchal societies). Many MFIs require no collateral, lends in small doses -between $100-$1000  - and often has a social function; there is the aim of lending to micro-entrepreneurs, promoting literacy, children’s health and education it’s among clients.

Microcredit, pioneered in 1978 by Muhammad Yunnus (founder of the Grameen Bank) in Bangladesh, typically lends using a group lending mechanism so that social assets and local knowledge improves screening, enforcement and monitoring. In reality, loan default still occurs under group lending and some empirical studies have proved default under group lending to be just as common as individual lending. Some MFIs such as Bank Raykat Indonesia, who serve the ‘richer of the poor’ have reverted to using an individual based lending serves as a testament that group lending is not all designed to minimise what it is supposed to minimise. Individual lending is also less cumbersome and can allow wealthier (but still poor) clients to access more credit without the burden of their poorer counterparts who are more likely to default.

As microcredit targets entreprenuers, microcredit at face value clearly encourages self-initiative and self-sufficiency, potentially and hopefully for the long term.  It is no surprise that for some, microcredit is the savior of all the developing world’s problems and poverty eradicator.

For me, the impact of microcredit and also microfinance is more arguable. Like everything in this world, there is no such thing as ‘perfect’ and microcredit is not without it’s problems, some more serious and others. Just off hand, I can think of several: 

• Microcredit is focussed on lending to entrepreneurs but often, there is no strict enforcement by loan officers to spend loans for the purpose of building up their business. Effectively, this reduces the impact of promoting long term self-initiative.
  
  
• The vast majority of smaller MFIs are not financially sustainable – they rely on donors, government grants and ‘soft loans’ rather than securer customer deposits.
  
  
• No doubt have MFIs been affected by global macroeconomic difficulties. The financial crisis of 2008 reduced lending to MFIs from western commercial and investment banks. For such banks, regulatory changes such as Basel III and its national equivalents can also increase the cost of  holding some loan portfolios (such as in terms of regulatory capital) as lending to an emerging market is more risky. This effectively endangers the funding of MFIs.
  
  
• Over- indebtness: A lack of stringent regulation on MFIs has caused a MFI explosion in many developing countries. Individuals therefore have the chance to take on several loans by several MFIs resulting in own over-indebtness. The direct result is default and the tragic human cost can be exemplified by the Andhra Pradesh crisis.
  
  
• Last but not least, microcredit to some has been crowned as the solver of world poverty. The logic behind this is understandable; giving the poorest access to credit for starting a micro-business provides them with the initial capital.  Earnings from their micro-business provides income that can be used initially for basic everyday essentials. Further lending gives the client the scope to expand on the size of business and grow self-initiative/dependency and so on. Development economists through randomised control trials have proved microcredit to reduce poverty in a household and also have shown that there are positive spillover villiage effects compared to households/villages not in receipt of microloans.
  
  
  The big question is that, if microcredit can make households wealthier, why is aggregate is the take up so small at only ~5% of the world’s poor?  The main answer to this question lies in the fact that what is desired by the poor is an actually more stable and long term borrowing instrument(s) as well as opportunities to save, transfer remittance funds  and also to insure against the inherently risky nature of developing nations.
  
  
  It is important to remember that microcredit is NOT the sole champion in eradicating poverty. It is one tool, but other we need to mobilise microsavings and microinsurance and remittance services to help the ‘microfinance movement’ go down in history as something that helped to fight one of the world’s most prolific humanitarian problems – poverty.

Microcredit is not the golden bullet, but I wonder still, without it, wouldn’t the lives of poor households in developing countries be even more bleak?

JH