Skip to main content

Risks of Foreign Investment

I read an article in the WSJ (Merger, Indian Style: Buy a Brand, Leave it Alone) a while back about how Tata Motors was going to buy Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford. The main focus of the story was how Tata was looking to learn from the US companies:
Rather than seeking to wring profits out of two luxury automotive brands that frequently have lost money, Tata is looking to learn from them to help launch its own global expansion in autos, using the brands' own management team and a full roster of employees.
I thought that was an interesting trend. I later came across an opinion piece by Matthew Slaughter, an associate dean and professor at Tuck, about what the Tata deal tells us about the benefits of foreign direct investment. He pointed out how these multinationals undertake their "insourcing" deals:
It is well known that new FDI can come via "greenfield" investments that build new businesses from scratch. Think photo opportunities of business executives and government officials turning fresh dirt with shiny shovels.

But foreign multinationals can also merge with, or acquire part or all of, an existing U.S. company. Greenfield investments can protect proprietary technologies. Acquisitions can yield quicker presence, and can build on target-firm assets such as customer connections and managerial talent.

The second thing he points out is who has been making these investments. Traditionally, FDI has flowed from high-income or "developed" nations. But there has been a significant rise in FDI from developing countries such as China and India.

There was a more recent article on the topic (Capital Flow from Emerging Nations to U.S. Poses Some Risks) from the WSJ that put in perspective the total flows of currency and the risks they pose. Here's where the money's coming from:

The U.S. has to import, on net, almost $2 billion in capital a day to cover its enormous trade gap. Of the $920 billion that foreigners pumped into U.S. stocks, bonds and government securities last year, $361 billion -- a stunning 39% -- came from emerging-market nations, according to calculations by Bank of America, using Treasury Department data.

China alone accounted for 21 percentage points of the total, with Brazil at 8.4 points, Russia at 2.8 points, and Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and others in the mix.

Here's a chart that summarizes things:



So, what's the problem with this? Well, these countries aren't just investing in the U.S. because they get better returns, indeed "from 2002 to 2006, as the dollar slid, foreigners earned an average annual return of 4.3% on their U.S. investments, while Americans earned 11.2% on their investments overseas." The article concludes "that it's not the profits that attract foreign money to the U.S., it's the sophistication of U.S. capital markets." That's where the real risk comes in. If you lose the transparency in the U.S. markets, you may just lose that investment. Subprime mortgage problems, speculation, etc. aren't helping things.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Fortunate 400

So there's rich, and then there's super rich. I recently read an article in the WSJ about the top 400 taxpayers based on income. Pretty incredible statistics. Those top 400, or what they call the "Fortunate 400", pulled in $85.6 billion in income in 2005. That's over $200 million each ... in one year! Here's a quick graphic to drive that home: Very impressive. There's all the obvious jaw-dropping statistics to go with that. For instance, to make the cut to be in the 400 you had to pull in at least $100 million. With an average of $200 million, that means there's people pulling in well over that number. Obviously, quite crazy numbers, and generally speaking not necessarily anything to be concerned about. I'm all for capitalism. But one of the more disheartening statistics was that adjusting for inflation, the minimum income to make the cutoff into the Fortunate 400 has nearly tripled since 1992. That's probably not a good sign as I imagine that...

Nine Prescriptions for Building the Duke Entrepreneurial Community

I think Duke can have one of the strongest entrepreneurial communities in the world. Are we there yet? Well, not yet. But there's a tremendous amount of momentum that I saw build in just the past two years while I was getting my MBA at Duke. While leading Duke's 10th annual business plan competition, the Duke Start-Up Challenge (DSC) , last year, I witnessed a near doubling of participation on campus in just a single year. The interest on the ground was clearly there and building rapidly. But now that I'm an alum, I'm looking back and wondering ... how do we rev-up the Duke entrepreneurial community even more? I read a great article by Daniel Isenberg, a professor of management at Babson, called " How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution " in the June edition of the Harvard Business Review. Isenberg outlines nine prescriptions for governments that want to create entrepreneurship ecosystems in their countries. Although he was focused on governments an...

A Possible Solution to the Mortgage Crisis

Came across this one on Mankiw's blog as well (... someone has been stealing my WSJ's each morning before I can pick them up outside). Martin Feldstein, a professor at Harvard and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for Reagan, had an opinion article in the WSJ yesterday that outlined a possible solution to the mortgage crisis. Criteria for the plan is: don't shift burden to taxpayers, don't force banks to eat all the losses, and create an incentive for homeowners to stay in their homes. The idea is that the US government would provide loans to homeowners up to 20% of their mortgage amount, with a 15 year pay-back period and adjustable interest rate based on the two-year treasury note. The whole thing would be funded by selling more two-year treasury notes. This would obviously not stop anyone from walking away from their home if they have negative equity, but it might prompt those that are worried about that scenario happening to them in the future to sti...