Misperceptions About Risk Are Blocking The Flow Of Finance To Emerging Markets
Risk-return calculations drive the flow of finance towards emerging markets and developing economies. On the risk side of the equation, estimates are frequently conservative, based on sovereign ceilings rather than asset-specific or project-level risks. And sometimes, these estimates are based on geographical proximity rather than actual risk.
A clear example is the 2023 coup in Gabon, which led investors to pull back from bonds across different African countries, driving up borrowing costs even for countries that remained politically stable such as Kenya.
When looking at default rates across different points in time, emerging markets (EM) have often shown greater resilience than their advanced market (AM) counterparts during global crises. For instance, during the 2008 global financial crisis, default rates among EM firms were notably lower than those in AMs. Recovery rates in EMDE investments average 72 per cent, exceeding global averages for comparable assets (Moody's Global Bonds: 59 per cent; J.P. Morgan EM bonds: 38 per cent).
Further, in a study by Moody's, we see that infrastructure loan default rates in Africa are less than a half of Western Europe and less than a third of those in North America. This suggests that the perceived risk of infrastructure investment in Africa may be significantly overstated relative to actual performance, highlighting a disconnect between investor perception and empirical evidence.
All of these examples point to the fact that we may be overestimating the risks of investing in emerging markets. Such misalignment of perception and reality is driving investors to stay away from viable opportunities.
Of course, some structural barriers remain. Currency and complexity risks can be addressed through currency hedging, credit enhancements and tailored guarantees.
In 2021/22, average project ticket sizes in EMDEs were almost three times lower than in high-income countries. Aggregating projects and creating a pipeline of bankable opportunities, rather than trying to attract capital for small, individual projects, will ultimately make it worth the while for investors to engage.
Further, to mobilise capital to these countries, it is vital to match mandates and ecosystems and to create greater collaboration between all stakeholders. Those in question include multilateral development banks, development finance institutions, banks, institutional investors, insurance companies, credit rating agencies and guarantee providers.
Based on such findings, our report, Beyond the Myths: From Perceptions to Practice in Scaling Blended Finance to EMDEs, calls for five priority actions. These include: strengthening market infrastructure and transparency; building local capacity and partnerships; addressing information gaps and building investor confidence; aligning policy frameworks and investment mandates; and promoting standardisation and certification structures.
Together, these steps can build investor confidence by dismantling long-held misperceptions, challenging biases, simplifying participation in projects, reducing costs and demonstrating the commercial case for blended finance.
In short, they can finally unlock significant amounts of much needed private capital in those countries most impacted by climate change and with the fewest resources to adapt to the challenges of more frequent and intense extreme weather events.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
China's Pop Mart sees profit soar 400% as Labubu dolls fly off shelves around the world
The Chinese maker of the monster hit Labubu dolls said Tuesday its profit soared nearly 400% in the first half of the year as the toothy-grinned plush toy took the world by storm. Beijing-based Pop Mart posted net profit of $636 million, a 396.5% spike compared to the same period in 2024 – and handily beating estimates of a 350% rise over the entire year. Revenue skyrocketed 204.4% to roughly $1.93 billion, far stronger than the 62% growth seen in the same period last year. 3 Pop Mart said its net profit jumped nearly 400% on sales of its popular Labubu dolls. Gabriella Bass Shares in Pop Mart have popped more than 200% so far this year, making the Beijing-based toymaker more valuable than Barbie-maker Mattel and Hello Kitty owner Sanrio. Explosive demand for its Labubu dolls in overseas markets has driven the growth, since the toys sell for higher prices and generate bigger margins in regions like North America. The company sells its Labubu dolls – which have big eyes, sharp-toothed grins and tall ears like a bunny – in 'blind boxes,' so shoppers don't know the exact color they're getting until they open the package. That has turned certain rare Labubu designs into pricey collectibles – going for hundreds of dollars on eBay, with one first-generation figurine recently selling for $150,000 at an auction in Beijing. Celebrities like K-pop singer Lisa, Rihanna and David Beckham have helped fuel the Labubu fever, wearing the tiny monster dolls as keychains on luxury handbags or car keys. Pop Mart said Tuesday it would boost its supply of the dolls, which have been sold out in stores around the world. 3 Labubu sales are expected to pass 10 million units a day by September, according to Pop Mart CEO Wang Ning. Getty Images CEO Wang Ning told Chinese state media last month that sales of Labubu are expected to pass 10 million units a day by September. He added that overseas growth has been much faster than expected, with foreign sales likely to exceed the domestic Chinese market this year. Labubu dolls are included in Pop Mart's 'The Monsters' intellectual property characters. The company said Tuesday that 'The Monsters' accounted for 34.7% of total revenue. 3 Pop Mart has 571 retail stores and 2,597 robot shops across 18 countries and regions. AFP via Getty Images Pop Mart has 571 retail stores – 40 of which opened in the first half of this year – and 2,597 robot shops across 18 countries and regions. It is rapidly expanding, with plans to open a total of 100 new outlets outside the mainland this year. Earlier this month, Pop Mart opened a megastore in Iconsiam, a massive Bangkok shopping center.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Did Trump really end six wars?
President Donald Trump is not just trying to end the vicious war in Ukraine. He's claiming he's already ended almost one war for each month of his second term — spanning the Middle East; Africa; and Central, South and Southeast Asia. 'I've done six wars — I've ended six wars,' Trump said in his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday. 'Look, India-Pakistan, we're talking about big places, you just take a look at some of these wars. You go to Africa and take a look at them.' The White House proclaimed in a statement this month that 'President Trump is the President of Peace,' listing claimed diplomatic agreements between Armenia and Azerbaijan; Cambodia and Thailand; Israel and Iran; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Egypt and Ethiopia; and Serbia and Kosovo, as well as the Abraham Accords, a normalization pact signed in Trump's first term between Israel and some Arab states. Some of this is classic Trumpian hyperbole. And the president's team is scanning the globe looking for fires to extinguish to claim quick wins for his transparent campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump hasn't suddenly reinvented American foreign policy. Every administration works to halt wars and to advance US interests. Most don't take constant victory laps — indeed, such triumphalism can often destroy quiet diplomacy. Yet Trump has saved lives. In some cases, he's used presidential power in novel ways to stop sudden conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars. But his success raises new questions that also apply to Ukraine. Is Trump in it for the long haul or just for deals he can hype, much as he licensed products as a businessman and stamped his name on them? And will Trump's evisceration of the US Agency for International Development and downsizing of the State Department deprive him of the tools the US needs to turn breakthroughs into lasting peace agreements that solve underlying causes of wars? Trump kept insisting Monday — as he tried finesse his adoption of Russia's opposition to an immediate Ukraine ceasefire — that he was more interested in final deals. Ironically however, some of his 'six wars' deals are closer to ceasefires than peace agreements that permanently end generational disputes. And in the case of Iran and Israel, Trump's claims to have made peace after their 12-day conflict are complicated by US involvement in strikes against Tehran's nuclear program. While an informal truce is in place, there's no sign a slow-boiling state of war involving all three nations since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 will end. Trump is also conveniently forgetting his failed attempt to end the war between Israel and Hamas. And global outrage over reports of widespread starvation in Gaza and the president's staunch support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could thwart his hopes for a Nobel Prize — whatever happens with Ukraine. His record is also blotted by the failure of his first-term peace efforts with North Korea. Leader Kim Jong Un now has more nuclear weapons than before Trump offered him fruitless, photo-op summits. Some of Trump's biggest successes have been behind the scenes. 'I'm struck by the fact that the ones that were helpful, especially India-Pakistan, were conducted in a professional way, quietly, diplomatically … laying the ground and finding common ground between the parties,' said Celeste Wallander, a former assistant secretary of defense who is now with the Center for a New American Security. The most recent triumph was a joint peace declaration signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan on their long-running conflict in the Caucasus. The agreement, inked at a lavish White House ceremony, commits the two former Soviet republics to recognizing each other's borders and to renouncing violence against the other. But complex negotiations loom on knotty constitutional and territorial issues before a full peace agreement. This deal is notable for two things — the way foreign states flatter Trump to get what they want, and an imperialistic streak in much of his peacemaking. The rivals, for instance, agreed to open a transportation corridor to which the US will have full development rights and to call it the 'Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity.' Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev declared, 'President Trump, in six months, did a miracle.' This is smart deal for the US as it counters the influence of rival powers Russia and Iran in the region. But it will need Trump's constant attention. 'Wishes and verbal declarations are not enough,' two former US ambassadors to Azerbaijan, Robert Cekuta and Richard Morningstar, wrote in a recent Atlantic Council commentary. They called on Trump to deploy officials from the State Department, the Commerce Department and other agencies to lock in the agreement. Another of Trump's recent triumphs came in Southeast Asia, where he threatened to shelve trade deals with both Thailand and Cambodia to halt a border war last month that killed at least 38 people. The leverage pressed home in calls to leaders of each country was effective, and it might not have occurred to another president. But Trump didn't work alone. The agreement was brokered by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet knew the drill, however. He nominated Trump for the Nobel Prize for 'extraordinary statesmanship.' Pakistan took a similar step, as part of a successful diplomatic offensive to win over Trump and to disadvantage its nuclear-armed rival India after the president intervened in a border clash in May. But the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an erstwhile Trump buddy, dismissed Washington's claims of a pivotal role. And other states, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain, were also involved. Trump's claims to have ended a war are selective. The agreement is fragile and doesn't solve the territorial dispute that sparked the fighting — over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which has caused three full-scale wars. Trump has proclaimed a 'glorious triumph for the cause of peace' in a deal brokered between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This contains important first steps on recognizing borders, renouncing war and disarming militia groups. However, no one expects the conflict to end soon, since the main Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group has rejected the agreement. Some analysts see the initiative, also brokered by Qatar, as a US attempt to secure mineral rights as part of an African 'great game' against China. Trump's claim to have brokered peace between Egypt and Ethiopia is a stretch. He's referring to a dispute over a Nile dam in the latter nation that Egypt fears will reduce the flow in its share of the key strategic waterway. He has called for a deal over the dam, but no binding agreement has been reached. The White House claims on Serbia and Kosovo originate in Trump's first term, when the rivals agreed to economic normalization steps. But they still don't have diplomatic relations, 17 years after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. And recent normalization efforts have involved the EU more than the Trump team. In many ways, Trump's claims to have ended six wars are typical of a presidency that claims massive wins that often add up to less than what they seem. But there are real achievements in his record, and the possibility of genuine long-term breakthroughs if Trump can maintain application and patience. That's a good lesson for his nascent Ukraine peace drive.
News24
an hour ago
- News24
A setback for democracy - MVC slams Ramaphosa doubling amount of money parties may receive
Lucas Ledwaba/AFP President Cyril Ramaphosa has signed a proclamation doubling the political donation threshold to R200 000 and the cap to R30 million annually. This means political parties can take more money with less transparency. Lobby group My Vote Counts criticises the move, arguing it increases secrecy in political funding and allows wealthy donors more influence. A setback for democracy - this is how lobby group My Vote Counts (MVC) described the doubling of the limit and threshold for political donations, which means political parties can accept more money from donors, with less transparency. President Cyril Ramaphosa's proclamation to double the threshold and limit for the donations political parties and independent candidates may receive was gazetted on Monday. This means that political parties must now declare donations received higher than R200 000 - the threshold - and may not receive donations totalling more than R30 million per year from a single donor - the limit or cap. Ramaphosa was empowered to do this after the National Assembly in May adopted the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs' report, which empowers the president to set regulations that would allow political parties to get more money with less transparency. It was the ANC's idea to simply double the previous threshold of R100 000 and limit of R15 million. 'This is indeed a setback for our democracy. We cannot allow those in power to jeopardise our democracy and water down constitutionally protected rights for their narrow, self-serving interests,' said Joel Bregman, MVC project lead on money in politics. READ | Ramaphosa signs proclamation allowing bigger political party donations with less transparency He said MVC would continue to advocate and litigate when necessary to ensure the Political Finance Act (PFA) is constitutional and upholds the principles of transparency and accountability. Bregman said, 'The immediate impact of a higher disclosure threshold and donation limit is that we will have more secrecy in political funding.' Noting that the details of all donations under R200 000 would not be known to the public, Bregman said it is 'an enormous sum for most South Africans, and donations of such amounts should be made public knowledge to facilitate scrutiny of parties' relationships with donors and ensure that donors are not receiving anything in return'. 'Further, when a right is to be limited - in this case, the two rights mentioned above - there needs to be adequate justification for doing so. The State has never provided a legitimate reason why all donations should not be disclosed to the public.' Bregman said that since disclosures became mandatory in 2021, the data shows that a handful of wealthy individuals dominate the private political funding landscape. He said: Doubling the amount a donor can donate to a party in a year to R30 million will give donors an even greater ability to have an outsized influence on our political system. It will also make parties more susceptible to undue influence. 'And because the law does not regulate donations from related parties through the different legal entities they control, wealthy donors can now have an even more significant impact.' Bregman is referring to the currently perfectly legal situation where mega-donors - like entities linked to Capitec founder Michiel le Roux and mining magnate Patrice Motsepe - make donations to the same party, going over the limit. For instance, Le Roux donated R30 million to the DA in each of the previous three years, while the previous limit was R15 million per year. He donated R15 million through his private company, Fynbos Ekwiteit, and R15 million through the investment holding company, Fynbos Kapitaal. READ | R15m donation 'cannot reasonably' have improper influence, govt argues in party funding case Similarly, Motsepe's companies, Botho Botho Commercial Enterprise, with R10 million, and African Rainbow Minerals and Harmony Gold Mining, with R6.9 million each, donated a combined R23.8 million to the ANC in the 2023/24 financial year. Bregman said that while MVC recognises the importance of the PFA, it is clear that the law has many defects that limit its ability to achieve its objectives. 'Considering this, in 2023, we initiated legal proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the PFA. 'After lengthy delays, MVC's case was heard before a full bench of the Western Cape High Court in February 2025. A key component of our challenge is that the original limits were not formulated with reference to empirical evidence and were therefore irrational and unlawful. We asked the court to find the limits unconstitutional, and refer them back to Parliament for remedying. 'We also asked the court to find that the President's power to make the final determination on the limits (a power that arose through an amendment to the law after our initial papers were filed) was also unconstitutional because it placed too much power in a conflicted officeholder who is both head of the executive and (in most cases) the head of a political party.' The High Court's judgment in this matter is still awaited. 'Should our case succeed, the amendments to the act will be set aside with full retrospective effect, including the determination of these new limits,' said Bregman. 'While we await judgment, we are considering other legal options to address the president's action. We will also be writing to the president to request that he release the reasons and full record of factors that were considered as he applied his mind to this matter.'
