MENA accounted for 20% of total portfolio flows to emerging financial markets from 2016-2018.
São Paulo – The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have stood out in capital flows in the last years, according to article published this Wednesday (15) on the International Monetary Fund Blog.
Written by Jihad Azoud, director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department at the IMF, and Ling Zhu, an economist at the same department, the article reads that since the global financial crisis of 2008, emerging countries have experienced a surge in capital flows and that this flow to the MENA nations have remained high compared to other emerging markets, but their composition has changed significantly.
The change includes a surge in portfolio flows – foreign investment in the financial and capital markets – and a simultaneous decline in foreign direct investment – those non-linked to the production sector, real estate acquisition etc. Portfolio and bank inflows to the region reached USD 155 billion over 2016–2018, which accounted for nearly 20% of total portfolio flows to emerging economies during those two years. The value was about three times the volume of flows to MENA over the previous eight years.
The IMF analysts find that most of the portfolio flows increase can be attributed to a more favorable global risk sentiment that is below its historical average. “Portfolio inflows are mostly driven by global ‘push’ factors, such as financial market risk sentiment,” the article reads that about two-thirds of the increase can be attributed to that.
Other factors are the fiscal and external deficits resulting from increased spending in such countries as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia, as well as lower revenue in oil exporters such as Bahrain and Oman after 2014. “Capital inflows have helped governments finance these deficits,” the IMF blog stresses. Moreover, the recent inclusion of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — in global bond and equity indices has also contributed to the rise in portfolio flows to the region.
However, the article warns that with global economic risks now on the rise, the region’s countries would be particularly vulnerable if global risk sentiment shifts — especially those with significant fiscal deficits, high debt burdens, and limited buffers. The blog goes on to say that the region is twice as sensitive to changes in global risk sentiment as compared with other emerging economie, which most likely stems from the higher perceived overall risk of the region, reflecting factors such as geopolitical uncertainties, volatile oil prices, and global trade tensions.
To strengthen their resilience to volatile flows, the blog reccomends improved policy frameworks not only in attracting but also in preserving flows, while helping mitigate the risk of outflows. As examples, the text mentions that Egypt has established inflation targeting and that Morocco has made progress in allowing more flexible exchange rates. As usual, IMF urges that reducing fiscal deficits are critical.
The article also stresses the need for structural reforms to strengthen financial system and macroeconomic steps to reduce the regional economies’ vulnerabilities.
This Moody’s negative rating outlook for the 2020 GCC sovereigns was published after it issued a little earlier, a similar downgrade for GCC corporates. But before we start wondering how relevant and whether, in this day and age, it applies to the MENA region and particularly to the Gulf sub-region, let us see who and what is behind Moody’s. It has by the way in 2018, citing as always, the still on-going and potentially worsening geopolitical event risks that play a crucial role in defining sovereign credit quality, come up with a particular set of ratings. Moody’s Corporation is the holding company that owns both Moody’s Investor Services, which rates fixed-income debt securities, and Moody’s Analytics, which provides software and research for economic analysis and risk management. Moody’s assigns ratings based on assessed risk and the borrower’s ability to make interest payments, and many investors closely watch its ratings.
ZAWYA GCC on January 9, 2020, posted the following articles.
The image above is used for illustrative purpose. A screen displays Moody’s ticker information as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange January 20, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
GCC sovereigns’ 2020 outlook is negative, says Moody’s
Negative outlook reflects slow progress on fiscal reforms, weak growth and higher geopolitical risks.
Moody’s Investors Service said in a report that the outlook for sovereign creditworthiness in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 2020 is negative.
The negative outlook reflects slow progress on fiscal reforms at a time of moderate oil prices, weak growth and higher geopolitical risk, the ratings agency said.
“The pace of fiscal consolidation will remain slow in the GCC in 2020 and fiscal strength will continue to erode in the absence of significant new fiscal measures and reforms,” said Alexander Perjessy, a Moody’s Vice President – Senior Analyst.
“This will be exacerbated by existing commitments to limit oil production, which will reduce government revenue,” Perjessy added.
The ratings agency expects a further gradual erosion in GCC credit metrics as oil prices remain moderate over the medium-term. It also pointed that lower oil revenue available to fund government spending will constrain growth in the non-oil sector which will, in turn, discourage governments from undertaking more fiscal tightening.
Moody’s sees the region’s geopolitical risk as higher and broader in nature than in the past, amid ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran.
Moody’s: 3 factors behind GCC sovereigns’ 2020 negative outlook
GCC’s geopolitical risk is higher in nature than in the past.
By Staff Writer, Mubasher
Moody’s Investors Service explained the factors which led to the negative outlook for sovereign creditworthiness in the Gulf area for the year 2020.
A recent report by Moody’s showed that the slowdown in the development of fiscal reforms at a time of reasonable oil prices contributed to the outlook, along with weak growth and higher geopolitical risk.
Further gradual erosion in GCC credit metrics is expected by Moody’s which relied in their outlook on the moderate oil prices over the medium-term.
Moody’s vice president – senior analyst, Alexander Perjessy, highlighted: “The pace of fiscal consolidation will remain slow in the GCC in 2020 and fiscal strength will continue to erode in the absence of significant new fiscal measures and reforms.”
Perjessy added, “This will be exacerbated by existing commitments to limit oil production, which will reduce government revenue.”
Growth in the non-oil sector will be constrained by lower oil revenue available to fund government spending; this will discourage governments from undertaking additional fiscal tightening.
Moody’s noted that “the region’s geopolitical risk is higher and broader in nature than in the past amid ongoing tensions between the US and Iran.”
IMFBlog on December 2, 2019, posted this excellent article The Adaptive Age by Kristalina Georgieva whose advice is that No institution or individual can stand on the sidelines in the fight against climate change, for ever that is.
When I think of the incredible challenges we must confront in the face of a changing climate, my mind focuses on young people. Eventually, they will be the ones either to enjoy the fruits or bear the burdens resulting from actions taken today.
I think of my 9-year-old granddaughter. By the time she turns 20, she may be witness to climate change so profound that it pushes an additional 100 million people into poverty. By the time she turns 40, 140 million may become climate migrants—people forced to flee homes that are no longer safe or able to provide them with livelihoods. And if she lives to be 90, the planet may be 3–4° hotter and barely livable.
Unless we act. We can avoid this bleak future, and we know what we have to do—reduce emissions, offset what cannot be reduced, and adapt to new climate realities. No individual or institution can stand on the sidelines.
Ready or not, we are entering an age of adaptation. And we need to be smart about it.
Our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through various mitigation measures—phasing out fossil fuels, increasing energy efficiency, adopting renewable energy sources, improving land use and agricultural practices—continue to move forward, but the pace is too slow. We have to scale up and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. At the same time, we must recognize that climate change is already happening and affecting the lives of millions of people. There are more frequent and more severe weather-related events—more droughts, more floods, more heatwaves, more storms.
Ready or not, we are entering an age of adaptation. And we need to be smart about it. Adaptation is not a defeat, but rather a defense against what is already happening. The right investments will deliver a “triple dividend” by averting future losses, spurring economic gains through innovation, and delivering social and environmental benefits to everyone, but particularly to those currently affected and most at risk. Updated building codes can ensure infrastructure and buildings are better able to withstand extreme events. Making agriculture more climate resilient means investing more money in research and development, which in turn opens the door to innovation, growth, and healthier communities.
The IMF is stepping up its efforts to deal with climate risk. Our mission is to help our members build stronger economies and improve people’s lives through sound monetary, fiscal, and structural policies. We consider climate change a systemic risk to the macroeconomy and one in which the IMF is deeply involved through its research and policy advice.
Mitigation plus adaptation
On the mitigation side of the equation, this means intensifying our work on carbon pricing and helping governments craft road maps as they navigate their way from brown economies dependent on carbon to green ones that strive to be carbon-free. Carbon taxes are one of the most powerful and efficient tools at their disposal—the latest IMF analysis finds that large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2°C or less. But carbon taxes must be implemented in a careful and growth-friendly fashion. The key is to retool the tax system in fair, creative, and efficient ways—not just add a new tax. A good example is Sweden, where low- and middle-income households received higher transfers and tax cuts to help offset higher energy costs following the introduction of a carbon tax.
This is a path others can follow, strategically directing part of the revenues that carbon taxes generate back to low-income households that can least afford to pay. With the revenues estimated at 1–3 percent of GDP, a portion could also go to support firms and households that choose green pathways.
While we continue to work to reduce carbon emissions, the increasing frequency of more extreme weather like hurricanes, droughts, and floods is affecting people all across the world. Countries already vulnerable to natural disasters suffer the most, not only in terms of immediate loss of life, but also in long-lasting economic effects. In some countries, total economic losses exceed 200 percent of GDP—as when Hurricane Maria struck Dominica in 2017.
Our emergency lending facilities are designed to provide speedy assistance to low-income countries hit by disasters. But the IMF also works across various fronts on the adaptation side to help countries address climate-related challenges and be able to price risk and provide incentives for investment, including in new technologies.
We support resilience-building strategies, particularly in highly vulnerable countries to help them prepare for and rebound from disasters. And we contribute to building capacity within governments through training and technical assistance to better manage disaster risks and responses.
We work with other organizations to increase the impact of our climate work. One of our most important partnerships is with the World Bank, in particular on Climate Change Policy Assessments. Together, we take stock of countries’ mitigation and adaption plans, risk management strategies, and financing and point to gaps where those countries need investment, policy changes, or help in building up their capacity to take the necessary action.
Moving forward, we must also be open to stepping in where and when our expertise can help, and there are other areas where we will be gearing up our work. For example, we will be working more closely with central banks, which, as guardians of both financial and price stability, are now adapting regulatory frameworks and practices to address the multifaceted risks posed by climate change.
Many central banks and other regulators are seeking ways to improve climate risk disclosure and classification standards, which will help financial institutions and investors better assess their climate-related exposures—and help regulators better gauge system-wide risks. The IMF is offering support by working with the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System and other standard-setting bodies.
Central banks and regulators should also help banks, insurers, and nonfinancial firms assess their own exposures to climate risk and develop climate-related “stress tests.” Such tests can help identify the likely impact of a severe adverse climate-driven shock on the solvency of financial institutions and the stability of the financial system. The IMF will help push forward efforts around climate change stress testing, including through our own assessments of countries’ financial sectors and economies. Careful calibration of stress testing for climate change will be needed, because such testing requires assessing the effects of shocks or policy actions that may have little historical precedent.
All these efforts will help ensure that more money will flow into low-carbon, climate-resilient investments. The rapid increase of green bonds is a positive trend, but much more is required to secure our future. It is that simple: we all need to intensify our efforts to work together to exchange knowledge and ideas, to formulate and implement policies, and to finance the transition to the new climate economy. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us.