InvestMacro

By George Prior 

As global temperatures hit a record high, every investor now has a responsibility to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) investments, says the CEO of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory, asset management and fintech organizations.

The comments from Nigel Green of deVere Group come as it is revealed that Monday was the world’s hottest day on record, exceeding an average of 17 degrees Celsius (62.6 degrees Fahrenheit) for the first time, according to official measurements taken on Tuesday by US meteorologists.

“This is not a milestone we should be celebrating, it’s a death sentence for people and ecosystems,” said Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

The deVere CEO says: “The new record high shines a spotlight on the extreme temperatures engulfing the northern hemisphere this summer, and underscores the lack of global progress on tackling climate change – which is the biggest critical issue of our time.

“Monday, 3 July 2023, the hottest day ever recorded globally, must act as a wake-up call that more must urgently be done to battle the worst effect of human-driven environmental issues.

“As such, I believe that every investor now has a responsibility to consider ESG investments.”

But the enormously positive environmental and social impact you can have with ESG investments is not the only reason why you should consider them as part of your portfolio.

“Numerous studies have demonstrated that companies with strong ESG practices tend to outperform their peers over the long term.

“By incorporating ESG investments, investors have the opportunity to participate in the growth of companies that are well-positioned to navigate risks, capitalise on emerging opportunities, and drive sustainable innovation,” notes Nigel Green.

ESG factors provide valuable insights into a company’s resilience and risk management practices.

He continues: “By considering environmental risks, such as climate change and resource scarcity, social risks related to labor practices and community engagement, and governance risks such as board diversity and transparency, you can better assess the long-term viability of investments and reduce exposure to potential risks.”

The deVere CEO goes on to add: “The global regulatory landscape is evolving. Investors who proactively integrate ESG investments into their portfolios can navigate regulatory changes more effectively and position themselves for future market shifts.

“Plus, as ESG considerations become mainstream, investments in companies with strong ESG profiles are likely to attract more attention from institutional and individual investors.

“All of the reasons and all the evidence suggest that ESG-focused investors can achieve both profitability and positive impact.”

deVere Group practices what it preaches. In 2021, it became one of 18 founding signatories of the UN-backed Net Zero initiative, the international alliance of finance powerhouses that will help accelerate the transition to a net-zero financial system.

As a global organisation, it recognises the transformative potential of ESG investments and is committed to helping investors integrate these strategies into their portfolios.

With a team of experienced professionals and a comprehensive suite of ESG-focused investment solutions, deVere provides clients with tailored advice and cutting-edge research to optimise their financial goals while aligning their investments with their values.

“The hottest day ever recorded globally tells investors now is the time to consider putting your money to work for both profits and positive change. If not now, when?” concludes the deVere Group CEO.

About:

deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of more than 70 offices across the world, over 80,000 clients and $12bn under advisement.

By Dudley L. Poston Jr., Texas A&M University 

Around the world, nations are looking at the prospect of shrinking, aging populations – but none more so than South Korea.

Over the last 60 years, South Korea has undergone the most rapid fertility decline in recorded human history. In 1960, the nation’s total fertility rate – the number of children, on average, that a woman has during her reproductive years – stood at just under six children per woman. In 2022, that figure was 0.78. South Korea is the only country in the world to register a fertility rate of less than one child per woman, although others – Ukraine, China and Spain – are close.

As a demographer who over the past four decades has conducted extensive research on Asian populations, I know that this prolonged and steep decline will have huge impacts on South Korea. It may slow down economic growth, contributing to a shift that will see the country end up less rich and with a smaller population.

Older, poorer, more dependent

Countries need a total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman to replace their population, when the effects of immigration and emigration aren’t considered. And South Korea’s fertility rate has been consistently below that number since 1984, when it dropped to 1.93, from 2.17 the year before.

What makes the South Korean fertility rate decline more astonishing is the relatively short period in which it has occurred.

Back in 1800, the U.S. total fertility rate was well over 6.0. But it took the U.S. around 170 years to consistently drop below the replacement level. Moreover, in the little over 60 years in which South Korea’s fertility rate fell from 6.0 to 0.8, the U.S. saw a more gradual decline from 3.0 to 1.7.

Fertility decline can have a positive effect in certain circumstances, via something demographers refer to as “the demographic dividend.” This dividend refers to accelerated increases in a country’s economy that follow a decline in birth rates and subsequent changes in its age composition that result in more working-age people and fewer dependent young children and elderly people.

And that is what happened in South Korea – a decline in fertility helped convert South Korea from a very poor country to a very rich one.

Behind the economic miracle

South Korea’s fertility decline began in the early 1960s when the government adopted an economic planning program and a population and family planning program.

By that time, South Korea was languishing, having seen its economy and society destroyed by the Korean War of 1950 to 1953. Indeed by the late-1950s, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. In 1961, its annual per capita income was only about US$82.

But dramatic increases in economic growth began in 1962, when the South Korean government introduced a five-year economic development plan.

Crucially, the government also introduced a population planning program in a bid to bring down the nation’s fertility rate. This included a goal of getting 45% of married couples to use contraception – until then, very few Koreans used contraception.

This further contributed to the fertility reduction, as many couples realized that having fewer children would often lead to improvements in family living standards.

Both the economic and family planning programs were instrumental in moving South Korea from one with a high fertility rate to one with a low fertility rate.

As a result, the country’s dependent population – the young and the elderly – grew smaller in relation to its working-age population.

The demographic change kick-started economic growth that continued well into the mid-1990s. Increases in productivity, combined with an increasing labor force and a gradual reduction of unemployment, produced average annual growth rates in gross domestic product of between 6% and 10% for many years.

South Korea today is one of the richest countries
in the world with a per capita income of $35,000.

Losing people every year

Much of this transformation of South Korea from a poor country to a rich country has been due to the demographic dividend realized during the country’s fertility decline. But the demographic dividend only works in the short term. Long-term fertility declines are often disastrous for a nation’s economy.

With an extremely low fertility rate of 0.78, South Korea is losing population each year and experiencing more deaths than births. The once-vibrant nation is on the way to becoming a country with lots of elderly people and fewer workers.

The Korean Statistical Office reported recently that the country lost population in the past three years: It was down by 32,611 people in 2020, 57,118 in 2021 and 123,800 in 2022.

If this trend continues, and if the country doesn’t welcome millions of immigrants, South Korea’s present population of 51 million will drop to under 38 million in the next four or five decades.

And a growing proportion of the society will be over the age of 65.

South Korea’s population aged 65 and over comprised under 7% of the population in 2000. Today, nearly 17% of South Koreans are older people.

The older people population is projected to be 20% of the country by 2025 and could reach an unprecedented and astoundingly high 46% in 2067. South Korea’s working-age population will then be smaller in size than its population of people over the age of 65.

In a bid to avert a demographic nightmare, the South Korean government is providing financial incentives for couples to have children and is boosting the monthly allowance already in place for parents. President Yoon Suk Yeol has also established a new government team to establish policies to increase the birth rate.

But to date, programs to increase the low fertility rate have had little effect. Since 2006, the South Korean government has already spent over $200 billion in programs to increase the birth rate, with virtually no impact.

Opening the trapdoor

The South Korean fertility rate has not increased in the past 16 years. Rather, it has continued to decrease. This is due to what demographers refer to as the “low-fertility trap.” The principle, set forth by demographers in the early 2000s, states that once a country’s fertility rate drops below 1.5 or 1.4, it is difficult – if not impossible – to increase it significantly.

South Korea, along with many other countries – including France, Australia and Russia – have developed policies to encourage fertility rate increases, but with little to no success.

The only real way for South Korea to turn this around would be to rely heavily on immigration.

Migrants are typically young and productive and usually have more children than the native-born population. But South Korea has a very restrictive immigration policy with no path for immigrants to become citizens or permanent residents unless they marry South Koreans.

Indeed, the foreign-born population in 2022 was just over 1.6 million, which is around 3.1% of the population. In contrast, the U.S. has always relied on immigration to bolster its working population, with foreign-born residents now comprising over 14% of the population.

For immigration to offset South Korea’s declining fertility rate, the number of foreign workers would likely need to rise almost tenfold.

Without that, South Korea’s demographic destiny will have the nation continuing to lose population every year and becoming one of the oldest – if not the oldest – country in the world.

About the Author:

Dudley L. Poston Jr., Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Misheck Mutize, University of Cape Town 

The credit rating industry in Africa is dominated by the three international agencies: Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. Together they control an estimated 95% of the credit rating business globally.

Credit rating agencies are institutions that assess a borrower’s creditworthiness in general terms, or with respect to a particular debt or financial obligation. A credit rating can be assigned to any entity that seeks to borrow money – an individual, a corporation, a state or provincial authority, or a sovereign government. Investors use a credit rating to make decisions about risk and return. So the rating is required if an institution wants to raise funds on financial markets.

South Africa was the first African country to receive a sovereign rating, in 1994. To date, 32 African countries have received a sovereign rating from at least one of the “big three” agencies.

But policy makers are increasingly dissatisfied with their approach and methodology. Some of the criticisms are that agencies are quick to downgrade African countries but slow when upgrades are due; that they fail to accurately account for risk perception; that they don’t consult adequately with stakeholders; and that they lack independence and objectivity.

A recent study by the UN showed that subjective biases in credit ratings had cost African countries a combined US$74.5 billion. This was through funding opportunities lost and excess interest paid on public debt.

Conditions are therefore ripe to advance the idea of establishing an African credit rating agency as a partial solution. China has its own state-owned rating agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating Company. The Arab countries are also calling for their own rating agency.

As a lead expert with the African Union on ratings agencies, I can explain the framework this agency would operate in and why it makes business sense.

African Union official decisions

In March 2019, African Union (AU) ministers of finance and economy officially adopted a declaration that such an institution was needed. The AU also developed a proposal for the legal, financial and structural aspects of the rating agency. What’s not yet agreed is how the sustainability, credibility and independence of the agency will be achieved. But there is a way this could be achieved as I set out below.

The need for an African Rating agency has been reiterated by the current Chair of the AU, President Macky Sall of Senegal, and the Champion of the AU financial institutions, President Nana Akufo-Addo of Ghana. They highlighted it as an important step towards intra-continental integration. It would also enable AU member states to access capital and integrate the continent with global financial markets.

Institutional model

When the AU establishes a new institution, it can be either:

• an organ of the union funded by its member states’ contributions, or
• a self-funded autonomous specialised agency of the union.

Because the credit rating business requires credibility and independence, the best option is the specialised agency. Examples already in operation are the African Export-Import Bank and Africa Risk Capacity agency.

As an independent specialised agency of the AU, the agency would have diverse classes of shareholders. African governments could own it either directly or through their designated public institutions. Shareholding could include other smaller African-owned rating agencies, multilateral finance institutions and African national financial institutions.

As a financing structure, the agency would adopt the “issuer-pay” business model. The issuers of debt will pay the agency for rating its entity and products.

It would be fully funded by its shareholders and through loans from pan-African financial institutions. Multilateral development banks would either encourage or make it mandatory for their clients to have a rating from the African rating agency. Once this is done it should be able to sustain itself through revenue generated from its services.

As is the process in the AU, the African rating agency would be established through an agreement, signed by at least 10 member states.

The business case

There are still 22 African countries that have no credit ratings from the “big three” agencies. This will be a clear niche for the AU rating agency.

There is also tremendous value in the alternative rating sector, which cannot afford the cost of maintaining a rating from the “big three”. This includes small to medium enterprises, initial bond offerings and initial public offerings. The agency could also provide environmental, social and governance scores and foreign direct investment ratings. These rating services are urgently needed on the continent to complement governments’ efforts to support the development of domestic financial markets.

With the backing that comes from affiliation to the AU, the rating agency could secure substantial business in the ratings of domestic instruments that are aligned with the continent’s goals.

It would have the advantage of understanding the domestic context of Africa. So it could issue more informative and detailed ratings than those issued by the “big three”.

Way forward

The African Union is forging ahead with its plans to establish an African rating agency to complement the three dominant international agencies, and support the development of domestic financial markets in Africa. Although it will have to overcome challenges to gain investors’ support, there is a huge appetite for an alternative and complementary credit rating institution in Africa. Its success will be in developing a comprehensive methodology adapted to the African context, and resident analysts that understand the continent’s dynamics.

About the Author:

Misheck Mutize, Post Doctoral Researcher, Graduate School of Business (GSB), University of Cape Town

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.