• 4 days ago
During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this month, Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) spoke about how the United States can adopt the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation's model to reduce foreign nations' reliance on aid.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript


Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Transcript
00:00I now recognize myself with five minutes of questioning. The DFC certainly has
00:06demonstrated its ability and its effectiveness to use our taxpayer
00:12money very wisely. As noted in my opening statement, in the fiscal year 2023 alone
00:19the DFC's revenue exceeded cost by 341 million dollars and that is the money
00:25returned to our U.S. Treasury. So Mr. Yoho, as you've seen in recent months, we
00:32witnessed a significant shift in the U.S. approach to international development
00:37assistance. So how can the DFC's model of leveraging the private sector to
00:42provide a return on investment serve as a framework for broader U.S. foreign
00:47assistance efforts, particularly in helping countries reduce dependence on
00:53continuing aid? Thank you. I think that's the ultimate goals. We need countries
00:59from aid to trade and move that and the DFC can do that with the tools that they
01:04have but only if they stay focused on what I call the purity of purpose of
01:08what they were designed to do. When we envision this and put this together we
01:11were looking at major infrastructure projects that we could partner up and we
01:15weren't able to do this with OPIC, the predecessor, to partner up with other
01:20DFI's from other countries or to bring in that private equity and what they
01:25needed, they needed to have an investment vehicle that we could come to the table
01:30first with and that's where organizations like MCC or USAID did on
01:36their grant basis. You know I know USAID right now is this terrible image but yet
01:41there was some good that they did and we don't we want to make sure that we don't
01:45lose that because they're often the ones that are on the grounds, the boots on the
01:50ground that invite in that private equity. So I look forward to you guys
01:55fixing this soon and I'm sure you will. So continuing on that I want to talk
01:59about the equity scoring issues and ask the question to you Mr. Mosbacher.
02:06You know in fiscal year 23 the DFC committed 9.3 billion dollars in new
02:12investments. Of that 8.8 billion were direct loans that required only 110
02:19million in appropriations. Meanwhile the 500 million dollars equity investment
02:24required 500 million in appropriations. That treatment of equity
02:30investments which assumes that every dollar of the investment will be lost is
02:35out of step with the private sector. So the DFC needs an equity fix which we all
02:42agree on that would account for this on a net present value basis which evaluates
02:48future probability and investment returns bringing the equity in line with
02:52Congress's original intent. That fully allows the DFC to invest in countries
02:58that advance the U.S. objective in the long run. So could you talk to us about
03:03the you know OPIC never had the ability to make equity investments
03:08right? So can you explain to us why the DFC's ability to make equity investment
03:14is so important and how would this ability have changed your approach to
03:19OPIC? Okay well yes I mean we did not have the authority to do equity
03:29investments and it actually cost us in terms of many deals. Even going in to
03:35private equity funds which OPIC did for years as senior secured debt we were
03:40sort of the skunk at the party because when you exited those funds OPIC
03:46came out first got its principal back plus interest before any of the other
03:50investors got a return and so it was not well received internationally and many
03:55who are our allies did not like to be in funds with us. Today I would say equity
04:02is even more important than it was back then. Equity is so critical particularly
04:06as we look at how we're going to counter China's on some of the competitive deals
04:10in the infrastructure or critical minerals we have to have access to
04:15equity authority that's treated on a net present value basis. The way I've always
04:19explained equity is or the issue of how to account for it from on a net present
04:25value basis say it's a little bit like a hundred dollar loan at the bank. The bank
04:29has a loan loss reserve. That loan loss reserve gives you some sense of what's
04:34the probability that that loans going to default or go go off the ditch. We could
04:40use a small portion of funds as subsidy it's called in this context to cover
04:46loans or cover investments that frankly will probably turn out to be very
04:52productive but the lack of capacity because we have to charge these on a
04:57dollar-for-dollar basis is a huge impediment to our performing at that
05:01level. I just say one more thing when Ted and and the group put the build act
05:06together we thought it would be with a 60 billion dollar contingent maximum
05:12contingent liability we thought up as much as 35 percent of that 60 billion
05:16could be invested in equity. That's in the bill and and so we anticipated it
05:22being a huge piece of our toolkit and clearly it hasn't been so that's been a
05:27wonderful I mean an unfortunate piece of this. Thank you.

Recommended