Samurais, Jihadists, and Masters of the Universe
Earlier this month, Macquarie Group Limited (ASX:MQG), announced record profits on higher fees earned from deal making and strong equities trading. Macquarie is the leading investment bank in Australia and has intrigued me for quite some time because of its strength in the infrastructure industry. The megatrend of globalization means that infrastructure will play an increasingly important part of a global investment portfolio. Macquarie has carved itself a valuable niche as the leading investment bank for infrastructure assets and is consistently found all over the world making direct investments or facilitating investments on behalf of clients. The company also has a presence in America with its Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust (MIC).In a related note, a consortium consisting of Abertis (MCE:ABE) and Citigroup (C) won a bidding war to take over a 75 year lease on Pennsylvania’s turnpike. The cost to take over the state’s main toll road? A cool $12.8 billion. This is one of the biggest privatizations of infrastructure in United States history.
These recent events highlight the lucrative nature of infrastructure investments and the persistent and controversial trend of foreign companies and sovereign wealth funds acquiring huge infrastructure assets in the United States. The political environment grows increasingly hostile as national and local politicians, including the presidential candidates, look to explain Americans’ economic struggles with a cornucopia of reasons including free trade agreements like NAFTA, a “corrupt sitting president,” and globalization generally.
This issue of foreign investment in public infrastructure has been on my radar since late 2006. Below is an essay I wrote for an investment newsletter published in January 2007 distributed to high net worth clients.
Public Infrastructure Sales: Samurais, Jihadists, and Masters of the Universe
“The Japanese are coming!” Remember when modern-day Paul Reveres shouted this refrain in the 1980s? Honda (HMC), and Toyota (TM) earnestly began their conquest of the American driver and, resultantly, Detroit’s mammoth metal benders. Would-be samurais from a nation of diminutive conformists threatened our towering sense of American exceptionalism by snatching up national treasures from our private sector like Pebble Beach, Columbia Pictures, Universal Studios, and Rockefeller Center. Although the apocalyptic visions of Japanese dominance and American indentureship have faded, the “buying of America” continues today.
Only now, the purchasers hail from different shores and their acquisition targets are of a more public flavor. In January 2006, a plan to privatize the Indiana Toll Road came to fruition when the State of Indiana entered into an agreement with Cintra (a Spanish construction firm) and Macquarie Bank (an Australian bank). The Spanish-Australian partnership paid the Indiana State Government $3.85 billion for a 75-year lease to operate and maintain the toll road. The same consortium recently entered into a $1.83 billion lease to operate the Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge. As these foreign entities begin to exact payments from beleaguered commuters, resistance to foreign ownership of public infrastructure grows.
Free trade and free markets be damned. Early this year, public sentiment derailed the proposed Dubai Ports World acquisition of U.S. ports facilities in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami. In a cacophonic display of bipartisan zealousness, Republican and Democratic members of Congress questioned the wisdom of selling strategic infrastructure assets to not only a foreign country, but one which two members of the 9/11 hijackers called home. The overall tone could be summed up by the mordant one-sentence letter Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) sent to President Bush that read, “Dear Mr. President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO – but HELL NO!”
Being neither knee-jerk nationalists nor adherents to Ricardian economic orthodoxy, the editors of this publication acknowledge the merits of both the free market argument and the argument for excluding strategic infrastructure from the free market. One of the tenets of free trade asserts that private industry is more efficient at delivering services than government, and experience has confirmed that theory. But, when does that precious efficiency bump up against national sovereignty and security? Pragmatic protectionists should point out that ports and roads are different species in the genus of public infrastructure; that roads are strategic but ports are more strategic.
Do we as a nation make distinctions between domestic private players and foreign entities? How do we respond to foreign companies that are not entirely private, being controlled by foreign governments? In the case of Dubai Ports World, the United Arab Emirates government owns a stake in the port operator. How do our reactions at home affect the ability of our own private companies to venture abroad and invest in and own foreign assets?
Through all this brouhaha, the editors of this publication see an opportunity for the many domestic leveraged buyout firms within our own borders. With over $175 billion raised in 2006 alone, the industry is flush with liquidity. At the risk of sounding cliché, we echo the industry’s mantra that there is “too much capital chasing too few deals.” With all the largest funds finding themselves in highly contested auction environments for companies suitable for buyouts, even the most sanguine investors admit that future returns will lag past performance. Public infrastructure as an asset class represents a potential opportunity to deploy some of that excess liquidity and to diversify LBO or private equity portfolios.Some questions beg consideration. This asset class will no doubt offer lower returns than traditional private equity investments; does the stability of returns compensate for that shortfall? What are the reasonable exit opportunities? What consequences might arise from shifting concepts of private and public property? How can the public be safeguarded from the specter of crony capitalism?
Questions notwithstanding, infrastructure investments with their super-stable revenue and profit streams offer the possibility of smoothing out the volatility of returns in portfolios otherwise dependent on the ever shifting environment for initial public offerings, mergers, and acquisitions. The promise of stable returns is causing some financial masters-of-the-universe to contemplate establishing investment pools to capture this opportunity. Goldman Sachs (GS), the Carlyle Group and other top institutions are all rumored to be pitching this idea to limited investors. We’re quite sure that hedge funds will want to get into this game too.We suspect there might even be an inefficiency here for domestic buyout firms to exploit. Public sentiment against encroachment by foreign firms might allow for lowball bids by domestic buyout firms. This compromise between public and private could placate the citizenry. The Golden Gate Bridge anyone?
Sep 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
[...] Morgan has agreed to sell a piece of itself to Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MTU), in a move reminiscent of the Japanese shopping spree of the 1980s. In the panicked rush to shore up our faltering financial system and institutions, have we given [...]