Europe Can Use Local Currency Bonds to Sustain Economic Ties with Iran

For over a year, European governments have been struggling to determine how they can create a financing facility for projects in Iran. Access to external finance was a major expectation of the sanctions relief promised in return for Iran’s implementation of the JCPOA nuclear deal. With the full return of US sanctions just weeks away, the prospect that Europe will be able to contribute to Iranian economic development through project finance is growing slim.

The European Investment Bank has rejected calls to invest in Iran citing its reliance on global institutional investors, many of them American, to raise capital. A mooted European Monetary Fund, which would source its investment capital from European central banks, is still just a policy idea. Member-state financing vehicles, such as Italy’s Invitalia and France’s Bpifrance have proven unable to engage Iran, despite encouragement from government leaders.

But what if it is a mistake to focus on “external” finance? What if rather than try to source capital from outside of Iran to finance projects within the country, Europe sought to make use of the wealth already within Iran?

One underreported effect of Iran’s currency crisis has been the rapid expansion of liquidity in the market. Iranians are scrambling to convert their devaluing rials into safe-haven assets such as dollar and euro banknotes, gold, property, and even cars. But this scramble, which has seen Iranians draw down their vulnerable rial savings, has led to a rapid expansion in liquidity, which is itself creating inflationary pressure. The Central Bank of Iran is even considering raising interest rates in an effort to reabsorb some of over USD 350 billion floating around the economy.  

Perhaps surprisingly, as the currency crisis has unfolded, the Tehran Stock Exchange has hit historic highs. Iranians investors—particularly those whose wealth exceeds that which can be reasonably protected through the purchase of property and gold coins—are increasingly seeing securities and other forms of equity investment as a way to hedge against devaluation. The only problem is that this kind of reinvigorated investment is unlikely to help Iran avoid a recession, particularly in the non-oil sector. Investments on the Tehran Stock Exchange does not lead to the efficient and smart fixed capital formation the country needs to achieve real growth.

The demonstrable hunger for investment opportunities resulting from inflation fears and rising liquidity presents a valuable opportunity. In other emerging markets, such investor demand has been successfully use to source the capital necessary for impactful development projects. The best example can be seen in the financing methods of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

EBRD was established in 1991 to support the liberalization of the Eastern Bloc economies after the fall of the USSR. Just a few years after its launch, EBRD began to tap local investors as a source for its project financing by borrowing and lending in local currencies. EBRD issued its first local currency loan in 1994, denominated in the Hungarian forint. Since then, the bank has issued 722 loans across 26 currencies valued at EUR 12.4 billion.

Local currency financing has been made possible through the issuance of local currency bonds. These bond offerings are issued under local laws and regulations, but are backed by the creditworthiness of ERBD and the steady strength of the Euro. Such “local currency Eurobonds” can be particularly useful to offer domestic investors a hedge against inflation.

In November 2016, EBRD issued a “pioneering” EUR 92 million “inflation-linked Eurobond” in the local currency of Kazakhstan. The bonds have a five-year maturity and “pay a coupon of 3-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate plus 10 basis points per annum.” EBRD is also seeking to have the security listed on the Kazakhstan Stock Exchange to make the bond even more accessible to local investors.

When the note was launched, Philip Brown, managing director at Citi Global Markets Limited, which managed the issuance, commented on the “demand for inflation protection from the increasingly sophisticated investor base in Kazakhstan. This trade highlights the useful role the EBRD can play in helping local investors meet their needs and in doing so, develop new markets.” While the likes of Citibank would not be managing such a bond issuance in Iran for obvious reasons, it is easy to see how Iran’s own sophisticated investor class would see a rial Eurobond as an attractive asset to guard against rising inflation.

A local currency bond offering would help Europe and Iran achieve several goals. First, European governments would finally be able to source and deploy the the billions of euros in financing that had been promised to Iran in various credit lines, only to be stymied by the hesitance of European banks to facilitate the underlying transactions in the project finance. Second, it would empower European governments to more directly influence regulatory reform in Iran’s banking and finance sector—a role EBRD has actively and successfully played in the markets in which it has investment since its inception. Third, the new bond would help the Central Bank of Iran reign-in excess liquidity in the market in a manner that is likely to create the greatest long-term value for the economy at large. Fourth, the establishment of a European-Iranian development bank would be a powerful political signal at a time when support for the JCPOA is wavering.

Like European Investment Bank, EBRD is too exposed to the United States in order to pursue projects in Iran itself—the US is a 10 percent shareholder of the bank. In order to pursue local currency financing, European governments would need to establish a new state-owned development bank in order to issue the rial-denominated Eurobonds.

Unlike EBRD and for reasons related to sanctions risks, this should be done through the creation of an Iran-registered financial institution owned by European governments, which would enlist the support of local investment banks and brokerages to bring the bond to market. This European-owned and Iranian-registered development bank would raise capital locally and invest locally, reducing the needs to engage in international transactions that are complicated by the returning sanctions. Conceptually, such an institution would be a kind of inverse of the Hamburg-based EIH Bank, but with a development finance rather than trade finance focus.

The creditworthiness of the new bank would be assured based on a sovereign guarantee for the bank and its liabilities from the European shareholders. The fact that the ownership of the bank will not overlap with its country of operation also limits risk. For similar reasons, no multilateral development bank worldwide has had to resort to its callable capital to date.

The envisaged bank would face several challenges including a lack of robust monetary policy in Iran, a relative lack of transparency within capital markets, and high domestic interest rates which could undercut the attractiveness of the bond offering. It would also need to conduct know-your-customer due diligence above and beyond that conducted by Iran’s own brokerages. But the myriad challenges in Iran are probably no greater than those faced in countries such as Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine where European financial actors have been able to successfully structure the credit facilities.

Encouragingly, the bond market in Iran has matured considerably over the last few years, and local companies and government agencies have developed capabilities in structuring debt instruments with the help of local investment banks and in compliance with the rules of Islamic finance. In the seven years since Islamic sukuk bonds were first introduced to the market, around USD 4 billion in debt has been issued.

Today, Iran’s leading companies regularly raise financing on the order of USD 100 million through individual bond offerings. A local currency Eurobond, which would be used to finance the transformative projects that had been envisioned for post-sanctions Iran, would easily raise amounts on this order. To bring this idea to fruition, European governments would simply need to combine a proven capacity for financial innovation and the commitments of their central banks, two contributions that cannot be sanctioned by the United States.

Photo Credit: Depositphotos

Iran Starved of Investor Capital Needed to Fuel Extensive Privatizations

Iran’s long but troubled drive for privatization received a boost earlier this month. Morteza Lotfi, the recently appointed head of Iran’s Social Securities Investment Company (SHASTA), the country’s largest pension provider, announced that SHASTA would list the remaining 25% of its subsidiary companies not currently on the Tehran Stock Exchange. The move was intended to make the companies “more competitive and their financial status more transparent.”

A few weeks later, Lofti made a further announcement that SHASTA plans to sell its stake in 130 companies in a two stage process. An initial tranche of 40 companies has reportedly been prepared for this divestment. Taken together, the two announcements suggest a renewed push for privatization, taking enterprises out of the limbo of SHASTA’s quasi-state ownership in which they have largely languished.

While the market value of the proposed privatization was not given, SHASTA is known to have around 200 subsidiary companies and its holdings are cumulatively valued at USD 9 billion. On this basis, the 130 companies poised for sale could therefore have an estimated value of around USD 5.5 billion, with the caveat that the companies to be offloaded are likely the underperforming firms, with lower valuations than the portfolio average. Nonetheless, in terms of the number of companies and their likely market value, SHASTA’s move would be another historic step in Iran’s economic liberalization.

But there are reasons to doubt that SHASTA’s push for privatization will proceed as planned. SHASTA’s own holdings are a legacy of previous failures in Iran’s faltering drive to reduce state control of the economy. SHASTA’s portfolio of assets expanded most rapidly beginning 10 years ago, when privatization efforts overseen by the Ahmadinejad administration fell short in the face of political pressure, economic unpreparedness, and general mismanagement.

In the course of privatizations in this period, a staggeringly small percentage of the formerly state-owned assets actually passed into the true private sector. As Kevan Harris writes, citing a 2010 parliamentary commission report, “Out of seventy billion USD worth of assets of SOEs divested since 2006 only 13.5 percent of the shares had gone to the private sector.” The vast majority of assets were transferred to the control of "parastatals" and cooperatives such as SHASTA. Critics saw this privatization as merely a “relocation” of state-ownership.

Today, the political barriers to the proposed asset sale remain strong. SHASTA is the investment arm of the Social Securities Organization, which provides healthcare entitlements and pensions benefits for a large proportion of Iran’s middle and working-class members of the labor force. SHASTA’s financial returns are intended to cover the costs of these welfare benefits, and are therefore highly politicized. As Harris explains, “Pensioners  would  hardly  accept  a  selloff  of  SHASTA’s  investment  portfolio  to  the private  sector  without  major  guarantees  of  future  entitlements  by  the  state.” The Rouhani administration has committed to reducing entitlements, but given that SHASTA provides a pension to nearly 40% of the Iranian population, any major change to its portfolio could be a flash-point for opposition.

Aside from the political barriers, SHASTA’s bold plan faces another major obstacle. Iran’s equities markets are insufficiently capitalized to facilitate the sale of the 130 companies at sufficiently high prices.The current market capitalization of the Tehran Stock Exchange is about USD 100 billion. Relative to the overall size of the market, a USD 5 billion divestment by SHASTA, already the market’s single largest shareholder, would be difficult to absorb by other investors, particularly investors outside the circle of bonyads and other quasi-state holding companies.

Some within Iran’s financial sector see Lotfi’s announcements as an empty gesture. As relayed by one financial executive in Tehran, who preferred to remain anonymous, “We are used to these kind of gestures from high new management of SHASTA. They need the money and everyone knows it. But they don’t have the guts to push the button when it’s time.”

The Rouhani administration is well aware of this structural barrier to privatization, and has hoped that in the course of the post-sanctions economic rebound, new injections of capital by foreign investors would boost privatization prospects by alleviating the liquidity problem. Recent developments such as the partnership between Italy’s Azimut and Iran’s Mofid Entekhab bode well for the role of foreign institutional asset managers in the TSE, but there remains a long way to go before Iran can witness the foreign capital fueled privatizations that helped rapidly liberalize the BRIC economies. While the overall number of foreign investors trading on the TSE rose following the lifting of international sanctions and although foreigner trading value has doubled in the last year, this progress is measured from a very low base. 

By comparison, around 60% of shares on the Borsa Istanbul are owned by foreign investors. Acknowledging the important role foreign investors will need to play to see through the off-selling, Lotfi disclosed, “Talks are underway with the Turkish government for dual listing of some of [SHASTA’s] subsidiaries on Borsa Istanbul, which would be a positive step toward attracting foreign investment.”

SHASTA's intended move reflects the precise kind of privatization efforts that Western economic policymakers have long advocated in liberalizing markets. But unlike in other liberalization scenarios, Iran's economic actors find themselves hamstrung by structural challenges that few in the international community seem keen to address. As SHASTA looks to right the wrongs of past privatization efforts, a more concerted effort should be made to support inflows of foreign investment. If success in privatization is to be achieved this time around, Iran's equity market investors will need foreign investors to help carry the burden and unlock the opportunity.