Tag: debt

  • Is India’s UPI (Unified Payments Interface) Technology Worth Selling Overseas and to Western Countries?

    The Unified Payments Interface (UPI) was created by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for purposes of “enabling digital payments and settlement systems in India, is an initiative of RBI and IBA”. As announced in Bloomberg in June 2022, the NPCI is looking to take UPI to overseas markets. This implies that a) the technology has been tested thoroughly and successfully in Indian markets and b) there is currently no real competitor to UPI in overseas markets. At one point, NPCI CEO Ritesh Shukla compared it to a “home-grown alternative to SWIFT”. For those who aren’t familiar, SWIFT is a Belgium-based cross-border payments system operator.

    Has the Product [UPI] been Thoroughly Tested in Indian Markets?

    Based on our research, yes UPI has been tested both rigorously and successfully in Indian markets.

    “We have displaced cash in India to a large extent and are now looking to repeat the success in cross-border corridors. Overseas Indians can use our rails to remit money inwards straightway into their bank accounts, and for the markets where Indians travel frequently, we will build acceptance for our instruments.”
    – NPCI CEO, Ritesh Shukla
    Tweet

    Not only has the technology behind UPI been proven and tested, but the methodology has also succeeded. At least that’s the quantitative claim Shukla’s making. The World Bank data seems to support the analysis too. Indians overseas remitted $87 billion in 2021; the biggest inflow for any country that was tracked by the World Bank.

    Under the RBI’s “Liberalized Remittance Scheme”, all resident individuals (including minors) are allowed to freely remit up to USD $250,000 per year. This is from April-March, for any permissible current or capital account transaction, or a combination of both. Further, resident individuals can avail of the foreign exchange facility, for specific purposes within the limit of USD $250,000 only. The RBI’s “Scheme” was introduced on February 4, 2004, with a limit of USD $25,000 (BusinessDesk, Bloomberg). Since then, the LRS limit has been revised in stages consistent with prevailing macro and micro economic conditions. Notably, the “Scheme” is not available to corporates, partnership firms, HUF, Trusts etc.

    Are there Any Notable Comparisons to India’s UPI Abroad (not factoring in SWIFT)?

    Of the $87 million in remittances India received in 2021, the US was the biggest source (World Bank). According to the World Bank, US remittances to India accounted for over 20% of the $87 million in 2021.

    “Flows to India (the world’s largest recipient of remittances) are expected to reach $87 billion, a gain of 4.6 per cent with the severity of COVID-19 caseloads and deaths during the second quarter (well above the global average) playing a prominent role in drawing altruistic flows (including for the purchase of oxygen tanks) to the country”.
    – World Bank Spokesperson, World Bank Migration and Development Brief, 2022
    Tweet

    In terms of total global remittances, India is followed by China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Egypt (World Bank). In India, remittances are projected to grow 3% in 2022 to $89.6 billion. This is reflective of a drop in overall migrant stock, as a large proportion of returnees from Middle Eastern countries are still awaiting return (World Bank).

    Remittances in low-and-middle-income countries are projected to have grown a strong 7.3% to reach $589 billion in 2021 (World Bank). This “return to growth” is far more robust than earlier estimates. Following the same resilience of flows in 2020, when remittances declined by only 1.7% despite a severe global recession due to COVID-19, according to estimates from the World Bank’s Migration and Development Brief. Lastly, the brief in its entirety can be found here, from the World Bank’s website.

    Outside of evaluating the micro-differences to SWIFT, there are no current notable competitors to India’s UPI we could find. Without any doubt, no possible comparisons would come close in terms of size or scale.

  • Is India’s UPI (Unified Payments Interface) Technology Worth Selling Overseas and to Western Countries?

    The Unified Payments Interface (UPI) was created by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for purposes of “enabling digital payments and settlement systems in India, is an initiative of RBI and IBA”. As announced in Bloomberg in June 2022, the NPCI is looking to take UPI to overseas markets. This implies that a) the technology has been tested thoroughly and successfully in Indian markets and b) there is currently no real competitor to UPI in overseas markets. At one point, NPCI CEO Ritesh Shukla compared it to a “home-grown alternative to SWIFT”. For those who aren’t familiar, SWIFT is a Belgium-based cross-border payments system operator.

    Has the Product [UPI] been Thoroughly Tested in Indian Markets?

    Based on our research, yes UPI has been tested both rigorously and successfully in Indian markets.

    “We have displaced cash in India to a large extent and are now looking to repeat the success in cross-border corridors. Overseas Indians can use our rails to remit money inwards straightway into their bank accounts, and for the markets where Indians travel frequently, we will build acceptance for our instruments.”
    – NPCI CEO, Ritesh Shukla
    Tweet

    Not only has the technology behind UPI been proven and tested, but the methodology has also succeeded. At least that’s the quantitative claim Shukla’s making. The World Bank data seems to support the analysis too. Indians overseas remitted $87 billion in 2021; the biggest inflow for any country that was tracked by the World Bank.

    Under the RBI’s “Liberalized Remittance Scheme”, all resident individuals (including minors) are allowed to freely remit up to USD $250,000 per year. This is from April-March, for any permissible current or capital account transaction, or a combination of both. Further, resident individuals can avail of the foreign exchange facility, for specific purposes within the limit of USD $250,000 only. The RBI’s “Scheme” was introduced on February 4, 2004, with a limit of USD $25,000 (BusinessDesk, Bloomberg). Since then, the LRS limit has been revised in stages consistent with prevailing macro and micro economic conditions. Notably, the “Scheme” is not available to corporates, partnership firms, HUF, Trusts etc.

    Are there Any Notable Comparisons to India’s UPI Abroad (not factoring in SWIFT)?

    Of the $87 million in remittances India received in 2021, the US was the biggest source (World Bank). According to the World Bank, US remittances to India accounted for over 20% of the $87 million in 2021.

    “Flows to India (the world’s largest recipient of remittances) are expected to reach $87 billion, a gain of 4.6 per cent with the severity of COVID-19 caseloads and deaths during the second quarter (well above the global average) playing a prominent role in drawing altruistic flows (including for the purchase of oxygen tanks) to the country”.
    – World Bank Spokesperson, World Bank Migration and Development Brief, 2022
    Tweet

    In terms of total global remittances, India is followed by China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Egypt (World Bank). In India, remittances are projected to grow 3% in 2022 to $89.6 billion. This is reflective of a drop in overall migrant stock, as a large proportion of returnees from Middle Eastern countries are still awaiting return (World Bank).

    Remittances in low-and-middle-income countries are projected to have grown a strong 7.3% to reach $589 billion in 2021 (World Bank). This “return to growth” is far more robust than earlier estimates. Following the same resilience of flows in 2020, when remittances declined by only 1.7% despite a severe global recession due to COVID-19, according to estimates from the World Bank’s Migration and Development Brief. Lastly, the brief in its entirety can be found here, from the World Bank’s website.

    Outside of evaluating the micro-differences to SWIFT, there are no current notable competitors to India’s UPI we could find. Without any doubt, no possible comparisons would come close in terms of size or scale.

  • What is a Private Equity Real Estate Fund?

    In the simplest terms, a real estate private equity fund is a partnership established to raise equity for ongoing real estate investments (Bond, NAIOP). A general partner (GP), most frequently referred to as the “sponsor”, creates the fund. The sponsor asks investors, known as limited partners (LPs), to invest equity in the fund or partnership. Those funds, along with money borrowed from commercial banks, investment banks, public institutions, asset managers, and other lenders, are supposed to be invested in a variety of real estate development or acquisition opportunities.

    Typically, the LPs provide the bulk of the equity capital and are passive investors, who have actively chosen to invest in an offering, which was presented by the sponsor. LPs earn an early return of capital and a preferred return on capital invested (Bond, NAIOP). Sponsors are in charge of providing the equity capital, securing investment opportunities, managing the real estate and the fund, and earning fees (that typically are based on performance).

    A real estate private equity fund differs from capital that comes from friends and family and joint ventures. A differentiating example of a joint venture could be among a landowner, a developer, and a money partner. None could complete the investment without the others, and the joint venture is specific to just one investment. Real estate private equity funds, on the other hand, are created to invest in a series of deals with a standardized risk and reward structure created for the overall fund in which the sponsor and LP participate unequally (Bond, NAIOP).

    What are the Sponsor’s Motivations?

    While there are arguments for a laundry list of motivations, we’ll highlight the general motivating factors for sponsors.

    • Diversify and expand funding sources, as well as holdings

    A sponsor with a pipeline of potential investments can use a fund to take advantage of a portfolio consisting of a variety of deals that would not otherwise be available. The capital-raising strategy should, however, focus on the sponsor’s history, the experience of the team, the potential for returns, alignment of interests and clearly identified opportunities. The most reputable developers with the best track records are able to find investment opportunities in their home markets that are outside their traditional property type focus, opportunities outside their historical geographic focus, or some combination of both (Bond, NAIOPI). A private equity fund has the potential to provide the scale that will allow the sponsor to fully take advantage of these opportunities, thereby generating returns over a much larger capital base and likely even lowering the risk of the firm.

    • Invest in larger and higher quality projects

    A sponsor that has capital constraints can use funds to invest in larger and more complex projects. Conversely, more partners also enable the developer to share the risks with their investors to create a better risk-return balance on large, complex projects that the sponsor would not be able to take on alone.

    • Obtain better terms from banks and other lenders.
    • Provide an alternative to mezzanine capital.
    • Develop projects using fund-level financing in lieu of project-by-project financing.
    • Earn fees from the fund, including a promoted interest. 

    The “Three Key” Considerations to a Private Equity Real Estate Fund

    While an argument could be made for a myriad of factors that are critical to take into account when setting up a private equity fund, three key considerations standout. These are pillars to success in establishing the fund and efficiently raising capital from the limited partners.

    1) Amount of Equity Capital to Raise

    The first consideration is the amount of equity capital that ought to be raised. This should include organizational fees. The minimum private equity fund size is generally considered to be $20 million. While organizational costs are generally proportional to fund size, the floor for organizational fees is about $400,000. While the sponsor recoups these fees from the fund once the capital is raised, the sponsor must carry these costs during the fund’s formation period. Examples of these costs include: formation costs for the legal entity or entities, filing fees, accounting fees, regulatory brokerage costs, clearing costs and the cost of producing marketing documents (Bond, NAIOP).

    While the fund’s equity capital is typically combined with debt capital to create a total pool for investing, a successful fund needs to balance potential deal flow with the fund’s size to ensure that the fund can produce sustainable returns for the LPs, and that it doesn’t become too small, such that a follow-on fund might need to be launched. The timing of flows to and from the fund should also be considered. In general, LPs begin earning a preferred return on their capital as soon as the funds are invested. Therefore, in addition to obtaining a commitment from each LP for the total investment amount, astute sponsors stage the pay-in to match the fund’s anticipated timing of investments.

    2) Realistic Amount of Time, Energy, and Seed Funding Required

    Sponsors must be clear-eyed about the time, energy and seed funding required to launch a fund (Bond, NAIOP). The sponsor is responsible for all aspects of the fund: organizing the fund, which includes generating a partnership agreement, offering and subscription documents; securing investment opportunities; securing loans and other financing; managing the fund; operating the properties; preparing partners’ tax returns; and responding to accounting and audit matters, and this is to name only a few of the highlights. These responsibilities put the sponsor is under a constant, daunting amount of pressure. You may have the financial acumen, but you may not have other traits essential to being a successful sponsor.

    3) Clear Investment Fund Strategy

    It’s imperative for sponsors to have a clear and easily understood investment fund strategy. This differs from the market fundamentals, property type, and location strategies that dominate traditional real estate investing assessments. Though experienced sponsors and the largest funds may be able to raise funds for a “blind pool” – a fund for which no individual investments are identified – first-time sponsors typically must identify specific investments that are included in the fund’s offering memorandum.

    Concisely, there’s a lot of complexity to operating or owning a private equity fund that we didn’t get to. However, our goal was to cover the core basics. What is a private equity fund, how is it set up, and what are the key takeaways? We hope this piece was helpful and educational for those interested in private equity.

  • What is a Private Equity Real Estate Fund?

    In the simplest terms, a real estate private equity fund is a partnership established to raise equity for ongoing real estate investments (Bond, NAIOP). A general partner (GP), most frequently referred to as the “sponsor”, creates the fund. The sponsor asks investors, known as limited partners (LPs), to invest equity in the fund or partnership. Those funds, along with money borrowed from commercial banks, investment banks, public institutions, asset managers, and other lenders, are supposed to be invested in a variety of real estate development or acquisition opportunities.

    Typically, the LPs provide the bulk of the equity capital and are passive investors, who have actively chosen to invest in an offering, which was presented by the sponsor. LPs earn an early return of capital and a preferred return on capital invested (Bond, NAIOP). Sponsors are in charge of providing the equity capital, securing investment opportunities, managing the real estate and the fund, and earning fees (that typically are based on performance).

    A real estate private equity fund differs from capital that comes from friends and family and joint ventures. A differentiating example of a joint venture could be among a landowner, a developer, and a money partner. None could complete the investment without the others, and the joint venture is specific to just one investment. Real estate private equity funds, on the other hand, are created to invest in a series of deals with a standardized risk and reward structure created for the overall fund in which the sponsor and LP participate unequally (Bond, NAIOP).

    What are the Sponsor’s Motivations?

    While there are arguments for a laundry list of motivations, we’ll highlight the general motivating factors for sponsors.

    • Diversify and expand funding sources, as well as holdings

    A sponsor with a pipeline of potential investments can use a fund to take advantage of a portfolio consisting of a variety of deals that would not otherwise be available. The capital-raising strategy should, however, focus on the sponsor’s history, the experience of the team, the potential for returns, alignment of interests and clearly identified opportunities. The most reputable developers with the best track records are able to find investment opportunities in their home markets that are outside their traditional property type focus, opportunities outside their historical geographic focus, or some combination of both (Bond, NAIOPI). A private equity fund has the potential to provide the scale that will allow the sponsor to fully take advantage of these opportunities, thereby generating returns over a much larger capital base and likely even lowering the risk of the firm.

    • Invest in larger and higher quality projects

    A sponsor that has capital constraints can use funds to invest in larger and more complex projects. Conversely, more partners also enable the developer to share the risks with their investors to create a better risk-return balance on large, complex projects that the sponsor would not be able to take on alone.

    • Obtain better terms from banks and other lenders.
    • Provide an alternative to mezzanine capital.
    • Develop projects using fund-level financing in lieu of project-by-project financing.
    • Earn fees from the fund, including a promoted interest. 

    The “Three Key” Considerations to a Private Equity Real Estate Fund

    While an argument could be made for a myriad of factors that are critical to take into account when setting up a private equity fund, three key considerations standout. These are pillars to success in establishing the fund and efficiently raising capital from the limited partners.

    1) Amount of Equity Capital to Raise

    The first consideration is the amount of equity capital that ought to be raised. This should include organizational fees. The minimum private equity fund size is generally considered to be $20 million. While organizational costs are generally proportional to fund size, the floor for organizational fees is about $400,000. While the sponsor recoups these fees from the fund once the capital is raised, the sponsor must carry these costs during the fund’s formation period. Examples of these costs include: formation costs for the legal entity or entities, filing fees, accounting fees, regulatory brokerage costs, clearing costs and the cost of producing marketing documents (Bond, NAIOP).

    While the fund’s equity capital is typically combined with debt capital to create a total pool for investing, a successful fund needs to balance potential deal flow with the fund’s size to ensure that the fund can produce sustainable returns for the LPs, and that it doesn’t become too small, such that a follow-on fund might need to be launched. The timing of flows to and from the fund should also be considered. In general, LPs begin earning a preferred return on their capital as soon as the funds are invested. Therefore, in addition to obtaining a commitment from each LP for the total investment amount, astute sponsors stage the pay-in to match the fund’s anticipated timing of investments.

    2) Realistic Amount of Time, Energy, and Seed Funding Required

    Sponsors must be clear-eyed about the time, energy and seed funding required to launch a fund (Bond, NAIOP). The sponsor is responsible for all aspects of the fund: organizing the fund, which includes generating a partnership agreement, offering and subscription documents; securing investment opportunities; securing loans and other financing; managing the fund; operating the properties; preparing partners’ tax returns; and responding to accounting and audit matters, and this is to name only a few of the highlights. These responsibilities put the sponsor is under a constant, daunting amount of pressure. You may have the financial acumen, but you may not have other traits essential to being a successful sponsor.

    3) Clear Investment Fund Strategy

    It’s imperative for sponsors to have a clear and easily understood investment fund strategy. This differs from the market fundamentals, property type, and location strategies that dominate traditional real estate investing assessments. Though experienced sponsors and the largest funds may be able to raise funds for a “blind pool” – a fund for which no individual investments are identified – first-time sponsors typically must identify specific investments that are included in the fund’s offering memorandum.

    Concisely, there’s a lot of complexity to operating or owning a private equity fund that we didn’t get to. However, our goal was to cover the core basics. What is a private equity fund, how is it set up, and what are the key takeaways? We hope this piece was helpful and educational for those interested in private equity.