The more historically grounded interpretation is that financial capital is responding first to improving macroeconomic conditions, while productive capital is still moving through the longer and more complex process that necessarily precedes major investment commitments.
Introduction
|
|
The unsigned commentary under review presents itself as a forensic examination of Nigeria’s recent capital-importation figures. Its central thesis is that because a substantial proportion of recent inflows entered treasury bills and other money-market instruments, rather than factories and industrial enterprises, the inflows should not be interpreted as evidence of confidence in Nigeria’s economy. Instead, they are characterised as speculative, transient and symptomatic of deeper economic weakness.
The argument is forcefully stated. Unfortunately, it rests upon a misunderstanding of how capital typically returns to economies emerging from periods of macroeconomic instability and undertaking major policy adjustment.
|
|
|
|---|
The Nature of Portfolio Capital and Foreign Direct Investment
The first weakness in the argument lies in its treatment of foreign portfolio investment as if it were an inferior and economically insignificant form of capital. Economic history provides little support for such a view.
In virtually every major emerging-market recovery of the last four decades, portfolio capital arrived before substantial foreign direct investment. This was true in India following the reforms of the early 1990s, in Indonesia after the Asian Financial Crisis, and in Egypt following exchange-rate liberalisation in 2016.
Portfolio investment and foreign direct investment are fundamentally different economic decisions with entirely different time horizons. A portfolio investor can assess macroeconomic conditions and allocate capital within days or weeks. By contrast, before a multinational corporation commits hundreds of millions of dollars to a manufacturing facility, energy project, logistics hub or processing plant, it must undertake feasibility studies, engineering assessments, environmental reviews, legal due diligence, tax planning, land acquisition, financing arrangements, board approvals and often shareholder consultations. Such processes frequently require years, rather than months.
Financial capital, therefore, responds more quickly to improving economic conditions than productive capital. To cite current FDI levels as proof that reforms have failed is to evaluate a long-gestation process before it has had sufficient time to mature.
Interests Rates, Risk and Investor Behaviour
The article repeatedly suggests that foreign investors are purchasing Nigerian securities merely because yields are high. Such reasoning confuses nominal returns with real returns and overlooks one of the most elementary principles of international finance.
Investors do not allocate capital solely on the basis of the interest rate printed on a treasury bill. They evaluate expected returns after accounting for inflation, exchange rate risk, sovereign risk, liquidity risk and political risk. A 25 per cent yield is of little value if investors simultaneously expect a substantially larger currency depreciation.
If portfolio capital is economically irrelevant, it becomes difficult to explain why its disappearance produced such profound consequences for reserves, exchange rate stability, current account financing and overall macroeconomic confidence. The reality is that portfolio flows constitute an important component of modern international finance and their presence or absence carries significant implications for economic performance.
The willingness of investors to acquire and hold naira-denominated assets therefore reflects a judgement that the balance between risk and return has improved relative to previous periods.
The Lessons of 2015–2016
The characterisation of portfolio flows as merely ‘hot money’ neglects an important chapter in Nigeria’s own recent history.
Between 2015 and 2016, foreign portfolio inflows declined sharply as investors became increasingly concerned about exchange rate policy, foreign exchange liquidity and macroeconomic uncertainty. The consequences were immediate and significant. Foreign exchange liquidity tightened, pressure on the exchange rate intensified, divergence between official and parallel market rates widened, inflationary pressures increased and economic growth slowed.
If portfolio capital is economically irrelevant, it becomes difficult to explain why its disappearance produced such profound consequences for reserves, exchange rate stability, current account financing and overall macroeconomic confidence. The reality is that portfolio flows constitute an important component of modern international finance and their presence or absence carries significant implications for economic performance.
Monetarist and Keynesian Perspectives
Both monetarist and Keynesian traditions would recognise the significance of capital flows, albeit for different reasons.
From a monetarist perspective, capital inflows contribute to the supply of foreign exchange available within the economy, support monetary stability, and help moderate imported inflation by reducing pressure on the exchange rate.
From a Keynesian perspective, investor confidence is itself an important economic variable. Financial conditions influence expectations, expectations influence investment decisions and investment decisions influence growth. Confidence in financial markets and confidence in the real economy are distinct concepts, but they are not unrelated.
The relevant question is whether Nigeria can sustain reform long enough, deepen macroeconomic stability sufficiently and strengthen the investment climate consistently enough for today’s financial inflows to become tomorrow’s factories, infrastructure projects, technology transfers, export platforms and employment opportunities.
The Return of Confidence Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
The return of capital did not occur spontaneously. For years, investors identified exchange rate distortions, foreign exchange market fragmentation, subsidy-related fiscal pressures and uncertainty regarding policy direction as major impediments to investment.
The reforms undertaken under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR — including exchange rate liberalisation, fuel subsidy removal, tighter monetary policy and efforts to restore transparency in foreign exchange markets — addressed many of these concerns directly. These were difficult decisions with significant short-term costs. Yet they also signalled a willingness to confront structural distortions that had accumulated over many years.
The recent increase in capital inflows should, therefore, be understood within the broader context of macroeconomic adjustment and the gradual restoration of investor confidence.
Conclusion
None of this implies that Nigeria should be satisfied with the current levels of foreign direct investment. On the contrary, attracting larger volumes of long-term productive capital remains one of the country’s most important economic objectives. Stronger infrastructure, improved security, regulatory consistency, efficient logistics and sustained policy credibility remain indispensable to that effort.
However, it does not follow that the return of portfolio capital should be interpreted as evidence of failure. The more historically grounded interpretation is that financial capital is responding first to improving macroeconomic conditions, while productive capital is still moving through the longer and more complex process that necessarily precedes major investment commitments.
The relevant question is whether Nigeria can sustain reform long enough, deepen macroeconomic stability sufficiently and strengthen the investment climate consistently enough for today’s financial inflows to become tomorrow’s factories, infrastructure projects, technology transfers, export platforms and employment opportunities.
That is the test by which the success of the reforms should ultimately be judged, and it is the test that economic history suggests should be applied.
Tanimu Yakubu is the director-general of the Budget Office of the Federation.
