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.
Comments