CC BY
9
воречие между тяготением к однополярнои гегемонии и объективной реальностью получило проявления в текущей международной ситуации, которую можно охарактеризовать как противоречивое сосуществование военно-силовой однополярности с политической многополярностью (в сфере международной легитимизации военно-силовых акций США).
В общем же, обобщая сложившиеся тенденции, можно сделать вывод о том, что в пределах самого геоэкономического пространства будут наблюдаться следующие ускоренные процессы, связанные с компоновкой каркаса глобальных связей:
1) реструктуризация мировой системы, которая в данный момент находится в поиске новой точки равновесия;
2) переход национальных экономик на новую, геоэкономическую парадигму (модель) взаимодействия - не торговую, а воспроизводственную. Основой этой парадигмы являются:
- включение в мировые интернационализированные воспроизводственные ядра (циклы), которые обеспечивают доступ к формированию и перераспределению мирового Дохода;
- оперирование не на мировом рынке, а на геоэкономическом атласе мира (в том числе на национальном геоэкономическом атласе), поскольку транснационализация существенно изменила политическую карту мира, в результате чего появилось новое геоэкономическое поле, на котором национальные экономики реализуют собственные стратегические цели;
- проведение на геоэкономическом атласе активной, наступательной позиции в отличие от выжидательной (конъюнктурной, торговой) тактики и соответствующих мер: использование высоких геоэкономических технологий, векторной стратегии (стратегическое направление формирует соответствующую глобальную конкурентную модель), целенаправленное создание геоэкономических ситуаций, формирование отложенной контрибуции на базе стратегического зачёта взаимных требований и т. д.;
- переход национальных экономик на организационно-управленческие формы и методологический инструментарий принятия стратегических решений, адекватных воспроизводственной модели.
Литература:
1. Адаманова З.О., Кальченко Т.В., Курочкина И.Г. Мировая экономическая система: потенциал раз-; вития и трансформация: монография / 3.0. Адаманова, Т.В. Кальченко, И.Г. Курочкина. - Симферополь : ИП Хотеева Л.В., 2017. - 216 с.
2. Анилионис Г.П., Зотова H.A. Глобальный мир: единый и разделенный. Эволюция теорий глоба-лизаци / Г.П. Анилионис, H.A. Зотова. - М.: Международные отношения, 2005. - 676 с.
3. Глобальна економка: навч.поаб. / [Д.Г. Лук'я-ненко, A.M. ПоручникД.В. Кальченко, Н.М. Рябець, 1.В.Тимк1вта ¡н]за заг. ред. д.е.н., проф. Лук'яненка.
- КиТв: КНЕУ, 2017,- 164 с.
4. Кальченко Т.В. Глобальна економка: навчаль-ний поабник/ Т.В.Кальченко. - К. : КНЕУ, 2009. -364 с.
5. Неклесса А. И. Эпилог истории / А.И. Неклесса // Восток. - № 5. - 1998. - С. 5-30.
О си о си
ь-
0. <
=г со
сдмт С
S
21
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ПРОБЛЕМ ОЦЕНКИ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ИНФРА СТРУКТУРНЫХ ПРОЕКТОВ НА ОСНОВЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННО-ЧАСТНОГО ПАРТНЕРСТВА
Алабед Алкадер Наиеф Мохамад, аспирант, кафедра Финансового менеджмента, Российский экономический университет имени Г.В. Плеханова, Москва
В статье исследуются проблемы оценки инфраструктурных проектов в зависимости от возможностей, предоставляемых руководителям, и принимаемых ими решений. Применение реальных опционов в инфраструктурных проектах на основе государственно-частного партнерства рассматривается в этой статье как способ оценки инвестиционных решений на основе метода дисконтированных денежных потоков и чистой приведенной стоимости.
Ключевые слова: реальные опционы; чистая приведенная стоимость; государственно-частное партнерство; инфраструктурные проекты; денежный поток.
ANAL YSIS OF THE PROBLEMS OF ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ON THE BASE OF PUBLIC PRIVA ТЕ PARTNERSHIP
This article discusses the problem of evaluating infrastructure projects according to an administrative decision and according to the options and job opportunities available for the managers in the infrastructure projects. The applications of real options in infrastructure projects on the base of public-private partnership will be
УДК 338 ВАК РФ 08.00.05
©Alabed Alkader NaiefMohamad, 2020
discussed in this article as a way of evaluating the investment decisions based on the discounted cash flow analysis and net present value in infrastructure projects. Keywords: real options; net present value; public-private partnership; infrastructure projects; cash flow.
5C >
<
LU
S
u
LU 3-
s X o
X
o
CO
22
A LA BED A Ikader Naief Mohamad, Postgraduate student, Department of Financial Management, Russian Economics University named after G. V. Plekhanov, Moscow
According to the big role of infrastructure in economic stability and the growing demand for infrastructure services, evaluating and analyzing the effectiveness of infrastructure projects based on public-private partnerships (PPP) has got big importance in recent years [3].
Researchers in many countries analyzed the effectiveness of infrastructure projects in different sectors and gave conclusions about if it was worthy to invest in the projects or not.Teplova (2017), Lokasevich (2015) analyzed the financial effectiveness of infrastructure projects on the base of private-public partnership, and described three methods to measure the financial effectiveness, also they mentioned that the relevant indicators used in world practice for evaluating the effectiveness of projects are:
- debt Service Cover Ratio, (DSCR);
- loan repayment coverage ratio for the loan term (Loan Life Coverage Ratio, LLCR);
- debt repayment coverage ratio for the duration of the project (Project Life Coverage Ratio, PLCR) [6].
Yescombe (2016) proposed three ways to evaluate the social economic effectiveness:
- monetary value;
- discounted cash flows;
- indicators of economic efficiency
Rui (2015), Renda (2016), analyzed the budget effectiveness and declared that the budgetary effectiveness of infrastructure projects is assessed by comparing the amount of state support for the project and tax revenues to the budget system of the Russian Federation.
In spite of the importance of methods used above in evaluating the infrastructure projects, but the infrastructure projects need another method to evaluate the effectiveness in case of changing the circumstances and the conditions of the infrastructure projects.
The efficiency of infrastructure projects can be improved throughout the use of additional tools, one of these tools is a real option.
Real options are considered as an alternative way of evaluating investment decisions, based on the traditional DCF analysis, they affect on the scope of investment decision making, and their main feature is that they allow the project to show managerial flexibility, which under certain conditions can provide positive impact on the project [5]. For example, there is the opportunity to change the project implementation strategy in the event of a financial crisis and postpone it for a certain period, when the investment climate in the country normalizes, and the conditions for the implementation of the project would become more successful [9].
To make decision management need to evaluate the effect of using a real option at one time or another. If the real option does not give an increment in the cost of the project, then its use is considered inappropriate [10]. To identify the conditions in which the use of real options will be appropriate, we will specify its positive and negative effects on one infrastructure project [2].
Let us assume that we have an infrastructure project with two scenarios:
- optimistic - assumes a moderately high demand;
- pessimistic - suggests low demand or lack of demand.
Project cash flows for both scenarios are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - The cash flow of the project
Scenarios cash flow, in thousand rubles in years
0 1 2 3 4
Optimistic -5206 2078 3233 3556 5533
Pessimistic -5206 88 456 669 703
Source: Compiled by the author.
Assume that the probabilities of both scenarios are equal and the cost of capital equals 20% annually. To assess the project we use the NPV.
The initial investment in the project is I = 5 206 thousand rubles.
Acclording to the data above, the value of the project as in the first year will be equal to: 1 - according to the optimistic scenario:
3233 3556 5533 PV0 = 2078. + --—+ ——- + -
(1.2)2 (1.2}a
2 - according to pessimistic scenario:
The expected value of the business:
Po, Pp: the probabilities of optimistic and pessimistic scenarios.
E (11 = ((0,5 x 10 443,58 + 0,5 x 1 339,41 ))/l .2 =
=4909,58.
The net present value NPV: NPV= E(V)- Initial investment
NPV= 4 909,58 - 5 206 = -296,42
A decision tree for this project will be (Fig. 1):
year E(V) NPV
0 4 909,58 -296.42
1 optimistic scenario 10443.58 pessimistic scenario 1339.41
This means that the project is not acceptable, since the value of NPV is negative, and it should be rejected.
In the classical project evaluation according to the NPV (Net PresentValue) the economic value of the project is considered, that is, the present value of cash flows which should be received in the future is calculated [5].
However, this approach does not allow taking into account the prospects for further growth, and therefore, in this context, it is advisable to talk not about the economic value of the project, but also about the strategic value of the business. According to this approach we are not only interested about the cash flows that are related to the project, but also about the possibilities of obtaining benefits from strategic perspectives, which increases the value of theJ project. For example, sometimes it is more valuable to leave the project if the risks are high and the project can be potentially unprofitable. In this case, we can use the option to insure and hedge ourselves against expected losses in the future [1].
In our example of the transport sector in infrastructure projects on the base of public-private partnership, we will use real options and the additional opportunities for improving the project efficiency.
The first option is used if the project suffers losses and high risks, such option can add value to the infrastructure project and reduce potential losses.
Let us assume that according to some environmental circumstances like the weather and other factors, the productivity of infrastructure project decreases, and cash flows are reduced by 20%, and to repair the road and repay back it to its normal situation we need additional investment (82 thousand rubles).
According to the new circumstances, the effectiveness of the project will change as follows.
According to the facts that reducing cash flow in the first year is illogical, and using the pessimistic method, the value of the business will equal:
O cu o cu
I—
Q-<
IT CO
m i
23
Figure 1 -The decision tree with NPV = - 296.42 thousand rubles
Source: compiled by the author.
PVp = 88 + (1339,41 - 88) x (1 --0,2)-82= 1 007,12. Thousand
- 88thousand rubles: income in the first year;
- (1339.41 - 88): the value of cash flows in years (2,3,4), it reduced by 20%;
- 82 thousand rubles: additional cash flows.
Since the result is 1 007.12 thousand rubles lowerthan 1 339.41 thousand rubles, the business reduction is not profitable. A reduction option could be valuable if, in a pessimistic scenario, the cash flows of the project would be negative (for example, the value would be equal to - 1,339.41 thousand rubles), then, investors could reduce their losses.
Suppose that the cash flows of the project would be the same but negative. Then the decision treeforthe project would lookasfollows (Fig. 2):
Figure 2 - Negative cash flow decision tree in the pessimistic scenario
Source: compiled by the author.
The value of a reduced business would be:
PVp = - 88 + (-133 9.41 - (-88)) x (1 - 0.2) - 82 = = -1 171.13 thousand rubles.
Since -1 171.13 thousand rubles less than -1,339.41, it would be better to reduce the business, although in this case, the benefit from the reduction would be small.
Another pessimistic scenario supposes that the public and private sectors agreed to sell the infrastructure project to another company and thus eliminate the project. Suppose that the price which is paid by another company is 1,500 thousand rubles. Below is presented how the estimated effect of the project will change.
If the project will be implemented according to an optimistic scenario, then exit from the project is illogical. If the project is implemented according to a pessimistic scenario, then a cash flow of 88 thousand rubles from the first year will be received and the residual value of 1,500 thousand rubles, so the total amount received will be 1,588 thousand rubles.Therefore, liquidate the business will be more profitable (1588> 1339.41).
The decision tree with the exit option for the project will be (Fig. 3):
Figure 3 - Project value tree with exit option
Source: compiled by the author.
The net benefit of leaving the business will be:
C = NPV with option — NPV without option C = -192,84 - (-296,42) = 103,58 thousands
Despite the fact that the ability to exit the business will increase the net value of the project, but the project is still not profitable.
The cash flows of the project taking into account the exit option will be (Tab. 2).
In an optimistic scenario and additional investment in the infrastructure project on the base of PPPs 1 225 thousand, the value of the assets will be equal to:
2078+ (10 443,58-2 078) x(l +0,2)-
-1225 = 10891,69
Where 2 078 thousand rubles: cash flow in the first year of the project.
Since 10 891.69 > 10 443.58 thousand rubles, it is more profitable to increase the value of the business by making additional investments.
The decision treeforthe infrastructure project will be (Fig. 4).
The value of the business according to the previous developed options is:
C = NPV with option — NPV without option =-6,13-(-192,84)= 186,71.
Net present value is close to zero, but still negative, that means the project is still not profitable.
Suppose that if the project developed according to the optimistic scenario, it is planned to place more equipment. We assume that the possibility of acquiring equipment during the year will continue, so additional investments at the end of the first year will amountto (5,206+ 1,225) = 6,431 thousand rubles.
The NPV of the new project in this case will be:
NPV2= 10891.69/(1 +0.2)-6431 = 9076.41 -- 6 431 , = 2 645.40 thousand rubles.
Where 10 891.69: the expected value of the assets at the end of the first year, corresponding to the result of the optimistic scenario (Fig. 4).
2 645,4 thousand rubles. > 0, that is, under the optimistic scenario, project 1, project 2 is also beneficial.
According to what mentioned above:
1 - if a pessimistic scenario is implemented under project 1, it will be closed after the first year of the implementation. The value of the project, in this case, will be 1 588 thousand rub.
year E(V)
0 4552.09
1 optimistic scenario 10443.58 pessimistic scenario -1339.41
year E(V) NPV
0 5013.16
1 Optimistic scenario pessimistic scenario -192.84
10443.58 1588
2 - if an optimistic scenario is implemented under project 1, value assets will be equal to 10 891.69 thousand rubles. In addition, project 2 will begin, and its NPV = 2 645,40 thousand rubles. In the first year, it will be added to the value of project 1:
10 891.69 + 2 645.40 = 13 537.1 thousand rubles.
Table 2 - Project cash flows in case of exit option
Scenarios cash flow, in thousand rubles in years
0 1 2 3 4
Optimistic 5206 2078 3233 3556 5533
Pessimistic -5206 1588
Source: compiled by the author
Figure 4- Project value tree with an option to increase the capacity
Source: compiled by the author.
Taking into account the possibility of project 2, the decision tree of Project 1, will be (Fig. 5):
Figure 5 - Project 1 value tree, taking into account the ability to apply project 2
Source: compiled by the author.
From what mentioned above we can conclude the following:
There is a possibility to get the positive present value for the infrastructure project if we know how to choose the convenient and right option, to evaluate the business we use the following formula
C = NPV with option — NPV without option = 1096,13-(-6,13) = 1 102,26
In summary, we can say; the traditional methods that we can use to evaluate the effectiveness of infrastructure projects are different and useful. But besides these methods and to make the investment decision more accurate, we can use the real options [4]. If we measure the effectiveness of the infrastructure
year E(V) NPV
0 5199.87
1 Optimistic scenario pessimistic scenario -6.13
10891.69 1588
year E(V) NPV
0 6302.13
1 Optimistic scenario pessimistic scenario 1096.13
13537.10 1588
project according to the traditional methods and found that this effectiveness is low, the real options can make us change our decision according to the circumstances and job opportunities available in order to geta profitable and more convenient option.
References:
I. Anfimova, M.C. Systemic approach for assessment of projects based on public-private partnership //
Business In law. Publishing House Leg. 2014. №2. P. 42-43.
2. Graham, D. Value ForMoney in PPP Procurement. NSW Treasury [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/3Z 45038620.pdf; Allan Consulting,
'Performance of PPPs and Traditional Procurement in Australia'(2015).
3. Gykova, N.C. Arrangement the governmental activities on the base of public-private partnership. St. Petersburg, 2012. :
4. Renda A., Schrefler I. Public-Private Partnerships: Models and Trends in
the European Union. - [s.l] The European Parliament, 2016. № I P/A/l MCO/SC/2016-161.
5. Rui Sousa Monteiro, 'Public-private partnerships: some lessons from Portugal', EIB Papers, vol.10, No.2 (European Investment Bank, Luxemburg, 2015).
6. Yescombe, E.R. Public-Private Partnerships: Principles of Policy and Finance // Butterworth Heinemann/Elsevier, Oxford, UK 2016. 369 p. 7.Yongjian, K., Xinping, L., Shouqing, W., Equitable Financial Evaluation Method for Public-Private Partnership Projects //Tsinghua Science and
Technology, Volume 13, №5, Oct. 2008, pp.702-707.
8. Анфимова M.K. Совершенствование финансового механизма государственно-частного партнерства : дис.... к.э.н. - М., 201 б. - С. 126-128.
9. Восканян P.O. Реальный опцион как инструмент оценки стоимости инновационной компании // Креативная экономика. - 2013. - № 12 (84).-С. 12-21.
10. Восканян P.O. Прогнозирование стоимости инновационной компании с использованием реального опциона в условиях нестабильного развития экономики // Финансовый бизнес. - 2015. -№5 (178).-С.38-42.
II. Литвяков С.С. Государственно-частное партнерство в финансировании транспортной инфраструктуры в российской федерации // Диссертация на соискание ученой степени к.э.н. 08.00.10. -М„ 2014.-С. 127-129.
12. Барьеры развития механизма ГЧП в России. -М.: Экспертный институт, 2010. - 32 с.
13. Гордиенко М.С. Структурирование элементов интеллектуального капитала. // Маркетинг МВА. Маркетинговое управление предприятием. - 2015. - Т. 6. - № 4.-С. 93-100.
О си о си
I—
Q-<
=г со
сдмт С
s
25
