1

Lecture Notes

ECON 437/837: ECONOMIC COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Lecture One

2

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:

An Integrated Approach

The Role of Investment Appraisal

• To stop bad projects – bad policies

• To prevent good projects from being destroyed

• To determine if components of projects are consistent

• To assess the sources and magnitudes of risks

• To determine how to reduce risks and efficiently share risks

3

Questions addressed by an Integrated Investment Appraisal

• Is the project financially viable or fiscally sustainable?

• Does the project contribute to the economic growth of the country?

i.e., positive expected economic NPV?

• Who are beneficiaries of project and by how much?

• Who are the interest groups (stakeholders) who could distort the

investment decision or affect the project’s performance?

• What are the sources and magnitudes of risk?

• What are the risks associated with the benefits accruing to the

stakeholders? Sources of political risks?

• Are poverty alleviation goals being addressed?

• What are the fiscal impacts?

• What is the personality of the project?

4

• Quality of analysis has been shown by the World Bank to be a key determinant of the success of a project’s performance.

• A proper analysis will cause the project to be redesigned so that it is less likely to fail.

• World Bank experience shows that the probability of failure for poorly prepared projects within 3 years of a project’s life is 7 times that of well-prepared projects.

• Poorly prepared projects have 16 times as high a probability of failure within 5 years as compared to well-prepared projects.

Impact of Analysis

5

Incrementality of Projects

• One of the important concepts when defining a project is to measure the impact of the

project’s cash flows and net benefits and costs on an incremental basis.

• We should carefully identify the benefits and costs that are only associated with the

project, and not include any other benefits that would exist “WITHOUT” the project

being undertaken.

• It is normal for the benefits and costs to change over time for the “WITHOUT”

project case.

• The “WITHOUT” project scenario must be properly defined before using it as the

base case from which to measure incremental benefits and costs produced by the

“WITH” project case.

• It is an optimized “WITHOUT” project situation that should be compared with the

“WITH” project situation to calculate the incremental benefits and costs.

• There is another perspective “before the project” versus “after the project” scenarios.

“Before the project” is NOT the appropriate base case from which to measure

incremental benefits and costs.

6

A. Idea and Project Definition

B. Pre-Feasibility Study

C. Feasibility and Financing

D. Detailed Design

E. Project Implementation

F. Ex-Post Evaluation

Project Cycle:Stages in Project Appraisal

7

A. Key Questions at Idea Stage

a. Where is the demand?

b. Is this project consistent with the

organization’s expertise, current plans and

strategy for the future? Can the project be

implemented and operated in a reasonably

efficient matter?

8

Project Definition

• Project definition is defined broadly to include the scope and

specification of the objectives of the project, its output, its

different stakeholders, its economic and social benefits, and

the data requirements.

• Most of the project’s data requirements are identified in the

pre-feasibility and feasibility stages of the project where the

project’s variables and parameters are analyzed in detail.

9

B. Pre-Feasibility Study

• Examines overall potential of project

• Should maintain same quality of information across all variables

• Wherever possible should use secondary information

Key questions:

a. Is this project financially and economically feasible throughout the project’s life?

b. What are the key variables?

c. What are the sources of risk?

d. How can the risk be reduced?

10

C. Feasibility Study

• Focus is on improving accuracy of the key variables

• Alternatives for reducing risk are examined in detail

• Some primary data may be needed

Key questions:a. Is project financially attractive to all interested parties

in activity?b. What is level of uncertainty of key variables?c. How is the project financed?d. Can final decision for approval be taken?

11

Modules of Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies

The data for a pre-feasibility study are generally arranged in what is referred to as “building blocks” because they constitute the foundation for the different types of analyses.

Building Blocks:A. Demand ModuleB. Technical ModuleC. Environmental Assessment ModuleD. Human Resources and Administrative Support ModuleE. Institutional ModuleAnalysis Modules:F. Financial/Budget ModuleG. Economic ModuleH. Social Appraisal or Distributive and Basic Needs Analysis

12

Building Block A: Demand Module

• Study of sources of demand, nature of market, prices and quantities

• Major distinction between domestic versus internationally traded goods and services

• For internationally traded goods, prices are given to the project by world markets

– Secondary information most important

• For domestic market, primary research more important

Output of Module:a. Forecast of quantities and real prices for project lifeb. Taxes, tariffs, subsidies, public regulations, technological

trendsc. Environmental impacts

13

Building Block B: Technical Module

• A study of input requirements for investment and operations and their costs

• In this module, secondary information can be used very effectively

• Need to avoid conflict of interest between supplier of technical information and seller of investment equipment, or contractor for construction

Output of Module:a. Technology and life of projectb. Quantities of inputs by type needed for investment and

operationc. Labor required by type and timed. Input prices and sources of supplye. Environmental impacts

14

Building Block C: Environmental Assessment Module

• Environmental assessment augments information for the economic analysis

• Identification of environmental impacts and risks• Where possible, quantify the environmental impacts

Key Questions:a. What are the likely environmental impacts from undertaking

project?b. What is the cost of reducing the negative impact?c. Are the environmental impacts and risks with and without

technical measures taken to reduce these impacts?d. Are there alternative ways of supplying the good or service of

project without incurring these environmental costs? What are the costs of these alternatives?

15

Building Block D: Human Resources and Administrative Support Module

• What are managerial and labor needs of the project?

• Does organization have the ability to get the managerial skills needed?

• Is timing of project consistent with quantity and quality of management?

• What are wage rates for labor skills required?• Manpower requirements by category are

reconciled with availabilities and project timing.

16

Building Block E: Institutional Module

• This module deals with the adequacy of the institution responsible for managing the different stages or phases of the project.

• Insufficient attention to the institutional aspects creates serious problems during the implementation and operation phases of the project.

Key Questions:a. Is the entity that is supposed to manage the project properly

organized and its management adequately equipped to handle the project?

b. Are the capabilities and facilities being properly utilized?c. Is there a need for changes in the policy and institutional set up

outside this entity? What changes may be needed in policies of the local, regional and central governments?

17

Analysis Module F: Financial Module

What is done:

• Integration of financial and technical variables from demand module, technical module, and management module

• Construct cash flow profile of project

• Identify key variables for doing economic analysis

Key questions:

a. What is relative certainty of financial variables?

b. What are sources and costs of financing?

c. What are minimum cash flow requirements for each of the stakeholders?

d. What can be adjusted to satisfy each of the stakeholders?

18

Analysis Module G: Economic Module

What is done:

• Examines the project using the whole country as the accounting entity

• Evaluation of externalities including environmental

Key questions:

a. What are differences between financial and economic values for a variable?

b. What causes these differences?

c. With what degrees of certainty do we know values of these differences?

d. What is the expected value of economic net benefits?

e. What is the probability of positive economic feasibility?

19

Analysis Module H: Stakeholders and Basic Needs Analysis

What is done:• Identification and quantification of extra-economic impacts of project• Income, cost, and fiscal impacts on various stakeholders• Poverty alleviation and political necessities• Basic Needs: Evaluate the impact of project on achieving basic needs

objectives

– Basic needs will vary from country to countryKey Questions:a. In what ways does project generate beneficial and cost impacts on stakeholders?

b. What stakeholders could the project impact?

c. Who benefit and who pay the costs?

d. What are the basic needs of the society that are relevant in the country?

e. What impact will the project have on basic needs?

f. What alternative ways are there to generate desirable social impacts?

g. Is project relatively cost effective in generation of desirable social impacts?

20

Integrated Projects

• Integrated projects can get very complex and need to be approached

cautiously to avoid costly errors.

• It is possible for the bundled project to be financially and economically

viable even though some of the components are not.

• Dropping the components that generate negative returns will maximize the

project’s benefits.

• Defining and understanding the objectives of the project is particularly

important when analyzing integrated projects.

• Ultimately, the ‘bundle’ that succeeds the most in accomplishing the desired

objectives should be undertaken.

• If the objective of the project is to maximize the wealth of people in country,

then the component or bundle that yields the highest economic NPV should

be undertaken.

21

ECONOMIC VALUE

FINANCIAL VALUE

TAX IMPACT

NET BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS

NET LABOUR BENEFITS

=

+

+

ECONOMIC VALUE

FINANCIAL

VALUE

TAX IMPACT

NET BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS

NET LABOUR BENEFITS

=+

22

General Relationship

NPVECOeco. dr= NPVFIN

eco. dr+ PVEXTeco. dr

- Holds when all benefits and costs are discounted using same discount rate.

23

• Critical in analysis: to evaluate financial outcome of project from the point of view of each interested party

• Conventional analysis considers:a. Point of view of owner

b. Point of view of all investors combined

(Banker’s point of view or total investment point of view)

c. Point of view of economy

Other Perspectives:• Point of view of government budget• Point of view of suppliers of inputs• Point of view of downstream processors• Point of view of competitors

Alternative Points of View

25

Analyses of Investment Decisions from Alternative Points of View

Viewpoint:

Banker (Total Investment)

Owner

Government Budget Office

Country

Financial

(I)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Economic

(II)

No/Yes

No/Yes

No/Yes

Yes

Stakeholder

(III)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Basic Needs

(IV)

No

No

No

Yes

Type of Analysis

Analyses of Investment Decisions from Different ViewpointsNote: Exchange premium=10%; Receipts & Equipment 100% tradable; Tradable Operating cost =100

Year:

Receipts

Operating Cost

Equipment

Operating Subsidy

Taxes

Loan

Interest

Environ. Externality

Opp. Cost of Land

Net Resource Flow

Banker’s (Total

Investment)

(A)Owner

(B)

Country

(C)

Govt. Budget

(D)

0

-1000

-30

-1030

Viewpoints:

1

400

-140

950

50

-100

-30

1130

0

-1000

500

-30

-530

1

400

-140

950

50

-100

-500

-50

-30

580

0

-1100

-30

-1130

1

440

-150

1045

-190

-30

1115

0

-100

-100

1

40

-10

95

-50

100

175

EconomicFinancial Analysis Financial

Summary of Project Decision Criteria

1. Financial NPV

2. Financial IRR

3. Annual DSCRs

4. LLCRs

5. Economic NPV

6. Economic IRR

7. PV of impact on stakeholders

8. Probability of unacceptable outcome

for each of indicators above (risk simulation)

Project Owner’s View

Banker’s View

Country’s View

Distribution Analysis

Risk Analysis

27

28

APPRAISAL OF REGIONAL

AFRICAN SATELLITE PROJECT

RASCOMSTAR-QAF

29

Objectives of Project i) Expand telephone coverage into rural areas of Africa by

providing an alternative way of connectivity to telecom

operators

ii) Interconnect existing public switch telephone networks

(PSTNs) otherwise known as fixed lines

iii) Provide bandwidth lease service (BLS) to internet providers

and TV broadcasters

30

Objectives of Appraisal

1) Does project ensure the least-cost way of expanding telecommunication services in Africa?

2) What is magnitude of financial benefits realized by RSQ and telecom operators?

3) What are cashflow implications for RSQ in terms of servicing its debt obligations?

4) To what extent does this project contribute to African economy?

5) Who are stakeholders and by how much do they benefit, or lose, as a consequence of project?

6) What are risk factors that affect project and how can uncertainty and risk exposure be mitigated?

31

Rural Telephony Service (TES)

BBU

12volts DC

BBU

12volts DC

CapitalCity

PSTN

Internationalgateway

PSTN

PSTN

RT

Village

Village

Village

Other Country

COUNTRY X

City Low capacity gateway

RT

RT

BBU

12volts DC

BBU

12volts DC

BBU

12volts DC

BBU

12volts DC

CapitalCity

PSTN

Internationalgateway

PSTN

PSTN

RT

Village

Village

Village

Other Country

COUNTRY X

City Low capacity gateway

RT

RT

CapitalCity

PSTN

Internationalgateway

PSTN

PSTN

RTRT

Village

Village

Village

Other Country

COUNTRY X

City Low capacity gateway

RTRT

RTRT

▪ Allow African telecom operators to expand their coverage over hard-to-reach rural areas

▪ Telecom operators will deploy terminals in phone booths, tele-centers, private or residential sites in rural areas

32

Regional City gateway 2

PSTN

City x gateway

PSTN

PSTN

Regionalgateway

Terrestrial

Infrastructure

?Regional City

gateway n

PSTN

Gateway

Mission Control Center

Connectivity on-demand (TRS: Trunking Service)

▪ Through satellite, participating African telecoms can link directly with each other, instead of resorting to costly international satellites

▪ In order to participate in the exchange, telecoms need to install gateways that will link their existing telephone networks with that of other countries via the satellite

33

Bandwidth Lease Service (BLS)

GSM BackhaulGSM Backhaul

▪ This service targets TV broadcasters, internet service providers and big corporations with fixed annual subscriptions

▪ Services include trunking, broadcasting, internet services, global system of mobile communication (GSM) backhauling, private or corporate networks and news gathering services

34

Project Cost and Financing

• Total capital cost is estimated at US$ 357 m in 2005 prices

- Space segment (e.g., satellite) and ground segment (e.g., gateway)

• Financing

- Equity: US$ 151 m

- Loans

- LAFB: US$ 85 m, nominal interest rate is 4.68% p.a.

- AfDB, IsDB, EIB, etc.: US$ 126 m, interest rate is 4.68% p.a.

• Timing and Project Life

- Construction of satellite started in June 2003

- Satellite launched in October 2006

- Operation starts in January 2007 for 15 years

35

Project Cost and Financing (cont’d)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 TotalSatellite A 35.9 40.7 27.6 15.6 - 119.8Launcher B - - 2.0 46.0 7.0 55.0Insurance C - - 4.2 38.2 - 42.5Ground control system A 4.6 5.2 3.5 2.0 - 15.3Launch campaign, LEOP, IOT/Scc/ttc (Ariane) A 3.5 4.0 2.7 1.5 - 11.7Ground design D 1.1 3.2 - - - 4.2Ground infrastructure development E - - 10.2 33.0 - 43.2Terminals F - - 20.5 - - 20.5Other ICS and BLS development - - 4.7 1.6 - 6.3Pre operating expenses 12.2 4.4 6.3 3.9 4.8 31.5License fees 3.0 - - - - 3.0Contingencies - - 0.8 2.3 - 3.0Total capital expenditure 60.3 57.5 82.4 144.0 11.8 355.9

36

Key Assumptions

• Decrease in real TES,TRS tariffs per annum at 7.32%

• Decrease in real annual charge for BLS transponders 2.5% per year

• Transponders not used by TES and TRS are sold to BLS subscribers at a discount: capacity of satellite is fully used at all times

• US inflation rate 2.5% (base case)

• Daily traffic per terminal 70 minutes/day in 2007 increases to 74 in 2008 and stays constant thereafter

• No liquidation value for satellite

• Real opportunity cost of equity capital of 15% per year

37

RSQ’s Cash Flow Statement Real, 2005 Prices (US$ million)

ADSCR - - - - - - - - 1.79 2.28 2.48 2.55 2.61 2.66 5.45 - - - - -

LLCR - - - - - - - - 2.76 2.99 3.17 3.38 3.69 4.23 5.54 - - - - -

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022INFLOWTES - - - - 1.9 29.6 57.9 67.8 66.7 62.3 57.7 53.5 49.6 45.9 42.6 39.6 38.6 37.6 36.7 - TRS - - - - 5.3 8.9 16.4 19.8 19.8 19.6 19.5 18.6 17.5 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.0 15.7 15.4 - BLS - - - - 38.2 34.0 28.3 24.9 23.5 22.4 21.4 20.7 20.1 19.4 18.8 18.3 17.7 17.3 16.8 - Change in accounts receivable - - - - -10.5 -6.6 -7.6 -3.2 -0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 15.3Residual value - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0Total Inflow - - - - 34.9 65.8 95.0 109.4 109.6 104.7 99.0 93.2 87.6 82.4 78.0 74.3 72.1 70.4 68.7 20.3OUTFLOWInvestment Costs 63.1 59.2 82.4 140.5 11.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Operating CostsGeneral operating costs - - - - 13.1 12.9 12.9 11.9 10.8 9.7 8.6 7.6 6.6 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.5 - Labor - - 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 - Change in accounts payable - - - - -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5Change in cash balance - - - - 2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7Income tax - - - - 0.0 1.0 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 - Total Outflow 63.1 59.2 85.1 143.2 27.8 16.7 17.4 16.8 15.7 14.5 13.4 12.3 11.3 10.6 10.0 9.5 9.3 9.1 8.9 -0.2NET CASH FLOW BEFORE FINANCING -63.1 -59.2 -85.1 -143.2 7.1 49.1 77.6 92.6 93.9 90.2 85.6 80.9 76.4 71.7 68.0 64.8 62.8 61.3 59.8 20.4Add: Loan disbursement 24.5 52.9 10.4 109.3 14.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less: Loan repayment plus interest 1.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 3.2 2 43.4 40.6 37.9 35.3 32.8 30.4 14.0 13.0 12.0 - - - - - NET CASH FLOW AFTER FINANCING -39.8 -6.4 -74.7 -35.3 18.8 47.4 34.2 51.9 56.0 54.8 52.8 50.5 62.3 58.7 56.0 64.8 62.8 61.3 59.8 20.4

FNPV @ ROE 15% Real: 75.6 US$ millionFIRR: 20.8% Real

38

Telecoms’ Cost and Financing

▪ Telecoms will purchase and install terminals and gateways▪ Total cost of telecoms participation in project is US$ 253 m in

2005 prices ▪ Assumed that telecoms will finance their investment costs by

equity▪ Subscription of terminals is expected at 13,240 by 2007 and

increase to 94,288 by year 2012▪ Telecoms are responsible for maintenance of rural terminals and

gateways▪ Telecoms pay RSQ for airtime on both outgoing and incoming

calls; but they collect revenue only on outgoing calls▪ Telecoms’ real cost of funds (equity) is 15% per year

39

Telecoms’ Cash flow Statement Real, 2005 Prices (US$ million)

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022INFLOWSTES 4.4 68.9 134.7 157.7 155.7 146.3 137.7 129.7 122.3 115.3 111.9 109.2 106.5 103.9 101.4 - TRS 22.2 36.9 68.5 82.6 82.4 81.9 81.2 77.3 73.4 72.9 72.3 71.8 70.6 69.2 67.8 - Change in accounts receivable -6.2 -19.0 -25.5 -14.3 -6.3 -4.4 -4.3 -3.4 -3.2 -3.8 -4.4 -4.4 -4.2 -4.1 -4.0 34.3Residual values - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53.4Total Inflows 20.5 86.8 177.8 226.0 231.9 223.8 214.6 203.6 192.4 184.4 179.9 176.6 173.0 169.1 165.2 87.7OUTFLOWSInvestment Cost 19.9 42.5 111.0 56.1 17.0 3.1 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 - Operating CostAirtime cost 7.2 38.5 74.4 87.6 86.5 81.9 77.2 72.0 67.1 62.5 59.0 55.9 54.6 53.3 52.1 - Operating & maintenance costs 3.0 9.3 25.7 33.5 35.2 34.8 34.2 33.5 32.7 32.0 31.2 30.5 29.8 29.1 28.4 - Labor 1.5 3.7 7.8 9.8 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 - Change in accounts payable -2.7 -9.2 -13.3 -5.9 -1.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 20.3Change in cash balance 1.8 6.0 8.6 3.8 0.7 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -13.2Income tax 4.5 16.1 27.9 31.4 30.2 28.7 27.6 26.0 24.4 23.8 24.0 24.2 23.7 23.2 22.6 - Total Outflows 35.2 106.8 242.1 216.4 178.8 159.0 150.8 142.4 134.8 128.8 124.5 120.8 117.9 115.2 112.6 7.1NET CASH FLOW -14.7 -20.0 -64.3 9.6 53.0 64.8 63.7 61.2 57.7 55.6 55.3 55.7 55.0 53.9 52.6 80.6

FNPV @ ROE 15% Real: 102.4 US$ millionFIRR: 37.3%

40

Key Issues in Economic Analysis

• Economic analysis from point of view of whole African continent

• Economic value for TES rural users is measured by examining the willingness to pay by end users

• Benefits: coping costs decline at 9% p.a. for TES service and 7.32 % p.a. for TRS service; hence net economic benefits decline every year

• Cost savings in TES and TRS are fully passed through to end users by telecoms

• Real economic cost of capital is 11% per year in Africa

• Foreign exchange premium 9% in Africa

41

Economic Resource Flow Statement Real, 2005 Prices (US$ million)

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022BENEFITSTES - - - - 14.9 227.8 439.7 508.2 494.6 456.7 420.1 386.7 356.2 328.2 305.6 285.5 266.9 249.9 234.2 - TRS - - - - 50.3 83.5 155.0 186.8 186.5 185.2 183.7 175.0 165.2 158.8 157.7 156.5 153.9 150.9 147.8 - BLS - - - - 48.4 42.8 36.9 33.4 31.8 30.7 58.9 86.2 112.1 136.7 160.1 182.2 24.4 23.7 23.1 - Change in accounts receivable - - - - -26.2 -55.5 -64.0 -22.3 3.6 9.3 2.3 3.4 3.3 2.2 0.1 -0.2 41.3 4.8 4.5 93.5Residual values - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.8Total Benefits - - - - 87.4 298.6 567.5 706.0 716.5 681.9 665.0 651.3 636.8 626.0 623.5 624.0 486.5 429.3 409.6 148.3COSTS INVESTMENT COSTSRSQ 67.9 63.6 86.8 147.2 12.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Telecoms - - - - 18.8 39.6 104.5 52.8 16.0 2.9 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 - OPERATING COSTSRSQOperating & maintenance costs - - - - 14.8 14.7 14.6 13.3 12.0 10.6 9.3 8.0 7.2 6.6 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 - Labor - - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 - Change in accounts payable - - - - -1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6Change in cash balance - - - - 2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.7Telecoms Operating & maintenance costs - - - - 2.8 8.7 24.2 31.5 33.1 32.7 32.1 31.4 30.7 30.0 29.4 28.7 28.0 27.3 26.7 - Labor - - - - 1.4 3.5 7.3 9.2 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.9 - Change in accounts payable - - - - -0.6 -1.4 -3.6 -1.7 -0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.2Change in cash balance - - - - 1.8 6.0 8.6 3.8 0.7 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -13.2Net benefits flown out ofthe African continent - - - - 3.4 24.7 39.5 47.2 47.9 46.0 43.7 41.4 38.9 36.6 34.7 33.1 32.0 31.2 30.5 - Total Costs 67.9 63.6 89.3 149.8 57.7 98.6 197.9 158.8 121.4 104.3 98.4 93.2 89.0 85.2 82.1 79.3 77.4 75.6 73.9 -7.1NET RESOURCE FLOW -67.9 -63.6 -89.3 -149.8 29.6 200.0 369.7 547.3 595.0 577.6 566.6 558.1 547.8 540.7 541.3 544.7 409.1 353.7 335.6 155.4

ENPV @ EOCK 11% 2,338.3 US$ millionEIRR: 45.8%

Distribution of Project Net Benefits (US$ million in 2005 prices)

• Stakeholders:

- Rural Users: $ 1,387.3 m

- PSTN Users: $ 460.5 m

- BLS Subscribers: $ 212.8 m

- Governments: $ 26.8 m

Total Externalities: $ 2,087.5 m

• Investors other than foreigners: $ 251.9 m

42

43

Sources of Risk• Risk variation in project outcomes because of uncertainty in

key project variables• Main contributors to this variation include:

i) Annual real decrease in tariffs ii) Daily traffic per terminal iii) Deployment of terminals iv) Investment cost over-runs

Nature of Risk• There is a high uncertainty surrounding annual rate of real

tariff reduction. New technologies will cause tariffs to fall faster than expected

• Usage rate of terminals is critical and uncertain• Actual deployment of terminals may be different from the

subscriptions received from telecoms operators• Investment cost may exceed the amount estimated

44

Risk Assumptions

45

Risk Analysis Outcome: FNPV RSQ

▪ Expected value is US$ 46.4 m▪ Probability of FNPV being less than zero is 0.7%▪ Maximum possible loss is US$ 7.7 m, about 1.7% of investment value▪ Maximum possible gain is US$ 94.9 m, about 21.6% of investment value

Frequency Chart

Certainty is 0.67% from -7.69 to 0.00 US$

Mean = 46.41.000

.006

.012

.018

.023

0

58

116

174

232

-7.69 17.95 43.58 69.21 94.85

9,912 Trials

Forecast: Financial NPV (RSQ)

46

Risk Analysis Outcome: FNPV Telecoms

▪ Expected value is US$ 79.3 m▪ Probability of FNPV being less than zero is 0%▪ Minimum possible gain is US$ 23.9 m, about 9.7% of investment value▪ Maximum possible gain is US$ 124.2 m, about 51.5% of investment value

Frequency Chart

US$

Mean = 79.30.000

.006

.012

.018

.024

0

59.75

119.5

179.2

239

23.85 48.95 74.05 99.15 124.24

9,889 Trials

Forecast: Financial NPV (Telecoms)

47

Results of Risk Analysis

RSQNPV

(US$ m)

Annual Debt Service Coverage Ratio Loan Life Cover Ratio

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012

Deterministic Value 75.6 1.79 2.28 2.48 2.55 2.61 2.66 2.76 2.99 3.17 3.38

Rsik Statistics

Mean 46.4 1.55 2.03 2.28 2.43 2.58 2.73 2.60 2.86 3.11 3.40

Standard Deviation 19.1 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.18 0.22 0.27 0.31

Range Minimum -7.7 1.01 1.33 1.31 1.54 1.64 1.75 2.07 2.28 2.18 2.40

Range Maximum 94.9 2.04 2.71 3.32 3.50 3.99 4.50 3.09 3.45 4.24 4.97

Prob. Unacceptable 0.6% 0% 0% 0.1% 0% 0.1% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

48

Risk Mitigation Measures

▪ RSQ can manage cost over-runs by using turn-key contracts

▪ RSQ should get long-term commitment from telecoms and

assist them in deploying terminals quickly

▪ RSQ may be able to negotiate a price floor on TES rates for an

extended period of time (e.g. five years due to large economic

benefits to consumers)

▪ Governments might be approached to give volume guarantee

on TES usage

49

Conclusion

• Financial and economic outcomes indicate that project is a viable project

• The net cash flows seem enough to service its debts to lenders

• Telecoms should be willing to participate in project

• Net impact on stakeholders is positive, indicating project will improve the economic well-being of Africa as a whole

• Great economic impact on rural Africa

• Although project is financially and economically viable, there is risk that project sponsors may not be fully compensated for their investment