Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders
I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are the Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC. Three models seem to have persisted throughout the discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable Management fits in squarely with the Open Access thinking, whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, Private Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The cable becomes an essential service or public good, from where Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a Profit. Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a variant model where the cable is privately owned but promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. They also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers) Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he mentioned that Commercial interest should be let loose to play dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns (profit) in the shortest time possible social connotation notwithstanding. And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The short-terms interests of investors must be balanced against the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex their muscle probably now and more in future when the OFC is laid-out. In all this, the various financing options were not so pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the likely impact of the above models on the existing stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. The efloor is again open and we have two days on this one. walu. Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. ~~~~~000~~~~~~ Theme Reminder: 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Ongoing-Open> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) <Pending> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
On 1/31/07, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days
This might be useful. [Summary of TEAMS financing discussion on www.stock-detective.co.ke] At a recent seminar hosted by the Nairobi Stock Exchange, options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets were comprehensively discussed by various financial experts. It is worthwhile to consider various financing options for the East African Marine System or Teams project, a fiber optic line linking Mombasa to Fujaira, in the context of various options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets discussed at the seminar. A strong case was put forward for funding for infrastructure projects in Kenya through the NSE. Among the experts who made a pitch for the idea were NSE chairman Jimnah Mbaru, NSE CEO Chris Mwebesa, Suntra Investment Bank chairman James Murigu, and IFC Operations Officer for Financial Markets, Ndiritu Muriithi. Infrastructure financing through the capital markets is still in its infancy stages in Kenya. Yet there is a huge opportunity for companies and government agencies to raise money cheaply to build roads and power dams through bonds and shares at the Nairobi Stock Exchange given that the current government development budget stands at around Ksh. 70 billion. The cost of completing the Machakos-Limuru dual carriage section of the Mombasa-Busia highway alone is estimated to cost Ksh. 108 billion. This means that the government has to find alternative sources of funding (other than donor funding) to meet the massive shortfall in funding for infrastructure projects. The government has indicated that it will consider raising money through an IPO to finance the Teams project. It recently signed an MOU with Etisalat of Dubai to implement the Ksh. 5.7 billion project. The government will hold a 40 per cent stake in the project, Etisalat 20 per cent and the remaining 40 per cent will be offered to investors in the East African region. The government has set an ambitious date for the completion of the project by November next year. If the government proceeds with the IPO as indicated, the project is certain to generate considerable interest among investors given the potentially high returns and profits from the link once activated. But the question still begs an answer: why has infrastructure financing through the capital markets been slow to develop in Kenya even with the recent expansion of the stock market? In other words, why haven't institutions like Kenya Airports Authority, Kenya Pipeline, National Housing Corporation, to mention just a few, been issuing to the public? Experts cite bureaucracy and lack of concise policy as the main bottlenecks to infrastructure financing through the domestic capital market. Mr. Muriithi is of the view that although the demand for infrastructure financing is huge, policy questions on issues like the role of the capital market in the process are not fully settled. He added that discussions are still on-going and that technical issues such as the financing structure, type of instruments and so on, were yet to be refined. He further noted that state owned enterprise have to obtain approval from Treasury to borrow money from the capital. Where such approval is not forthcoming especially considering red-tape and other internal bottlenecks, the opportunity to source funds cheaply from the investing public is squandered. Mr. Mbaru gave the example of East African Portland Cement which wanted to raise Ksh 2 billion through the capital markets to extend its line to Western Kenya and Uganda but shelved the plan after it failed to get Treasury approval. Mr. Murigu on his part argued that many SOEs went shopping abroad for financing while they could raise funds for infrastructure projects locally and at a cheaper cost. If the government is to successfully push through an IPO by mid-2007, Treasury approval will then have to come fast. Otherwise, the project could end up in the bog of red-tape as Treasury mandarins dillydally over approval. In seeking to raise financing for the project through the capital market, the government has a variety of options to consider. And critical here will be the manner in which the government structures the deal for investors. Mr. Mwebesa said of the market's ability to absorb infrastructure-backed instruments, that "if properly conceptualized and structured with detailed information on the specific infrastructure project, the capital markets will absorb the same". If the government chooses the IPO way, then it will have to create a special purpose vehicle whose shares it will then offer to the public. According to Mr. Mwebesa once such government-driven SPVs are listed in the NSE, bonds for specific infrastructure projects can then be issued by the SPV. Kenyans can then invest in such bonds through various vehicles such as pension funds, co-operative societies, insurance companies and collective investment schemes (companies or trusts created to mobilize investment funds from individuals). Pension funds are a good way of mobilizing investment in infrastructure bonds since the long-term financing needs of infrastructure projects match the long-term liability profiles of pension/retirement benefit schemes. Infrastructure or asset-backed bonds can provide income for retirees a few years down the line and are thus a viable investment option for pension fund managers. However, the law needs to be changed to facilitate such initiatives. In addition certain policy and tax incentives are needed to boost private sector participation. Mr. Mbaru proposes that income derived by investors from infrastructure-backed instruments be exempted from withholding tax to make them more attractive. He also proposes a 2-3 year grace period before interest payments to investors or alternatively the issue of zero-coupon bonds (bonds issued at a discount to the price and principal and interest paid lump-sum upon maturity) to finance such deals. There is no doubt that the Teams project can be financed through the NSE. It is up to the government to speed up the creation of an SPV as well as Treasury approval and also give investors an attractive value proposition. This is not to mention that public awareness of the viability of the Teams project and its importance to Kenya's ICT sector and the economy as a whole is very vital and a condition precedent to the success of the project. The government may also want to consider a cross-listing of the SPV once put in motion now that integration of the three stock exchanges is well under way.
Will this include the financing of the onward capacity which needs to be bought? Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Kagai To: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:36 Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on theStakeholders On 1/31/07, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days This might be useful. [Summary of TEAMS financing discussion on www.stock-detective.co.ke] At a recent seminar hosted by the Nairobi Stock Exchange, options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets were comprehensively discussed by various financial experts. It is worthwhile to consider various financing options for the East African Marine System or Teams project, a fiber optic line linking Mombasa to Fujaira, in the context of various options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets discussed at the seminar. A strong case was put forward for funding for infrastructure projects in Kenya through the NSE. Among the experts who made a pitch for the idea were NSE chairman Jimnah Mbaru, NSE CEO Chris Mwebesa, Suntra Investment Bank chairman James Murigu, and IFC Operations Officer for Financial Markets, Ndiritu Muriithi. Infrastructure financing through the capital markets is still in its infancy stages in Kenya. Yet there is a huge opportunity for companies and government agencies to raise money cheaply to build roads and power dams through bonds and shares at the Nairobi Stock Exchange given that the current government development budget stands at around Ksh. 70 billion. The cost of completing the Machakos-Limuru dual carriage section of the Mombasa-Busia highway alone is estimated to cost Ksh. 108 billion. This means that the government has to find alternative sources of funding (other than donor funding) to meet the massive shortfall in funding for infrastructure projects. The government has indicated that it will consider raising money through an IPO to finance the Teams project. It recently signed an MOU with Etisalat of Dubai to implement the Ksh. 5.7 billion project. The government will hold a 40 per cent stake in the project, Etisalat 20 per cent and the remaining 40 per cent will be offered to investors in the East African region. The government has set an ambitious date for the completion of the project by November next year. If the government proceeds with the IPO as indicated, the project is certain to generate considerable interest among investors given the potentially high returns and profits from the link once activated. But the question still begs an answer: why has infrastructure financing through the capital markets been slow to develop in Kenya even with the recent expansion of the stock market? In other words, why haven't institutions like Kenya Airports Authority, Kenya Pipeline, National Housing Corporation, to mention just a few, been issuing to the public? Experts cite bureaucracy and lack of concise policy as the main bottlenecks to infrastructure financing through the domestic capital market. Mr. Muriithi is of the view that although the demand for infrastructure financing is huge, policy questions on issues like the role of the capital market in the process are not fully settled. He added that discussions are still on-going and that technical issues such as the financing structure, type of instruments and so on, were yet to be refined. He further noted that state owned enterprise have to obtain approval from Treasury to borrow money from the capital. Where such approval is not forthcoming especially considering red-tape and other internal bottlenecks, the opportunity to source funds cheaply from the investing public is squandered. Mr. Mbaru gave the example of East African Portland Cement which wanted to raise Ksh 2 billion through the capital markets to extend its line to Western Kenya and Uganda but shelved the plan after it failed to get Treasury approval. Mr. Murigu on his part argued that many SOEs went shopping abroad for financing while they could raise funds for infrastructure projects locally and at a cheaper cost. If the government is to successfully push through an IPO by mid-2007, Treasury approval will then have to come fast. Otherwise, the project could end up in the bog of red-tape as Treasury mandarins dillydally over approval. In seeking to raise financing for the project through the capital market, the government has a variety of options to consider. And critical here will be the manner in which the government structures the deal for investors. Mr. Mwebesa said of the market's ability to absorb infrastructure-backed instruments, that "if properly conceptualized and structured with detailed information on the specific infrastructure project, the capital markets will absorb the same". If the government chooses the IPO way, then it will have to create a special purpose vehicle whose shares it will then offer to the public. According to Mr. Mwebesa once such government-driven SPVs are listed in the NSE, bonds for specific infrastructure projects can then be issued by the SPV. Kenyans can then invest in such bonds through various vehicles such as pension funds, co-operative societies, insurance companies and collective investment schemes (companies or trusts created to mobilize investment funds from individuals). Pension funds are a good way of mobilizing investment in infrastructure bonds since the long-term financing needs of infrastructure projects match the long-term liability profiles of pension/retirement benefit schemes. Infrastructure or asset-backed bonds can provide income for retirees a few years down the line and are thus a viable investment option for pension fund managers. However, the law needs to be changed to facilitate such initiatives. In addition certain policy and tax incentives are needed to boost private sector participation. Mr. Mbaru proposes that income derived by investors from infrastructure-backed instruments be exempted from withholding tax to make them more attractive. He also proposes a 2-3 year grace period before interest payments to investors or alternatively the issue of zero-coupon bonds (bonds issued at a discount to the price and principal and interest paid lump-sum upon maturity) to finance such deals. There is no doubt that the Teams project can be financed through the NSE. It is up to the government to speed up the creation of an SPV as well as Treasury approval and also give investors an attractive value proposition. This is not to mention that public awareness of the viability of the Teams project and its importance to Kenya's ICT sector and the economy as a whole is very vital and a condition precedent to the success of the project. The government may also want to consider a cross-listing of the SPV once put in motion now that integration of the three stock exchanges is well under way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke
Public Finance of Telecommunications by Roland H. Alden In an earlier essay on EASSy (the East African Submarine Cable System) I sharply criticized the EASSy consortiums OPEC-like characteristics, and took the position that public money (and government regulation, which is a public resource) should not be used to finance telecommunications monopolies. But while it is easy to find fault with EASSy, and its already-built and dysfunctional sister project in West Africa called SAT3, it is somewhat harder to be clear and precise regarding exactly how these telecommunications projects should be structured. This story gets even hotter @ http://www.ralden.com/C1/EASSy/default.aspx walu. --- Bill Kagai <billkagai@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/31/07, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I
hope
someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days
This might be useful.
[Summary of TEAMS financing discussion on www.stock-detective.co.ke]
At a recent seminar hosted by the Nairobi Stock Exchange, options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets were comprehensively discussed by various financial experts.
It is worthwhile to consider various financing options for the East African Marine System or Teams project, a fiber optic line linking Mombasa to Fujaira, in the context of various options for infrastructure financing through the capital markets discussed at the seminar.
A strong case was put forward for funding for infrastructure projects in Kenya through the NSE. Among the experts who made a pitch for the idea were NSE chairman Jimnah Mbaru, NSE CEO Chris Mwebesa, Suntra Investment Bank chairman James Murigu, and IFC Operations Officer for Financial Markets, Ndiritu Muriithi.
Infrastructure financing through the capital markets is still in its infancy stages in Kenya. Yet there is a huge opportunity for companies and government agencies to raise money cheaply to build roads and power dams through bonds and shares at the Nairobi Stock Exchange given that the current government development budget stands at around Ksh. 70 billion.
The cost of completing the Machakos-Limuru dual carriage section of the Mombasa-Busia highway alone is estimated to cost Ksh. 108 billion. This means that the government has to find alternative sources of funding (other than donor funding) to meet the massive shortfall in funding for infrastructure projects.
The government has indicated that it will consider raising money through an IPO to finance the Teams project. It recently signed an MOU with Etisalat of Dubai to implement the Ksh. 5.7 billion project.
The government will hold a 40 per cent stake in the project, Etisalat 20 per cent and the remaining 40 per cent will be offered to investors in the East African region. The government has set an ambitious date for the completion of the project by November next year.
If the government proceeds with the IPO as indicated, the project is certain to generate considerable interest among investors given the potentially high returns and profits from the link once activated.
But the question still begs an answer: why has infrastructure financing through the capital markets been slow to develop in Kenya even with the recent expansion of the stock market?
In other words, why haven't institutions like Kenya Airports Authority, Kenya Pipeline, National Housing Corporation, to mention just a few, been issuing to the public?
Experts cite bureaucracy and lack of concise policy as the main bottlenecks to infrastructure financing through the domestic capital market.
Mr. Muriithi is of the view that although the demand for infrastructure financing is huge, policy questions on issues like the role of the capital market in the process are not fully settled.
He added that discussions are still on-going and that technical issues such as the financing structure, type of instruments and so on, were yet to be refined.
He further noted that state owned enterprise have to obtain approval from Treasury to borrow money from the capital. Where such approval is not forthcoming especially considering red-tape and other internal bottlenecks, the opportunity to source funds cheaply from the investing public is squandered.
Mr. Mbaru gave the example of East African Portland Cement which wanted to raise Ksh 2 billion through the capital markets to extend its line to Western Kenya and Uganda but shelved the plan after it failed to get Treasury approval.
Mr. Murigu on his part argued that many SOEs went shopping abroad for financing while they could raise funds for infrastructure projects locally and at a cheaper cost.
If the government is to successfully push through an IPO by mid-2007, Treasury approval will then have to come fast. Otherwise, the project could end up in the bog of red-tape as Treasury mandarins dillydally over approval.
In seeking to raise financing for the project through the capital market, the government has a variety of options to consider. And critical here will be the manner in which the government structures the deal for investors.
Mr. Mwebesa said of the market's ability to absorb infrastructure-backed instruments, that "if properly conceptualized and structured with detailed information on the specific infrastructure project, the capital markets will absorb the same".
If the government chooses the IPO way, then it will have to create a special purpose vehicle whose shares it will then offer to the public.
According to Mr. Mwebesa once such government-driven SPVs are listed in the NSE, bonds for specific infrastructure projects can then be issued by the SPV.
Kenyans can then invest in such bonds through various vehicles such as pension funds, co-operative societies, insurance companies and collective investment schemes (companies or trusts created to mobilize investment funds from individuals).
Pension funds are a good way of mobilizing investment in infrastructure bonds since the long-term financing needs of infrastructure projects match the long-term liability profiles of pension/retirement benefit schemes.
Infrastructure or asset-backed bonds can provide income for retirees a few years down the line and are thus a viable investment option for pension fund managers.
However, the law needs to be changed to facilitate such initiatives. In addition certain policy and tax incentives are needed to boost private sector participation.
Mr. Mbaru proposes that income derived by investors from infrastructure-backed instruments be exempted from withholding tax to
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Hey, why the sudden silence? maybe you are all holed up in the PS office witnessing the TEAMs signing ceremony? Anyhow, let me give my view about the post-OFC environment. If we go the Consortium way: *In this situation, the Regulator would have no oversight over the cable. *Prices may remain hihg *Consumers may suffer *Govt/Consortium members would make some good money. If we go the Private Sector way: *No Regultory oversight *Prices may dance according to market dynamics *Consumers may suffer but with a chance of improvements *Private investor would make money *If we go the Open Access way: -it's hard to visualise this, given the resistance this model has continued to attract from most players(Govt, Regulator, etc). Any other predictions? walu. Nway, here is what I t --- John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are the Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC.
Three models seem to have persisted throughout the discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable Management fits in squarely with the Open Access thinking, whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, Private Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The cable becomes an essential service or public good, from where Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a Profit.
Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a variant model where the cable is privately owned but promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. They also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers)
Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he mentioned that Commercial interest should be let loose to play dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns (profit) in the shortest time possible social connotation notwithstanding.
And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The short-terms interests of investors must be balanced against the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex their muscle probably now and more in future when the OFC is laid-out.
In all this, the various financing options were not so pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope someone could make comment on that within the remaining three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the likely impact of the above models on the existing stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. The efloor is again open and we have two days on this one.
walu. Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. ~~~~~000~~~~~~ Theme Reminder: 1) Why OFC (1day) 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans (2days) <Ongoing-Open> 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) <Pending> 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) <Pending>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
participants (3)
-
Bill Kagai -
John Walubengo -
Kai Wulff