Abstract

Purpose Increased economic activity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has given rise to increased demand for port development. Given the often scarce availability of national public funding, port institutional reform programmes have been implemented to pave the way for the inclusion of external port investors. Notwithstanding this fact, some sub-Saharan African Governments remain institutionally locked into the notion that state-owned enterprises remain an appropriate vehicle for port terminal operations. This, despite the fact that terminal operational concessions globally and within the continent of Africa are increasingly being managed by global terminal operators. Given this context, this study aims to evaluate different port valuation and funding strategies. Two research questions form the core of this research: what is the financial value of a concession? What is the most cost advantageous funding strategy? The methodology is applied to the development of a two-berth container terminal in SSA. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing a range of financial valuation and funding techniques, the study presents valuation and funding model applicability-fit tests. Thereafter, a suitable valuation technique is selected and applied to the case study providing a concession valuation. Different funding strategies are applied to the valuation model to determine the cost implications of each funding instrument given the local context and institutional constraints applicable to SSA. Finally, the study discusses the significance of the results to potential SSA port investors by highlighting the impact of each funding approach on key financial metrics. Findings The study presents a range of financial investment appraisal results for the case study concession in consideration of four specific funding strategies. The highest concession valuation could be attributed to a higher debt ratio as a principal funding strategy. In addition, this funding approach (100% debt) realised the shortest payback period and the highest internal rate of return values. The authors, however, maintain that the optimal funding strategy for a concession depends ultimately on the financial goals of the investor. Originality/value This research makes a contribution to the existing literature on port finance and development by presenting a structured approach to the evaluation of the valuation and funding techniques, which can be used in terminal development subject to the specific local context and institutional constraints (in this case applicable to SSA). The study provides practical insight into the potential cost of the considered terminal concession for private or public sector participants and a view of the most cost advantageous funding strategy available for interested investors.

Highlights

  • Seaports are crucial to the growth of regional economies and international trade

  • This study analysed and evaluated the implications of different funding strategies associated with the case of a hypothetical two-berth port container terminal development in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

  • The results of the study illustrated a range of financial investment appraisal results from the case study concession in consideration of four specific funding strategies

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Governments and market players are involved in a wide range of port expansion and reconversion projects that should secure additional port infrastructure capacity to cope with anticipated growth in port demand. Port infrastructure investments typically bear specific characteristics (Musso et al, 2006). The planning, design and development time of port infrastructure projects take a lot of time (typically 5 to 15 years for large port projects). Port infrastructures often represent sunk costs, i.e. lost whenever the investor decides to withdraw from the market. Port infrastructure profitability is partly indirect as port infrastructures act as economic engines for the development of other activities (positive externalities). They generate negative externalities such as environmental costs

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call