[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
OUTA RESPONSE TO BILLBOARD ADVERTS

OUTA is not behind the erection of billboards which state: ‘eTolls, Proudly brought to you by the ANC’.

When asked for comment on these billboards, Wayne Duvenage the Chairman of OUTA remarked “OUTA does not have funds to pay for such advertising and it is not for OUTA to enter into the political arena. It does however bring a thought provoking angle to a highly emotive matter of which there is no doubt that eTolling is and will remain a political issue”.

Duvenage adds, “during the court hearings, the matter of OUTA’s case as seeking the ‘courts to usurp the executive powers of an elected government’ has been mentioned on several occasions. We now have an election looming and eTolling is a matter that was forced through the parliamentary process by one political party only, being the ANC. Every other political party voted against the signing of the Transport and Related Matters Amendment Bill. So I guess the billboards are relatively factual, although, personally speaking, I’m not so sure the ANC are proud of what they are doing here and think a more apt line would be: e-Tolls, forcibly brought to you by the ANC”.
- See more at: http://www.outa.co.za/site/outa-response-to-billboard-adverts/#sthash.iDbz4YU1.dpuf
 
OrbitalDawn said:
DJ... Have you sent that to media outlets? I'm sure a few might be interested... Or OUTA, even? Who knows, maybe it corroborates some of their own findings?
Click to expand...

No, because the calculations are dirty. The terminology would change, because on net profit they'd have made repayments already, so I'd have to factor that into a proper net profit calculation which is a nightmare, and nigh on impossible considering that they refuse to disclose their projected financials.

That doesn't make the calculation wrong though - it simply changes the terminology and would probably leave me with about a 15% margin of error in my calculation. Effectively what I'm looking at there is their ability to repay their debt, but some of the terminology isn't correct enough for actual publication. And again, I go back to net profit - interest component is repaid and debt remains on the balance sheet, but how that looks I don't know. Also their bond issuances mature on different dates, but I've lumped them into the 2020 maturity period, which is still perfectly reasonable for a rough calculation.

It's tricky, but effectively my calculations are what it boils down to. The terminology might change, and the numbers might move a few percent here or there, but we're looking in the region of R1800 per month, per vehicle, for every registered road vehicle in Gauteng, simply for Sanral to repay their debt and operate on a 10% margin, allowing them to actually maintain the road and reinvest in the GFIP.

Now realistically, not all registered vehicles will use the e-tolls. Some are also exempt. So if we assume that 75% of registered vehicles use the roads, and Sanral operate on a 10% bad debt stat, then we're looking at 2 million cars paying etolls. On that basis, each vehicle will need to pay R2690.00 per month just for Sanral to repay their debt and operate in a precariously dangerous liquidity state. Now should people object or query en-mass, delaying their repayment, their liquidity will render them insolvent and they will default on their debt.

R2690!

That's a far cry from their R100 number.

It is just not possible...
 
Last edited:
DJ... said:
No, because the calculations are dirty. The terminology would change, because on net profit they'd have made repayments already, so I'd have to factor that into a proper net profit calculation which is a nightmare, and nigh on impossible considering that they refuse to disclose their projected financials.

That doesn't make the calculation wrong though - it simply changes the terminology and would probably leave me with about a 15% margin of error in my calculation. Effectively what I'm looking at there is their ability to repay their debt, but some of the terminology isn't correct enough for actual publication. And again, I go back to net profit - interest component is repaid and debt remains on the balance sheet, but how that looks I don't know. Also their bond issuances mature on different dates, but I've lumped them into the 2020 maturity period, which is still perfectly reasonable for a rough calculation.

It's tricky, but effectively my calculations are what it boils down to. The terminology might change, and the numbers might move a few percent here or there, but we're looking in the region of R1800 per month, per vehicle, for every registered road vehicle in Gauteng, simply for Sanral to repay their debt and operate on a 10% margin, allowing them to actually maintain the road and reinvest in the GFIP.

Now realistically, not all registered vehicles will use the e-tolls. Some are also exempt. So if we assume that 75% of registered vehicles use the roads, and Sanral operate on a 10% bad debt stat, then we're looking at 2 million cars paying etolls. On that basis, each vehicle will need to pay R2690.00 per month just for Sanral to repay their debt and operate in a precariously liquid state.

R2690!

That's a far cry from their R100 number.

It is just not possible...
Click to expand...

Hmm, okay. But it's not like a press release or anything. Just to get them interested in this angle, perhaps? Someone like Moneyweb might then do their own calculations that corroborate what you've done and run a story, for example.

I think this could be a particularly useful angle, as SANRAL and the Government have been emphasising how little the average user will have to pay and how it's not going to be that big of an impact on consumers etc.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Hmm, okay. But it's not like a press release or anything. Just to get them interested in this angle, perhaps? Someone like Moneyweb might then do their own calculations that corroborate what you've done and run a story, for example.

I think this could be a particularly useful angle, as SANRAL and the Government have been emphasising how little the average user will have to pay and how it's not going to be that big of an impact on consumers etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah they were vomiting out this angle this on morning live today about how 80% will only pay R100PM and only 1% will actually get to the threshold IF you have actually bought an E-tag.
 
The sheer amount of people commuting from pta to jhb makes just 1% of the cars going under the gantries? These are the ones who would likely hit the threshold

YEAH FKING RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ANC spokesman khoza just stated on enews that the billboards are unethical.

ANC true colors coming out. Truth is unethical.
 
ANC to approach IEC over anti-etolls billboards

http://ewn.co.za/2013/10/05/ANC-to-approach-IEC-over-anti-etolls-billboards

JOHANNESBURG - The ANC will approach the Independent Electoral Committee (IEC) regarding anonymous billboards erected along Gauteng highways reading "etolls proudly brought to you by the ANC.”

The party claims the billboards are flouting electoral laws ahead of the 2014 general poll.

No one has yet taken responsibility for the latest anti-etolls campaign....
Click to expand...
 
I find it amusing that the ANC is so indignant at the e-toll billboards.

It was ultimately the ANC who took the decision to toll the N1.

The clowns at SANRAL keep telling us how the e-tolls are the greatest thing since sliced bread, how we're all going to save so much time every day commuting to work, how the N1 is going to be so much safer, etc.

So why are the ANC so upset that they are being credited with the implementation of the e-tolls?
 
Humberto said:
I find it amusing that the ANC is so indignant at the e-toll billboards.

It was ultimately the ANC who took the decision to toll the N1.

The clowns at SANRAL keep telling us how the e-tolls are the greatest thing since sliced bread, how we're all going to save so much time every day commuting to work, how the N1 is going to be so much safer, etc.

So why are the ANC so upset that they are being credited with the implementation of the e-tolls?
Click to expand...

Because liars hate having their true nature exposed.
 
ANC spokesperson Khuselwa Sangoni-Khawe says they are still investigating who is responsible for the billboards saying they paint the ruling party in a negative light ahead of the 2014 elections.
Click to expand...

Typical cANCer party mentality: blaming an anonymous erection for painting the cANCer party in a negative light instead of blaming the cANCer party itself that produced this etrolling turd that no sane voter actually wants.
 
Toll road green light clears Sanral wreck

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-south-africa/toll-road-green-light-clears-sanral-wreck

The road agency can access bond markets again.

South African President Jacob Zuma’s approval of toll highways in Johannesburg after a two-year delay is giving the state-owned road agency a fresh opportunity to access bond markets.

Zuma authorized the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd.’s electronic toll project in Gauteng, the nation’s most- populous province, on Sept. 25. Yields on the company’s November 2018 rand notes have declined 3 basis points to 8.12 percent since July 25, compared with a 26 basis point drop in the JP Morgan Chase & Co CEMBI Infrastructure Sector Index.

The bill could allow Sanral to tap the market for the first time since a failed debt auction in October 2011, when investors began to grow wary of delays to the e-toll. The project was due to start in June of the same year. Debt financing is always part of Sanral’s strategy, the company’s spokesman’s Vusi Mona said in an e-mailed response to questions yesterday.

“This news will make the bonds more palatable for investors, for existing or any new issuance,” Bronwyn Blood, who helps oversee the equivalent of $1.8 billion at Cape Town- based Cadiz Asset Management, said in a phone interview yesterday. “There is more certainty now that the e-tolling bill has been signed into law.”

...
Click to expand...
 
Cool. The government can go flush their employees' pensions down the drain again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X