Even if they are ring-fenced it wouldn't be correct to assume that e-tolls should pay of all of SANRAL's bonds. If they have multiple bonds then it should be e-tag collections vs e-tag bonds etc or SANRAL collections vs SANRAL bonds and not e-tag collections vs SANRAL bonds.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which South African brand or product do you wish would make a return?
[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread
- Status
Even if they are ring-fenced it wouldn't be correct to assume that e-tolls should pay of all of SANRAL's bonds. If they have multiple bonds then it should be e-tag collections vs e-tag bonds etc or SANRAL collections vs SANRAL bonds and not e-tag collections vs SANRAL bonds.
lucifir
Expert Member
wonder if scamral are actually counting on the civil disobedience, i.e. people not getting tagged and thus actually not having to cap the charges. Therefore allowing scamral to earn much more than the maximum from the cap??
This will only work if people actually end up paying, which from the sounds of it, people will do, although maybe only after dragging it out a bit.
So, by not getting an etag, could we maybe be playing right into scamral's hands??
Considering that most say they will eventually pay(do not want to fall foul of the law), then are they really making things better?? or worse?? as they actually paying scamral more than they should, thus maybe keeping the company afloat and in the black??
just some food for thought!!
/takes of tinfoil hat
This will only work if people actually end up paying, which from the sounds of it, people will do, although maybe only after dragging it out a bit.
So, by not getting an etag, could we maybe be playing right into scamral's hands??
Considering that most say they will eventually pay(do not want to fall foul of the law), then are they really making things better?? or worse?? as they actually paying scamral more than they should, thus maybe keeping the company afloat and in the black??
just some food for thought!!
/takes of tinfoil hat
blunomore
Honorary Master
Are you doing this with a view to distributing it to the media or to some other champion of the people (whoever that might be), or simply for your own (and our) benefit?
koeksGHT
Dealer
That is a flat-out lie. Their return on assets, return on investments, and debt-to-equity ratios would be all fscked that were the case.
To give you clarity:
Their current tolling revenue is worth R1,9bn per annum.
Their revenue from government grants is worth R8,6bn (it's captured as revenue but is not an operational profit effectively)
Now look at the revenue I posted using just the figures they provided us with - it's quite clear that if they made that statement, they are lying. Now look at my calculations to see what their revenue will look like based on various compliance rates. If they made that statement, they are lying...
0.59% of ALL SA Road users! Not Gauteng residents. I am sure they have based their stats on South African road users to fudge the numbers
R
They're running them as two portfolios and claiming that this isolates them from risk. It doesn't. It's all still reported on the same balance sheet, same income statement, same cash flow at the end of the day. All they've done is use government guarantees to ensure that existing assets were no collateralised in the fund-raising process, which I still have my doubts about.
Looking at their balance sheet and income statement, this project will absolutely ruin their business if they don't implement now! Even though the debt is 56% government guaranteed, defaulting would entail R13,2bn becoming payable immediately, plus the bond pricing differences, and they do not have a solid enough balance sheet to cover that without liquidating positions in all current assets (which they can't), selling all investment-related assets, and having government still fund about R6bn difference. As it is, they were forced to sell about R2bn in assets last year (after announcing results) to cover their cash flow crisis, and they blew through that so quickly that government had to give them another R5,7bn. As it is, it looks like they're fudging their numbers a little with deferred income from the tolling project, at least for the N3 portion. There is not sufficient info in the notes to the income statement for me to delve much deeper than that.
Bottom line - they are in a precarious financial situation, as they cannot afford a default. What is clear from their financials is that they have been forced to liquidate their position in investment assets to cover shortfalls in cash flow. Government then shored up the difference as well, and they cannot continue with that. Evidently they have burned through at least R7bn this year for which they have no return whatsoever. Some of their e-toll bonds also matured this year which is why they needed the cash injection into their business, by the looks of things, just to remain financially solvent.
Now refer back to my income calculations to see how precariously placed their business really is. They effectively need 66% compliance rate at a price point of R255 per month, per vehicle, in order to be able to service their debt...
Last edited:
I'm actually starting to think that they aren't referring to national road users. They would obviously fudge the numbers by using a compliance rate of 100%, so looking at their numbers, they'd derive revenue of around R3,7bn per annum using their breakdown of usage and payment, at an average price-point of R170 per vehicle. This however leaves them paying off their debt in just under 16 years, so they would clearly be looking at government for more cash, or introducing massive increases in the coming years.
If we use the national road figures, it doesn't make any sense. Their revenue jumps to R14bn per annum which is simply not possible. Using Gauteng road users makes sense though...
I created that model when Nazi Ali came out with his projected usage and payment split for road users. I've only really disseminated it here, and I'm glad I did, as I made a glaring mistake in the first iteration. I've now refined it, used disclosed numbers, and used the figures including interest components to give it a fair and accurate reflection. You are more than welcome to send it to whoever you please, if you'd like to...
If 66% of Gauteng road users pay R255 per month, the system will flourish, they will be able to repay their debt, Kapsch will receive their money and the project will be deemed a success, and it will then be implemented in all provinces in the country. If we stand up against it, ensure that less than 66% of people pay, and ensure that we do not pay R255 per month if we do (i.e. delay for as long as possible, object against everything etc) the system will collapse within one year, as their current revenue cannot support the bonds coming to maturity, nor the annual coupon payments.
BTW, currently, they are almost certainly using other revenue to repay e-toll debt. This seems to be the case looking at their financials...
Using their breakdown of payments, or one of my compliance scenarios?
Doing so for them all would take an age.
I might do an annual increase section using their numbers...
Last edited:
Here are Sanral's quoted figures with an annual 20% increase. Expenditure adjusted upwards at 6% projected PPI, and this is assuming a 100% compliance rate...
Seems that this is the perfect increase in order for them to repay their debt and remain solvent, without risking default on their bonds. The true increase is 17.7% year on year increase, but 20% allows for other overhead costs.
So if we're to believe Sanral's claims relating to costs, and their breakdown, we will be subjected to a 20% year on year increase in toll fees every year. This table shows you what you will be paying each year based on which cost bracket you fall under.
Actually this is the kind of thing that should be making its way to the news, as this is all based on data supplied by Sanral themselves. It's just not possible for them to fund the tolls using their numbers, without a 20% year on year increase for 7 years, and without a consistent 100% compliance rate, and 100% 30-day debtors book.
Now let's look at the two more realistic scenarios. If we go with 66% compliance rate, they require a 30.85% year on year increase to the tariffs over 7 years while maintaining a 100% 30-day debtors book (impossible):
And if we all buckle down and abstain, or at least most of us do, and we assume a 33% compliance rate, then they require a 53.91% year on year increase over 7 years with a 100% 30-day debtors book (impossible), plus a R7,2bn cash injection by government over the next two years:
Last edited:
koeksGHT
Dealer
Worse, unauthorised surveillance.
yea, that's a big issue, unauthorized monitoring of movements, and this was even BEFORE it was signed into law, an OVERSEAS company has direct access to our location and movements 24/7
Both.
Using my figures, no increase is necessary as the spreadsheet calculates their optimum price point needed to repay their debt over a pre-determined time-frame. That time-frame being the average maturity date...
Last edited:
Musiclover08
Senior Member
Correct. Does anyone know if Austria has any data laws or surveillance laws? I know that we have some form of surveillance law
- Status