natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For this reason, we use as a benchmark the values proposed by the Spanish authorities, namely Dt =8651 (last period cash flow) and g = 2,553 % (the inflation rate).
Zato kot merilo uporabljamo vrednosti, ki so jih navedli španski organi, in sicer Dt = 8651 (denarni tok zadnjega obdobja) in g = 2,553 % (stopnja inflacije).
However, we apply our estimated discount rate of 14,91 %.
Kljub temu uporabljamo svojo ocenjeno diskontno stopnjo 14,91 %.
On the basis of these parameter values, the project yields a negative net present value of- NPV = – 131,65 mil.
Na podlagi vrednosti teh parametrov ima projekt negativno čisto sedanjo vrednost NPV = –131,65 milijonov
DCF
Diskontirani denarni tok (DCF)
Comments on the last submission (25 March)
Pripombe k zadnji vlogi (25. marca)
The 25 March submission lacks methodological rigour and makes some central claims that are at best unsubstantiated.
Sporočilu z dne 25. marca manjka metodološke natančnosti, nekatere osrednje trditve pa niso najbolj utemeljene.
It states that:
Pravi, da:
‘To quantify this return and above all the risk premium that a private investor would require from a project, different models are used, the most common of which is the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). For example, if this model is applied to the case in hand, a private investor ‘would require’ a risk premium, not a return, of 3,75 % in 2000 and 2,07 % in 2004.’
„Za količinsko opredelitev tega donosa in zlasti premije za tveganje, ki bi jo od projekta zahteval zasebni vlagatelj, so uporabljeni različni modeli, najobičajnejši pa je model določanja cen dolgoročnih naložb (CAPM). Če bi na primer ta model uporabili v obravnavanem primeru, bi zasebni vlagatelj ‚zahteval‘ premijo za tveganje, ne donosa, v višini 3,75 % leta 2000 in 2,07 % leta 2004,“
and further presents the following table:
in v nadaljevanju predstavlja naslednjo preglednico:
In other words, the submission claims that CDL’s Beta is ß = 0,395.
V sporočilu je torej navedeno, da količnik beta CDL znaša ß = 0,395.
This is an unsubstantiated conjecture that is not backed up with any hard and verifiable data.
Ta domneva je neutemeljena ter ni podprta z nobenimi zanesljivimi in preverljivimi podatki.
In addition, it is hard to reconcile it with common sense.
Poleg tega se težko sklada z zdravo pametjo.
Below, we provide direct quotes from Brealey and Myers, the central reference in LECG’s submission.
Spodaj navajamo neposredne navedbe Brealey in Myers, osrednje reference v sporočilu LECG.
‘…beta measures how sensitive a security is to market movements. Stocks with betas greater than 1,0 tend to amplify the overall movements of the market. Stocks with beta between 0 and 1,0 tend to move in the same direction as the market, but not as far. Of course, the market is the ‘portfolio of all stocks’, so the ‘average’ stock has a beta of 1,0.’ (Chapter Seven, pg. 174).
„… količnik beta meri občutljivost vrednostnega papirja na gibanja na trgu. Vrednostni papirji s količniki beta, večjimi od 1,0, povečujejo splošna gibanja na trgu. Vrednostni papirji s količniki beta od 0 do 1,0 se gibljejo s trgom, vendar ne sežejo enako daleč. Trg je seveda ‚portfelj vseh vrednostnih papirjev‘, zato ima ‚povprečni vrednostni papir‘ beto 1,0“ (poglavje sedem, str. 174).
In other words, higher-beta stocks mean greater volatility and are therefore riskier.
Vrednostni papirji z višjimi količniki beta pomenijo torej večjo volatilnost in so bolj tvegani.
Investment in CDL is at least as risky as investment in its established competitors whose betas are substantially above 1 (see evaluations made by KBC Securities and Spezialist für Finanzaktien).
Vlaganje v CDL je vsaj enako tvegano kot vlaganje v uveljavljene konkurente, katerih bete so bistveno višje od 1 (glej ocene KBC Securities and Spezialist für Finanzaktien).
Finally, in terms of the risk-free rate, it seems highly opportunistic to refer to the present temporary financial crisis in order to rebut the value chosen by the Commission, which corresponds to the risk-free rate in the period of the investment in CDL.
Z vidika netvegane stopnje donosa je videti zelo oportunistično izkoristiti sedanjo začasno finančno krizo, da bi ovrgli vrednost, ki jo je izbrala Komisija in ki ustreza netvegani stopnji donosa v obdobju vlaganja v CDL.
In the absence of debt.
V odsotnosti dolga.
Brealey and Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, Sixth Edition (Chapter 5, p. 100)
Brealey in Myers, 2000, Principles of Corporate Finance, šesta izdaja (poglavje 5, str. 100)
therefore, 5,74 % probably represents at most an upper limit.
zato 5,74 % verjetno pomeni kvečjemu zgornjo mejo.
The appendix provides the general definition of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which includes both equity and debt.
V Dodatku je splošna opredelitev tehtanega povprečja stroškov kapitala (WACC), ki obsega lastniški kapital in dolg.
Pablo Fernández (2004), Market risk premium:
Pablo Fernández 2004, Market risk premium:
Friederiszick and Michael Troge, DG COMP, CET, ‘Applying the MEIP to State Owned Companies — Lessons learned from the German Landesbanken Cases’, Competition Policy Newsletter, No 1, Spring 2006.
Friederiszick in Michael Troge, GD COMP, CET, „Applying the MEIP to State Owned Companies – Lessons learned from the German Landesbanken Cases“, Competition Policy Newsletter, št. 1, spomladi 2006.
This confusion frequently arises because in the textbook finance literature, some authors assume a simplified balance sheet, with only equity and financial debt, and no current liabilities.
Ta zmeda je pogosto posledica nekaterih avtorjev v finančni literaturi, ki predpostavljajo poenostavljeno bilanco stanja, v kateri sta samo lastniški kapital in finančni dolg, ni pa tekočih obveznosti.
In such cases, indeed, ROA is equal to ROCE.
V takih primerih je ROA enak ROCE.
But in the real world this is not usually the case.
V resničnem svetu ponavadi ni tako.
As mentioned above, the median for this group is lower than the arithmetic average.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je mediana za to skupino nižja od aritmetičnega povprečja.
For this peer group analysis, Amadeus provides the yearly median ROCE pertaining to the entire peer group.
AMADEUS za analizo te skupine podobnih podjetij navaja letno mediano ROCE, ki velja za celo skupino.
In order to aggregate over time (the figure reported in the text), we computed the ‘median of the yearly medians’.
Zaradi združevanja v daljšem časovnem obdobju (podatek, naveden v besedilu) smo izračunali „mediano letnih median“.
ORBIS is a global database which has information on over 50 million companies worldwide (Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing).
ORBIS je globalna podatkovna zbirka s podatki o več kot 50 milijonih podjetij po vsem svetu (Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing).
[adapted from the document of March 2010]
[prilagojeno iz dokumenta, pripravljenega marca 2010]
Reply to the submission of 19 October 2009 prepared by LECG
Odgovor na sporočilo z dne 19. oktobra 2009, ki ga je pripravila LECG
The reply of the consulting company LECG to the Commission’s analysis focuses on four issues:
Odgovor svetovalne družbe LECG na analizo Komisije obravnava štiri vprašanja:
Alleged erroneous use of the CAPM model.
Domnevno nepravilno uporabo modela CAPM.
While LECG accepts that a CAPM-based analysis is the correct avenue to pursue, it questions the parameter values that have been used by DG COMP.
LECG sicer sprejema, da je analiza na podlagi CAPM pravilna pot, vendar pa dvomi o vrednosti parametrov, ki jih je uporabljal GD COMP.
More precisely, LECG asserts that:
Natančneje, LECG trdi, da:
the equity premium should have been lower
premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala bi morala biti nižja,
the ‘betas’ should also have been lower
količniki beta bi morali biti manjši.
The Commission should not have limited itself to Consultia IT’s business plan, but should also have used Arthur Andersen’s 2000 business plan to establish the relevant benchmark.
Komisija se za določitev ustreznega merila ne bi smela omejiti le na poslovni načrt družbe Consultia IT, ampak bi morala uporabljati tudi poslovni načrt Arthurja Andersena iz leta 2000.
The Commission did not use the appropriate financial ratios to estimate the expected profitability of the CDL project.
Komisija ni uporabila primernih finančnih kazalnikov za oceno pričakovane donosnosti projekta CDL.
Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account the expected revenues deriving from the development of hotels and office space.
Komisija tudi ni upoštevala pričakovanih donosov, ki bi bili posledica razvoja hotelov in pisarn.
The parameters of the CAPM
Parametri CAPM
Equity premium
Premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala
The LECG report argues that the required equity premium should be used instead of the historical equity premium.
Poročilo LECG pravi, da bi se morala namesto pretekle premije uporabljati zahtevana premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala.
However, Fernández (2009) states the following:
Vendar pa Fernández (2009) pravi:
‘It is easy to conclude that there is not a generally accepted equity premium point estimate or a common method to estimate it.
„Zaključimo lahko, da ni splošno sprejete ocene premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala ali skupne metode za njeno oceno.
The recommendations regarding the equity premium, taken from 150 finance and valuation textbooks published between 1979 and 2009, range from 3 % to 10 %.
Priporočila v zvezi s premijo za tveganje lastniškega kapitala iz 150 učbenikov za finance in ocenjevanje, objavljenih v letih od 1979 do 2009, znašajo od 3 % do 10 %.
Several books use different equity premiums in different pages and most books do not distinguish among the four different concepts that the phrase ‘equity premium’ designates:
Različne knjige uporabljajo različne premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala na različnih straneh in večina jih ne loči med štirimi različnimi pojmi, ki jih označuje izraz ‚premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala‘:
historical equity premium, expected equity premium, required equity premium and implied equity premium.
in sicer preteklo, pričakovano, zahtevano in predvideno premijo za tveganje lastniškega kapitala.
129 of the books consider expected and required equity premium to be synonymous terms and 82 do not distinguish between expected and historical equity premium.’
129 knjig pravi, da sta pričakovana in zahtevana premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala sinonimna izraza, 82 pa jih ne loči med pričakovano in preteklo premijo za tveganje lastniškega kapitala.“
Furthermore, as regards its concrete value, the LECG study proposes using an equity premium recently presented by Fernández (2009).
Poleg tega poročilo LECG v zvezi z njeno konkretno vrednostjo predlaga uporabo premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala, ki jo je pred kratkim predstavil Fernández (2009).
Fernández suggests using a Required Equity Premium (REP) ranging from, 3,8 % to 4,3 %.
Fernández priporoča uporabo zahtevane premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala (REP) v višini od 3,8 % do 4,3 %.
There are at least two reasons for which this range is not valid for our purposes.
V obravnavanem primeru ta razpon ne velja iz vsaj dveh razlogov.
First, it suffers from intrinsic limitations, since it is a subjective valuation by a single individual.
Prvič, omejen je zato, ker je to subjektivna ocena enega posameznika.
It should be noted that Fernández also presents an average value obtained from 150 textbooks (see graph below).
Treba je opozoriti, da Fernández navaja tudi povprečno vrednost iz 150 učbenikov (glej graf spodaj).
Secondly, and most importantly, the suggestion to use a value of 3,8 %-4,3 % is an estimation of the current equity premium, not the one prevailing in 2000 and 2004.
Drugič, in to je tudi najpomembnejše, priporočena uporaba vrednosti od 3,8 % do 4,3 % je ocena sedanje premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala in ne premije, ki je prevladovala v letih 2000 in 2004.
The values of the parameters to plug in the CAPM should be contemporaneous to the date of the business decision (i.e. ex-ante and not ex-post).
Vrednosti parametrov, ki jih je treba uporabiti v CAPM, bi morale veljati v času, ko je bila sprejeta poslovna odločitev (torej za naprej in ne za nazaj).
‘The figure below shows the evolution of the Required Equity Premium (REP) moving average (last 5 years) used or recommended in 150 finance and valuation textbooks.’
„Podatek spodaj kaže gibanje drseče sredine zahtevane premije za tveganje lastniškega kapitala (REP) (za zadnjih 5 let), ki se uporablja ali je priporočena v 150 učbenikih za finance in vrednotenje.“
Beta
Količnik beta
As far as the beta is concerned, the LECG report casts doubts on the use of estimations provided by private companies specialised in valuations.
Poročilo LECG v zvezi s količnikom beta sproža dvome o uporabi ocen, ki so jih navedle zasebne družbe, specializirane za ocenjevanje vrednosti.
Below, we provide the links to the studies we refer to:
Spodaj so navedene povezave na študije, ki jih navajamo:
Carrere (the information we used can be found on p. 5 of the report below):
Carrere (podatki, ki smo jih uporabili, so na strani 5 poročila spodaj):
Studio Babelsberg (see p. 10):
Studio Babelsberg (glej str. 10):
In our view, this is precisely the place where a private investor would look for information to establish a beta ex-ante.
Po našem mnenju bi zasebni vlagatelj poiskal podatke za določitev predvidenega količnika beta točno tukaj.
These analysts have specific skills to assess ex-ante valuations.
Analitiki imajo posebne veščine za vrednotenje predvidenih ocen.
The two studies provide betas for certain close competitors of Ciudad de la Luz.
Dve študiji navajata količnike beta za nekatere tesne konkurente Ciudad de la Luz.
Pablo Fernández, the author extensively, but selectively, quoted in the LECG study, has written widely to show that historical betas (as the ones proposed by LECG) are next to meaningless.
Pablo Fernández, avtor, ki ga obširno, a selektivno navaja študija LECG, je veliko pisal o tem, da so pretekli količniki beta (kot jih predlaga LECG) skoraj nepomembni.
In his paper ‘Are calculated betas worth for anything?’ (Working paper IESE Business School), Pablo Fernández (2008) presents strong arguments against the use of calculated beta in valuations:
V svojem dokumentu „Are calculated betas worth for anything?“ (Working paper IESE Business School) Pablo Fernández (2008) predstavlja močne argumente proti uporabi izračunanih količnikov beta v ocenah:
‘We show that, in general, it is an enormous error to use the historical beta as a proxy for the expected beta. First, because it is almost impossible to calculate a meaningful beta as historical betas change dramatically from one day to the next; second, because very often we cannot say with a relevant statistical confidence that the beta of one company is smaller or bigger than the beta of another; third, because historical betas do not make much sense in many cases: high-risk companies very often have smaller historical betas than low-risk companies; fourth, because historical betas depend very much on which index we use to calculate them. […] [2]’ (our emphasis)
„Dokazujemo, da je na splošno zelo velika napaka uporabiti pretekli količnik beta kot približek za pričakovani količnik beta. Prvič zato, ker je skoraj nemogoče izračunati smiseln količnik beta glede na to, da se pretekli vsakodnevno dramatično spreminjajo; drugič zato, ker zelo pogosto ne moremo statistično zanesljivo trditi, da je količnik beta ene družbe manjši ali večji od količnika beta druge družbe; tretjič zato, ker so pretekli količniki beta v številnih primerih precej nesmiselni: družbe z velikim tveganjem imajo zelo pogosto manjše pretekle količnike beta od družb z majhnim tveganjem; četrtič zato, ker so pretekli količniki beta precej odvisni od tega, kateri indeks se uporablja pri njihovem izračunu …] [2]“ (naš poudarek).
The third argument above put forward by Fernández (2008) also serves to illustrate that the betas presented by LECG cannot be right.
Tretji argument, ki ga poudarja Fernández (2008), dokazuje tudi, da vrednosti beta, ki jih navaja LECG, ne morejo biti pravilne.
Indeed, Fernández makes the assertion that high-risk companies are high beta.
Fernández trdi, da imajo družbe z velikim tveganjem velik količnik beta.
This is very intuitive:
To je precej intuitivno:
the required return for a high-risk project (such as CDL) ought to be above the return of a diversified portfolio (e.g. the IBEX 35).
zahtevani donos za projekt z velikim tveganjem (kakršen je CDL), bi moral presegati donos razpršenega portfelja (npr. IBEX 35).
In another paper, focused on Spain (‘On the instability of betas: the case of Spain’, 2008, Working paper IESE Business School) Pablo Fernández shows again that it is a serious error to use betas calculated from historical data to compute the required return to equity.
V drugem dokumentu, ki je osredotočen na Španijo („On the instability of betas: the case of Spain“, 2008, Working paper IESE Business School), Pablo Fernández ponovno dokazuje, da je uporaba količnikov beta, izračunanih na podlagi preteklih podatkov, za izračun zahtevanega donosa lastniškega kapitala, velika napaka.
‘It is a mistake for seven reasons:
„To je napaka zaradi več razlogov:
because betas calculated from historical data change considerably from one day to the next.
ker se količniki beta, izračunani na podlagi preteklih podatkov, vsakodnevno precej spreminjajo;
because calculated betas depend very much on which stock index is used as the market reference.
ker so izračunani količniki beta zelo odvisni od tega, kateri borzni indeks je bil uporabljen kot tržna referenca;
because calculated betas depend very much on which historical period (5 years, 3 years,…) is used to calculate them.
ker so izračunani količniki beta zelo odvisni od tega, katero preteklo obdobje (5 let, 3 leta …) se uporablja za izračun;
because calculated betas depend on what returns (monthly, yearly,…) are used to calculate them.
ker so izračunani količniki beta odvisni od tega, kateri donosi (mesečni, letni …) se uporabljajo za izračun;
because very often we do not know if the beta of one company is lower or higher than the beta of another.
ker zelo pogosto ne vemo, ali so količniki beta ene družbe manjši ali večji od količnika beta druge;
because calculated betas have little correlation with stock returns.
ker izračunani količniki beta niso tesno povezani z delniškimi donosi;
because the correlation coefficients (and the R2) of the regressions used to calculate the betas are very small.’
ker so korelacijski količniki (in R2) regresij, ki se uporabljajo za izračun količnikov beta, zelo majhni.“
The paper provides numerous examples to support all of the seven statements.
V dokumentu je zbranih veliko primerov v podporo vsem tem sedmim trditvam.
The relevant time frame
Ustrezni časovni okvir
The resulting WACC would be higher than in 2004 [3], due both to a higher market risk premium (which according to the information gathered by Fernández should be around 7 % — see section 1.1) and to a higher risk-free rate (which stood at 5,53 % for Spain in 2000 [4]).
WACC, ki bi bil rezultat tega izračuna, bi bil višji kakor za leto 2004 [3] zaradi višje premije za tržno tveganje (ki bi morala po informacijah, ki jih je zbral Fernández, znašati okoli 7 % – glej oddelek 1.1) in višje netvegane stopnje donosa (ki je v Španiji leta 2000 znašala 5,53 % [4]).
Hence, an internal rate of return of 8,84 % would still be much lower than the cost of capital (more precisely:
Notranja stopnja donosa v višini 8,84 % bi bila še vedo nižja od stroškov kapitala (natančneje:
The LECG report agrees with our point of view that CAPM is the right instrument to assess the ex-ante cost of capital.
Poročilo LECG se strinja z našim stališčem, da je CAPM pravi instrument za oceno predvidenih stroškov kapitala.
Moreover, the report does not provide any argument to rebut the use of the ROCE as a proxy for the WACC.
Poleg tega poročilo ne navaja nobenih argumentov, ki bi ovrgli uporabo ROCE kot približka WACC.
Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the reasoning already set out in the previous note.
Zato ni treba ponoviti utemeljitve, ki je navedena že v prejšnji opombi.
However, it may still be worth recalling why the ROCE is the most appropriate ratio.
Verjetno pa bi bilo vseeno koristno spomniti, zakaj je ROCE najpomembnejše razmerje.
Since the economic profitability of a company is measured ex-post by the difference between the return on capital employed and the cost of capital, then intuitively, if one were to construct a benchmark based on past data of competitors in order to determine the minimum return required by investors, then the appropriate proxy would be the average industry ROCE.
Ker se gospodarska donosnost družbe meri naknadno z razliko med donosom vloženega kapitala in stroški kapitala, bi bil, če bi določili merilo na podlagi preteklih podatkov konkurentov za določitev minimalnega donosa, ki ga zahtevajo vlagatelji, najprimernejši približek povprečni ROCE v gospodarski panogi.
The extension of the investment to hotels and office spaces
Obseg naložbe v hotele in pisarne
The assertions in this point are based on new evidence, namely six land valuation reports.
Ocene na tej točki temeljijo na novih dokazih, in sicer na šestih poročilih o vrednotenju zemljišč.
As a preliminary remark, we note that this evidence is produced ex-post, and therefore was not part of the information available to a potential investor at the time [5].
Predhodno ugotavljamo, da so bila ta dokazila predložena naknadno in niso bila del informacij, ki so bile na voljo potencialnemu vlagatelju v času naložbe [5].
Secondly, we note that the Arthur Andersen report only mentions the possibility of developing a hotel complex (in phase III) and certain office space (in phase IV).
Drugič, ugotavljamo, da poročilo Arthurja Andersena omenja samo možnost razvoja hotelskega kompleksa (v tretji fazi) in določenih pisarniških prostorov (v četrti fazi).
The report contains an estimate of costs for developing hotels and offices but none of the associated revenues;
Poročilo vsebuje oceno stroškov za razvoj hotelov in pisarn, vendar ne z njimi povezanih prihodkov;
hence the information to assess the profitability of developing the land is missing.
zato manjkajo podatki za oceno donosnosti razvoja zemljišč.
Indeed, no business plan is provided for the development of phases III and IV.
Za razvoj tretje in četrte faze ni bil predložen noben poslovni načrt.
In the Consultia IT business plan, the reference to the hotels is made only indirectly through the mention of an area of complementary services, while offices are not even mentioned.
V poslovnem načrtu družbe Consultia IT so hoteli omenjeni samo posredno z omembo območja dodatnih storitev, pisarne pa sploh niso omenjene.
Furthermore, these activities are not considered at all in the section on the economic and financial forecasts.
Poleg tega te dejavnosti v oddelku o ekonomskih in finančnih napovedih sploh niso upoštevane.
In other words, at no stage would the private investors have been presented with a business plan concerning the development of the land.
Skratka, zasebni vlagatelj na nobeni stopnji ni bil obveščen o poslovnih načrtih v zvezi z razvojem zemljišč.
As such, this implies that the ex-ante assessment of the project should solely be based on the business plan concerning the film studios;
To pomeni, da bi morala predhodna ocena projekta temeljiti izključno na poslovnih načrtih v zvezi s filmskimi studii;
indeed, all the relevant evidence indicates that land development was not part of the original business plan.
vsa zadevna dokazila namreč kažejo, da razvoj zemljišč ni bil del prvotnega poslovnega načrta.