**Table 3.3 Characteristics of syndicated loan transactions for infrastructure sectors in 2006**

|Borrower/country of<br>domicile|Sector|Amount<br>(US$ millions)|Currency|Maturity|Pricing|Bank participation: local<br>vs. nonlocal|Financing<br>by local<br>banks /a<br>(US$ millions)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Transactions for borro_<br>Safaricom, Kenya|_wers in AICD co_<br>Telecoms|_untries exclud_<br>165.1|_ing South Africa_<br>Ksh, 3<br>tranches|_in 2006_<br>5 years|91 day tbill,<br>100BP|4 local; 1 South African bank<br>(Standard Bank); 4 developed<br>country banks|50.9|
|Celtel Zambia, Zambia|Telecoms|105.0|kwacha &<br>US$, 2<br>tranches|5 years|Undisclosed|2 local; 2 South African<br>banks; 1 Mauritian; 6<br>developed country|Undisclosed|
|UNICEM, Nigeria|Construction<br>of power plant|210.6|naira & US$, 4<br>tranches|4-, 7-, & 9-<br>yrs.|Undisclosed|8 local; 1 U.S. bank<br>(Citibank); 1 local affiliate of<br>regional Ecobank|Undisclosed|
|BGT|Transport<br>(shipping)|680.0|US$, 2<br>tranches|12-yrs. &<br>12-yrs, 6<br>mo.|LIBOR + 75<br>BP|12 major developed country<br>banks|0|
|Iberafrica Power,<br>Kenya|Electrical<br>utility|16.8|US$, 1<br>tranche|5 years|Undisclosed|1 local; Banque de Afrique<br>(Benin); 1 local subsidiary of<br>Stanbic Bank (South Africa); 2<br>U.K. banks|Undisclosed|
|_Transactions for borro_|_wers in South Af_|_rica in 2006_||||||
|MTN, Ltd.|Telecoms|3,467.9|US$ & Rand,<br>3 tranches|5 yrs. (2<br>tr.); 3 yrs.<br>(1 tr.)|LIBOR+65BP;<br>LIBOR+90BP;<br>LIBOR+60BP|2 local; 15 major developed<br>country; 1 Chinese bank<br>(BoC)|Undisclosed|
|Vodacom Group|Telecoms|1,137.6|Rand, 1<br>tranche|5 years|Undisclosed|4 local; 1 German<br>(Commerzbank)|Undisclosed|
|Trans African|Construction||Rand, 2|1 yr & 20||||
|Concessions|of toll road|475.3|tranches|yrs.|Undisclosed|3 local banks|475.3|

Source: Dealogic Loanware.

a. Where this is disclosed. Note that actual participation by each bank in a given loan transaction is not always provided to Dealogic given variance in disclosure practices across bank syndicates.

The proportion of syndicated loans for infrastructure denominated in local currencies has been rising in the focus countries since 2000. Sixty-six percent of the total syndicated lending to infrastructure in 2006, as tracked by Loanware, was denominated in U.S. dollars ($773 million).<sup>22</sup> The remaining $404.8 million (just over one-third) was denominated in local currency. In contrast, none of the syndicated loans arranged in 2000 for borrowers in the 23 countries was denominated in local currency, and only 17 percent ($77.2 million, for a loan to cellular-phone company Celtel Nigeria) in 2005 was denominated in local currency. None of the syndicated loans for infrastructure purposes transacted in 2006 for borrowers in Chile and Malaysia was denominated in local currency. These last mentioned loans were U.S.-dollardenominated with the exception of a $343.5 million U.S.-dollar–equivalent loan denominated in Singapore dollars.

A few of the recent syndicated loans to the focus countries have been specially structured to reduce the risks of currency mismatch. In 2006, the majority of the U.S.-dollar-denominated lending went to 22 A large share of foreign-currency-denominated or foreign-indexed debt has been identified as a characteristic that can render an emerging market economy vulnerable to capital flow reversals and financial crisis (see, for example, Goldstein and Turner 1996).

24