By leasing from PFI, rather than owning property yourself, you free up capital that can be put to work in the core of your business and so strengthen your competitive advantage. PFI is your industrial property expert. Having PFI on your team adds value to your operations, frees up capital, and enables you to focus on what you do best. Leasing from PFI means industrial property that works for you.
Property that works. Your industrial property experts PFI specialise in industrial property: Our tenants are companies like yours, making and moving the things New Zealand buys and sells. Putting property to work Property that works: Its property that's what you need, where you need it and where the numbers stack up.
On the one hand, PFI enabled capital investment in hospitals which might not otherwise have happened. This compares to 34 hospitals built between and , when PFI was implemented. The PFI faced criticism because it involved repayments being made over the long term at a high rate of interest. This increased the amount of debt to be paid for by future taxpayers. In addition, the increased costs of the PFI were met through hospital closure programmes and reductions in services, which were seen by some as affecting the quality of healthcare received by patients.
In , the Public Accounts Committee expressed concern that some trusts in financial difficulty were having to service PFI contracts. Their charges were so high that it was not feasible for trusts to break even.
Roe P, Craig A. Reforming the Private Finance Initiative. Centre for Policy Studies; NHS capital expenditure and the private finance initiative - expansion or contraction? HM Treasury. A new approach to public private partnerships.
HM Treasury; The competition drives out excess costs and the resulting price should be considered the market price which takes into consideration all the project risks. The majority of contracts in the UK were negotiated before at a time when debt and equity was readily available and relatively cheap.
In current markets, these projects today would be more expensive to finance. The overall cost of financing a PFI project has been typically about 2. This is because the government cost of finance is less than the private sector. The private sector price is the market price for taking on a project with its inherent risks. A lower government cost amounts to a subsidy as these risks would be underpriced. This is because the project risks are the same whoever provides the finance.
Nevertheless, it would be cheaper. The expectation is that the efficiencies that will be delivered by the private sector through risk transfer will more than compensate for the additional cost. For example, building the project to budget and on-time together with the more efficient service delivery and maintenance during the life of the project.
Large refinancing profits were made by some investors on some of the early projects. The profits were made possible because the cost and term of financing became cheaper as confidence grew i from nothing in the new services based infrastructure sector and ii in doing business with the public sector previously very difficult and often claims based.
So it became possible to refinance many of the earlier projects ie replace the project finance at a profit. These profits did not arise because the costs of building the project or delivering the services turned out to be cheaper than envisaged in winning the original project but because the new finance providers were prepared to accept lower returns since their perception of the risks had reduced.
Winning a PFI project concession is a hard fought competition where the cheapest price usually wins. As PFI developed in the last decade, these refinancing opportunities receded as the finance became cheaper, discounting many of the earlier risks and concerns. The other way investors have made and lost money in PFI is through buying and selling equity investments in the project companies between each other.
This does not impact on the underlying project and is no different from any other equity market where buyers and sellers place a value on their investment assets and trade them. In the early years of PFI competing bids were evaluated primarily on price. This led to some projects which, while functional, providing poor civic amenities.
The industry pushed hard on the public sector for design to be an important part of the bid evaluation so that communities could have new long lasting facilities they could be proud of and which could also be the driver for local improvement and regeneration.
This is even more important in deprived areas where a new local school is a facilitator for social change and offers children a chance for social as well as educational development. Since , the flow of new PFI projects has slowed to a trickle. This is because the UK PFI infrastructure programme slowed considerably in the face of the weakening of the UK economy and the disruption in world financial markets that began at that time.
0コメント