UK: Refinancing Risk

Last Updated: 7 December 2012
Article by Robert Franklin

The funding environment for infrastructure PPP projects is much less favourable than it was two years ago. Whilst the increase in margins since pre-financial crisis continues to a large extent to be offset by the reduction in base rates, the real issue is that capacity for long tenor debt is extremely limited. When the terms on which debt is available no longer match those of the underlying project, the issue of refinancing risk arises. If only shorter term debt is available, assumptions must be made at financial close that the project company will in the future be able to refinance its debt within certain parameters of timing, price and other terms, and there is a risk that those assumptions will not be adhered to in some respect.

There are various manifestations of refinancing risk – the cost of finance may be higher than assumed, or it may be unavailable, or only available on terms that are not compatible with the existing transaction structure or documentation. In the absence of measures to mitigate or reallocate the risk, it naturally falls in the first instance on the project company/ sponsor (inability to refinance will result in default, and a refinancing on more onerous terms will affect the sponsor's return and may necessitate the injection of additional equity), and on the incumbent lenders (who must weigh up their potential exposure on contractor default termination against the prospect of continuing to fund the project perhaps at a loss). Depending on the circumstances it may also fall on the public sector: although it is a key principle in most PPPs that if the project has to be retendered due to project company default, the effects should not be adverse for the authority, in some circumstances that objective may not be fully attainable (for example where there is no liquid market). As between the lender and the sponsor, it is standard for the finance documents to include provisions which reallocate the risk between them, for example cash sweep provisions which require cash to be retained by the project company which might otherwise be available to pay distributions, thus improving financial cover ratios and making the project company a more attractive proposition for any potential refinancing lender. The causes of refinancing risk include credit issues such as poor performance by the project company as well as changes in market conditions.

Before the financial crisis the issue of refinancing risk was rarely considered: the tender documents required committed long term financing consistent with the financial model from the outset, and because this was readily available, the risk did not arise. However the contraction of liquidity which followed the onset of the credit crisis threatened to derail projects that were nearing financial close such as the UK Highways Agency's DBFM project for the expansion and maintenance of the M25. In that case, adherence to the requirement for long tenor debt resulted in the lenders requiring sufficient margin step-ups and other enhancements for them to feel comfortable that if the project company did not refinance in the medium term as intended, the unitary charge would still be sufficient to support their cost of funding for the full term of the loan. In effect, the authority bore the premium associated with a full assumption of refinancing risk by the lenders.

It was recognised that the future condition of the capital markets was highly uncertain and that if the situation improved the conventional 50/50 allocation of refinancing gains would be inappropriate, so the authority's proportion was increased, and the authority was given the right to initiate a refinancing to reflect the importance to it of obtaining cheaper funding if and when it became available.

Since then, it has become apparent that for a number of reasons significant levels of liquidity for long tenor bank debt are unlikely to be restored in the foreseeable future, although banks are likely to remain an important source of short term capital, and the agenda has shifted towards accessing institutional investors as a possible alternative source of long term finance on the assumption (yet to be fully tested) that private finance will still be capable of providing value for money on a risk-weighted basis. Given the fundamental nature of this change, it has generated questions and issues at a number of levels. However, refinancing risk has remained integral to the debate at several of these levels.

One approach which many commentators have naturally focused on is to seek to identify short term impediments to institutional investor participation. Construction risk is a particular area of concern as the construction phase involves a higher degree of risk than the operating phase, and even amongst those investors who see a high degree of correspondence between their risk appetite and that of project finance banks historically, many argue that institutional investors need to develop their risk management resources and expertise before they take on a significant exposure to construction risk.

A variety of possible models exist for addressing these concerns about construction risk, principally:

(i) mitigation through a portfolio approach (i.e. allowing a limited proportion of construction phase assets in a portfolio of predominantly operating phase assets)

(ii) credit enhancement, either through guarantees or other credit support, or the provision of subordinated debt

(iii) bank to institutional investor solutions, i.e. bank finance during the construction phase refinanced by institutional debt in the operating phase

None of these solutions is without significant complexities. In relation to the first, the main issue is conditions in the secondary market. On the supply side, the cost of funding of many project finance banks is higher than the interest rate under the loan, however they are reluctant to realise a loss by selling at a discount, and in the case of hedging banks there may also be concerns about orphaning a swap exposure. Portfolios have been sold in individual cases where the seller has for specific reasons not been subject to the sale constraints, including to institutional investors – e.g. the Bank of Ireland's sale of a portfolio of UK infrastructure loans to Aviva Investors in June this year was specifically sanctioned by the regulator. In the longer term, as the costs of Basel III start to be introduced and escalate, project companies may also start to feel the pressure, as in most cases banks are entitled to pass these costs on to the borrower. However the exit route for the borrower in these circumstances would normally be to refinance the debt, and the resulting refinancing gain would have to be shared with the authority.

In relation to the second model, many commentators have argued in favour of a solution based on enhanced credit/performance support from the building contractor. However this is likely to be difficult to achieve in an environment where contractors' balance sheets are under increased pressure, and from a policy perspective any intervention designed to promote this approach would have to be weighed against potential adverse effects in terms of market access and the costs associated with the additional support. In relation to support directly at borrower level, IUK has recently provided some details of the approach it will be following under the UK guarantees scheme to be enabled by the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill which is currently being fast-tracked through Parliament. Although there is a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of the products to be made available, the most natural application is likely to be providing a monoline-style comprehensive credit wrap with a view to achieving a high investment grade credit rating and thereby accessing the wider capital markets, rather than targeting specific risks. It is also possible that the scheme could be used to provide a construction phase guarantee for the benefit of institutional lenders. IUK has explained that the Treasury has been in correspondence with the European Commission and is confident that no state aid is involved as the pricing will be set to satisfy the market investor test, however potential beneficiaries are likely to want to explore the position in detail as the risk of an adverse finding would fall on them rather than the aid provider.

The third model has a number of attractions, particularly because it makes use of short term bank liquidity. However the issue of refinancing risk has generally been seen as the impediment. It might be possible to build a safety margin into the unitary charge (to be recovered through the refinancing mechanism to the extent of any surplus), but in the absence of committed (and collateralised) fixed price takeout funding there is always a risk that the refinancing will fall outside the assumed parameters leaving a residual risk with the sponsors and/or with the authority. Applying a conventional value for money analysis to the allocation of this risk it could be argued that it is essentially outside the sponsors' control (with the exception of certain elements affecting credit risk), and to that extent allocating it to the sponsors is unlikely to represent value for money. This may also be a case where there are limits on the extent to which a real transfer of risk to the private sector is possible – for example in the case of extreme disruptions to the market at the time of refinancing.

It is worth noting in passing that under the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) model changes in the prevailing generic cost of finance are taken into account on periodic reviews and thus essentially borne not by the utility but by consumers. This is not intended to be an argument in favour of an extension of the RAB model to conventional PPP assets, merely an illustration of a different approach to the allocation of refinancing risk. The simplest way of transferring residual refinancing risk to the authority in the case of an availability based PPP would be a mechanism allowing for an uplift in the unitary charge. The authority can also be given an option to provide backstop financing at a given price.

A hybrid between the second and third models might also be possible, in which banks (or the Treasury) might provide subordinated debt during the construction phase alongside senior institutional debt, with the subordinated debt being refinanced or alternatively repaid before the senior debt in the operating phase. Such an approach would either reduce the level of refinancing risk in the project thus making it more manageable, or (in the case of early repayment), eliminate it altogether.

Yet another approach is to challenge the assumption that institutions cannot provide committed fixed price takeout financing. Given some institutions' focus on long term liability matching, it does not seem unrealistic to suppose that they may be able to acquire assets on a forward basis – i.e. to commit to fund at a future point in time on the basis of a fixed margin. This is the approach the Dutch pension fund asset manager, APG, has been able to take in relation to the N33 road project which recently achieved commercial close, where APG has committed to make fixed price takeout financing available for 70% of the senior debt. In order to access competitive pricing from pension funds the government offered to apply RPI indexation to up to 70% of the portion of the unitary charge corresponding to senior debt service and bids with different indexed and fixed rate components were compared with each other based on prevailing swap rates. Bidders were also required to submit bids based solely on bank debt, in order to demonstrate that any financing plan they submitted involving pension fund debt produced a lower cost of funding. The index linked portion was capped in order to retain the oversight expertise of the project finance banks. APG's refinancing obligations are conditional solely upon satisfaction of the completion test in the project agreement by the prescribed longstop date, and APG has a degree of involvement during the construction phase as contingent creditor. The senior debt component of termination compensation with respect to the index linked portion in non-contractor default scenarios is based on partial rather than full Spens. Many commentators have argued that government benefits from a natural hedge against inflation risk and its acceptance of inflation risk in this structure therefore does not involve any assumption of additional risk. An additional benefit of applying indexation to the unitary charge in this way is that the regulatory capital costs of swaps are rising and by aligning the unitary charge with the borrower's basis of funding it obviates the need for an interest rate swap.

Most of the proposed solutions above involve some kind of government intervention or other action. Another level of the debate involves consideration of wider issues beyond the immediate objective of achieving an increase in institutional investor participation. In particular, what are the merits of different possible vehicles/structures for institutional investor funding and what are their implications in terms of possible options available to government? Two considerations that ought to be relevant in this context are sustainability and efficiency. Pre-credit crisis experience of the monoline wrapped project bond market suggests that products which enable access to the capital markets via the provision of a comprehensive credit wrap tend to be associated with the development of risk management resources and expertise in the credit wrap provider, rather than in the purchasers of the bonds themselves. Based on this precedent, it seems likely that the benefits of the UK guarantees scheme (which will only be open for a two year window) in cultivating institutional investors as a sustainable source of funding for infrastructure will be limited. From an efficiency perspective, the fact that the main justification for promoting institutional investors is one of natural alignment with their risk appetite (at least in the operating phase) would tend to suggest that models in which investors can develop the capacity to take project risk (such as the Pensions Infrastructure Platform (PIP)) should be capable of providing the most efficient solution in the long run, perhaps in collaboration with banks in the construction phase. It was recently announced that the PIP has secured the critical mass of founding investors needed to move to the next stage of development, and it is to be hoped that institutional investors' interest in the various project bond initiatives will not distract them from also seeing the advantages of the model of which it is an example.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions