The present study attempts to assess the potential benefits of restructuring non-viable Greek enterprises as follows:
As a first step, the Greek corporate sector is divided into viable and non-viable enterprises and their distinct performance is estimated in terms of profitability, capital structure and liabilities.
Having defined the two distinct populations of (viable and non-viable) enterprises, we then proceed by simulating the outcome (in terms of profitability, turnover and “curing” of liabilities) that would result from a theoretical business restructuring programme, where non-viable enterprises are resolved and their assets (and part of their liabilities) are absorbed by viable companies of similar size and average (for their size) performance.
OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key FindingsJustin Kavanagh
OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key Findings. Presentation at the launch of the report by Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini. www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy-in-korea-9789264274600-en.htm
This presentation comprises key figures included in the publication OECD Competition Trends 2021 released virtually 24 February 2021 during the OECD Competition Open Day. The full publication can be found at oe.cd/comp-trends.
Session (Part 1) by Randall Jones, Head of Japan/Korea Desk, OECD Economics Department.
The growth of global value chains (GVCs) has increased the interconnectedness of economies. We understand that emerging economies in Southeast Asia play a pivotal role in the global economy. This session will provide you with the latest OECD analysis on the regional economy and on the key challenges it faces in light of regional integration.
International trade, which used to be a leading driver of economic growth, is now lagging behind, as world trade growth slowed down to around 2% in 2015. Two decades prior to the 2008 crisis, world trade growth annually registered at 7%. Many factors are at play – both cyclical and structural – but their effects are posing risks to the emerging and developing economies in Asia, where trade growth is currently relatively robust. Regional free trade agreements, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, will also influence trade in Asia, and will certainly have implications for the global value chains of specific industries, including in those countries not belonging to the new regional agreements. Strengthening regional ties by 2025 is one of Asia’s most important agendas. This can be made more effective by building on important and positive achievements through ASEAN, ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 and making greater efforts to improve co-ordination between regional and sub-regional initiatives and national agendas, reduce disparities in the region, move towards a “Global ASEAN” and strengthen monitoring capacity. Additionally, addressing issues of green growth, renewable energy and private sector development will be particularly important to Asia’s success in regional integration.
This presentation by Paulo Burnier (OECD Competition Expert) was delivered during a workshop on mergers held in the framework of the 2021 Virtual African Competition Forum on 29 June 2021.
This presentation by Beata Javorcik, Chief Economist, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was made during the discussion “Trade, Development and Competition” held at the 20th meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 7 December 2021. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/tdc.
This presentation by Gerhard Scheuenstuhl & Christian Schmitt, RiskLab, was made at the OECD-Risklab-APG Workshop on pension fund regulation and long-term investment held in Amsterdam on 7 April 2014. Discussions focused on: long-term pension investment strategies under risk-based regulation; riskiness and procyclicality in pension asset allocation; and, regulatory challenges for long-term illiquid assets.
For more information please visit http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/private-pensions/OECD-APG-workshop-pension-fund-regulation-LTI.htm
OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key FindingsJustin Kavanagh
OECD Regulatory Policy Review of Korea - Key Findings. Presentation at the launch of the report by Faisal Naru & Filippo Cavassini. www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy-in-korea-9789264274600-en.htm
This presentation comprises key figures included in the publication OECD Competition Trends 2021 released virtually 24 February 2021 during the OECD Competition Open Day. The full publication can be found at oe.cd/comp-trends.
Session (Part 1) by Randall Jones, Head of Japan/Korea Desk, OECD Economics Department.
The growth of global value chains (GVCs) has increased the interconnectedness of economies. We understand that emerging economies in Southeast Asia play a pivotal role in the global economy. This session will provide you with the latest OECD analysis on the regional economy and on the key challenges it faces in light of regional integration.
International trade, which used to be a leading driver of economic growth, is now lagging behind, as world trade growth slowed down to around 2% in 2015. Two decades prior to the 2008 crisis, world trade growth annually registered at 7%. Many factors are at play – both cyclical and structural – but their effects are posing risks to the emerging and developing economies in Asia, where trade growth is currently relatively robust. Regional free trade agreements, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, will also influence trade in Asia, and will certainly have implications for the global value chains of specific industries, including in those countries not belonging to the new regional agreements. Strengthening regional ties by 2025 is one of Asia’s most important agendas. This can be made more effective by building on important and positive achievements through ASEAN, ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 and making greater efforts to improve co-ordination between regional and sub-regional initiatives and national agendas, reduce disparities in the region, move towards a “Global ASEAN” and strengthen monitoring capacity. Additionally, addressing issues of green growth, renewable energy and private sector development will be particularly important to Asia’s success in regional integration.
This presentation by Paulo Burnier (OECD Competition Expert) was delivered during a workshop on mergers held in the framework of the 2021 Virtual African Competition Forum on 29 June 2021.
This presentation by Beata Javorcik, Chief Economist, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was made during the discussion “Trade, Development and Competition” held at the 20th meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 7 December 2021. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/tdc.
This presentation by Gerhard Scheuenstuhl & Christian Schmitt, RiskLab, was made at the OECD-Risklab-APG Workshop on pension fund regulation and long-term investment held in Amsterdam on 7 April 2014. Discussions focused on: long-term pension investment strategies under risk-based regulation; riskiness and procyclicality in pension asset allocation; and, regulatory challenges for long-term illiquid assets.
For more information please visit http://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/private-pensions/OECD-APG-workshop-pension-fund-regulation-LTI.htm
Asia is rapidly growing into the world’s largest stock market. In 2018, 51% of all equity capital raised through initial public offerings (IPOs) went to Asian companies. Today more than half of the world’s listed companies are from Asia. This development is reshaping global stock market in several ways: Households outside of Asia have increased their investments in Asian companies through pension funds, mutual funds and other intermediaries; it is increasingly common that listed companies are majority owned by the public sector or by other private companies; and smaller growth companies from Asia are using capital markets to raise money more extensively than smaller companies from the rest of the world.
This report provides a comprehensive and comparable analysis of world developments and the growing role of Asian capital markets since the mid-1990s. It focuses on primary equity markets, growth company listings, investment banking activities and ownership structure of publicly listed companies. It also contains a special chapter on how companies use foreign public equity markets to raise capital and to cross-list their shares.
This presentation by OECD's financial markets expert Adrian Blundell-Wignall shows the highlights from the 2016 edition of the OECD Business and Finance Outlook. http://www.oecd.org/daf/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2016-9789264257573-en.htm
This presentation by Tomaso DUSO, Head of Department in the Firms and Markets Department of the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), was made during the discussion “Methodologies to Measure Market Competition” held at the 135th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 11 June 2021. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/mmmc.
This presentation by Stephen Thomsen was made at the session "Investment policy reform and regional integration" during the 2nd ASEAN-OECD Investment Policy Conference held on 10-11 December 2014.
To find out more visit: http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/2014-asean-oecd-investment-policy-conference.htm
This Review offers policy recommendations to improve the legal, regulatory and institutional framework for capital markets in Croatia in a way that will foster a resilient and dynamic business environment, help realise the potential of Croatian corporations and give households better opportunities to diversify their long-term savings.
Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises - English versionOECDglobal
Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises, Advisory Commission to Iraq’s Council of Ministers
Professor Doctor Abdul-Hussein al-Anabki
Economic Affairs Advisor
16 – 17 February, 2015
Paris, France
This presentation on the role of state-owned enterprises in economic development in China by Zhengjun ZHANG was made at the OECD Workshop on SOEs in the Development Process held at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris, France, on 4 April 2014.
Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/2014-workshop-soe-development-process.htm
View a selection of photos from the launch event of the OECD Competition Assessment Review of Romania 2016 which took place in Bucharest on 28 June 2016. Access the report at: oe.cd/1pj. Find out more about the project: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/romaniacompetitionassessment.htm
June 2017 - The 2017 edition of the OECD Business and Finance Outlook focuses on ways to enhance “fairness”, in the sense of strengthening global governance, to ensure a level playing field in trade, investment and corporate behaviour, through the setting and better enforcement of global standards. This presentation by OECD's financial markets expert Adrian Blundell-Wignall shows key findings from the publication. Find out more here http://www.oecd.org/daf/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2017-9789264274891-en.htm
Enterprise Rating System: Update of the rating system for small and medium Gr...Ilias Lekkos
We have developed a quantitative and transparent rating model for assessing the quality and credit worthiness of small and medium enterprises in Greece
Asia is rapidly growing into the world’s largest stock market. In 2018, 51% of all equity capital raised through initial public offerings (IPOs) went to Asian companies. Today more than half of the world’s listed companies are from Asia. This development is reshaping global stock market in several ways: Households outside of Asia have increased their investments in Asian companies through pension funds, mutual funds and other intermediaries; it is increasingly common that listed companies are majority owned by the public sector or by other private companies; and smaller growth companies from Asia are using capital markets to raise money more extensively than smaller companies from the rest of the world.
This report provides a comprehensive and comparable analysis of world developments and the growing role of Asian capital markets since the mid-1990s. It focuses on primary equity markets, growth company listings, investment banking activities and ownership structure of publicly listed companies. It also contains a special chapter on how companies use foreign public equity markets to raise capital and to cross-list their shares.
This presentation by OECD's financial markets expert Adrian Blundell-Wignall shows the highlights from the 2016 edition of the OECD Business and Finance Outlook. http://www.oecd.org/daf/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2016-9789264257573-en.htm
This presentation by Tomaso DUSO, Head of Department in the Firms and Markets Department of the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), was made during the discussion “Methodologies to Measure Market Competition” held at the 135th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 11 June 2021. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/mmmc.
This presentation by Stephen Thomsen was made at the session "Investment policy reform and regional integration" during the 2nd ASEAN-OECD Investment Policy Conference held on 10-11 December 2014.
To find out more visit: http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/2014-asean-oecd-investment-policy-conference.htm
This Review offers policy recommendations to improve the legal, regulatory and institutional framework for capital markets in Croatia in a way that will foster a resilient and dynamic business environment, help realise the potential of Croatian corporations and give households better opportunities to diversify their long-term savings.
Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises - English versionOECDglobal
Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises, Advisory Commission to Iraq’s Council of Ministers
Professor Doctor Abdul-Hussein al-Anabki
Economic Affairs Advisor
16 – 17 February, 2015
Paris, France
This presentation on the role of state-owned enterprises in economic development in China by Zhengjun ZHANG was made at the OECD Workshop on SOEs in the Development Process held at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris, France, on 4 April 2014.
Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/2014-workshop-soe-development-process.htm
View a selection of photos from the launch event of the OECD Competition Assessment Review of Romania 2016 which took place in Bucharest on 28 June 2016. Access the report at: oe.cd/1pj. Find out more about the project: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/romaniacompetitionassessment.htm
June 2017 - The 2017 edition of the OECD Business and Finance Outlook focuses on ways to enhance “fairness”, in the sense of strengthening global governance, to ensure a level playing field in trade, investment and corporate behaviour, through the setting and better enforcement of global standards. This presentation by OECD's financial markets expert Adrian Blundell-Wignall shows key findings from the publication. Find out more here http://www.oecd.org/daf/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2017-9789264274891-en.htm
Enterprise Rating System: Update of the rating system for small and medium Gr...Ilias Lekkos
We have developed a quantitative and transparent rating model for assessing the quality and credit worthiness of small and medium enterprises in Greece
Country-by-Country Reporting proposal - Working Breakfast 28 June 2016FERMA
On 28 June 2016, MEP Jeppe Kofod hosted a working breakfast meeting today at the European Parliament about the proposal published on 12 April 2016 by the European Commission to extend country-by-country financial reporting to most multinational groups operating in the EU.
The European Confederation of Institutes of Internal Auditing (ECIIA) and FERMA stated that Internal auditors and risk managers have a key role to play in ensuring that future financial transparency standards are well understood, embedded into the strategy of large corporations and become a source of competitive advantage.
Scorpio Partnership Global Private Banking Benchmark report 2013Scorpio Partnership
The Scorpio Partnership Global Private Banking Benchmark 2013 is the leading assessment of the health and wealth of the world's wealth management sector worldwide. The report itself includes analysis of over 18,000 private banking key performance indicators from Scorpio Partnership’s unrivalled historical database. Among other findings, the 2013 Benchmark demonstrates that the wealth management industry reveals that net new money has reboudned across the industry, suggesting signs of a return of client confidence in global wealth managers.
Sopra Steria: First-half 2016 in line with 2017 objectivesSopra Steria India
Sopra Steria: First-half 2016 in line with 2017 objectives
Revenue of €1.9bn, representing total growth of 6.3%
Strong organic growth of 5.4%
Operating margin on business activity up 1 point to 7.1%
Net profit attributable to the Group doubled to €54.0m
Unit VII Essay Write an essay discussing how an obstruction co.docxmarilucorr
Unit VII Essay
Write an essay discussing how an obstruction could influence the operation of a fire protection system in a large, indoor self-storage facility. Discuss the differences between expected outcomes if the notification system worked properly and if the notification system failed and a fire did occur.
Your response must be at least three pages in length, double spaced, and 12-point Times New Roman font. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA citations.
Live Case One
LIVE CASE ONE
Covanta Holding Corp (CVA)
Anish Puri
Bryant University
Introduction
Covanta Holding Corporation is an American multinational firm headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey and operates in the renewable energy industry. The firm was incorporated in 1992 in Delaware. Covanta’s main business is to convert waste into energy through its subsidiaries. The company operates in North America and also holds interests in energy-from-waste facilities in Italy and Ireland. In addition, the company owns infrastructure business in China. Its corporate culture is focused on the bottom line of sustainability which involves people, planet, and prosperity. The objective of the study is to analyze the financial and nonfinancial information and evaluate the performance of the business management.A. Financial Information about Covanta Holding Corp
The mission of the company is to provide sustainable waste management and energy solutions to its clients. This is achieved by offering waste management services and operating the infrastructure required to generate energy. Energy-from-waste (EfW) facilities generate power through the combustion of non-hazardous waste. The combustion process converts the waste into inert ash and at the same time extract both ferrous and nonferrous metals for recycling.
Covanta trades at NYSE under the ticker symbol CVA, the shares are currently trading at $15.20 (Reuters, 2018). In addition, the common stock has a par value of $0.10 per share. The company’s income statement analysis is as shown in Table 1 below;
2016 (millions)
Percentage change
2015 (millions)
Percentage change
2014 (millions)
Operating revenue
$1,699
3.28%
$1,645
-2.20%
$1,682
Operating expense
$1,590
3.52%
$1,536
2.01%
$1,528
Operating income
$109
0.00%
$109
-29.22%
$154
Net income/loss
-$4
-105.88%
$68
3500.00%
-$2
Table 1- Income statement analysis Source (“Securities Exchange Commission,” 2017)
According to the income statement, the company’s operating revenue reflects a positive trend from 2014 to 2016. Even though the firm’s operating revenue decline in 2015 by -2.20% it recovered in 2016 by posting a 3.38% increase in the operating revenue. However, the operating expense increased at a rate of 3.52% in 2016 than the operating income which increased by 3.38% during the same period. On the other hand, the operating income declined by -29.22% in 2015 and remained ...
“Over” and “Under” Valued Financial Institutions: Evidence from a “Fair-Value...Ilias Lekkos
The aim of the study is to present our approach that allows us to evaluate relative over- and under-valuation of financial institutions based on the distance between their market-based price to book ratios and our estimated "fair-value" P/Bs.
According to our opinion 2018 is going to be a crucial pivot year that will define Greek economic standards for the years to come.
In some respects 2018 can be characterized as a “low risk” year with no new fiscal measures to be enacted and very low debt redemptions which minimizes the refinancing risk of the Greek Sovereign.
At the same time though 2018 is also a “decisions time” as a number of very significant issues - that up to now have been postponed - have to be decided. The agenda includes the debt sustainability / restructuring issue, the conclusion of 4th review, the precautionary line / cash buffer decision as well as the post-program monitoring process.
Greek Sovereign Bonds: On the verge of regaining investment grade status by 2020Ilias Lekkos
Given our special interest in the Greek economy, we are able to identify a wide gap between our model-implied rating for Greece vis-à-vis Moody’s. In particular, Moody’s currently rates Greece in the Caa category while according to our model Greece has a 40% chance of being in the Ba range and a 37% chance of being a B rated credit. This “massive” distance between model-implied and Moody’s ratings serves only to highlight how much qualitative factors are holding back Greece’s official ratings.
Small and medium-sized entrepreneurship in Greece: Recovery with slow but st...Ilias Lekkos
The sectoral assessment system of the Greek small and medium-sized entrepreneurship developed by the Department of Economic Research and Investment Strategy of Piraeus Bank is a key tool for mapping the Greek entrepreneurial landscape and developing suitable strategic actions to stimulate and support the most healthy and dynamic part of the Greek enterprises. The main conclusion of the study is that the stabilisation trend of the sectoral performance recorded last year has gained momentum, since a significant number of sectors of economic activity has made a remarkable improvement in their financial performance. Indicative of the positive momentum of the Greek small and medium sized entrepreneurship is that this year the average rating is “a-” compared to “b” last year, exceeding by far the “c” rating of the three-year period 2010-2012.
A structural model for forecasting the shipping marketIlias Lekkos
The aim οf this study is to develop an econometric model describing the evolution of new-build and second-hand ship prices. While this model was developed originally to address internal needs within the Piraeus Bank Group, we believe that both our modelling methodology and the broader “philosophy” of our approach could be of wider interest.
The ability to identify the factors that affect the shipping market can be used in a number of ways, such as:
Estimate the “fair” value in the new-build and second-hand market and assess current market pricing vs fair-valuation levels.
Allow banks to assess the future evolution of the value of shipping loan collaterals (i.e. the value of the ship underlying the loan).
To be used for risk management purposes by assessing the sensitivity of the collaterals under a series of explanatory factors.
Create long-term forecasts under alternative macroeconomic scenarios.
Understanding greek government bond spreadsIlias Lekkos
The aim of our research is to enhance our understanding on the fundamental behavior of the Greek Government Bond Spreads both before and after the Greek economic crisis. We do that by trying to address the following issues:
Which are the fundamental drivers of GGB spreads?
Is this set of driving factors constant or it varies relative to the situation in the Greek bond market and the size of the spreads?
Even for factors that are significant across the spreads distribution do they maintain a constant influence (constant betas) on the spreads or this varies as well?
Are Greek Government Bonds fairly valued given the levels of their fundamentals?
Are the risks around their fair value always symmetric or can we identify periods of positive (i.e. increased probability for narrower spreads) and negative (i.e. increased probability for wider spreads) risks?
Can we use the enhanced flexibility of the model for risk management purposes? That is, can we produce more accurate Value-at-Risk analysis for GGB spreads?
Finally, can we employ our model to explore the behavior of GGB spreads under various macroeconomic scenarios?
Primary surplus vs the liquidity of the greek banking systemIlias Lekkos
In this short research piece we analyse the reasons why there exist an inverse relationship between Greece's primary surpluses and the liquidity of the Greek banking system
PIRAEUS BANK FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ASSESSMENT MODEL: 2016 RANKINGSIlias Lekkos
The aim of this study is to provide clarity and transparency as to the methodology developed by Piraeus Bank in order to assess the financial strength, balance sheet quality and capital adequacy of a large number of -mostly European- financial institutions.
The methodology developed allows shortlisting the “preferred” financial institutions and ranking them each year from “best” to “worst”.
Having created the shortlist, the findings can be further used for the following three purposes:
To select fixed income instruments issued by the shortlisted institutions to be included in Piraeus Bank’s fixed income investment strategy
To use this shortlist as a starting point for the equity selection process of the above financial institutions
And last but not least, to evaluate current and potential counterparties for the wholesale banking division
Evaluating the Greek Corporate Universe: The Enterprise Rating SystemIlias Lekkos
We develop a four grade rating system for Greek enterprises – the Enterprise Rating System (ERS) –, which provides a holistic mapping of the greek entrepreneurial activity, based on the financial performance derived from the analysis of financial statements.
The implementation of the rating system for enterprises (ERS) to a sample of 3,436 enterprises revealed that in 2015 the structure of the Greek entrepreneurship resembles the shape of a rhomboid. The majority of the enterprises are good (“b”) and medium (“c”) performers with percentages of 36.4% and 40.8% respectively. Outperforming enterprises (“a”) account for only 8.4% whereas underperforming ones (“d”) for 14.3% of our sample.
We develop an ordered logit model to examine the dynamic evolution of the credit rating of Greek Government Bonds under various macroeconomic scenarios
A Critique of Factor Analysis of Interest RatesIlias Lekkos
Any old paper of mine on the limitations of applying factor analysis and principal component analysis on interest rates that has received renewed attention
Investment led Growth: Expectations vs RealityIlias Lekkos
The aim of our study is twofold: first we intend to investigate the factors that drive the most dynamic and productive part of gross fixed capital formation, namely the “private non-residential” investments in the short and medium –term. Secondly looking to the long-term we attempt to estimate the equilibrium level of investment activity that is in line with the new long-term potential GDP growth of the Greek Economy.
A noteworthy upward trend was recorded by the Government Bond Index in May that reached a record high of 401 points. Similar levels have not been recorded again since the construction of the index. Furthermore, for the first time, the index recorded a weighted average yield of 7.1%, which is well below its level one month ago. The agreement for the completion on the Greek program evaluation and the three-point plan for debt relief, gave further impetus to the upturn of the index which had already started in mid-March.
In what follows we estimate a number of macroeconomic scenarios starting from the most pessimistic one where the economy feels the full effect of the austerity measures without any mitigating actions. In that scenario the economy will contract by -2.8%. We believe that the prospect of such an adverse outcome should motivate all policy makers to spring into action.
We also estimate a scenario under which Greek households, in an attempt to cushion the impact of austerity on their living standards, reduce their savings even further, limiting somewhat the size of economic contraction to -2.5%.
Yet, the only factor with true recession - mitigating potency is the clearance of Government Arrears which if distributed timely could help limit the level of GDP recession to -1.1%.
We introduce the Piraeus Bank Shipping index along with the 3 subindices namely tanker, container and dry bulf that allow investors to track the stock market performance of major shipping companies listed in Stock Exchanges across the globe
In October, the Greek Government Bond Index recorded an annual high while also coming very close to reaching its September 2014 level. Improvement was also evident in the Corporate Bond Index, which increased by 2.56% in October relative to the previous month. On a Year-to-date (YtD) basis the index recorded a 2.35% gain.
Even tho Pi network is not listed on any exchange yet.
Buying/Selling or investing in pi network coins is highly possible through the help of vendors. You can buy from vendors[ buy directly from the pi network miners and resell it]. I will leave the telegram contact of my personal vendor.
@Pi_vendor_247
BYD SWOT Analysis and In-Depth Insights 2024.pptxmikemetalprod
Indepth analysis of the BYD 2024
BYD (Build Your Dreams) is a Chinese automaker and battery manufacturer that has snowballed over the past two decades to become a significant player in electric vehicles and global clean energy technology.
This SWOT analysis examines BYD's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as it competes in the fast-changing automotive and energy storage industries.
Founded in 1995 and headquartered in Shenzhen, BYD started as a battery company before expanding into automobiles in the early 2000s.
Initially manufacturing gasoline-powered vehicles, BYD focused on plug-in hybrid and fully electric vehicles, leveraging its expertise in battery technology.
Today, BYD is the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer, delivering over 1.2 million electric cars globally. The company also produces electric buses, trucks, forklifts, and rail transit.
On the energy side, BYD is a major supplier of rechargeable batteries for cell phones, laptops, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems.
how to sell pi coins in South Korea profitably.DOT TECH
Yes. You can sell your pi network coins in South Korea or any other country, by finding a verified pi merchant
What is a verified pi merchant?
Since pi network is not launched yet on any exchange, the only way you can sell pi coins is by selling to a verified pi merchant, and this is because pi network is not launched yet on any exchange and no pre-sale or ico offerings Is done on pi.
Since there is no pre-sale, the only way exchanges can get pi is by buying from miners. So a pi merchant facilitates these transactions by acting as a bridge for both transactions.
How can i find a pi vendor/merchant?
Well for those who haven't traded with a pi merchant or who don't already have one. I will leave the telegram id of my personal pi merchant who i trade pi with.
Tele gram: @Pi_vendor_247
#pi #sell #nigeria #pinetwork #picoins #sellpi #Nigerian #tradepi #pinetworkcoins #sellmypi
how can i use my minded pi coins I need some funds.DOT TECH
If you are interested in selling your pi coins, i have a verified pi merchant, who buys pi coins and resell them to exchanges looking forward to hold till mainnet launch.
Because the core team has announced that pi network will not be doing any pre-sale. The only way exchanges like huobi, bitmart and hotbit can get pi is by buying from miners.
Now a merchant stands in between these exchanges and the miners. As a link to make transactions smooth. Because right now in the enclosed mainnet you can't sell pi coins your self. You need the help of a merchant,
i will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant below. 👇 I and my friends has traded more than 3000pi coins with him successfully.
@Pi_vendor_247
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.
how to sell pi coins on Bitmart crypto exchangeDOT TECH
Yes. Pi network coins can be exchanged but not on bitmart exchange. Because pi network is still in the enclosed mainnet. The only way pioneers are able to trade pi coins is by reselling the pi coins to pi verified merchants.
A verified merchant is someone who buys pi network coins and resell it to exchanges looking forward to hold till mainnet launch.
I will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant to trade with.
@Pi_vendor_247
What website can I sell pi coins securely.DOT TECH
Currently there are no website or exchange that allow buying or selling of pi coins..
But you can still easily sell pi coins, by reselling it to exchanges/crypto whales interested in holding thousands of pi coins before the mainnet launch.
Who is a pi merchant?
A pi merchant is someone who buys pi coins from miners and resell to these crypto whales and holders of pi..
This is because pi network is not doing any pre-sale. The only way exchanges can get pi is by buying from miners and pi merchants stands in between the miners and the exchanges.
How can I sell my pi coins?
Selling pi coins is really easy, but first you need to migrate to mainnet wallet before you can do that. I will leave the telegram contact of my personal pi merchant to trade with.
Tele-gram.
@Pi_vendor_247
how to swap pi coins to foreign currency withdrawable.DOT TECH
As of my last update, Pi is still in the testing phase and is not tradable on any exchanges.
However, Pi Network has announced plans to launch its Testnet and Mainnet in the future, which may include listing Pi on exchanges.
The current method for selling pi coins involves exchanging them with a pi vendor who purchases pi coins for investment reasons.
If you want to sell your pi coins, reach out to a pi vendor and sell them to anyone looking to sell pi coins from any country around the globe.
Below is the contact information for my personal pi vendor.
Telegram: @Pi_vendor_247
what is the future of Pi Network currency.DOT TECH
The future of the Pi cryptocurrency is uncertain, and its success will depend on several factors. Pi is a relatively new cryptocurrency that aims to be user-friendly and accessible to a wide audience. Here are a few key considerations for its future:
Message: @Pi_vendor_247 on telegram if u want to sell PI COINS.
1. Mainnet Launch: As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Pi was still in the testnet phase. Its success will depend on a successful transition to a mainnet, where actual transactions can take place.
2. User Adoption: Pi's success will be closely tied to user adoption. The more users who join the network and actively participate, the stronger the ecosystem can become.
3. Utility and Use Cases: For a cryptocurrency to thrive, it must offer utility and practical use cases. The Pi team has talked about various applications, including peer-to-peer transactions, smart contracts, and more. The development and implementation of these features will be essential.
4. Regulatory Environment: The regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies is evolving globally. How Pi navigates and complies with regulations in various jurisdictions will significantly impact its future.
5. Technology Development: The Pi network must continue to develop and improve its technology, security, and scalability to compete with established cryptocurrencies.
6. Community Engagement: The Pi community plays a critical role in its future. Engaged users can help build trust and grow the network.
7. Monetization and Sustainability: The Pi team's monetization strategy, such as fees, partnerships, or other revenue sources, will affect its long-term sustainability.
It's essential to approach Pi or any new cryptocurrency with caution and conduct due diligence. Cryptocurrency investments involve risks, and potential rewards can be uncertain. The success and future of Pi will depend on the collective efforts of its team, community, and the broader cryptocurrency market dynamics. It's advisable to stay updated on Pi's development and follow any updates from the official Pi Network website or announcements from the team.
How much do Greek non-viable enterprises cost: Findings from an enterprise restructuring simulation exercise
1. How much do Greek non-viable enterprises cost:
Findings from an enterprise restructuring
simulation exercise
June 2018
Ilias Lekkos
Paraskevi Vlachou
ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY
2. Contents of study
2
1. Purpose of the study | key findings
2. Methodology for identifying non-viable enterprises
June 2018
5. Appendix
4. Simulation exercise of non-viable enterprises resolution | Impact on
financial figures and results
3. Mapping Greek entrepreneurship: non-viable vs. viable enterprises
4. 4
Purpose of the study
The prolonged and deep economic recession has had an immense impact on the profitability of the Greek
corporate sector, which in turn led to a steep increase in non-performing loans and consequently to the
creation of a whole “generation” of non-viable or “zombie” firms. In the past, all the attempts to address the
problem either from the Greek state or from the banking system have been timid or fragmented, resulting –in
most cases – in generating vicious cycles of forbearance and evergreening which kept alive a substantial
number of enterprises without any realistic hope of recovery.
However, maintaining a significant percentage of non-viable corporations in operation entails significant
costs not only for the business and the banking sectors but for the entire economy as well. This happens
because, as non-viable enterprises operate with low levels of productivity, they lower the productivity of the
whole economy. In addition, as long as they remain alive, they trap production factors (capital and labour),
thus preventing the expansion of viable enterprises. At the same time, as they do not operate on purely
profit maximisation criteria, they “contaminate” the profitability of the rest of the economy. Finally, non-
performing loans burden the profitability and capital adequacy of banks, restrict the financing of viable
enterprises and increase the cost of funding for the entire economy.
As the conditions for more radical and long-term solutions to the problems of the domestic entrepreneurship
seem to mature, at the same time there is a more urgent need to assess the potential benefit that can be
gained for all stakeholders from a large-scale restructuring programme of Greek non-viable enterprises.
June 2018
5. 5
This need is addressed in the present study, which attempts to assess the potential benefits of restructuring
non-viable enterprises as follows:
As a first step, the Greek corporate sector is divided into viable and non-viable enterprises and their distinct
performance is estimated in terms of profitability, capital structure and liabilities.
Having defined the two distinct populations of (viable and non-viable) enterprises, we then proceed by
simulating the outcome (in terms of profitability, turnover and “curing” of liabilities) that would result from
a theoretical business restructuring programme, where non-viable enterprises are resolved and their assets
(and part of their liabilities) are absorbed by viable companies of similar size and average (for their size)
performance.
A key assumption of the simulation scenario is that the percentage of the liabilities that will be transferred
to the viable corporates will be such that will not alter their pre-absorption balance sheet structure (i.e. the
viable companies’ liabilities/total assets ratio will remain the same in both pre- and post-absorption states).
The part of the liabilities that will be transferred will become performing/current again, providing an
indication of the non-performing liabilities curing rate. The remaining part of the liabilities that will be left
behind will have to be written-off, thus providing an estimate of the restructuring costs to the creditors of
non-viable enterprises.
June 2018
Purpose of the study
6. 6
Key findings (I): Characteristics of non-viable enterprises
June 2018
Starting from a very conservative definition, according to which a non-viable enterprise is an enterprise that is in
operation for at least five (5) – in order to exclude the start-ups – and for three (3) consecutive years its profitability
levels are so low that they are insufficient to cover current interest expenses (i.e. in technical terms, the financial
expense coverage ratio is less than one). Based on the above, the following conclusions can be reached:
• Non-viable enterprises account for 7.1% of the total sample in 2016. The percentage of non-viable enterprises aged
between 21 and 40 years is particular high (37.8%).
• Most non-viable enterprises (8.2%) are micro enterprises, followed by medium-sized (6%) and small (5.2%)
enterprises, while the lowest percentage (4.4%) is recorded amongst large enterprises. However, because of their
size, the economic impact of large non-viable enterprises is significantly higher compared to that of other size
cohorts.
• Trapped in non-viable enterprises is productive capacity (as reflected by their asset value) amounting to €28.4 bn,
which equals to 16.3% of GDP.
• Accordingly, non-viable enterprises have undertaken €23.5 bn liabilities or 22.6% of the total liabilities (which by
and large are non-performing) and have €613 mn of annual financial expenses.
• On average, viable enterprises do not have very high liabilities to assets ratio (56.1%), whereas non-viable
enterprises have a significantly higher ratio (82.6%).
• The results of non-viable businesses at EBITDA level amount to €-413 mn, while at the level before taxes they reach
€-1.3 bn. Thus, the EBITDA margin stands at -10.3% and the return on assets ( ROA) at -1.5%.
7. 7
Key findings (II): Benefits from viable enterprises absorbing non-
viable ones
The fact that more than 16.5% of the total productive capacity (assets) of the non-financial sector of the Greek
economy is trapped in non-viable business schemes presents a huge cost not only for the enterprises themselves
and their creditors (suppliers, banks, public state bodies, etc.) but for the whole community as well.
The methodology developed to assess the potential benefit from a restructuring programme for non-viable
enterprises is a simulation exercise according to which the total assets and a part of liabilities of the enterprises
identified as non-viable are absorbed by viable enterprises of similar size. The results of this exercise show that:
• The potential profitability (EBITDA) increase is €2.6 bn.
• The potential operating revenue increase is estimated at €16.7 bn.
• The liabilities that – through their takeover by viable enterprises – could be repaid again amount to €15.9 bn.
• The cost of restructuring in terms of “haircutting” part of the liabilities – that will not be transferred to the
viable enterprises – is estimated at €7.6 bn.
June 2018
8. Micro Small Medium-sized Large Total
Assets under
absorption
€2.3 bn €2 bn €9.1 bn €15.1 bn €28.4 bn
Potential EBITDA
increase
€239.2 mn €260.4 mn €883 mn €1.2 bn €2.6 bn
Potential operating
revenue increase
€618.6 mn €835.2 mn €5.6 bn €9.7 bn €16.7 bn
“Curing” of
liabilities
€1.2 bn €1.2 bn €5.1 bn €8.5 bn €15.9 bn
“Haircut” of
liabilities
€937.2 mn €675.7 mn €964.4 mn €5 bn €7.6 bn
% of “haircut” 44.7% 36.9% 15.9% 37.1% 32.3%
Change in equity
after absorption
€937.2 mn €675.7 mn €964.4 mn €5 bn €7.6 bn
8
Summary of resolution simulation results: Viable enterprises absorbing
non-viable ones
June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
10. For the purpose of this analysis, all enterprises, both SA and LTD, were examined, without any size criteria. Furthermore, all non-
financial sectors of economic activity were examined according to the NACE rev. 2 classification, except for the following:
Κ: Financial and insurance activities
O: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
Τ: Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods – and services – producing activities of households for own use
U: Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
Enterprise sample selection
10June 2018
134,928 105,302 100,118 95,122
Observations
of enterprises
with available
data for assets
2012-2016
Source / date of financial data extract: ICAP DATA / March 2018
Observations of enterprises with
available data for:
• EBITDA
• financial expenses
• total operating revenue
• year of foundation
Observations of
enterprises with asset
value ≥ €90,000*
Observations of
enterprises with total
operating revenue value
≥ €34,000*
Final number of
observations of
enterprises
2012-2016
* Based on the criterion > 5th percentile of the observation distribution, the respective value thresholds applied to assets and operating revenue.
11. Non-viable enterprise
Definitions of non-viable enterprises and enterprise size cohorts
11June 2018
* Similar approaches, but with higher enterprise age limits, have been applied in international studies, e.g. OECD. Indicative literature:
• Adalat McGowan, Andrews and Millot (2017), The Walking Dead? Zombie firms and productivity performance in OECD countries, Economics Department Working
Papers No. 1372, OECD, January 2017
• Adalat McGowan, Andrews and Millot (2017), Insolvency regimes, zombie firms and capital reallocation, Economics Department Working Papers No. 1399, OECD,
June 2017
By adopting the size limits in line with the definition of SMEs given by the European Commission (Commission Recommendation
2003/361/EC), not for the turnover, but for total operating revenue, the following definitions apply:
– micro: an enterprise with annual operating revenue up to two mn euros (≤€2 mn),
– small: an enterprise with annual operating revenue between two and ten mn euros (€2 mn, €10 mn],
– medium-sized: an enterprise with annual operating revenue between ten and 50 mn euros (€10 mn, €50 mn] and,
– large: an enterprise with annual operating revenue exceeding 50 mn euros (>€50 mn)
An enterprise is non-viable when it satisfies two criteria*:
– for three (3) consecutive years, EBITDA is not enough to cover the financial expenses. That is, financial expense coverage ratio
is less than one (≤1).
– it is not a start-up. Therefore, an age limit of the enterprise was set to be five (5) years or older.
Enterprise size cohorts
13. Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (I):
Non-viable enterprises accounted for 7.1% of total enterprises in 2016
13Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
• In 2016, out of a sample of 11,165 enterprises, 794 are characterised as non-viable (7.1% of the total sample), i.e. they
have financial expenses coverage ratio less than one for three consecutive years and are at least five years in operation.
• Most non-viable enterprises (8.2%) are micro enterprises, followed by medium-sized (6%) and small (5.2%) enterprises,
while the lowest percentage (4.4%) is recorded in the large enterprises. However, because of their size, the economic
impact of the large non-viable enterprises is significantly higher than the other size cohorts.
Shares of non-viable enterprises to total, by size cohort, 2016
7.1%
8.2%
5.2%
6.0%
4.4%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
14. 14Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
• The established enterprises – older than 11 years old – exhibit increasingly higher difficulty in servicing their financial
obligations, and potentially have viability problems, based on the criterion that the financial expense coverage ratio is less
than one for three consecutive years.
• The percentage of non-viable enterprises aged between 21 and 40 years is particular high (37.8%).
Shares of non-viable enterprises by age cohort, 2016
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (II):
Older enterprises are the most at risk
15.6%
30.1%
37.8%
16.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
5-10 11-20 21-40 41+
15. 15Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (ΙΙΙ):
€28.4 bn of assets and €4.9 bn of equity sunk in non-viable enterprises
Assets, 2016 (in mn euros)
Equity, 2016 (in mn euros)
• €28.4 bn assets are trapped in non-viable enterprises, a value
equivalent to 16.6% of total assets in our sample in 2016.
• In terms of asset value, the highest concentration of non-
viable enterprises is concentrated in the large and medium-
sized cohort.
• The equity of non-viable enterprises amounts to €4.9 bn in
total, which accounts for only 7.3% of the total equity in our
sample.
• Small non-viable enterprises have the lowest equity value of
just €185 mn, followed by the micro ones with € 211 mn.
• Medium-sized enterprises have the highest value of equity
among the size classes of non-viable enterprises, reaching €3
bn.
• The equity of large non-viable enterprises is €1.6 bn,
accounting for just 3.9% of the equity of all large enterprises.
28,427
2,307 2,014
9,053 15,053
143,202
10,206 16,267
26,981
89,747
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
4,941
211 185
2,973 1,572
62,932
5,077 6,949
11,736
39,171
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
16. 16Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (IV):
non-viable enterprises have undertaken €23.5 bn liabilities and have to
service €613 mn of financial expenses
Total liabilities, 2016 (in mn euros)
Financial expenses, 2016 (in mn euros)
• Non-viable enterprises have undertaken €23.5 bn liabilities
or 22.6% of the total.
• Out of the €23.5 bn total liabilities of non-viable enterprises,
the largest amount (€13.5 bn) are liabilities held by large
enterprises.
• Non-viable enterprises have to service €613 mn financial
expenses, which represents 20.6% of the financial expenses of
all enterprises in our sample.
• Medium-sized and large non-viable enterprises have the
highest financial expenses amounting to €244 mn and €241
mn respectively.
23,486
2,097 1,829
6,079
13,481
80,269
5,130 9,318
15,245
50,576
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
613
68 60
244 241
2,367
139 262
469
1,498
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
17. 17Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (V):
non-viable enterprises record only €4 bn operating revenue and €413 mn
losses at EBITDA level
Operating revenue, 2016 (in mn euros)
EBITDA, 2016 (in mn euros)
• The income statement results reveal the low efficiency of non-
viable enterprises.
• Non-viable enterprises account for 3.7% of total operating
revenue, i.e. just €4 bn when viable enterprises earn €104.2 bn.
• In terms of operating revenue the large non-viable enterprises
record the worst performance earning only 2.3% of the cohort’s
total.
• At EBITDA level, non-viable enterprises record €413 mn losses,
when viable ones earn €11 bn EBITDA profits.
• Micro enterprises have the worst overall performance given that
non-viable enterprises record €133 mn of losses and viable ones
earn only €470 mn of EBITDA profits.
• Large non-viable enterprises is the only size cohort that manages to
record (a tiny) profit of just €1.8 mn EBITDA profits.
4,022 313 642 1,517 1,550
104,150
4,121
11,930
21,299
66,800
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
-413 -133 -109 -173 1.8
10,938
470
1,221
2,117
7,131
-500
1,500
3,500
5,500
7,500
9,500
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
18. 18Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (VI):
the losses of non-viable enterprises expand to €1.3 bn in the results before
taxes
Results before taxes, 2016 (in mn euros)
• The loss-making performance of non-viable enterprises
is further expanded to €1.3 bn when considering the net
results before taxes.
• Medium non-viable enterprises record the highest
losses (€546 mn) followed by large ones (€282 mn).
• The losses before taxes of micro non-viable enterprises
are so high (€228 mn) compared to €96 mn profits of
viable ones that this size cohort is overall loss making to
the tune of €132.2 mn. -1,312
-228 -255 -546 -282
4,829
96 601
1,056
3,076
-1,500
-500
500
1,500
2,500
3,500
4,500
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
Non-viable Viable
19. 19Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
• The average EBITDA margin of non-viable enterprises
stands at -10.3%, when viable enterprises achieve 10.5%
on average.
• The performance gap of micro enterprises is high, as at the
same time non-viable enterprises have the worst average
negative profit margin at -42.5% and viable ones have the
highest EBITDA margin (11.4%).
• As the size of the enterprise grows, the underperformace
in terms of profit margins becomes less pronounced.
• The large non-viable enterprises have a slightly positive
average EBITDA margin (0.1%), with the average
performance of viable large enterprises at 10.7%.
EBITDA margin, 2016
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (VΙI):
-10.3% EBITDA margin for non-viable enterprises versus 10.5% for viable
enterprises
-10.3%
-42.5%
-17.0%
-11.4%
0.1%
10.5% 11.4% 10.2% 9.9% 10.7%
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Non-viable Viable
20. 20Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Return on assets based on EBITDA, 2016
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (VΙII):
-1.5% return on assets for non-viable enterprises versus 7.6% for viable
enterprises
• The efficiency of non-viable enterprises is poor, with
their return on assets at -1.5%, compared to 7.6% for
viable enterprises.
• The larger the size of the enterprise, the higher the
average operating return on assets for the viable
enterprises and the more moderate the negative
performance for the non-viable ones.
• Large enterprises is the only size cohort with a slightly
positive average return on assets of the non-viable
enterprises.
-1.5%
-5.8% -5.4%
-1.9%
0.0%
7.6%
4.6%
7.5% 7.8% 7.9%
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Non-viable Viable
21. 21Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Liabilities to total assets, 2016
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (IX):
high leverage of non-viable enterprises, with liabilities amounting to 82.6% of the total
assets, significantly worse compared to viable ones that stand at 56.1%
• On average, leverage in viable enterprises is contained with
a ratio of liabilities to assets at 56.1%. whereas for non-
viable enterprises it is significantly higher (82.6%).
• Micro and small non-viable enterprises seem to finance
their assets mainly from liabilities (90.9% and 90.8%
respectively).
• Medium-sized non-viable enterprises have on average a
more moderate leverage at 67.2%. Compared to the other
size cohorts, this category does not deviate much from the
respective percentage of viable enterprises (56.5%).
82.6%
90.9% 90.8%
67.2%
89.6%
56.1%
50.3%
57.3% 56.5% 56.4%
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-viable Viable
22. 22Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATAJune 2018
Asset turnover, 2016
Mapping Greek entrepreneurship (X):
Low asset turnover of viable enterprises (0.14x) versus viable ones (0.73x)
• All non-viable enterprises operate with limited utilisation of
their assets, which on average produce operating revenue
only 0.14x, versus 0.73x in the case of viable enterprises.
• Among the size categories of non-viable enterprises, the
small ones seem to have the highest utilisation of their
assets for making operating revenue (0.32x). However, this
performance is poor compared to viable small enterprises
(0.73x).
• The performance of micro enterprises is in general low, as
the asset turnover of non-viable enterprises is low (0.14x)
whereas the one of viable micro enterprises is well below the
total of viable enterprises (0.4x).
0.14 0.14
0.32
0.17
0.10
0.73
0.40
0.73
0.79
0.74
Total Micro Small Medium-sized Large
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Non-viable Viable
23. 23June 2018
4. Simulation exercise of non-viable enterprises resolution | Impact on
financial figures and results
24. 24
Motivation and outline of the non-viable enterprises' resolution simulation
exercise (a)
The fact that more than 16.5% of the total productive capacity (assets) of the non-financial sector of the
Greek economy is trapped in non-viable business endeavors presents a huge cost not only to the
enterprises themselves and their creditors (suppliers, banks, public sector entities, etc.) but to the whole
society as well.
This cost, inter alia, stems from the fact that the non-viable enterprises operate with a much lower level of
efficiency. As we have already estimated, the return on assets of the large viable enterprises is 7.9%
compared to 0% of the respective non-viable enterprises. At the same time, the viable enterprises are able
to achieve a significantly higher turnover (or in general, operating revenues) than the corresponding non-
viable ones.
Therefore, a reasonable way of estimating the potential benefit of a large-scale restructuring program for
the non-viable enterprises is to simulate the economic outcome that would result from the resolution of
these companies and the absorption of their assets from viable ones of similar size and performance equal
to the average performance recorded in their size cohort. The more rational and efficient use of these
assets will lead to an increase of turnover (and generally of operating revenue) and profitability of the entire
Greek economy.
June 2018
25. 25
Last but not least, the restructuring of non-viable enterprises will have significant impact on the liabilities’
side of their balance sheets. Based on the figures for 2016, the liabilities of non-viable enterprises (to
banks, suppliers, social security funds, etc.) amount to €23.5 bn in total and to a great extent they are not
serviced on time.
As part of the resolution exercise viable companies will have to undertake part of the non-viable
enterprises’ liabilities. A key assumption of the simulation scenario is that the percentage of the liabilities
that will be transferred to the viable corporates will be such that will not alter their pre-absorption
balance sheet structure (i.e. the viable companies’ liabilities/total assets ratio will be the same in both pre-
and post-absorption states). The part of the liabilities that will be transferred will become
performing/current again, providing an indication of the non-performing liabilities curing rate. The
remaining part of the liabilities that will be left behind will have to be written-off, thus providing an
estimate of the restructuring costs to the creditors of non-viable corporates enterprises.
June 2018
Motivation and outline of the non-viable enterprises' resolution simulation
exercise (b)
26. 26
Micro enterprises resolution: Simulation of absorption of €2.3 bn assets of
non-viable enterprises by viable ones
June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
Note: Any differences in results are due to rounding
Assets
Return on
assets
EBITDA Asset turnover
Operating
revenue
Liabilities to
assets
Liabilities Equity
-5.8% €-133 mn[1]
0.14 €313.1 mn[4]
90.9% €2.1 bn[7]
4.6% €469.5 mn[2]
0.4 €4.1 bn[5]
50.3% €5.1 bn[8]
4.6% €575.7 mn[3]
0.4 €5.1 bn[6]
50.3% €6.3 bn[9]
“Curing” of
liabilities
€1.2 bn
[9]-[8]
“Haircut” €937.2 mn[10]
[9]-[8]-[7]
% of “haircut”
44.7%
[10]/[7]
€5.1 bn[12]
Beforeabsorption
Non-viable €2.3 bn €210.6 mn[11]
After
absorption
New business
scheme
€12.5 bn
Viable €10.2 bn
€6.2 bn[13]
Change
in equity
€937.2 mn
[13]-[12]-[11]=[10]
Potential EBITDA
increase
€239.2 mn
[3]-[2]-[1]
Potential operating
revenue increase
€618.6 mn
[6]-[5]-[4]
27. 27June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
Small enterprises resolution: Simulation of absorption of €2 bn assets of non-
viable enterprises by viable ones
Note: Any differences in results are due to rounding
Assets
Return on
assets
EBITDA Asset turnover
Operating
revenue
Liabilities to
assets
Liabilities Equity
-5.4% €-109.2 mn[1]
0.32 €641.6 mn[4]
90.8% €1.8 bn[7]
7.5% €1.2 bn[2]
0.73 €11.9 bn[5]
57.3% €9.3 bn[8]
7.5% €1.4 bn[3]
0.73 €13.4 bn[6]
57.3% €10.5 bn[9]
“Curing” of
liabilities
€1.2 bn
[9]-[8]
“Haircut” €675.7 mn[10]
[9]-[8]-[7]
% of “haircut”
36.9%
[10]/[7]
Beforeabsorption
Non-viable €2 bn €184.5 mn[11]
Viable €16.3 bn
After
absorption
New business
scheme
€18.3 bn €7.8 bn[13]
€7 bn[12]
Potential EBITDA
increase
€260.4 mn
[3]-[2]-[1]
Potential operating
revenue increase
€835.2 mn
[6]-[5]-[4]
Change
in equity
€675.7 mn
[13]-[12]-[11]=[10]
28. 28June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
Medium-sized enterprises resolution: Simulation of absorption of €9.1 bn
assets of non-viable enterprises by viable ones
Note: Any differences in results are due to rounding
Assets
Return on
assets
EBITDA Asset turnover
Operating
revenue
Liabilities to
assets
Liabilities Equity
-1.9% €-172.8 mn[1]
0.17 €1.5 bn[4]
67.2% €6.1 bn[7]
7.8% €2.1 bn[2]
0.79 €21.3 bn[5]
56.5% €15.2 bn[8]
7.8% €2.8 bn[3]
0.79 €28.4 bn[6]
56.5% €20.4 bn[9]
“Curing” of
liabilities
€5.1 bn
[9]-[8]
“Haircut” €964.4 mn[10]
[9]-[8]-[7]
% of “haircut”
15.9%
[10]/[7]
€11.7 bn[12]
Beforeabsorption
Non-viable €9.1 bn €3 bn[11]
After
absorption
New business
scheme
€36 bn
Viable €27 bn
€15.7 bn[13]
Change
in equity
€964.4 mn
[13]-[12]-[11]=[10]
Potential EBITDA
increase
€883 mn
[3]-[2]-[1]
Potential operating
revenue increase
€5.6 bn
[6]-[5]-[4]
29. 29June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
Note: Any differences in results are due to rounding
Large enterprises resolution: Simulation of absorption of €15.1 bn assets of
non-viable enterprises by viable ones
Assets
Return on
assets
EBITDA Asset turnover
Operating
revenue
Liabilities to
assets
Liabilities Equity
0.0% €1.8 mn[1]
0.1 €1.6 bn[4]
89.6% €13.5 bn[7]
7.9% €7.1 bn[2]
0.74 €66.8 bn[5]
56.4% €50.6 bn[8]
7.9% €8.3 bn[3]
0.74 €78 bn[6]
56.4% €59.1 bn[9]
“Curing” of
liabilities
€8.5 bn
[9]-[8]
“Haircut” €5 bn[10]
[9]-[8]-[7]
% of “haircut”
37.1%
[10]/[7]
Beforeabsorption
Non-viable €15.1 bn €1.6 bn[11]
Viable €89.7 bn
After
absorption
New business
scheme
€104.8 bn €45.7 bn[13]
€39.2 bn[12]
Potential EBITDA
increase
€1.2 bn
[3]-[2]-[1]
Potential operating
revenue increase
€9.7 bn
[6]-[5]-[4]
Change
in equity
€5 bn
[13]-[12]-[11]=[10]
30. Micro Small Medium-sized Large Total
Assets under
absorption
€2.3 bn €2 bn €9.1 bn €15.1 bn €28.4 bn
Potential EBITDA
increase
€239.2 mn €260.4 mn €883 mn €1.2 bn €2.6 bn
Potential operating
revenue increase
€618.6 mn €835.2 mn €5.6 bn €9.7 bn €16.7 bn
“Curing” of
liabilities
€1.2 bn €1.2 bn €5.1 bn €8.5 bn €15.9 bn
“Haircut” of
liabilities
€937.2 mn €675.7 mn €964.4 mn €5 bn €7.6 bn
% of “haircut” 44.7% 36.9% 15.9% 37.1% 32.3%
Change in equity
after absorption
€937.2 mn €675.7 mn €964.4 mn €5 bn €7.6 bn
30
Summary of resolution simulation results: Viable enterprises absorbing
non-viable ones
June 2018 Source: Piraeus Bank Research, ICAP DATA
32. Examined ratio formulas
32
Asset turnover
Total operating revenue
Assets
EBITDA margin
EBITDA
Total operating revenue
Liabilities to assets
Total liabilities
Assets
Financial expense
coverage ratio
EBITDA
Financial expenses
Return on assets
EBITDA
Assets
June 2018
33. 33
Disclaimer: This document is produced by the Economic Research & Investment Strategy Department of Piraeus Bank (hereinafter "the Bank"), which is supervised by the European Central
Bank (ECB), in collaboration with the Bank of Greece and is sent or provided to third parties, without any obligation of its author. This document or any part of it should not be duplicated in any
way without the prior written consent of its author.
The information or opinions included in this document are addressed to existing or potential clients in a general manner, without taking into account the particular circumstances, the
investment objectives, the financial ability, the experience and/or knowledge of the potential recipients of this document and, as a result, they do not constitute or should not be considered
neither as a solicitation or offer for the conduct of transactions in financial instruments or currencies nor as a recommendation or advice for decision making in relation to those. Taking into
account the aforementioned, the recipient of the information contained in this document should proceed with his/her own research, analysis, and confirmation of the information which is
included in this document and seek for independent and professional legal, tax and investment advice, before proceeding with any investment decision making.
The information depicted in this document is relied on sources that the Bank considers to be reliable and is provided on an "as is" basis, however, the Bank cannot warrant as to their accuracy
and completeness. The opinions and estimates herein are related to the trend of the local and international financial markets at the indicated date (prices at closing time) and are subject to
changes without any prior notice. Notwithstanding the above, the Bank might include in this document investment researches, which have been conducted by third persons. In this case, the
Bank does not modify those researches, but it presents them on an "as is" basis, therefore, no responsibility is assumed in relation to the content of the aforementioned investment researches.
The Bank is under no duty to update the information contained in this document. Considering the above, the Bank, the members of its Board of Directors and the relevant persons assume no
responsibility for the information included in the present document and/or for the outcome of any investment decisions made according to such information.
Piraeus Bank Group is an organisation with a significant presence in the Greek market and an increasing one in the international markets providing a wide range of investment services. In the
context of investment services offered by the Bank and/or any other Piraeus Group companies in general, there might be cases whereby conflict of interests may arise in relation to the
information provided herein. Reference should be made to the fact that the Bank, the relevant persons and/or other Piraeus Group companies indicatively:
a. Are not subject to any prohibition in relation to trading on own account or in the course of providing portfolio management services prior to the publication of this document or the
acquisition of any shares prior to any public offering or the acquisition of any other securities.
b. May offer upon remuneration investment banking services to issuers for whom this document may contain information.
c. May participate to the issuers' share capital or acquire other securities issued by the aforementioned issuers or attract other financial interests from them.
d. Might provide market making or underwriting services to issuers that might be mentioned in this document.
e. Might have published papers the content of which is different or incompatible to the information presented herein.
The Bank as well as the other Piraeus Group's companies have enacted, implement and maintain an effective policy, which prevents circumstances that may give rise to conflicts of interests
and the dissemination of any information among the departments ("chinese walls") and they also constantly comply with the provisions and regulations relevant to inside information and
market abuse. Also, the Bank confirms that it doesn't have any kind of interest or conflict of interest with a) any other legal entity or person that could have participated in the preparation of
the present document and b) with any other legal entity or person that couldn't have participated in the preparation of the present document, but had access to it before its publication.
It is duly stated that: the investments described in the present document include investment risks, among which the risk of losing the entire capital invested. In particular, it is stated that;
a. The figures presented herein refer to the past and that the past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
b. In case the figures refer to simulated past performance, that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
c. The return on investments might be positively or negatively affected as a result of currency fluctuations, in case the figures are denominated in a foreign currency (other than Euro).
d. Any forecasts in relation to future performance, may not be a reliable indicator of future performance.
e. The tax treatment of the information as well as transactions pertained in this document, depends on each investor's individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future. As a
result, the recipient should seek for independent advice in relation to the applicable tax legislation.
The distribution of the present document outside Greece and/or to persons governed by foreign law may be subject to restrictions or prohibitions according to the applicable legislation.
Therefore, the recipient of the present should seek for independent advice in relation to the applicable legislation, in order to look into such restrictions and/or prohibitions.
June 2018