Using warez version, crack, warez passwords, patches, serial numbers, registration codes, key generator, pirate key, keymaker or keygen forSharePod 4.2.0 license key is illegal and prevent future development ofSharePod 4.2.0. Download links are directly from our mirrors or publisher's website,SharePod 4.2.0 torrent files or shared files from free file sharing and free upload services,including SharePod 4.2.0 Rapidshare, MegaUpload, HellShare, HotFile, FileServe, YouSendIt, SendSpace, DepositFiles, Letitbit, MailBigFile, DropSend, MediaMax, LeapFile, zUpload, MyOtherDrive, DivShare or MediaFire,are not allowed!
Your computer will be at risk getting infected with spyware, adware, viruses, worms, trojan horses, dialers, etcwhile you are searching and browsing these illegal sites which distribute a so called keygen, key generator, pirate key, serial number, warez full version or crack forSharePod 4.2.0. These infections might corrupt your computer installation or breach your privacy.SharePod 4.2.0 keygen or key generator might contain a trojan horse opening a backdoor on your computer.Hackers can use this backdoor to take control of your computer, copy data from your computer or to use your computer to distribute viruses and spam to other people.
Key Sharepod 4 Serial Number
softube.drawmer.s73.and.drawmer.1973.win.audioutopia.oddsoxspacelabs mcare 300 patient monitor service manual full.17serial number adobe photoshop cs2 keygen freenavteq Lincoln - North America Map DVD Version 8DMount blade with fire and sword 1.143 multiplayer crack skidrowthe slim shady lp eminem zipbank financial management macmillan pdf freefrancisco montes de oca historia de la filosofia pdf freeA Plague on Primus online freevideojet excel 2000 english manual zip
Patrick DeCorla-Souza: Sure. Michel, let's go back to the PowerPoint. All right, so the results are going to be first for the PSC, which we also called conventional delivery and the P3 option. And we will have both the public perspective, that is the risks that are retained by the public agency, and the private sectors or the concessionaire's perspective to estimate what risks and the value of the risks that are retained by the concessionaire. So the first set of results relates to the PSC or conventional delivery and you have actually seen all of these numbers before, if you did the Value for Money exercise that we had done a couple of weeks back. And all of these numbers were in the output table for value for money. So what you have is the nominal values. So these are the current dollars of the particular years all into the future all added up without any discounting. And then you have the discounted dollars which uses a discount rate. In this case, we have used 4 percent because that was the borrowing rate of the public agency. So these numbers are calculated based on the inputs that we provided. And Wim showed you the set of inputs that were used in the input sheet for the risks based on the probability of occurrence based on value of the impact. All of these risks were individually calculated and then summed to come up with the total for pure risks. Then the base variability was simply 10 percent or whatever figure that we might have applied for the various phases: preconstruction, construction, and operations. Now, lifecycle performance risk is the one that is the most difficult to follow because this is not something that is calculated based on inputs provided by subject matter experts. It is actually calculated based on the investors' perception of risk, and as reflected in the rates of return and interest rates and other financing conditions imposed on the project. So what this value and the value in net present value for lifecycle performance risk represents is the portion of the WACC. So the WACC is comprised of really a risk premium and a risk free rate which is similar to the 4 percent borrowing rate of the public agency, which does not have project risk in it. So let's say the WACC was something like 8.86 percent. The difference between 8.86 percent and 4 percent would be the total risk premium that investors are asking for in order to shoulder the project risk. But the project risk is comprised of actually two types of risk: the lifecycle performance risk and the revenue uncertainty risk. And so that 8.86 percent was really divided into two parts: if you'll recall, the 1.6 percent, which was attributable to revenue uncertainty, and the balance. So out of 4.86, 1.6 is attributable to revenue uncertainty and is represented by the $377 million in nominal value of risk uncertainty and a present value of $130. But the balance-- so the 8.86-- so the 4.46 minus the 1.6 would be the balance which is represented by this $574 million for lifecycle performance risk. Now, even though we've shown you these present values, we are using a 4 percent discount rate because this is conventional delivery and we used it in value for money analysis. But, in reality, we are only going to look at nominal values because, as we will show you in the P3 option, we are using the higher discount rate and that doesn't make sense to compare values with two different discount rates. So what this table shows is the results for the P3 option, but from the perspective of the agency. So when the agency transfers all of the risks or most of the risks to the private sector, there aren't very much risks left. So $11 million and $10 million with a present value of $6 and $7. And so we basically have a very small proportion of risks that are retained by the public agency. The concessionaire holds most of the remaining risks and what you can see here are the pure risk, base variability, the lifecycle performance risk, and the revenue uncertainty risk. And it is-- these are numbers that you actually saw on the value for money. These four numbers you saw on the value for money output table. These numbers you did not see in the value. The life cycle performance risk and revenue uncertainty you did not see in the value for money analysis output table because they were buried in the discount rate. So you didn't see these numbers but, so that we can do a comparison of values between the P3 and the conventional delivery, it's essential for us to value in real dollars, in actual dollars, the value of that risk premium. And so we have done that for you and the P3 Value tool does that for you so that you can make a comparison between the risks that are assumed for the PSC versus the risks assumed for the P3 option. So here you have the comparison between the PSC and the P3. And these are simply the numbers you saw before but now they are side by side and you can see that pure risks, there was quite a bit of reduction by transferring those pure risks to the P3. Base variability, likewise. The concessionaire might be better able to manage those risks, and they have been reduced based on the assumptions that we included in the inputs. Now, lifecycle performance risks also you see that there is a drop. And, of course, we used the same WACC, if you'll recall, to calculate this number as well as the number for the conventional delivery. So the question arises, "Why are they different?" Well, they're different because you applied the WACC to the costs in the P3 scenario to calculate this $515 million and for the PSC scenario, you still use the same WACC percentage but you apply it to higher costs in the PSC. The costs are higher because they don't have the efficiencies of the P3. And so, as a result of applying the same percentage to a higher cost base, you get a higher lifecycle performance risk. Now you might ask, "Why doesn't the same principle apply to revenue uncertainty?" You see $377 million versus $382 million. So what has happened here? Why is the P3 risk uncertainty value higher than the value we used for or we had calculated for the PSC? The answer really is that we, in the P3, we have an extra year of operation. So you have an extra year of revenue coming in and so with that extra year of revenue, there's an associated extra risk, which is applied by the tool. And so that five million dollar difference simply is due to the extra year that the P3 is in operation. Recall that we have not assumed any difference in revenues or the ability of the-- at least in this project-- we assumed that the revenues are going to be the same under both the PSC and the P3. So the only difference is that the P3 has one extra year of revenues, and that is what is reflected in the 382 million, the five million dollar extra revenue that comes to the risk related to the extra revenue that comes from that one extra year. So when we go through all of those calculations, we have, as I should have shown you the totals here are higher under the PSC than under the P3. And the difference ends up as 74 million dollars. So that is a positive difference, so it's a lower value. So we are reducing the risk by 74 million dollars by this risk transfer, so that suggests that the P3 would be a good option, at least with respect to risk transfer. So let's stop here and see if there are any questions, and you can input questions in the Chat Box, or you can pick up your phone, just hit *6 and unmute your phone.
Patrick DeCarla-Souza: All right, seeing no questions, I guess we can move on to Part B, and I will introduce the exercise again. So we are doing here a Benefit Cost Analysis Perspective for Calculation of Risk. And one of the key things in Benefit Cost Analysis is that revenues are considered to be a transfer. They are a cost to users, but they are a benefit to the agency, or the P3 concessionaire. So from a societal perspective, there is no net benefit. And so we simply ignore revenues. So when we ignore revenues, we can ignore revenue risk, also. So all we're going to worry about in Benefit Cost Analysis is just base variability, pure risk and life cycle performance risk. And we are going to use a standard discount rate of three percent, which is something we use as the social discount rate in Benefit Cost Analysis. Now it's-- everything is-- the numbers, the inputs are exactly the same as in Value for Money Analysis. We're simply using the same inputs that Wim showed you in the risk input sheet. So the only thing that we're not going to do is we're not going to do the revenue uncertainty risk calculation. So Wim, go ahead and demonstrate the BCA. 2ff7e9595c
Comments