Kniazi Lani LLC, 26k ha Farm

1. Strategic background
2. Project description
3. Asset based valuation
4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

2

Strategic background
Overview of the agricultural market in Ukraine (1/5)
Current situation Yields and productivity rate of major cereal
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian crops in Ukraine, 1990-2007
60000 4
agriculture declined for a long time as a result of cuts in 3,51 3,46
3,21 3,5
state support and lack of investment incentives. According 50000
2,79 2,83
to USDA estimates, the Ukrainian grain production 2,65 2,68 2,71 2,73 2,6 3
40000 2,43 2,45 2,41
decreased by 50% over the period 1990 – 2000 and 2,08 1,97 2,18 2,5
1,96 1,94
fertilizer use fell by 85% during the same period 30000
1,82
2
As a result, the Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture developed 1,5
20000
the Countryside Development Program (CDP) in order to 1
rebuild agricultural sector, which according to EIU forecast 10000
0,5
will stand at 10% of the country’s GDP in 2009
0 0
The implementation of the CDP was expected to result in
a 100% increase in farming exports and 60% increase in
the total volume of agricultural production during the Harvested, Yields,
period from 2005 – 2015 tons ton/ha
Source: Ukrstat, 1990-2008

3

Advantages and disadvantages of agriculture in Crop harvesting in Ukraine by major plant
Ukraine families, 2008
Vegitables
Apart from convenient geographical location, mild climate 7 965,10
and on-going economic development, the Ukrainian 8%
agricultural sector has the following key comparative
advantages:
Potatoes
− soil quality 19 545,40
19%
− availability of vast areas of arable land
Cereals &
− potential for low cost farming
legumes
Sunflower 53 290,10
− prospects of productivity improvement 6 526,20 53%
7%
Currently, the major weaknesses attributable to the
agricultural industry in the Ukraine are:
Sugar beets
− low crop productivity 13 437,70
13%
− lack of proper inputs such as chemicals and machinery Source: Ukrstat, 2008

− existing infrastructure
− lack of experience in profitable farm management
− insufficient legislative support in development and
implementation of state policies and regulations
− absence of land reform
− lack of rural financing

4

Soil quality Humus content in soils by districts of agricultural
Ukraine owns wide areas of chernozem, a black coloured area of Ukraine
soil, characterised by exceptional fertility. According to US
Department of Agriculture, about one-third of the world’s
supply of chernozem is located in Ukraine
Chernozem contains a high percentage of humus, an
organic material essential to the fertility of soils, which
grants a comparative advantage in crop production
A humus layer of the soils in Ukraine varies in depth from
15 cm to 150 cm and sometimes more, which is one of the
highest indicators in the world, according to Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
The high content of humus in the soil produces above Humus content (%)
1.3% - 2.1% (low)
average agricultural yields as it: 2.1% - 2.9% (average)

− provides micro-organisms necessary for healthy level of 2.9% - 3.7% (increased)
3.7% - 4.9% (high)
soil life
Source: Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine
− allows to preserve nutrients vital for plant growth
− absorbs moisture up to 80%-90% of its
weight, protecting the soil from drought conditions
− grants greater aeration of the soil

5

Existing infrastructure Availability of vast areas of arable land
The Ukraine possesses a developed transportation It should be noted that based on Dragon Capital Report
network including rail, road and inland / sea waterways for there are 42.9 million ha of agricultural land (71% of total
the movement of crops within the country land area) in Ukraine
Ukrainian port facilities include 17 seaports equipped to With a high supply of available land, domestic agricultural
handle grain with storage capacity for 1.2 million tons and companies have the opportunity to consolidate their land
with a throughput capacity of about 16 million holdings compared to those in EU countries. According to
tons, according to AAFC market research Eurostat, the average agricultural company in the EU
Most large arable farms have access to storage facilities owned 20.7 ha. of land in 2005. According to
DerzhZovnishInform, a Ukrainian analytical agency, the
average Ukrainian agricultural company operated 72 ha. in
Please also refer to Appendix 5 for precipitation and 2005, resulting in a larger base for the distribution of fixed
average temperature maps costs
Recent developments indicate that a number of private
companies tend to lease smaller farms in close to form
large-scale agricultural production units operating on a
scale of 30,000 to more than 200,000 ha. each

6

Potential for low cost farming Prospects of productivity improvement
Major local factors indicating opportunities for low cost We draw your attention to the fact that as a result of lower
harvesting in the Ukraine are: level of fertilization treatment of land, machinery utilisation
− the average rental cost for agricultural land was around
and lack of experienced farm managers; current
UAH300 - 400 per ha. in 2009 productivity in the Ukraine is below the level of the
EU, regardless of the availability of rich soil and favourable
− Ukraine has the cheapest labor among its competitors climatic conditions
− chernozem soil requires less mineral fertilizers and According to Eurostat, during the last three years
lower refinement Ukrainian farmers, engaged in harvesting arable crops and
According to analytical agency AAA, the average vegetables, achieved productivity level of 2.6 tons per
production cost of wheat in Ukraine was in the range ha, which is much lower than in the EU (average of 5.9
USD75-110 per ton in 2007. For comparison, production tons per ha.)
cost of wheat in the UK and the USA averaged USD160 On the other hand, large private Ukrainian enterprises
per ton in 2006, according to Scottish Agricultural College have begun to apply modern fertilization and chemical
spray protection as well as investing in machinery in order
to improve harvesting yields

7

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

8

Project description
Description of the Company
Target Farm Holding Profile
Kniazi Lani LLC (hereafter referred to as FH, the
“Company” or the “Farm”) currently operates three
locations with the total land bank circa 26 th. ha. Two
locations in Lviv and one in Zhytomir region
The Company owns two elevators (storage capacity: 30
and 40 th. tons) and has an opportunity to acquire a small
elevator (storage capacity: 5 th. tons) in Zhitomir to
support local production for circa USD150 thousand. The
Farm also has additional opportunities to acquire extra 10
th. ha. of farm land in Ivano-Frankivsk with a new Cimbria
elevator facility for circa USD4.5 million
The Company is currently in the process of acquiring
another 4 th. ha. Land Bank inside their territory, for the Management:
price of re-registering the land (USD50 thousand) Strong management team in place with well developed political and
financial connections
Production:
26 th. ha of excellent soil with the potential increase up to 30 th. ha.)
Modern technology in place
Storage capacities:
70 th. tons of elevator storage capacity

9

Project description
Advantages of the Company
The Farm benefits from the following advantages: − Close location of the Company’s Land Bank to
− Favourable Company’s location - close proximity to
Landkom International could provide opportunity to
major shipping routes and international grain trading merge with the listed Company which will provide
hubs immediate liquidity and an exit opportunity

− Secured large areas of high quality, contiguous Land harvested and yields
agricultural land via long-term lease agreements Land Bank 2009/10, Yields,
suitable for a wide range of crops ha tons/ha
− Excellent soil structure (pH, humus, calcium and Winter OSR 6,688 3.39
potash), producing high yields Winter Wheat 6,688 4.52
Spring Wheat 803 3.77
− Flat fields, which are large enough to allow widest
Winter Barley 4,013 3.94
equipment available
Spring Barley 2,675 3.65
− Modern technology in place Corn 3,210 8.89
− Storage and logistics availability: Buckwheat 1,338 0.79
Soya 535 0.99
Currently, the Company has its own drying and
Winter Oats 268 4.00
storage capacity, which is sufficient to support
current land bank of 26 th. ha. Peas 268 2.53
Forage 268 n.a.
The Company owns and maintains a substantial fleet Total 26,750
of its own grain trucks, lowboys, and trailers, capable
of servicing current production. Additional needs for
logistics are usually outsourced

10

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

11

Asset based valuation

Valuation of the Farm
Based on our market research we have identified, that current prices for land lease rights
Valuation summary
for large, well-managed farms, in Ukraine, are in the range from USD150 to USD300 per Land assumptions
ha. Based on our experience and expert opinion we think that the fair value of the land Existing land bank, ha. 26,750
lease rights for the land controlled by the Farm is at the upper range per ha. To be obtained, ha. 4,000
Land bank, ha. 30,750
The Company has two elevators (storage capacity: 30 and 40 th. tons) and several Price per ha, USD 250
support bases. Its handling facilities include 2 RIELA dryers and 1 large CIMBRIA dryer (all Value (in USD million)
less than 3 years old) We consider that the fair value of the elevator capacity and several Land bank 7.7
support bases approaches its Net Book Value (NBV) in the range of USD7.5 million Storage facilities 7.5
Due to the fact that major part of the Company’s equipment is new and well maintained, we Machinery and other 5.2
take NBV of the equipment other than storage to be in line with the Fair Value of these Biological assets 2.7
equipment – USD5.2 million Management
stewardship 1.9
The Farm has seeded 5,150 ha with winter rape equalling an investment of UAH1,700 per Enterprise Value 25.0
ha. The Company also invested approximately USD1 million in winter barley seeding. This Loan with local banks (7.0)
makes fair value of Biological Assets USD2.7 million. (this amounts ware confirmed by Equity Value 18.0
SAC)
In addition, intangible assets such as current management’s expertise and good Company’s reputation should be evaluated.
Due to good reputation of management the Company has over EUR1 million in supplier credit available at any given time. We
estimate it to be in the range of USD1.9 million
In order to derive the Equity Value we have deducted book value of the Company’s debt with several prominent local banks
used for CAPEX (not working capital or acquisition of the land bank) of circa USD7.0 million
Based on the above we think that indicative value of 100% of the Farm shares is USD18.0 million

12

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

13

Economics
Key assumptions (1/7)

Projected For the purposes of the DCF method of valuation, the forecast period represents the period from 1 Oct 2009 to 31 Dec 2015.
period Forecast interval is 1 year
It was assumed that the Company would receive cash flows steadily over each period. Therefore, for discounting purposes we
proceeded on the assumption that free cash flows occur at mid-period. All cash flows are discounted to the date 1 Oct 2009

Projection Financial projections and the assessment of terminal cash flows were prepared in UAH, since Company’s prices as well as expenses
currency are largely set in UAH. Then all figures are translated to USD using 8 UAH/USD exchange rate

Type of cash Due to high uncertainty as for the inflation rate during the forecasted period, the projections were prepared in real terms, with no
flow accounting for inflation. Therefore, the discount rate used was also calculated in real terms

Discount The Company’s forecast of terminal cash flows were discounted to their present value as at the Business Plan preparation date using
rate a discount rate that reflects the risks related to the achievement of cash flows, thereby forming the present value of the Company
The Cost of Invested Capital was used as the discount rate and was calculated as the weighted average cost of invested capital
(WACC), taking into account the required return on equity and the effective interest rate on borrowed funds

Terminal To determine the terminal cash flows, we assumed a stable growth level of free cash flow on invested capital from 2015 to infinity.
cash flows When calculating terminal cash flows we assumed that depreciation will equal to capital investments and change of working capital
was assumed to be zero
Long-term growth rate of terminal cash flows was assumed to be 0%

Tax rates The Company is subject for corporate profit taxes (CPT). Although the Company could claim exemption from such a tax in Ukraine
and become a fixed agricultural taxes (FAT) payer which is calculated based on 0.15% of the cadastre value of land used
In this model we have used CPT at 25% rate to be more on a conservative side

14

Economics
Key assumptions (Revenue) (2/7)
The Group’s projected sales revenue is based on the Harvested land
calculation of expected crop sales as at the Analysis Date,
According to Management, the Company seeded /
taking into account the Groups’s planed structure of
harvested and plans to seeded / harvest land as shown in
seeding for 26 th. ha. as at 31 Aug 09
the tale below
It should be noted that the sales revenue projection was
performed separately for each crop types harvested
Planting, ha
2008A 2009A 2010F From 2011F
All crops are harvested during the third and fourth quarters Winter OSR 4,304 6,293 6,688 7,688
and the Company’s Management believes that all Winter Wheat 3,355 5,270 6,688 7,688
harvested crops will be sold in three months after being Spring Wheat 565 663 803 923
harvested. No unsold crop inventory is expected as at year Winter Barley 892 2,047 4,013 4,613
end Spring Barley 1,421 2,937 2,675 3,075
Total sales revenue for each harvested crop is the product Corn 4,000 3,577 3,210 3,690
of volume of crop sold and crop prices in the third and Buckwheat 175 1,141 1,338 1,538
fourth quarters Soya 85 565 535 615
Winter Oats 38 306 268 308
Volume of crops sold during the third and the fourth
Peas 346 150 268 308
quarters equals to volume of crops produced which is the
Forage 575 325 268 308
product of:
Total 15,756 23,274 26,750 30,750
− harvested land for each crop Source: Company’s Management
A – actual data; F – Forecast
− yield per crop

15

Economics
Yield per crop Yields, tons/ha
The projected yield per crop of the Company in 2010 and 2008A 2009A 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
2011 were performed by agronomy of the Company. Winter OSR 3.39 3.00 3.39 3.42 3.46 3.49 3.53
Yields projection for the following years was performed Winter Wheat 4.48 4.48 4.52 4.57 4.62 4.66 4.71
based on (see graph to the right) was based on the Spring Wheat 3.73 3.73 3.77 3.80 3.84 3.88 3.92
product of the following factors: Winter Barley 3.90 3.90 3.94 3.98 4.02 4.06 4.10
− yield projection for 2011
Spring Barley 3.61 3.61 3.65 3.68 3.72 3.76 3.79
Corn 8.80 8.80 8.89 8.98 9.07 9.16 9.25
− average forecast y-o-y change of the yield in Ukraine Buckwheat 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82
projected by FAPRI Soya 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03
We consider that the above approach to be more Winter Oats 3.96 3.96 4.00 4.04 4.08 4.12 4.16
conservative as the Company expects to continue Peas 1.02 2.50 2.53 2.55 2.58 2.60 2.63
Source: Company’s Management
investing in modern land cultivation technologies thereby A – actual data; F – Forecast

attaining the average yield per crop levels in major EU
countries

16

Economics
Price per crop
Taking into account that we have projections in real terms
we took actual prices per each type of crop based on the
information agency ProAgro (www.proagro.com.ua) for
Aug 09
We also made analysis of deviation for crop prices for
each month as for Aug using all available data of monthly
statistics for 2002-2009. And calculated indices. Please
refer to the graph on the left
Each crop indices per month and prices for Aug 09 we
estimated prices per crops for each month Projected price Prices (net of VAT)
per crop forecast in 2008 is calculated as the product of 2008A From 2009A
the following factors: UAH USD UAH USD
Winter OSR 1,975 391 2,245 281
− the ratio between (a) the average price level of crop Winter Wheat 788 156 828 104
futures for the third and fourth quarters of 2008 as at Spring Wheat 884 175 828 104
the Valuation Date and (b) the average price level of Winter Barley 833 165 684 86
crop futures for third and fourth quarters of 2007 Spring Barley 838 166 684 86
(source: FT and APK-Inform) Corn 646 128 870 109
− the historic sales prices of the Company per crop in the Buckwheat 1,111 220 1,667 208
third and fourth quarters of 2007 Soya 1,761 349 2,798 350
Winter Oats 773 153 375 47
To forecast prices per crop for the period 2010-2013, we
Peas 1,308 259 1,500 188
used prices identical to prices for 2009 Source: Company’s Management

17

Economics
Key assumptions (Costs, direct) (5/7)
Production (harvesting) costs of the Company are largely Direct costs, UAH/ha
attributable to: 2008A 2009A 2010F 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F
− seeds Winter OSR 3,139 3,124 3,126 3,126 3,131 3,131 3,131
− fertilizers Winter Wheat 2,169 2,162 2,176 2,176 2,181 2,181 2,181
Spring Wheat 1,797 1,793 1,794 1,794 1,795 1,795 1,795
− herbicides
Winter Barley 1,718 1,724 1,746 1,746 1,749 1,749 1,749
− fuel & oil Spring Barley 1,474 1,479 1,475 1,475 1,478 1,478 1,478
− labour Corn 3,396 3,355 3,350 3,350 3,353 3,353 3,353
− other Buckwheat 1,228 1,237 1,239 1,239 1,240 1,240 1,240
Soya 1,639 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644
The Company’s management has provided us with the Winter Oats 428 431 430 430 431 431 431
average costs per crop types which were used for Peas 2,438 2,433 2,434 2,434 2,434 2,434 2,434
projection period Source: Company’s Management

18

Economics
Key assumptions (Costs, other) (6/7)
Elevator expenses Capital expenditures
Based on the information from market players we Due to the fact that we did not projected increase in land
identified that in average expenses for running elevator bank of the Group, capital expenditure projections were
are in the range of UAH60-70 per tone of storage capacity. made only with respect to the other than land (buildings,
We calculated elevator expenses taking average of infrastructure, machinery and equipment). The CAPEX
UAH65 per tone of storage capacity could be divided in two parts:
− Maintenance capital expenditures
Overhead expenses − Development capital expenditures
Company’s general and administrative expenses are as Maintenance capital expenditures
follows: We assumed that maintenance expenses would be at half
− Operating Costs UAH2.860 thousands per annum level of the annual depreciation charge
− Audit Costs UAH 160 thousands per annum Development capital expenditures
Development capital expenditures could be divided into
− Consultants/Lawyers UAH 400 thousands per annum
two groups:
− CAPEX for storage capacity
− CAPEX for other PPE

19

Economics
Key assumptions (Miscellaneous) (7/7)
FAT and CPT
The Company is subject for corporate profit taxes (CPT).
Although the Company could claim exemption from such a
tax in Ukraine and become a fixed agricultural taxes (FAT)
payer which is calculated based on 0.15% of the cadastre
value of land used
In this model we have used CPT at the 25% level to be
more on a conservative side
VAT
In order to simplify the Model We performed our analysis
based on the prices net of VAT. Thus no VAT is projected
for the Group

20

Economics
Detailed business plan (P/L)
PROFIT AND LOSS Annual in kUSD (@ 8 UAH/USD ex rate)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenue 13,519 15,817 18,439 18,985 19,158 19,333
COS (6,968) (7,819) (8,989) (9,003) (9,003) (9,003)
Gross profit 6,551 7,998 9,451 9,982 10,155 10,330
Gross profit margin 48% 51% 52% 54% 55% 55%
Elevator costs (309) (707) (869) (1,113) (1,113) (1,113)
Maintenance expenses (560) (617) (697) (756) (791) (791)
Other expenses (1%) (135) (157) (182) (184) (186) (188)
Indirect labour costs (1,003) (1,003) (1,003) (1,003) (1,003) (1,003)
General and Administrative (428) (428) (428) (428) (428) (428)
EBITDA 4,118 5,088 6,272 6,500 6,636 6,809
EBITDA Margin 30% 32% 34% 35% 36% 36%
Depreciation Amortization (1,119) (1,234) (1,395) (1,511) (1,581) (1,581)
EBIT 2,999 3,855 4,878 4,989 5,055 5,228
EBIT Margin 22% 25% 27% 27% 27% 28%
Interest expenses (1,040) (954) (672) (252) (14) -
EBT 1,960 2,901 4,206 4,738 5,041 5,228
EBT Margin 14% 18% 23% 26% 27% 28%
Taxes (490) (725) (1,051) (1,184) (1,260) (1,307)
Net income 1,470 2,176 3,155 3,554 3,781 3,921
Net income % 11% 14% 17% 19% 20% 21%

21

Economics
Detailed business plan (B/S)
BALANCE SHEET Annual in kUSD (@ 8 UAH/USD ex rate)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Non-current assets
Land 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000
Fixed Assets, gross 9,031 11,477 11,733 12,571 11,240 9,909
Total Non-current assets 11,281 13,477 13,483 14,071 12,490 10,909
Current assets
Inventory 7,942 8,913 10,246 10,262 10,262 10,262
Biological assets 3,834 4,303 4,946 4,954 4,954 4,954
Other inventory 4,108 4,610 5,299 5,308 5,308 5,308
Trade receivables 3,583 4,155 4,824 4,873 4,921 4,970
Cash and cash equivalents 1,438 14 15 16 5,247 10,811
Total Current assets 12,962 13,082 15,085 15,151 20,430 26,044
TOTAL ASSETS 24,243 26,560 28,568 29,222 32,920 36,952
EQUITY
Share capital 1,803 1,803 1,803 1,803 1,803 1,803
Retained earnings 7,378 9,553 12,707 16,260 20,040 23,960
Total EQUITY 9,181 11,356 14,510 18,063 21,843 25,763
Non-current liabilities
Loans and borrowings 7,000 5,852 3,200 193 - -
Total Non-current liabilities 7,000 5,852 3,200 193 - -
Current liabilities
Trade payables 8,061 9,349 10,855 10,963 11,073 11,184
Total Current liabilities 8,061 9,349 10,855 10,963 11,073 11,184
TOTAL EQUITY and LIABILITIES 24,242 26,558 28,565 29,218 32,916 36,947

22

Economics
Detailed business plan (CFS)
CASH FLOW STATEMENT Annual in kUSD (@ 8 UAH/USD ex rate)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cash flow from operating activities
Net income 1,470 2,176 3,155 3,554 3,781 3,921
Depreciation 1,119 1,234 1,395 1,511 1,581 1,581
Change in working capital (1,164) (255) (496) 44 61 62
Inventory
Biological assets (1,034) (469) (643) (8) - -
Other inventory (1,108) (502) (689) (8) - -
Trade and other receivables (783) (573) (669) (48) (49) (49)
Interest Accrued - - - - - -
Trade and other payables 1,761 1,288 1,505 109 110 111
Cash flow operating activities 1,425 3,154 4,053 5,109 5,423 5,564
Cash flow from investing activities
Capex - (3,430) (1,400) (2,100) - -
Cash flow from investing activities - (3,430) (1,400) (2,100) - -
Cash flow from financing activities
Loans Raised - - - - - -
Loans Repaid - (1,148) (2,652) (3,008) (193) -
Cash flow from financing activities - (1,148) (2,652) (3,008) (193) -
Cash increase/(decrease) 1,425 (1,423) 1 1 5,231 5,564
Cash at b-o-p 13 1,438 14 15 16 5,247
Cash at e-o-p 1,438 14 15 16 5,247 10,811

23

Economics
WACC analysis
Risk-free rate is based on the yields of a 20-year US Calculation of the discount rate
Treasury bond. As at 30 Sep 09 the nominal annual return Risk-free rate 4.14%
for this US Treasury bond was 4.02% Equity risk premium 5.73%
According to SBBI Valuation Edition 2009 Yearbook, long- Unlevered beta 0.72
horizon expected risk premium (supply side) large Levered beta 0.81
company stocks total returns minus long-term government Size premium 3.74%
bond income returns was 5.7% Country risk premium 6.36%
Cash-flow currency correction 1.0471
In order to account for the operating risk of the entities, the Cost of equity 24.49%
unlevered betas of 0.8 was used based on the market Cost of debt (nominal pre-tax) 4.80%
data for listed companies operating in the industry with Tax rate 25.00%
SIC 0 (according to Damodaran, 2009) Cost of debt (nominal post-tax) 3.60%
The size premium for a company in the deciles Micro- Weight of debt 14.55%
Cap 9-10 (Market capitalisation USD1.6 million to Weight of equity 85.45%
USD453.3 million) was equal to 3.74% (SBBI Valuation WACC nominal 21.45%
Edition 2009 Yearbook) WACC real 13.83%
The country risk was determined based on the rates of
return as at 31 Aug 09 of a 15-, 16- and17-year Ukrainian
Eurobond and a 20-year US Treasury Bond
The Company’s projected cash flows were prepared in
real terms, and therefore the nominal WACC rate should
be adjusted using Gordon's formula to arrive to Real
WACC rate

24

Economics
DCF (@ WACC=16%)
Valuation summary Annual in kUSD (@ 8 UAH/USD ex rate)
SUMMARY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
EBIT 3,854 4,877 4,989 5,054 5,227
IT Expenses (725) (1,051) (1,184) (1,260) (1,307)
Depreciation 1,234 1,395 1,511 1,581 1,581
Change in Working Capital (255) (496) 44 61 62
Capex (3,430) (1,400) (2,100) - -

Free Cash Flow 678 3,324 3,260 5,437 5,563

Discount rate (WACC) 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%
Discount period 0.50 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
Discount factor 0.94 0.82 0.72 0.64 0.56
Discounted cash flow 635 2,737 2,358 3,455 3,106
Sum of discounted cash flows 12,292
Terminal value 40,234
Discount factor 0.56
Discounted terminal value 22,464
Enterprise value 34,756
Debt (7,000)
Cash and cash equivalents 1,438
Equity value 100% 29,194

25

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

26

Risk analysis
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was performed to analyze influence of
Sensitivity analysis (in USD Million)
changes in external factors on net present value (NPV) of
WACC 0
the Project
TV (2%) (1%) - 1% 2%
Changes in this investment indicator were caused by 0 (2%) 31.24 28.42 25.96 23.81 21.90
changes in the following factors: (1%) 33.36 30.20 27.47 25.10 23.01
Financial - 35.84 32.25 29.19 26.56 24.26
1% 38.78 34.66 31.19 28.23 25.68
− Discount rate
2% 42.31 37.50 33.52 30.16 27.30
− Terminal value
Operational Sensitivity analysis (in USD Million)
− Sales
Sales 0
COS (10%) (5%) - 5% 10%
− COS 0 (10%) 30.12 30.12 30.12 30.12 30.12
(5%) 29.65 29.65 29.65 29.65 29.65
- 29.19 29.19 29.19 29.19 29.19
5% 28.75 28.75 28.75 28.75 28.75
10% 28.30 28.30 28.30 28.30 28.30

27

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

28

Disclaimer

This document is provided on the basis that it is kept In providing this document, Kniazi Lani LLC reserves the
CONFIDENTIAL and its circulation and use are right at any time to make changes or fully replace it.
RESTRICTED. It should not be copied or sent to any other Nothing in this document may and should be deemed to
person/party without the express permission of the be or interpreted as an obligation or promise regarding the
Company future
This document has been prepared because Kniazi Lani
LLC intend to find strategic investor
This document includes the basic information, estimates
and forecasts, which have been prepared by Kniazi Lani
LLC. This document is provided exclusively to assist
interested party in making decision on the advisability of
further study of the investment opportunity. Any recipient
of this material should conduct its own analysis of the
potential investment, and understand that the receipt of
this material from Kniazi Lani LLC in no way signifies
confirmation that the Transaction is justified
Kniazi Lani LLC will not be liable in any way for any
representations or warranties directly or indirectly
contained/arising from this material

29

4. Economics
5. Risk analysis
6. Disclaimer
Appendices

30

Appendix 1
Air temperature

31

Appendix 1
Precipitation

32

New Zealand

7,7
Zimbabwe

10,0
Source:

Source:
Egypt

6,5
New Zealand

8,0
Switzerland
Switzerland

6,0
Saudi Arabia

USDA, 2008

USDA, 2008
EU-27

4,3
EU-27

Croatia Croatia

5,5 5,4 5,4 5,3

4,2
Mexico
Chile

4,0
China
Appendix 2

China

3,9
Chile
Norway

3,7
Zambia

Korea, South Norway

3,7
4,9 4,7 4,7 4,6 4,5

Argentina Uzbekistan

3,6
Zimbabwe
United States

3,5
Japan
4,4 4,2 4,1

Japan

3,5
Serbia
Uruguay

3,4
Belarus

Serbia Korea, South

3,3
Sudan
3,8 3,6 3,6 3,5

Egypt

3,2
South Africa
Uzbekistan
3,2
Albania
Albania
3,0
Uruguay

Belarus Ukraine
3,0

United States
Brazil
2,9

India
Canada
2,9

Azerbaijan
South Africa
2,8

Argentina

Mexico Kyrgyzstan
2,6

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
2,5

Pakistan
3,1 3,0 3,0 2,9 2,9 2,9 2,8 2,8 2,8 2,7 2,7

Macedonia
2,4
Productivity rate of Wheat & Barley by country, 2009/10 (tons per ha)

Lebanon
Ukraine
2,4

Bangladesh
Productivity rate of Wheat by country, 2009/10 (tons per ha)

Productivity rate of Barley by country, 2009/10 (tons per ha)

Azerbaijan Moldova
2,2

Colombia Macedonia
2,0

Canada
Lebanon
2,0

Armenia
Moldova
2,0

Morocco
2,6 2,5 2,4 2,3 2,3 2,2 2,2

Kyrgyzstan
2,0

Brazil

India Nepal
1,9

Turkey
Iran
1,9

Colombia
33

Tajikistan
1,8

Iran
Russia
1,8

Russia
2,1 2,1 2,1 2,0 2,0 2,0

Kniazi Lani LLC, 26k ha Farm

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (6)

Ähnlich wie Kniazi Lani LLC, 26k ha Farm

Ähnlich wie Kniazi Lani LLC, 26k ha Farm (20)

Kniazi Lani LLC, 26k ha Farm