- •Investment Case 11
- •Valuation summary 37
- •Investment case 53
- •Investment Case
- •Companies Compared Stock data
- •Key metrics
- •Per ha comparison
- •Management credibility
- •Market Overview Summary
- •Ukraine in global context Ukraine produces 2-3% of world soft commodities
- •Sunflower oil, corn, wheat, barley and rapeseed are Ukraine’s key soft commodities to export
- •Ukraine is 8th in arable land globally
- •Key inputs used in crop farming Ukraine`s climate favorable for low-cost agriculture
- •Soil fertility map
- •Machinery use far below developed countries
- •Land trade moratorium makes more benefits
- •Fertilizer use
- •Inputs prices: lease cost is Ukraine’s key cost advantage
- •Case study: Production costs in Ukraine vs. Brazil for corn and soybean
- •Farming Efficiency Ukrainian crop yields lag the eu and us, on par with Argentina and Brazil, above Russia’s
- •5Y average yields, t/ha and their respective 10y cagRs
- •Yields at a premium in Ukraine on the company level
- •Growth Growth should come from yield improvement, crop structure reshuffle and acreage increase
- •Crop structure is gradually shifting to more profitable cultures
- •Combined crop structure of listed companies
- •Ukraine`s 2012 harvest outlook
- •Valuation
- •Valuation summary
- •Valuation summary
- •Asset-based approach
- •Asset-based valuation
- •Valuation premium/discount summary
- •Location matters: Value of land by region
- •Yields efficiency comparing to benchmark region
- •Cost efficiency
- •Adding supplementary businesses
- •Valuation summary for other assets
- •Cost of equity assumptions
- •Model assumptions
- •Landbank growth capped at 30%
- •Crop structure
- •Biological revaluation (ias 41) excluded
- •Land ownership
- •Company Profiles Agroton a high cost producer
- •Investment case
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Agroton in six charts
- •Operati
- •Industrial Milk Company Corn story
- •Investment case
- •A focus on the corn explains high margins
- •Location favourable for corn
- •Well on track with ipo proceeds
- •Weak ebitda margin in 2012 explained by non-cash items
- •Valuation
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Ksg Agro On the road to space/Not ready to be public
- •Investment Case
- •A 5x yoy boost in total assets looks strange to us
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Ksg Agro in six charts
- •Mcb Agricole Acquisition target with lack of positives for minorities
- •Investment Case
- •Inventories balance, usd mln
- •Overview of acquisitions of public farming companies in Ukraine
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement, usd mln
- •Mcb Agricole in six charts
- •Mriya Too sweet to be true
- •Investment Case
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Mriya in six charts
- •Sintal Agriculture
- •Investment Case
- •25% Yoy cost reduction in 2011 should improve margins
- •Irrigation is a growth option
- •Inventory balance, usd mln
- •Valuation
- •Valuation
- •Operating assumptions
- •Financials
- •Income statement*, usd mln
- •Sintal Agriculture in six charts
- •Astarta Sugar maker
- •Kernel Grain trader actively integrating upstream
- •Poultry producer
- •Appendices Land value
- •Current landowner income capitalization model
- •Farmer income capitalization model
- •Normative value
- •Biological asset revaluation
- •How do we adjust the income statement to be on a cost basis?
- •Ias 41 application summary
- •Appendix: Crop production schedule Crop schedule, based on 2012 harvesting year
- •Investment ratings
- •Contacts
Operating assumptions
Crops segment assumptions
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011E |
2012E |
2013E |
2014E |
2015E |
2016E |
2017E |
2018E |
2019E |
2020E |
Total landbank, ths ha |
|
25.8 |
26.0 |
33.7 |
80.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
90.0 |
Planted, ths ha |
19.7 |
24.5 |
24.5 |
32.3 |
60.0 |
76.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
85.5 |
% of total |
|
95% |
94% |
96% |
75% |
85% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
Acreage breakdown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat total |
35% |
34% |
23% |
36% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
Barley |
12% |
23% |
13% |
17% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
Rapeseed total |
6% |
5% |
|
4% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Soy |
|
|
2% |
6% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
Sunflower |
46% |
38% |
61% |
37% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crop yields, t/ha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat total |
4.2 |
3.6 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
Barley |
3.6 |
3.2 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
Rapeseed total |
2.3 |
1.3 |
0.0 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
Soy |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
Sunflower |
1.8 |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing year data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, USD/ha |
|
584 |
583 |
549 |
544 |
566 |
589 |
613 |
637 |
663 |
690 |
718 |
747 |
Costs, USD/ha |
|
278 |
195 |
242 |
292 |
302 |
313 |
325 |
335 |
346 |
357 |
369 |
381 |
Gross profit, USD/ha |
|
307 |
388 |
307 |
252 |
264 |
276 |
288 |
302 |
317 |
333 |
349 |
366 |
Gross margin, MY |
|
52% |
67% |
56% |
46% |
47% |
47% |
47% |
47% |
48% |
48% |
49% |
49% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year figures, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
13.5 |
14.6 |
18.1 |
31.2 |
42.1 |
49.5 |
52.1 |
54.3 |
56.5 |
58.7 |
61.1 |
63.6 |
Gross profit |
|
6.1 |
9.9 |
10.4 |
14.7 |
19.6 |
23.2 |
24.5 |
25.7 |
27.0 |
28.3 |
29.7 |
31.2 |
Gross margin, % |
|
46% |
68% |
57% |
47% |
47% |
47% |
47% |
47% |
48% |
48% |
49% |
49% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories balance, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural produce at year start |
|
1.9 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
4.7 |
5.5 |
5.8 |
6.0 |
6.3 |
6.5 |
6.8 |
Value of harvest |
|
14.3 |
14.3 |
17.7 |
32.6 |
43.3 |
50.4 |
52.4 |
54.5 |
56.7 |
59.0 |
61.4 |
63.9 |
Sales |
|
13.5 |
14.6 |
18.1 |
31.2 |
42.1 |
49.5 |
52.1 |
54.3 |
56.5 |
58.7 |
61.1 |
63.6 |
old year sales |
|
14% |
19% |
13% |
6% |
8% |
9% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
new year sales |
|
86% |
81% |
87% |
94% |
92% |
91% |
89% |
89% |
89% |
89% |
89% |
89% |
Sales as % of supply |
|
83% |
86% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
90% |
Agricultural produce at year end |
|
2.7 |
2.4 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
4.7 |
5.5 |
5.8 |
6.0 |
6.3 |
6.5 |
6.8 |
7.1 |
Source: Company data, Concorde Capital estimates