- •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
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011E |
2012E |
2013E |
2014E |
2015E |
2016E |
2017E |
2018E |
2019E |
2020E |
Total landbank, ths ha |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
Planted, ths ha |
70 |
71 |
82 |
83 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
% of total |
78% |
79% |
92% |
92% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acreage breakdown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat |
48% |
37% |
34% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
Corn |
1% |
7% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
Barley |
12% |
16% |
16% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
Rye |
5% |
0% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buckwheat |
|
|
2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rapeseed |
25% |
14% |
13% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
Soy |
|
|
7% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
Sunflower |
9% |
21% |
16% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
Other |
|
3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crop yields, t/ha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheat total |
3.3 |
2.7 |
3.8 |
3.4 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
3.8 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
Corn |
5.3 |
4.6 |
6.6 |
5.3 |
5.4 |
5.5 |
5.6 |
5.7 |
5.8 |
5.9 |
6.1 |
6.2 |
Barley |
2.9 |
2.5 |
3.1 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.5 |
Rye |
2.7 |
1.9 |
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buckwheat |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rapeseed total |
1.7 |
2.1 |
1.7 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
Soy |
|
|
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
Sunflower |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing year data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, USD/ha |
322 |
510 |
606 |
634 |
660 |
687 |
714 |
743 |
773 |
804 |
837 |
871 |
Costs, USD/ha |
334 |
345 |
503 |
537 |
556 |
576 |
598 |
617 |
637 |
657 |
678 |
700 |
Gross profit, USD/ha |
-12 |
165 |
103 |
98 |
104 |
111 |
117 |
126 |
137 |
147 |
159 |
171 |
Gross margin, MY |
-4% |
32% |
17% |
15% |
16% |
16% |
16% |
17% |
18% |
18% |
19% |
20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar year figures, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
24.9 |
33.5 |
50.8 |
52.4 |
56.2 |
58.5 |
60.9 |
63.3 |
65.9 |
68.6 |
71.3 |
74.2 |
Gross profit |
-0.8 |
10.6 |
9.2 |
8.1 |
8.9 |
9.4 |
9.9 |
10.7 |
11.6 |
12.5 |
13.5 |
14.5 |
Gross margin, % |
-3% |
32% |
18% |
15% |
16% |
16% |
16% |
17% |
18% |
18% |
19% |
20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories balance, USD mln |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural produce at year start |
2.9 |
0.7 |
3.6 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
Value of harvest |
22.7 |
36.3 |
50.0 |
52.5 |
56.4 |
58.6 |
61.0 |
63.5 |
66.0 |
68.7 |
71.5 |
74.4 |
Sales |
24.9 |
33.5 |
50.8 |
52.4 |
56.2 |
58.5 |
60.9 |
63.3 |
65.9 |
68.6 |
71.3 |
74.2 |
old year sales, % |
12% |
2% |
7% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
new year sales, % |
88% |
98% |
93% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
Sales as % of supply |
97% |
90% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
95% |
Agricultural produce at year end |
0.7 |
3.6 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
3.9 |
Source: Company data, Concorde Capital estimates