
- •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
Key metrics
Landbank size, ths ha (current and harvested in 2011) |
|
Storage capacity, kt |
|
|
|
Source: Company data |
|
Source: Company data |
Crop structure (corn, other grains, oilseeds, other), 2011 |
|
Crop yields, 2010-11 average |
|
|
|
Source: Company data |
|
Source: Company data |
MCap, USD mln lhs and ADT, USD ths rhs |
|
EV/ha, USD |
|
|
|
Source: Bloomberg |
|
Source: Company data, Bloomberg, Concorde Capital |
Per ha comparison
Harvest value and production costs, 2011 |
|
Adjusted EBITDA, USD/ha |
|
|
|
Note: Harvest value is calculated as crop sales plus the book value of agricultural produce at yearend minus the book value of agricultural produce at year start. For Kernel and Astarta, sugar beet value is estimated at the same prices as Mriya reports, for comparison purposes. Based on harvested landbank size. Source: Company data, Concorde Capital calculations |
|
Note: EBITDA figures adjusted for the revaluation of biological assets. See Appendix T for details on methodology. Based on harvested area. Source: Company data, Concorde Capital |
Total assets, USD/ha |
|
PP&E, USD/ha |
|
|
|
Note: Based on landbank size at yearend and total assets attributable to the agricultural segment. Source: Company data, Concorde Capital |
|
Note: Based on landbank size at yearend Source: Company data, Concorde Capital
|
Working capital, USD/ha, eop |
|
Current biological assets, USD/ha of winter sowings, eop |
|
|
|
Note: Based on landbank size at yearend Source: Company data, Concorde Capital |
|
Note: Based on land under winter crops at yearend Source: Company data, Concorde Capital |
Management credibility
The high dispersion in the production processes of Ukrainian farmers over both space and time makes it impossible to check key operating data, yields and costs applied. This increases investors` (and auditors) reliance on figures provided by management and thus makes credibility a critical issue.
We attempt to assess management credibility by evaluating several key issues related to disclosure, its timing and consistency.
Qualitative characteristics of management credibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agroton |
IMC |
KSG Agro |
Mriya |
MCB Agricole |
Sintal |
Astarta |
kernel |
MHP |
Negative indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management uses biological asset revaluation aggressively, boosting accounting EBITDA figures |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
yes** |
Management provides guidance including on biological revaluation* |
no |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
no |
n/a** |
yes** |
Non-acquisition CapEx is significant and not disclosed/executed according to plan |
yes |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
no |
no |
Frequent and significant PP&E revaluation |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
no |
no |
Selling prices are not transparent – either from sales to related parties or unclear premiums/discounts to Ukraine’s averages |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
Responses to IR requests take more than a week |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
Sales to related parties are significant |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
no |
no |
Qualifications by/outstanding issues with auditors |
yes |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Positive indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both revenues and COGS sides of biological revaluation are disclosed in audited financial statements |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
Both revenues and COGS sides of biological revaluation are disclosed on request |
yes |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
Audited financials are reported within the first four months of the year |
yes |
yes |
no |
yes |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
Key operating data is reported transparently and consistently: yields and costs per ha |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
Landbank acquisition costs are reported with a breakdown to landlease rights and other assets |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
n/a |
yes |
no |
yes |
no |
Growth strategy is consistent |
no |
yes |
no |
yes |
yes |
no |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sum of negative scores |
6 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
* Which implies management is not only forecasting such parameters as weather conditions but also forecasts the amount of future revaluations
** Farming makes up a relatively small share of the business thus the overall contribution of biological revaluation is less important
Source: Concorde Capital
Our general impression is that processors (Astarta, Kernel, MHP) provide a better level of management credibility than pure farmers. Among pure farmers, we found all companies expect Industrial Milk Company and Sintal Agriculture to have critical concerns from a minority shareholder’s perspective.
Critical concerns from the minority shareholder point of view
|
Key concerns |
Agroton |
|
KSG Agro |
|
Mriya |
|
MCB Agricole |
|
Source: Concorde Capital