Loading... Please wait...

A bridge too far

Humber BridgeBy Chris Cook

I was interested to read the other day that a plan to raise the bridge tolls on the Humber Bridge – already the most expensive in the UK – has been postponed due to the moribund economy.

Anyone interested in the crazy effects of compound interest should look no further than the case of the Humber Bridge, which was completed for £90m in 1981, but in respect of which the debt is now £332 million. Indeed, it would have been spiralling towards £1bn by now had it not been restructured twice, and the interest rate reduced to its current rate of 4.25%. Even at the current rates of tolls and traffic, the debt is not expected to be cleared for 25 to 30 years.

I believe that there's another way of financing public assets - through the use of a UK Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as a framework for sharing revenues between managers and investors.

I think of this new investment possibility as Public Equity.

Risk Disclosure: anyone uninterested in financial matters should tune out at this point.

The Alchemy
The simple, but revolutionary financial concept that underpins the proposed Humber Bridge Partnership is to divide the bridge's gross revenues into proportional shares - “nth's” - and to sell these to investors, using the proceeds to repay the debt. The result is shares – but not shares as we know them, with a “par” value of (say) £1.00.

The current gross toll revenues are about £22m. Imagine that tolls are cut by a third to £15m, but the index-linking which has been suspended this year, is then reapplied.

The revenues are divided into “billionths”, each of which has the right to one billionth of the gross toll revenues and these are allocated between the stakeholders.

Operating expenses are currently about £3.5m, so the Operating Partner is allocated 25% . The original design life was 120 years, so we very conservatively allocate another £3.5m -  ie a further 25% of revenues - to a maintenance / sinking fund. This leaves 50% or 500 million of the “billionths” - carrying £7.5m in revenue - available for sale to investors.

The Investment Proposition
Investors are receiving billionths of the gross Humber Bridge revenues, and unlike the position if these were conventional shares, the management does not get the first crack at the Bridge revenues. So this income is more certain than conventional equity in a Humber Bridge Plc, and the managers' interests are aligned with those of the investors.

Toll revenues will rise and fall with traffic levels, but since tolls are index-linked then if the traffic levels remain the same,  income will at least rise with inflation.

However, if tolls are cut by a third to more affordable levels, investors can be pretty confident that use of the bridge will increase, and probably stabilise at a higher level, so that the return will in fact be greater than the initial rate. So, while on the face of it the rate of return is uncertain, it is likely to be greater than a conventional fixed or index-linked rate.

Since “billionths” are not debt, an investor will have to find buyers for them if he wants to cash them in, but it could be expected that a market will soon develop  in what is an extremely simple new financial product.

Crunching the Numbers
We aim to raise £320m from investors to pay off the outstanding debt, and £7.5m has been initially allocated to them. A buyer of 1000 of these “billionths” (ie a millionth) would therefore invest £320.00 and receive £7.50 in income initially.

This represents an initial return of 2.34%.

But we are also throwing in what is known in the investment world as a “kicker” or initial bonus – albeit of unknown size. If the toll income rises by 10% to £16.5m due to the toll reduction, then the investor receives £8.25,  which will increase with inflation thereafter, at constant levels of traffic.

Also, the conservative allocation to the sinking fund will both lower the financing costs – through buying back “billionths” on the market - and probably leave room for toll rebates or reductions.  

Who would invest?
These “billionths” represent a form of investment which is perfect for long term investors, particularly for pension investment, although UK pension investors lose tax benefits. However, overseas pension investors, sovereign wealth funds,and in particular Islamic investors (since no debt is involved) would undoubtedly be interested in such an “asset-based” UK public sector investment in these uncertain times. Possibly local motorists who buy “billionths” could redeem them against season tickets at a discounted rate.

By way of comparison, Wessex Water - a not dissimilar investment proposition – were able not long ago to sell 50 year index-linked bonds at a return of 1.49%.

Public Equity
What I find most interesting is that the conventional wisdom - that the Public sector must necessarily borrow to invest – is blown clear out of the water. The example of a Humber Bridge Partnership  demonstrates that it is quite straightforwardly possible to raise finance for investment without using the Victorian vintage legal form – the Joint Stock Limited Company - which is what makes the private sector “Private”.

I believe that new forms of Public Equity such as that in a Humber Bridge Partnership are capable of revolutionising the financing of public assets.

25 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
The interesting thing about the partnership approach is that it doesn't require any legislation.

They could start it tomorrow.
Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Thanks Gordon.

And I enjoy jousting (and agreeing more often than I expected) with the would-be Labour slayers which this site attracts like bees around a honey pot.

I'm interested in "what works". Conventional left/right ideology died years ago and good riddance.

Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
The bridge has been bought and paid for at least twice I would have thought, probably more.

Credit costs neither banks nor the government anything to create. The only cost over time for a productive asset like this is maintenance/depreciation, and admin costs.

The Humber Bridge neatly demonstrates the insanity of money created as interest-bearing debt being used for public assets.

Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
"If the existing bridge has been operating at a loss"

It hasn't. It's been operating at a massive profit.

It's just that the government has been coining it with huge - totally arbitrary - interest charges over the years.

Call it a Humberside Stealth Tax - that's what it's been.
Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Competition applies to cornershops, it applies every where else too...

If the existing bridge has been operating at a loss - how can the outstanding debt be less that the (index linked) cost of building it? How has the cost of (an identical) construction risen faster than inflation plus the rate of loss on its operation?

I can imagine your LLP principle working - an LLP could build a new bridge and operate it at cost - the existing bridge should not be able to compete - so the backers of the existing bridge would actually do best by selling the existing bridge to the LLP immediately at the cost of a new construction plus a bonus for delivering 'ten years' early (over a new construction), less a penalty for its reduced lifespan (over a new construction).

Financially it cannot be otherwise... arbitrage forces it to be so - unless someone has been upto something naughty...
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
How about just writing off the debt - I mean it's only a piddling £332m - not even worth bothering about in todays debt ridden society.

Now if the debt was at least £1Bn ...
Lord Elpus @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Alex - if you are listening, can we get more articles like this from Chris and less of the "the Tories will eat your children" articles?

Seriously, any article by Chris Cook, Ralph Baldwin and Bill Dewison deserve a read in my book (sorry guys but that may be the kiss of death on here).

They are well written, live in the real world, say where they think things are wrong, why and how to improve them, don't do the "they're more terrible than us" route and aren't full of political posturing.

Not only that but they stick around to answer reponses to their post! See any of that from the likes of Harman and Prescott? Chris Smith follow his up?
Gordon Brown-Nose @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Isn't PFI something that John "I live near the Humber Bridge" Prescott is a big fan of?

Chris I have to say a great article and one that whoever gets in come next May should look very very seriously at. It sounds like a great way of doing things and I love the co-operative nature of it (sorry, hate the word socialist - reminds me of Scargill, Robertson and Prescott).

I would like to think it will happen before May next year then but I've just seen a pig go past the window...
Gordon Brown-Nose @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
"What is the managements motivation to be efficient? Why put money into a sink fund when they could employ all their mates, boost their pensions etc and use up any 'excess'?"

You're missing the point TT. The complete point.

These revenues are pre-allocated between the various stakeholders within the LLP framework. The management never get their hands on them other than with the agreement of the other stakeholders.

It is for ALL the stakeholders to agree among themselves - in accordance with the agreement - what the sinking fund strategy will be.

If the management/staff Coop operate more efficiently then they will get to keep some or all of the savings from their 25% revenue allocation. So of course they have an incentive.

"I think the risk for building a new bridge would be minimal - they have all the details of the existing bridge to work from."

TT, just do the numbers.

What do you think the cost of the bridge will be? IMHO At least £2bn at today's prices.

Proposed Forth Bridge

What's the lead time on a bridge? Ten years minimum. And what will construction costs be then?

If you were able to offer a 1% real return using an LLP model and current tolls you'd be lucky.

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Competition is fine for a corner shop -but not for this.

"The price of crossing with one bridge could be set on all kinds of basis - it saves 50 miles, which is at least a gallon of petrol to most cars, maybe two gallons... let alone the time saving..."

Now, the carbon savings inherent in encouraging more use of the bridge are an interesting subject. A recent study of the economic case for Humber toll cuts made this point, not that the Treasury took a blind bit of notice.







Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Thanks for your response chris.

If I could dig further...

What is the managements motivation to be efficient? Why put money into a sink fund when they could employ all their mates, boost their pensions etc and use up any 'excess'?

If they have too much it seems they can pocket it, but if they run out then the members would have to bail them out (from their tiny 2.5% return) (sounds familiar!).

I think the risk for building a new bridge would be minimal - they have all the details of the existing bridge to work from.

The bridge *cannot* be valued at more than a new replacement... this must limit the amount of debt it can run up - anything above that amount is effectively unsecured...

The price of crossing with one bridge could be set on all kinds of basis - it saves 50 miles, which is at least a gallon of petrol to most cars, maybe two gallons... let alone the time saving...

With a new bridge you would only have to price it to get a return on the investment... Maybe the best return would be from the oil companies - they could buy the full capacity and shut it down...
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks and 5 days ago
Customers are stakeholders, and in all likelihood many will be investors too, simply by buying nth's (which essentially locks in the price for them) if the price is right.

I don't see user members having more than an advisory role in governance.

There's plenty of scope for at least part of any over-provisions (25% of revenues is very generous indeed) into the sinking fund to be rebated to users, and this could have the effect of increasing demand.

"more journeys means more wear and tear"

The bridge is way below its design capacity. Enough traffic to cause meaningful wear and tear would probably fund maintenance ten times over. A nice problem to have.

As I said, the 2.34% is a base case on the (unlikely) assumption that cutting the toll by a third will not increase use. If investors want a guarantee, they can buy one - there would be financial service providers offering them within the week.

"Also... why would a new LLP want anything to do with the existing debt ridden bridge?"

Strange theoretical question. It's an existing revenue stream - and one backed by statute - that they are buying into. Why take development risk on a new bridge with existing competition? Get real.

"rather than any genuinely new, self standing model."

Pray tell me where you have seen this model proposed?

"What if the bridge should never have been built?"

Eh? Whether it should have or not is irrelevant. It's there, and crippled by debt, and this is a simple way of getting rid of the debt by essentially converting it to a new form of equity. What's not to like?

"If it cannot pay for itself?"

LLP's are not magic. A project might not stack up using ANY enterprise model. But it DOES wipe the floor with any model paying returns to unproductive and inefficient rentiers and/or conflicted relationships with management.

If another LLP builds a new one then the income for existing investors will fall, and they have the choice of keeping the tolls up and traffic down, or competing on price.

The joys of the market place TT! You almost seem to be complaining about competition.

"In the same way why did Brown buy failing debt ridden-banks when it would have been far cheaper to create a new debt-free one"

Why do we need banks as middlemen at all? We don't. The Treasury should create credit interest free (it doesn't cost anything, any more than bank credit does) under bank management, and with a provision into a default fund.

Existing secured debt can and should be swapped for unitised equity funded by pension investors. There isn't actually any alternative, as will be evident when this current bubble pops within a couple of months.

Humpty can't be put back together again.
Chris Cook @ 56 weeks and 6 days ago
But being a bridge user does not make you part of the partnership... A bridge user pays a fee and receives a service, they are just customers.

You propose (but don't guarantee) a 2.34% return - but that is totally dependant on the number of journeys and the price of those journeys - more journeys means more wear and tear, so there is an incentive to have as few journeys as possible at a high individual cost, rather than lots of cheap journeys.

If bridge users were to be partners, then I don't think it would take long before cars (the majority) travelled free while lorries/commercial traffic were left to pick up the entire tab...

Also... why would a new LLP want anything to do with the existing debt ridden bridge? It would be better for them to build a new one without the debt, they could undercut the existing bridge tolls, and let its shareholders take a 100% loss on their investment - its no skin off their nose.

At the moment the proposal seems to rely on legislative quirks (and state monopoly of the crossing) rather than any genuinely new, self standing model.

How the operating consortium operate is up to them.
Thats a bit like saying I have a blank bit of paper, you could write the best thing ever on it... The skill isn't in making the paper, its the ideas that you put on it...

What if the bridge should never have been built? If it cannot pay for itself? or another LLP builds a new one cheaper and undercuts it? If it shut (which, without subsidy would be a possibility) noone gets anything...

(In the same way why did Brown buy failing debt ridden-banks when it would have been far cheaper to create a new debt-free one... and let the failing ones fold (which is precisely what the moron should have done)).
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks and 6 days ago
You're beginning to get it, TT, there isn't.

We're not talking about "maximising shareholder value" here. There's nothing "productive" about money.

But there IS a motivation to make efficiencies to be equitably shared as agreed between investors, operators and users of the bridge. How the operating consortium operate is up to them.
Chris Cook @ 57 weeks ago
What motivation is there for the management to maximise the investors return?

As long as their 25% covers their costs, what motivation is there to raise any more - indeed what would they do with any excess?
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 57 weeks ago
Of course due to Scottish lives being valued at £1500 more per person via the unjust Barnett Formula than English lives - there are no tolls on Scottish roads.

As well as Scots having better access to life saving drugs, free care for the elderly, no tuition fees, free dental check-ups, free eye check-ups etc etc etc.

Note. I am all for Scots having these, but if the United Kingdom is to stay united then the English need to get the same levels of service.

English Socialist @ 57 weeks ago
Conventional PFI/PPP is complete bollocks.

As I say upthread, the use of "unitisation" or maybe "equitisation" of PPP/PFI projects would massively cut their costs.

We would reinvent the public balance sheet by bringing the finance onto the balance sheet as a new form of "National Equity".
Chris Cook @ 57 weeks ago
It would be if this were conventional equity.

But it's not: it's far less risky.

It's a proportional "Equity Share" of the GROSS revenues before - not after - any costs, and you've 28 years of traffic data to look at.

Firstly, it's only 2.34% if traffic levels do not increase when tolls are cut by a third.

Secondly, tolls would then be inflation-linked, but from a more affordable base.

This is a simple, but radical, new hybrid between conventional equity, and conventional debt, which are two conflicting claims over the same asset.

It changes the game.

Chris Cook @ 57 weeks ago
Stand corrected in part but SFT is to include a public / private equity split unlike Brown's PFI/ PPP where all the equity is held by the PFI / PPP main contractor, KPMG, Crapita etc......

Yet you agree that Nu Labour's PFI / PPP program is the economics of the madhouse and it will stun UK folks when the real level of the 'off the balance sheet' debt racked up by Brown becomes apparent after the election in 2010 when 'Call me Dave' will have to cut and burn the public sector to try and bring Government spending back within the bounds of sensibility?

Then no doubt the leader of the opposition - Harriet Harman or maybe it will be Cleggy and his 'Last of the Summer Wine' mob - will be screeching like a banshee about public service cuts which are a direct result of the current Nu Labour government's duplicity.

I guess if Scotland did do a 'flit' that Brown's £30 billion debt he's foisted on Scotland could be off set against any Scottish liability for the UK national debt.

A pity Keir Hardy was cremated and thus I can not say he would be spinning in his grave at what Labour have become in their Nu Labour mantle - venial and mendacious just does not cover it.
Peter Thomson @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
2.34% is too low for an equity investment.
Daniel . @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
This is the bridge which was built so that Harold Wilson's government could win a bye-election.
Mark Cannon @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
Unless unitisation involves sending army units round to Capita, Accenture, KPMG and the like, I've a feeling I'll be disappointed.

Can't have everything though.
MonkeyBot 5000 @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
We can, and should, refinance PFI using what I call "unitisation" and get the debt monkey off our shoulder.
Chris Cook @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
Great idea, pity we didn't do this instead of all those PFI scams.
MonkeyBot 5000 @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
Actually,this is nothing like the SFT as it is currently proposed. They propose to raise financing by borrowing, but at a better rate than the private sector, and to operate without private sector profit margins. They could save a few million that way.

There is no borrowing in this model: it's financed by equity, not debt.

A partnership model could save/release billions in the public sector - as I said recently here on pages 8 and 9 re affordable housing

Co-ownership

As you'll see, I did conclude by suggesting (tongue in cheek) that it could actually be called the SFT.....



Chris Cook @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
Wait a minute - this is exactly what Wee Eck suggested for the Scottish Futures Trust to do away with the inefficient and highly expensive PFI that is currently estimated to be costing Scottish Tax payers £30 billion for £5 billion of public buildings.

The same SFT that the Treasury says can not work and because they hold Scotland's purse stings will not allow an SNP Government in Scotland to try.

Sheesh; as I said on another thread today - just how stupid have Nu Labour become?
Peter Thomson @ 57 weeks and 1 day ago
-->

Contributors

  1. Alex Smith
  2. Tim Nicholls
  3. Jack Scott
  4. Sunder Katwala
  5. Brian Barder
  6. Sonny Leong
  7. Michael Green
  8. Paul Richards
  9. Chris Cook
  10. Jag Singh
  11. Anthony Painter
  12. Cath Arakelian
  13. Amanjit Jhund
  14. Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  15. Lewis Goodall
  16. Salome Zourabichvili
  17. Rosie Hucklesby
  18. Sam Tarry
  19. Tom Miller
  20. Jessica Asato
  21. Olly Deed
  22. James Alexander
  23. Fiona Millar
  24. Ellie Levenson
  25. Gabe Trodd
  26. Colin Burgon
  27. Richard Watts
  28. Richard Lane
  29. James Stafford
  30. Mike Katz
  31. Jeremy Corbyn
  32. Mary Honeyball
  33. Byron Taylor
  34. Mark Hanson
  35. Mike Ion
  36. Richard Murphy
  37. Julian Ware-Lane
  38. Wes Streeting
  39. Paul Burgin
  40. Bill Dewison
  41. Hadleigh Roberts
  42. LabourList
  43. Rowenna Davis
  44. Will Straw
  45. Don Paskini
  46. Jennette Arnold
  47. Robbie Erbmann
  48. Martin Tiedemann
  49. Jonathan Isaby
  50. Rebecca Hickman
  51. Hugh Goulbourne
  52. Ed Miliband
  53. Alun Michael
  54. Frances Rehal
  55. David Rodgers
  56. Douglas Alexander
  57. Ed Balls
  58. Louise Ellman
  59. Michael Stephenson
  60. Len Wardle
  61. Greg Rosen
  62. Gareth Thomas
  63. Rachel Reeves
  64. Laurie Penny
  65. Simon Fletcher
  66. VoteRed GoGreen
  67. Tom Watson
  68. Kathryn White
  69. Morys Ireland
  70. Jack Straw
  71. Andrew Lomas
  72. Graeme Cooke
  73. Andrew Neilson
  74. Stuart White
  75. Kathryn Corrick
  76. Ed Williams
  77. Bill Kerry
  78. Gisela Stuart
  79. Shamik Das
  80. Gary Kent
  81. Mathew Hulbert
  82. Gavin Hayes
  83. Rupa Huq
  84. Andrew Pakes
  85. Tom Ogg
  86. James Mills
  87. Dan McCurry
  88. Christine Quigley
  89. Huw Lewis
  90. Marie Birchall
  91. Societarian
  92. Tom Harris
  93. Harriet Yeo
  94. Andy Burnham
  95. Tom Flynn
  96. Theo Blackwell
  97. John Gray
  98. Liam Byrne
  99. Ian Adderley
  100. Paul Afshar
  101. Olivia Bailey
  102. Alex Ross
  103. Duncan Weldon
  104. Tim Cheetham
  105. Kevin Bonavia
  106. James Crabtree
  107. James Valentine
  108. Johanna Baxter
  109. Dan Wilson
  110. Rich Green
  111. Rachel Rowson
  112. James Macintyre
  113. Luciana Berger
  114. Jake Hayman
  115. James Purnell
  116. Sue Regan
  117. John Healey
  118. Mark Spiro
  119. Glenis Willmott
  120. Chris Ostrowski
  121. Andy Slaughter
  122. Hope not Hate
  123. John Prescott
  124. Mark Day
  125. John Hirst
  126. Gary Elsby
  127. Shane Mann
  128. Alastair Campbell
  129. Cherie Booth
  130. Nick Clegg
  131. You - Email us if you want to post!

View all contributors


Latest comments

BlogList


#LabourDoorstep

Update comrades on your campaigning progress at #LabourDoorstep.


LabourList on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter