Economic Regulation - IATA
Economic Regulation - IATA
Economic Regulation - IATA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
DEFINING AND VALUING<br />
AN APPROPRIATE ASSET BASE<br />
Another crucial influence on regulatory decisions and<br />
outcomes is the scope adopted in defining and valuing a<br />
regulatory asset base (RAB) on which an allowable return<br />
is calculated. In accounting terms, the RAB represents<br />
the capital investment in the business, for which a return<br />
is required, and its depreciation represents the use of<br />
capital over its life-cycle.<br />
There are several different approaches to calculating<br />
a RAB. However, each approach must ensure that the<br />
RAB represents a true reflection of the capital invested<br />
by the airport or ANSP operator and the risk that it takes.<br />
It should not allow airports or ANSPs to exploit their<br />
monopoly power by artificially inflating asset values in<br />
order to increase their total returns.<br />
For example, the standard approach adopted for utility<br />
industries (including airports) in the UK and Ireland is<br />
to calculate the RAB in accordance with the value that<br />
investors initially placed in the company at the time of<br />
privatisation, based on its enterprise (debt plus equity)<br />
value.<br />
If the assets were undervalued at the time of privatisation<br />
it can result in a gain to the company (e.g. in terms of<br />
a subsequent uplift in equity market capitalisation) but<br />
not one that customers should be forced to pay for<br />
through higher charges on a revalued asset base. The<br />
RAB is changed for each regulatory control period on the<br />
basis of incurred capital expenditure, depreciation and<br />
expected inflation.<br />
BOX 3: LAND REVALUATION<br />
i) New Zealand:<br />
Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) revalued its<br />
own asset base in July 2006, increasing the valuation<br />
by NZ$1.4 billion, or 123%. This asset revaluation led<br />
to a corresponding increase in the “property, plant<br />
and equipment revaluation reserve” included under<br />
Shareholder Equity on the AIAL balance sheet, reducing<br />
its gearing ratio from 66% to 33%.<br />
The higher asset base and lower gearing ratio (that<br />
increases the weighted cost of capital through a higher<br />
equity share) are likely to be used as justification for<br />
higher user charges. If these artificially higher values<br />
were applied, airline charges could be expected to<br />
increase by NZ$35-40 million (over 50%), despite using<br />
the same assets and with no change in efficiency or<br />
service quality.<br />
AIAL is currently subject to light-handed regulation,<br />
despite having previously been found by the NZ<br />
Commerce Commission to have exploited its market<br />
power. In the absence of formal regulation, the freehold<br />
held by AIAL allows them to make the change through<br />
accounting practice, with no protection against the<br />
exploitation of market power over airline users unless<br />
(and very unlikely in the current climate) the government<br />
enacted new legislation to stop the revaluation.<br />
ii) Australia:<br />
Several of the price monitored Australian airports<br />
attempted to raise their land values in keeping with<br />
increases in land prices in surrounding areas, and to<br />
reflect those higher values in higher aeronautical charges<br />
from 2007 onwards.<br />
The Australian Productivity Commission’s October 2006<br />
Draft Report on its review of airports accepts that land<br />
revaluations can represent unearned windfall gains<br />
to airports but, due to it previously not having a stated<br />
view, proposes that “revaluations made by airports up<br />
to 30 June 2005…should be allowed to stand, but any<br />
subsequent revaluations should be excluded.”<br />
While <strong>IATA</strong> fully supports the PC’s stance that land<br />
revaluations should not be used to justify increases in<br />
airport charges, it does not see any justification for future<br />
increases in charges that can be based on revaluations<br />
made before 30 June 2005 (the last revaluation in the<br />
Regulatory accounts). Land revaluations represent<br />
unearned windfall gains. Its valuation should reflect the<br />
value at the time of privatisation and while the land is<br />
owned by government and/or restricted to an airport use<br />
only there can be no land revaluations.<br />
AIAL’s Earnings Before Interest and Taxation (EBIT)<br />
margin was 66% in its fiscal year 2006, by far the highest<br />
EBIT level among the top 50 airports in the world.