Skip to main content

P3 profits too large (and risks quite limited) - New report

The National Audit Office (NAO) in Britain finds profits for investors were expected to exceed the target of 12% to 15% in 84 of the 118 public private partnership (P3) projects that it analyzed.
Instead, investors regularly see profits of between 15% and 30% by selling their equity in the secondary market.
The government responded to the report by stating the analysis “needs to take into account a wider range of issues that together contribute to the overall economics of a transaction, rather than merely looking at equity returns”.
For its part, Construction News concludes  "the root cause (for the high profits) is that civil servants are not sufficiently competent to stand up to bankers on complex financial issues."

I'd say even 12% to 15% percent  is a pretty good return (never mind 15% to 30%) --  especially when  the investors are dealing with a pretty safe credit risk -- the government. 

The NAO report itself concludes, "investors bear some risks, particularly in the early stages of projects, but these risks are limited." (Contrast this with the major claim of advocates of P3s who argue risk transfer to the private sector is one of the main benefits of P3s --and one which the public is supposed to pay a hefty price.)

Nevertheless, the NAO report also suggests consideration of other forms of public private partnerships.  

The full report is available on the NAO web site


Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.

Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 

No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…