Project financingin the case of residential construction in Belgrade

Abstract

Projektno finansiranje je metod finansiranja u kome kreditor prvenstveno uzima u obzir prihode koje generiše pojedinačni projekat, kao izvor otplate i obezbeđenje za izloženost rizicima. Procena rizika je kritična faza za kreditora i investitora u projektnom finansiranju jer snosi svu odgovornost za procenu sposobnosti projekta da otplaćuje dugove (pozajmice), pokriva troškove, kao i za isplatu dividendi akcionarima. Projektovani i očekivani novčani tok koji generiše projekat je pod snažnim uticajem rizika. Ukoliko rizici nisu na adekvatan način procenjeni i anticipirani, dolazi do smanjenja novčanog toka, odnosno, deficita. Ukoliko novčani tok nije dovoljan za servisiranje obaveza prema kreditorima, projekat je neuspešan i potrebno ga je okončati. Na osnovu prinicipa i ponude proizvoda projektnog finansiranja banaka koje posluju u Republici Srbiji (Banca Intesa, Erste banka, Sber banka i UniCredit banka) praktično je prikazano koji su principi projektnog finansiranja rezidencijalne gradnje u Žarkovu (delu Beograda) i koje su prednosti za samog investitora (u vezi sa imovinom, projekcijama novčanih tokova u funkciji otplate kredita, osnovama za odobrenje projektnog finansiranja-budući prihodi koje generiše projekat, pravnim statusom korisnika kredita i raspodelom rizika).

Validity of investment loan approval model for SMEs in Serbia

“…Doubts regarding the validity of the ILASME in the sense of determining the creditworthiness of the legal entity are already supported by the information contained in the research (conducted in the period from 2009 to 2016) regarding the authenticity of the elements of quantitative analysis of the borrower [1], [28], [5], [14], [13], [23], [24], [28], [35], in terms of: (1) presentation of items in the financial reports (assets, calculation of depreciation, devaluation of receivables, revenues, operating cash flow, the achieved financial result and applied financial analysis), i.e. practice of purchasing an external auditor's opinion; (2) the motives for the previously described actions (such as handling, tax, bonus payments, ignorance).…”

“…Furthermore, research conducted among accountants (2014) revealed that there is no clear boundary between the creative use of accounting techniques and their misuse ("creative accounting"). In addition to this, by applying the Benford's law on a sample of 847 large companies which operated in the Republic of Serbia in 2012, Barjaktarović et al [5] indicate that there are grounds for doubt regarding the stated financial results due to the regularity of the appearance of numbers 1 and 9. In the following experiment conducted on a sample of 4,029 large and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Republic of Serbia in the period from 2009 to 2013, by applying the Benford test, Čerović et al [14] indicate that there are reasonable grounds to question the reported amounts of net cash flow from operating activities, due to the incidence of numbers 1 and 3, and lower occurrence of number 4.…”