복합산업단지 프로젝트 파이낸싱(PF) 평가지표 개발

복합산업단지 개발 프로젝트의 파이낸싱 평가 지표를 개발했다.

South Korea has joined the ranks of advanced nations relatively fast, with GDP of $20,000, as a result of government-driven industrial complex development after being devastated by a war. In fact, industrial complex is not only a core engine of national economy that facilitates rapid economic growth but also an ever-lasting economic development tool, as a hub of local economic growth.

However, the reckless industrial complex development driven by local governments, which has been pursued as a growth engine of local communities ever since local self-governing system was enforced in 1995, has deteriorated due to funding issues of many businesses; it has been caused by sluggish real estate market in Korea, along with 2008 global financial crisis, undermining the administrative reliability. Thus, project financing (PF) method for public-private joint industrial complex development with the 3rd sector scheme using the funding of private financial institutions has been established as a new trend, garnering a lot of attention recently.

Therefore, this study has conducted the following: identifying the issues with existing stagnant policies on industrial land usage, which has failed to reflect the changes in industrial environment; re-establishing the concept of industrial complex, based on integrative, complex ideas, such as multi-functionality of land usage crucial for recent industrial complex and diversification of business entities; presenting key factors to be considered as to funding for future industrial complex by establishing evaluation-related factors of PF, a method of securing funding which has been introduced actively in Korea since its major financial crisis through FGI and AHP and developing and verifying applicable standards.

This study is largely divided into the following three steps. First, preliminary indicators were selected through a case study and literature study, and final indictors were selected through expert consulting. Second, standards on industrial complex were established by applying the weight of indicators through AHP. Third, actual cases were verified to check the indicators that should be considered for future planning of industrial complex development.

As for major preliminary indicators, a total of 13 fields including the following were evaluated, which were established as 38 evaluation items and 81 detailed items: risk review; preservation of bond claims; basic evaluation of target site; feasibility study; business performance evaluation; basic evaluation of investor protection plans. The established preliminary indicators were used as a basis for focus group interview (FGI) with experts of financial institutions, construction companies, credit rating agencies, and government agencies. Afterwards, final evaluation indicators were selected.

To measure the importance among evaluation indicators, a hierarchical and analytic decision-making technique called AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was utilized, and a 7-point Likert scale was used to measure the importance among the indicators by field, item, and detailed evaluation element, which were evaluated with pair-wise comparison. As a result, 7 evaluation fields (appropriateness of target site, suitability of business provider and site, marketability of products, financial stability, credit enhancement method, investor protection, step-by-step risk review items), 17 evaluation items, and 58 evaluation elements were established.

The importance ranking of evaluation elements was measured in the following order: marketability of products; credit enhancement method; financial stability; appropriateness of business environment and target site. When the survey results were applied to actual public-private joint industrial complex development, successful groups scored an average of 867 out of 1,000, and failed groups scored an average of 613, indicating a difference of 254. Among the evaluation fields, difference in importance was measured in the following order: credit enhancement method (difference of 111 points) and marketability of products (difference of 74 points).

What is noteworthy is that feasibility study, which was expected to be most important, showed the smallest difference of 5.5 points. Such results indicate the following: From the perspective of financial investors, the most highly valued element in the PF evaluation is bond recovery as to loans provided or market competitiveness and marketability for securitization (exit) after completion of construction, rather than uncertain quantitative business feasibility values of the future.

Although this study has limitations in terms of indicator verification and application, given that there are a limited number of domestic public-private joint industrial complex development cases (8), the findings could contribute to solving problems by establishing the factors of relationships among participants in the public-private joint industrial complex development, which is at a standstill.

Also, this study is highly significant in that it can boost the predictability of sustainable business feasibility by reflecting the results from business planning stage for financial institutions and public (local governments) and private corporations preparing for industrial complex development, by quantifying the PF evaluation standards in connection with industrial complex development financing.