The lifetime loan coverage ratio is next.

Very interesting metric. It's effectively the reverse of some of the deck capacity work you may have seen in our other materials. We're going to look at the MPV of the CFADs and the MPV of the CFADs is in fact how you might build up the deck capacity where this to be a model which went the other way around. That will effectively give you the principle, the maximum principle that should have been commanded by all of the available cash flows from this point onwards. We'll then have a look and see what the principle actually is and you can see that the lenders would like there to be a relationship of 1.5, which is to say the MPV of the cash flows to cover the loan should be one and a half times the principle, which is the MPV of the loan as such, and it's another coverage ratio just done a different way. You can see we've got the cost of debt, which is from the assumptions. This is a blended weighted average of all of the cost of debts over here. We want the NPV of CFADs and from the point of view of MPVing, the cell that I'm hovering over now would be time zero, and then year 51 would be time one. So we're always going to be NPVing from the next cell onwards.

Let's get an NPV going and you can see that it wants the rate first. Now the rate is going to be the cost of debt. We need to lock that. The values will be all of the CFADs going forwards.

We want this to take into account all of the CFADs going forwards and we want that to be flexible and we certainly don't want to do this for every cell when we copy to the right. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna use the same trick we've employed several times throughout the model, which is to create a range and then lock part of it. The first thing I need to do is take the range all the way to the end of the project.

Then I need to say as I copy to the right, if I'm very careful now I want that end point to stay the same, but I want the start point to move around. Let's see if that's working. You can see it's come out with a strange figure and that's because it's valuing the negative CFADs initially very highly and it's not valuing these very highly because of the time value of money. Also, the project is failing to go on for the amount of time it should do because I've got these teaching aids here. And so if you were building this and had everything, nicely copied all the way to the right, you might see a very different number. Now That the summing, or excuse me, the range should move around and you can see it's going J K L, but the end of the range is staying put, which is exactly what I wanted it to do.

In this case, it's coming down because it's considering fewer and fewer CFADs and then it's going to zero because there's nothing beyond this. Thankfully, it is not throwing an error there the same way we saw before. And so I don't need to remove this one.

The outstanding loan balances I'm gonna go and find from debt schedules.

Here's my ending senior debt, and here's my ending junior debt.

You can see as we borrow that ramps up and then when the grace period elapses, we start to pay down LLCR itself will be the relationship between these two numbers. But again, we don't really want this to happen in the first two years.

What we'll do is we'll use the same trick we did before.

This is a nice trick because it's gonna help us throughout. Here. For example, it's dividing by zero.

Now it'll also divide by zero because of the flag, and that will generate an NA.

But there is another period in the project where that would happen for which this tactic is quite useful. It's obvious that here there should be an error and that's because the flag will drive it into an error and that's what we want. But much, much later when we perhaps pay down all of the debt, then the outstanding loan balances will be zero. And again, we want that to generate an NA as opposed to an error, which might mess with the breach.

You can see at the moment the LLCR is looking pretty grim, but that's because we haven't copied forward everything. We don't have all of the cash flows of the project driving into the MPV, and so this is just not working as intended yet. But mechanically it is working.

We want, again, a breach to be indicated by the target being higher than the result. We've got a breach pretty much across the board, and we're now in a position where we'd like to see it not breaching, so we'll just stress take that and it's working fine.