ducts acquired through the buyback deal.
3. Beidleman, C., Fletcher, D., and Veshosky, D. "On Allocating Risk: The Essence of Project Finance." Sloan Management Review, 31 (Spring 1990): 47 56.
This article discusses risk with respect to project finance. Risk is considered with respect to both type and degree. Additionally, however, the article focuses on the allocation of risk between borrower and lender. This factor is of particular significance when the project finance loan deal is between a financial institution and a manufacturer or construction firm which delivers a finished product to a third party. To the extent that a lender can allocate the bulk of the risk to the borrower, the lender will be protected in the event of a default by the third party.
4. Bington, P. "Limited Recourse Shifts the Risk." Euromoney, April 1989, 82 86.
As was true with respect to the preceding article, this article discusses the concept of risk with respect to project finance. This article also focuses on the allocation of risk; however, the emphasis is placed on one method by which a lender may assure that the greater risk is allocated to the borrower. In one sense, risk is considered to be a measure of uncertainty. In this broad context, everything that is done by a private sector firm involves risk. This concept is valid, and, certainly, risk in whatever operation must be minimized by organization's management. The concept of risk is narrowed somewhat by the definition holding that risk is the possibility of an adverse outcome to an event. This article discusses risk in connection with project finance in the Soviet Union. The author of the article suggests that borrowing firms developing projects in the Soviet Union be granted limited recourse in the event of default by the third party in the Soviet Union. Thus, in the event of a Soviet default, the borrower, not the lender, would absorb any loss.
5. Bjerksund, P., and Eke...