In France, as elsewhere, the financial crisis has challenged corporate financing by debt. The race had begun equity. The "Fund français strategic", which the president has defined the contours yesterday, is it a little, a lot or not at all the solution? His role is not to invest abroad surpluses like other sovereign funds, those in oil or China. France has no surplus to invest. Rather, it aims to stop certain "foreign predators".
For the economist Patrick Artus (Natixis), the right question to ask is rather the opposite: how to attract foreign capital? The need is such that there no escape. We should not bother, "he says. No objective study shows behavior harmful foreign owners of French companies in terms of employment, investment, location of the headquarters ... Aware of the magnitude of needs, Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out inviting investors from other countries to join the French fund.
The new instrument which gets the state it is a banner of "economic patriotism", whose usefulness is essential to calm the emotions of voters? Emotion even stronger than the buyers are more exotic. Bernard Carayon, member of the Tarn, an ardent advocate of economic patriotism, does not deny the emotional aspects. But he also stressed that France and Europe do not have the same instruments as the United States to defend their strategic sectors (as defined military term). In the United States, the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) meets in secret administration and intelligence agencies to try national security issues that may arise foreign investment. The first French intervention fund (Daher, Chantiers de l'Atlantique ...) relate effectively or firms can work for national defense. Until it comes to this, many fall prevention including those of economists. There is only the question of whether it would be preferable to define a European framework for monitoring sensitive investments, even if the application to allow Member States. This is what Nicolas Véron, an economist at think-tank Bruegel European, which states that "denying the possibility of security risks posed by foreign investment in Europe is a poor way to promote economic openness."
A legal instrument exists to protect "strategic sectors", said Michel Menjucq, a law professor at Paris-I. This is the decree of 30 December 2005 adopted on the initiative of Dominique de Villepin and highly contested by Brussels. He deserves a little to clarify what those sectors, said the lawyer. In the eyes of Bernard Carayon, it is a disadvantage, because "it never does to his detriment." In any case, there is no implementing legislation, he says.
With 20 billion euros, of which only 6 cash, the new French fund has obviously not pretend otherwise finance or control the whole of the French economy. That gives it perhaps a chance to stick to its mission "strategic". Its most innovative feature seems to want to look at its target measure, and medium-sized enterprises (Daher is 600 million turnover and aims to double). These medium-sized enterprises are both essential to the national economy and often fragile in the capital, say with one voice Jean-Pierre Fourcade, a former finance minister, and Hugues of Rouret, member of the Chamber of Commerce Industry of Paris.
However, it is not easier to invest wisely in a medium that great. The State was never guarantee the best possible allocation of capital, said Nicolas Véron. Under the pretext of strategy, might there not to squander public money in support of ducks more or less lame at the whim of political interference? This is clearly not the intention of the president, who has ruled out investments in companies unsustainable and hoped that the fund derives a return on its investment. But if misery in areas affected by the crisis, the pressure will be very strong for subsidies that angel investors.
Jean-Francois Dehecq and Patricia Barbizet responsible "guide" the fund will have the difficult task of proving he can stick to real strategic investments in companies really viable. They are on the razor's edge, or rather the sword.
For the economist Patrick Artus (Natixis), the right question to ask is rather the opposite: how to attract foreign capital? The need is such that there no escape. We should not bother, "he says. No objective study shows behavior harmful foreign owners of French companies in terms of employment, investment, location of the headquarters ... Aware of the magnitude of needs, Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out inviting investors from other countries to join the French fund.
The new instrument which gets the state it is a banner of "economic patriotism", whose usefulness is essential to calm the emotions of voters? Emotion even stronger than the buyers are more exotic. Bernard Carayon, member of the Tarn, an ardent advocate of economic patriotism, does not deny the emotional aspects. But he also stressed that France and Europe do not have the same instruments as the United States to defend their strategic sectors (as defined military term). In the United States, the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) meets in secret administration and intelligence agencies to try national security issues that may arise foreign investment. The first French intervention fund (Daher, Chantiers de l'Atlantique ...) relate effectively or firms can work for national defense. Until it comes to this, many fall prevention including those of economists. There is only the question of whether it would be preferable to define a European framework for monitoring sensitive investments, even if the application to allow Member States. This is what Nicolas Véron, an economist at think-tank Bruegel European, which states that "denying the possibility of security risks posed by foreign investment in Europe is a poor way to promote economic openness."
A legal instrument exists to protect "strategic sectors", said Michel Menjucq, a law professor at Paris-I. This is the decree of 30 December 2005 adopted on the initiative of Dominique de Villepin and highly contested by Brussels. He deserves a little to clarify what those sectors, said the lawyer. In the eyes of Bernard Carayon, it is a disadvantage, because "it never does to his detriment." In any case, there is no implementing legislation, he says.
With 20 billion euros, of which only 6 cash, the new French fund has obviously not pretend otherwise finance or control the whole of the French economy. That gives it perhaps a chance to stick to its mission "strategic". Its most innovative feature seems to want to look at its target measure, and medium-sized enterprises (Daher is 600 million turnover and aims to double). These medium-sized enterprises are both essential to the national economy and often fragile in the capital, say with one voice Jean-Pierre Fourcade, a former finance minister, and Hugues of Rouret, member of the Chamber of Commerce Industry of Paris.
However, it is not easier to invest wisely in a medium that great. The State was never guarantee the best possible allocation of capital, said Nicolas Véron. Under the pretext of strategy, might there not to squander public money in support of ducks more or less lame at the whim of political interference? This is clearly not the intention of the president, who has ruled out investments in companies unsustainable and hoped that the fund derives a return on its investment. But if misery in areas affected by the crisis, the pressure will be very strong for subsidies that angel investors.
Jean-Francois Dehecq and Patricia Barbizet responsible "guide" the fund will have the difficult task of proving he can stick to real strategic investments in companies really viable. They are on the razor's edge, or rather the sword.
No comments:
Post a Comment