>>> Abengoa receives USD 320m-equivalent bid from TPG for Brazilian assets - rep

Abengoa receives USD 320m-equivalent bid from TPG for Brazilian assets

Abengoa [BME:ABG], the Spanish electricity company, has received a BRL 1bn (USD 320.6m) offer from private equity firm TPG Capital for its Brazilian assets, O Estado de Sao Paulo reported, citing one source with knowledge of the situation.
According to the Portuguese-language article, TPG and a consortium formed by electric services company Equatorial Energia [BVMF:EQTL3] and a fund managed by Banco BTG Pactual [BVMF:BPAC5] are the favorite picks for Abengoa's Brazilian assets.
TPG declined to comment, the news report added.

(The Economist) The vote that could wreck the European Union

The vote that could wreck the European Union

Why the French presidential election will have consequences far beyond its borders

IT HAS been many years since France last had a revolution, or even a serious attempt at reform. Stagnation, both political and economic, has been the hallmark of a country where little has changed for decades, even as power has rotated between the established parties of left and right.

Until now. This year’s presidential election, the most exciting in living memory, promises an upheaval. The Socialist and Republican parties, which have held power since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, could be eliminated in the first round of a presidential ballot on April 23rd. French voters may face a choice between two insurgent candidates: Marine Le Pen, the charismatic leader of the National Front, and Emmanuel Macron, the upstart leader of a liberal movement, En Marche! (On the Move!), which he founded only last year.

The implications of these insurgencies are hard to exaggerate. They are the clearest example yet of a global trend: that the old divide between left and right is growing less important than a new one between open and closed. The resulting realignment will have reverberations far beyond France’s borders. It could revitalise the European Union, or wreck it.

Les misérables

The revolution’s proximate cause is voters’ fury at the uselessness and self-dealing of their ruling class. The Socialist president, François Hollande, is so unpopular that he is not running for re-election. The established opposition, the centre-right Republican party, saw its chances sink on March 1st when its standard-bearer, François Fillon, revealed that he was being formally investigated for paying his wife and children nearly €1m ($1.05m) of public money for allegedly fake jobs. Mr Fillon did not withdraw from the race, despite having promised to do so. But his chances of winning are dramatically weakened.

Further fuelling voters’ anger is their anguish at the state of France (see article). One poll last year found that French people are the most pessimistic on Earth, with 81% grumbling that the world is getting worse and only 3% saying that it is getting better. Much of that gloom is economic. France’s economy has long been sluggish; its vast state, which absorbs 57% of GDP, has sapped the country’s vitality. A quarter of French youths are unemployed. Of those who have jobs, few can find permanent ones of the sort their parents enjoyed. In the face of high taxes and heavy regulation those with entrepreneurial vim have long headed abroad, often to London. But the malaise goes well beyond stagnant living standards. Repeated terrorist attacks have jangled nerves, forced citizens to live under a state of emergency and exposed deep cultural rifts in the country with Europe’s largest Muslim community.
Many of these problems have built up over decades, but neither the left nor the right has been able to get to grips with them. France’s last serious attempt at ambitious economic reform, an overhaul of pensions and social security, was in the mid-1990s under President Jacques Chirac. It collapsed in the face of massive strikes. Since then, few have even tried. Nicolas Sarkozy talked a big game, but his reform agenda was felled by the financial crisis of 2007-08. Mr Hollande had a disastrous start, introducing a 75% top tax rate. He was then too unpopular to get much done. After decades of stasis, it is hardly surprising that French voters want to throw the bums out.

Both Mr Macron and Ms Le Pen tap into that frustration. But they offer radically different diagnoses of what ails France and radically different remedies. Ms Le Pen blames outside forces and promises to protect voters with a combination of more barriers and greater social welfare. She has effectively distanced herself from her party’s anti-Semitic past (even evicting her father from the party he founded), but she appeals to those who want to shut out the rest of the world. She decries globalisation as a threat to French jobs and Islamists as fomenters of terror who make it perilous to wear a short skirt in public. The EU is “an anti-democratic monster”. She vows to close radical mosques, stanch the flow of immigrants to a trickle, obstruct foreign trade, swap the euro for a resurrected French franc and call a referendum on leaving the EU.

Mr Macron’s instincts are the opposite. He thinks that more openness would make France stronger. He is staunchly pro-trade, pro-competition, pro-immigration and pro-EU. He embraces cultural change and technological disruption. He thinks the way to get more French people working is to reduce cumbersome labour protections, not add to them. Though he has long been short on precise policies (he was due to publish a manifesto as The Economist went to press), Mr Macron is pitching himself as the pro-globalisation revolutionary.
Look carefully, and neither insurgent is a convincing outsider. Ms Le Pen has spent her life in politics; her success has been to make a hitherto extremist party socially acceptable. Mr Macron was Mr Hollande’s economy minister. His liberalising programme will probably be less bold than that of the beleaguered Mr Fillon, who has promised to trim the state payroll by 500,000 workers and slash the labour code. Both revolutionaries would have difficulty enacting their agendas. Even if she were to prevail, Ms Le Pen’s party would not win a majority in the national assembly. Mr Macron barely has a party.

La France ouverte ou la France forteresse?

Nonetheless, they represent a repudiation of the status quo. A victory for Mr Macron would be evidence that liberalism still appeals to Europeans. A victory for Ms Le Pen would make France poorer, more insular and nastier. If she pulls France out of the euro, it would trigger a financial crisis and doom a union that, for all its flaws, has promoted peace and prosperity in Europe for six decades. Vladimir Putin would love that. It is perhaps no coincidence that Ms Le Pen’s party has received a hefty loan from a Russian bank and Mr Macron’s organisation has suffered more than 4,000 hacking attacks.

With just over two months to go, it seems Ms Le Pen is unlikely to clinch the presidency. Polls show her winning the first round but losing the run-off. But in this extraordinary election, anything could happen. France has shaken the world before. It could do so again.

EI Towers not aware of any offer from Rai Way - source - Reuters

EI Towers not aware of any offer from Rai Way - source - Reuters

07-Mar-2017 11:41:03

MILAN, March 7 (Reuters) - Italy's EI Towers EIT.MI, the mast company controlled by broadcaster Mediaset MS.MI, is not aware of any offer from peer Rai Way RWAY.MI, a source close to EI Towers told Reuters on Tuesday.

Italian daily il Messaggero reported earlier on Tuesday that the tower company was considering a takeover bid for EI Towers and that the operation was being examined by Citi, without citing sources.

"The operation seems improbable given that the board of Rai Way is due to expire soon," said another source.

Italy' state broadcaster Rai, which owns 65 percent of Rai Way, declined to comment.

Last year Mediaset CEO Pier Silvio Berlusconi said that it was important for the country's tower sector to consolidate, following reports by Italian newspapers over a possible tie-up between the two companies.

(GateStone Institute) Report: Homegrown Terrorism is Top Threat to UK

Report: Homegrown Terrorism is Top Threat to UK


"The threat to the UK remains from homegrown terrorism, and is heavily youth- and male-oriented with British nationals prevalent among offenders." — Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offenses and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015).

"The increased prevalence of smaller cells and individualistic offending, suggests a rise in terrorism cases that feature shorter lead times to offending and fewer opportunities for identification." — Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offenses and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015).

"While analysis of pre-offense behaviors shows that there is no one profile for engagement with Islamism-inspired terrorism, some trends can be identified. Offenders commonly consumed extremist and/or instructional material prior to, or as part of, their offending. Much of the pro-jihadist material accessed promotes 'them and us' thinking, dehumanization of the enemy, and attitudes that justify offending." — Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offenses and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015).

"Analysis of common sites of inspiration and facilitation appears to corroborate current counter-radicalization policy priorities such as restricting terrorist and violent extremist material on the internet, supporting at-risk sectors and empowering families to safeguard against extremism." — Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offenses and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015).

Homegrown terrorism inspired by the Islamic State poses the dominant threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, according to a comprehensive new report on violent Islamism in Britain.

The 1,000-page report — "Islamist Terrorism: Analysis of Offenses and Attacks in the UK (1998–2015)" — was published on March 5 by the Henry Jackson Society, a foreign policy think tank based in London.

The report, authored by terrorism researcher Hanna Stuart, identifies, profiles and analyzes all 269 Islamism-inspired terrorism convictions and suicide attacks in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2015.

The report also compares data between 1998 and 2010, a period when al-Qaeda reached its zenith, and 2011 and 2015, the period following the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the uprisings known as the Arab Spring, and the rise of the Islamic State in 2014.

The report shows that young British males were the most prevalent offenders, but that involvement by British females nearly tripled in recent years.

The report found little to no correlation between involvement in Islamic terrorism and educational achievement and employment status. In addition, most of the offenders were based in London and Birmingham, and a majority were living at their family homes with parents, siblings, spouses and/or children. "These findings challenge common stereotypes of terrorists as well-educated and middle-class or as isolated loners," according to the report.

While most offenders were raised as Muslim, one in six was a convert. Three-quarters of offenders were previously known to the authorities; one-quarter had a previous criminal conviction. One in five offenders received terrorist training abroad or engaged in combat prior to arrest.

The report cites the internet as a major source for the inspiration of offenders. At the same time, most offenders belonged to wider networks, formed in person and online, with friends and families. Only one in ten offenses was carried out by someone who acted entirely alone and had no extremist connections.

"The increased prevalence of smaller cells and individualistic offending, suggests a rise in terrorism cases that feature shorter lead times to offending and fewer opportunities for identification," the report warns.

The report's main findings include:

The overwhelming majority (93%) of Islamism-related offenses (IROs) were committed by males. Females accounted for 4% of IROs between 1998 and 2010 and 11% of IROs between 2011 and 2015 — an increase of 175%.

IROs were carried out by individuals between the ages of 14 and 52 years. Forty-six percent of 2011–2015 offenses were committed by individuals aged under 25, a small increase from 42% for 1998–2010 offenses. The most common age ranges overall, and across both time periods, were 21–24 and 25–29.

Seventy-two percent of IROs were committed by British nationals or individuals holding dual British nationality. There was almost no difference between the earlier and later time periods (72% and 71% respectively).

More than half (52%) of IROs were committed by individuals of South Asian ancestry, i.e., British-Pakistanis (25%) and British-Bangladeshis (8%). Other offenders had family ties to countries in Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean.

Forty-seven percent of IROs were committed by individuals who were born in the UK. More than a third (38%) of those born outside of the UK or of unspecified birthplace were raised (at some point before the age of 18) in the UK. As a result, 67% of IROs were committed by individuals who were either born or raised in the UK.

London was the place of residence of 43% of IROs, followed by West Midlands, with 18%. Of the latter, 80% (14% overall) were in Birmingham. The third most common region was North West England, with 10% of IROs. Together these three regions contained the residences in almost three-quarters (72%) of cases. No other region contained 10% of residences.

Across both time periods, East London was home to half (50%) of London-based offenders, while the three most common boroughs — Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest — contained the offenders' residence in 38% of all Londoner IROs (and 16% overall).

Just over a quarter (26%) of individuals who committed IROs had some form of higher education. More than a third (36%) had studied for or achieved secondary level, further education or vocational qualifications, while in 38% of cases, attainment is unspecified.

Thirty-five percent of IROs were committed by individuals in employment; a further 12% were full-time students. Therefore, almost half (47%) of IROs were committed by those in either employment or education.

Thirty-eight percent of IROs were committed by individuals who were unemployed. Of these, almost one-quarter (24%, 9% overall) were in or had recently been released from detention or had recently left full-time education or returned from months-long foreign travel.

Sixteen percent of IROs were committed by individuals known to have converted to Islam. This is more than four times higher than the estimated proportion of converts among the Muslim population at the national level.

More than half (55%) of IROs were committed by individuals either living with family, such as with a partner and/or children (28%), or living at their family home, such as with parents and siblings (27%).

One in five IROs (21%) was committed by an individual whose living arrangements and family circumstances were additionally linked to terrorism or a terrorism investigation. In 55% of these cases, individuals were convicted alongside relatives and/or a partner or they were part of the same cell.

Female offenders were more than twice as likely as male offenders to be living with a partner, relative or individual who is also involved in terrorism (50% and 19% respectively).

Seventy-six percent of IROs were committed by individuals who were previously known to the authorities; 38% were committed by individuals with previous criminal convictions. More than a third (36%, 9% overall) of previous convictions were for extremism- or terrorism-related activities; almost half (46%, 12% overall) of individuals with prior convictions had previously received a prison sentence.

A total of 386 charges were successfully prosecuted in 264 convictions between 1998 and 2015. The most common offenses were preparation for acts of terrorism (27%) and possession/collection of information useful for terrorism (14%), followed by fundraising offenses (8%), dissemination of terrorist publications and conspiracy to murder (both 6%) as well as conspiracy to cause explosions and assisting offenders (both 5%).

More than two-thirds (69%) of IROs were secured under terrorism legislation; just over half (54%) of defendants pled guilty. 2011–2015 defendants pled guilty (64%) more often than 1998–2010 defendants (47%).

The most common sentence was between one year and four years (35%), followed by sentences of between four years and ten years (27%), between ten years and 20 years (15%), and life sentences (13%).

Of the 33 individuals with a life sentence, 30 attempted or planned to kill others, either in indiscriminate bomb attacks or targeted knife attacks, and received minimum terms ranging from 14 years to life.

Individuals who committed, attempted or were planning attacks were responsible for 37% of IROs. Among these offenses, bombing was the most commonly featured type of attack (74%). Proportionally, offenses involving beheadings or stabbings increased eleven-fold across the two time periods, from 4% between 1998 and 2010, to 44% between 2011 and 2015.

Individuals involved in facilitating acts of terrorism, either by fundraising or recruiting or by providing material goods or documentation, or ideologues who encouraged terrorist acts through incitement or by disseminating terrorist publications, were responsible for one-third (33%) of IROs.

Individuals who demonstrated an interest in terrorism, but whose plans were not advanced enough to pose an imminent threat were responsible for 18% of IROs.

Individuals whose offenses related to travel (attempted or planned) for terrorist purposes, namely to receive terrorist training or to engage in fighting overseas, were responsible for 12% of IROs. Travel-related IROs increased four-fold across the two time periods (from 5% to 21%).

Civilian targets were a feature in one-third (33%) of offenses. Infrastructure sectors and institutions, mostly transportation, were a feature in just under one-third (32%) of offenses.

Urban soft targets (areas into which large numbers of citizens regularly gather for usual activities or special events) were among the intended targets for attack in 31% of offenses. Military targets both overseas (including British or coalition forces) and at home (military bases and processions as well as soldiers) were a feature in almost a quarter (24%) of offenses.

A total of 117 IROs were committed by individuals directly linked to one or more proscribed terrorist organizations. Of these, 56% were directly linked to the UK-based group al-Muhajiroun (25% overall), 24% were linked to al-Qaeda (10% overall) and 11% were linked to Islamic State (5% overall).

One fifth (22%) of IROs were committed by individuals who were known or suspected to have attended training camps for terrorist purposes; the majority (78%) were not. Of those with training, most (78%) had trained at camps abroad, 19% had trained at UK-based camps, and in two cases (3%) the location was unspecified.

The report concludes:

"The threat to the UK remains from homegrown terrorism, and is heavily youth- and male-oriented with British nationals prevalent among offenders....

"While analysis of pre-offense behaviors shows that there is no one profile for engagement with Islamism-inspired terrorism, some trends can be identified. Offenders commonly consumed extremist and/or instructional material prior to, or as part of, their offending. Much of the pro-jihadist material accessed promotes 'them and us' thinking, dehumanization of the enemy, and attitudes that justify offending....

"Analysis of common sites of inspiration and facilitation appears to corroborate current counter-radicalization policy priorities such as restricting terrorist and violent extremist material on the internet, supporting at-risk sectors and empowering families to safeguard against extremism."

Reuters - Trump adviser Navarro: U.S, Germany should discuss trade outside EU

Yesterday night article if you missed it

From: LAURENT CHEKROUN (MAKOR SECURITIES LO) At: 03/06/17 22:06:24
Subject: Reuters - Trump adviser Navarro: U.S, Germany should discuss trade outside EU
Trump adviser Navarro: U.S, Germany should discuss trade outside EU

Trump administration trade adviser Peter Navarro said on Monday the $65 billion U.S. trade deficit with Germany was "one of the most difficult" trade issues, and bilateral discussions were needed to reduce it outside of European Union restrictions.

Navarro, the director of the new White House National Trade Council, also in an address to economists in Washington depicted chronic trade deficits as a threat to national security and said the Trump administration would seek to "reclaim" parts supply chains that had moved overseas.

Navarro said that Germany has too long used the argument that the EU dictates its trade policy and that it does not control the value of the euro.

"I think that it would be useful to have candid discussions with Germany about ways that we could possibly get that deficit reduced outside the boundaries and restrictions that they claim that they are under," Navarro told a National Association for Business Economics conference.

"But it's a serious issue. Germany is one of the most difficult trade deficits that we're going to have to deal with but we're thinking long and hard about that."

He said an visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Washington next week could include discussions on how to improve the U.S.-German economic relationship as part of the administration's agenda to make trade "free, fair and reciprocal."

Navarro's comments follow his complaints last month that Germany was exploiting a weak euro to gain a trade advantage.

But the Trump adviser, who shares the trade policy spotlight with new U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said he would wait until a Treasury currency report due in mid-April to learn whether China is manipulating its currency and the yuan is undervalued.

Trump had said during his election campaign that he would declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, a move that would require demands from the administration for negotiations with Beijing. He has not made such a declaration, despite telling Reuters in an interview last month that China was the "grand champion" of currency manipulation.

Navarro said that according to classic trade theory, in his view, the yuan's value should rise and the dollar should fall so that trade equalizes. He said the current capital outflow pressure in China was largely due to China's drive to acquire companies abroad.

"If you look at it through that lens, it's clear that the Chinese currency is undervalued. Navarro said, adding that he would wait for the Treasury report for a final verdict.

Navarro also called out India for its high tariffs and Japan for its non-tariff trade barriers, and said negotiations to use U.S. leverage as the world's largest market were needed to bring these down and boost U.S. exports.

"If we are able to reduce our trade deficits through tough, smart negotiations, we should be able to increase our growth," Navarro said.

If current trade trends continue, foreign interests will eventually acquire wide swaths of the U.S. economy, he said, ultimately driving down wages and living standards for Americans in a grim "conquest by purchase" scenario.

(Mediapart) Emmanuel Macron veut réécrire la régulation financière

Emmanuel Macron veut réécrire la régulation financière

Se rangeant aux côtés des banques et des assurances, le candidat d’En Marche juge que les règles prudentielles sont trop contraignantes. Il souhaite à l’avenir que ce soit les ministres des finances et non les régulateurs qui les déterminent. Un premier pas pour effacer toutes les leçons de la crise financière.

S’il y avait encore un doute sur le positionnement d’Emmanuel Macron, il vient de le dissiper : il se place ostensiblement du côté de la finance. Tandis que l’attention de l’opinion publique est captée par le feuilleton quotidien de la droite, il avance discrètement ses propositions. Et quelles propositions ! Il ne s’agit rien de moins que de remettre en cause la régulation élaborée après la crise financière de 2008. Comme Trump, il propose de réécrire ces règles contraignantes. Au nom de l’économie bien sûr.

L’auditoire devant lequel il a émis cette idée lundi n’était sans doute pas prêt à aborder un tel sujet : Emmanuel Macron avait été alors invité à débattre avec les chefs d’entreprise de la CPME (ex-CGPME), comme le seraient avant et après lui Marine Le Pen et François Fillon le même jour. Alors que les petits patrons attendaient sans doute un discours plein de bonnes intentions en faveur des PME, le candidat d’En marche s’est brusquement emparé de la question réglementaire des banques et des assurances.

Ses propositions sont simples : il veut reprendre la main sur la régulation financière. Pour lui, les régulateurs ont des positions beaucoup trop rigides, voire dogmatiques. Il vaudrait bien mieux que cette tâche prudentielle soit confiée aux ministres des finances européens. Ils seraient beaucoup plus à même, selon Emmanuel Macron, d’établir les ratios prudentiels (Bâle 2 et 3 pour les banques, Solvency 2 pour les assurances) qui fixent le niveau de fonds propres pour les banques et les assurances. « Ce que je souhaite, c'est que les grands ratios de solvabilité de liquidité et de fonds propres des banques et des assurances puissent être discutés au niveau européen à l'Ecofin chaque année et qu'on en fixe, avec des objectifs de financement économique, les grandes règles », a expliqué Emmanuel Macron.

Le candidat d’En Marche juge que ces règles sont trop contraignantes, et finissent par être plus néfastes que bénéfiques pour l’économie. En tout cas, elles ne sont pas du tout « adaptées à la France », selon lui. « Nous nous sommes fait avoir », a-t-il assuré. Les règles prudentielles des établissements financiers « touchent beaucoup les économies comme les nôtres qui n'étaient pour rien dans l'origine de la crise ». « Les instances prudentielles veulent de la prudence, donc elles n'ont qu'un objectif de réduction du risque et donc elles ont désincité (sic) les banques et les assurances à financer l'économie », a-t-il regretté.

L’argumentation n’est pas nouvelle. Elle est développée depuis des années par les banquiers et les assureurs, en guerre contre toutes les régulations financières qui leur ont été imposées après la crise financière. Tous mettent en avant le prétexte du financement de l’économie pour obtenir l’assouplissement voire l’annulation de ces règles, qui encadrent plus strictement leurs engagements. Dans les faits, ces dernières ne semblent avoir guère gêné la distribution de crédit. Selon les statistiques de la banque de France, le volume de crédit accordé aux entreprises non financières a augmenté de 4,8 % en rythme annuel, fin janvier, ce qui est en phase avec une économie qui croît d’à peine 1 % par an.

Pour les chefs d’entreprise, le problème de toute façon n’est pas là. Les difficultés actuelles qu’ils rencontrent ne sont d’ailleurs pas liées à l’accès au crédit, mais au flou sur l’avenir. Ce sont les carnets de commandes, l’augmentation des débouchés, de la consommation qui les incitent à investir, à se développer et pas le crédit. En gros, des questions de demande et non d’offre.

Jusqu’à présent, les banques françaises ne semblent pas avoir pâti non plus des nouvelles règles qui leur sont imposées. Alors que leurs concurrentes comme Unicredit en Italie ou Deutsche Bank en Allemagne sont en train de procéder à des augmentations de capital qui se chiffrent en dizaines de milliards pour restaurer leur bilan, elles se classent parmi les établissements financiers les plus profitables en Europe. BNP Paribas a affiché un résultat net de 7,7 milliards d’euros en 2016, AXA de 5,8 milliards d’euros, la Société générale de 3,9 milliards, le Crédit agricole de 3,5 milliards. Des résultats qui les placent en tête du CAC 40.

Mais l’avenir est plus sombre, disent-elles. Les exigences plus strictes qui vont leur être imposées vont renchérir le coût du capital. Tout cela ne peut que nuire aux banques et à leurs clients, assurent-elles. Nombre d’économistes et de régulateurs doutent de cette analyse. « Cela ne tient pas la route », affirme par exemple David Miles, membre du comité de politique monétaire de la Banque d’Angleterre.

Ce qui ne tient pas la route non plus, c’est que le monde financier, dans un univers de taux zéro voire négatif, dans un environnement économique languissant qui se remet mal de la crise, continue d’afficher des exigences de rentabilité du capital de 15 % et plus, comme avant la crise, comme si rien ne s’était passé. Ce décalage grandissant entre l’économie réelle et le capitalisme financier ne peut que pousser à la spéculation et à des prises de risque de plus en plus insensées. Ce que justement la régulation veut éviter.

Emmanuel Macron ne peut ignorer toutes ces données. Alors pourquoi demande-t-il à revenir sur tout l’encadrement mis en place après la crise financière ? Car, même s’il lie habilement la remise en cause de la régulation au financement de l’économie, ses propositions reviennent bien à cela. Confier la régulation à des ministres, très éloignés de ces questions, plutôt qu’à des régulateurs qui connaissent parfaitement le milieu bancaire et les risques qu’il fait peser sur l’ensemble de l’économie, c’est redonner tout le pouvoir à la finance. Comment croire que les lobbies financiers ne se précipiteront pas pour murmurer à l’oreille du ministre les mesures qu’ils attendent, voire leur écrire les textes ? Ils font déjà le siège en permanence de la commission européenne. Autant dire que la finance doit s’auto-réguler et écrire elle-même ses règles. Comme elle l’a fait avant 2008, avec le succès que l’on sait.

En quelques phrases, devant un auditoire auquel le message n’était pas destiné, Emmanuel Macron a fait l’aveu de ses convictions profondes. La crise financière de 2008 qui a mené l’économie mondiale au bord du gouffre et dont les pays occidentaux se remettent avec difficulté ne semble être, selon lui, qu’un accident de l’histoire. Il n’y a aucune leçon à retenir de ce choc, aucune mesure de prévention à adopter. Le capitalisme financier ne saurait être contraint. Comme il le dit, il connaît parfaitement « la grammaire des affaires ».

FT : Newly listed Tikehau Capital hunts for ‘opportunistic’ deals

Newly listed Tikehau Capital hunts for ‘opportunistic’ deals
Parisian asset manager’s shares start trading on Tuesday

Tikehau Capital, the European asset manager, is on the hunt for “opportunistic” acquisitions now that it has listed on Euronext Paris through a reverse merger, its founders told the Financial Times as its shares were due to start trading on Tuesday.

Tikehau, which is named after a Pacific coral atoll in French Polynesia, has roughly €10bn assets under management and it invests in private equity, and debt and liquid strategies. The Paris-based company has offered to buy shares in Salvepar, a listed investment vehicle, in return for shares in the newly listed Tikehau Capital.

Last November, Tikehau purchased an 80 per cent stake in the manager of IREIT Global, an investment trust which invests in a portfolio of income-generating real estate in Europe. It also signed a deal last year to manage Lyxor’s investments in its European debt funds.

“Last year we already bought two companies [in the asset management sector] and being listed will give us the currency to do more. It gives us a way to effectively acquire businesses and portfolios,” said Mathieu Chabran, who co-founded the firm in 2004 with Antoine Flamarion.

Tikehau’s ambitions are part of a wider consolidation in the asset management industry, which is under pressure to cut costs and boost performance, according to the Tikehau founders, who worked at Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, respectively.

Some notable deals include the just-announced £3.8bn acquisition of Aberdeen Asset Management by Standard Life, Ares Capital’s purchase of American Capital for $3bn, and Janus Capital Group and Henderson Group’s merged $300bn assets under management.

Tikehau’s main UK competitor is Intermediate Capital Group and it numbers Jean-Pierre Mustier — chief executive of UniCredit — among its former employees.

Mr Flamarion said the listing would help expand Tikehau’s reach globally. He said: “The company wants to grow and develop outside France and Europe and so there comes a time we consider being listed will probably get more visibility for the business.”

Mr Chabran said Tikehau planned to be selective as it looks for deals because of wider worries of assets hitting the market at record prices. He added: “We will remain extremely opportunistic in that respect. We are not saying that we are going to be buying everything that arises.”