TheChek News Flow

- New Stake: CI LNCE NYRT

- New stakes: CB MS AXTA

- Liquidated stakes: TMUS NXPI IAC XON

- Increased stakes: AGN DOW TWC SJM 

- Reduced stakes: AMGN CIE YUM KHC CWEI EBAY TAP AVGO STZ ROP MHK

The Japanese national flag blows in the wins as the Bank of Japan headquarters stands in Tokyo, Japan, on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2014. The Bank of Japan boosted lending programs while sticking with a plan for unprecedented asset purchases, as the central bank tries to support a recovery and stamp out 15 years of deflation. Photographer: Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg©Bloomberg

The deputy governor of the Bank of Japan has called on the country's government to pull its weight, as the central bank strains to haul the world’s third-largest economy decisively out of deflation.

Last month the BoJ embarked on its latest round of easing, saying it would start charging for excess reserves deposited at the central bank. At the time, it said it wanted to provide a shot of stimulus at a critical moment, just ahead of the annual Spring round of wage negotiations between companies and workers' groups.

In a speech in New York on Friday, deputy governor Hiroshi Nakaso said that the government now needed to do more to boost Japan’s growth potential.

He referred to a joint statement on overcoming deflation, signed by the BoJ and the government in January 2013, a few months before the bank embarked on its first round of easing under the current governor, Haruhiko Kuroda. In it, the central bank pledged to stimulate demand through ultra-aggressive monetary policy while the government promised to pursue “all possible” supply-side reforms.

“Now that the Bank of Japan has taken monetary easing one step further . . . I think that the original ‘third arrow’ of Abenomics, the growth strategy, must also fly faster,” he said.

The unusually candid speech comes as the success of the mix of the policies pursued by prime minister, Shinzo Abe, remains in the balance. After three separate bursts of monetary stimulus from the BoJ, inflation has gained some momentum while corporate profits have been boosted by a sharp drop in the value of the yen.

However, Japan’s potential growth rate remains so low — around or slightly below 0.5 per cent, according to the BoJ’s estimate — that any setback has the potential to tip the country into recession.

Economists at Goldman Sachs expect that the first reading of gross domestic product figures for the fourth quarter, due on Monday, will show an annualised contraction of 1.2 per cent from the third quarter, hit by a slump in consumer spending due to a mild weather and smaller winter bonuses.

The BoJ now fears that many cash-hoarding companies are set to resist calls for higher wages, as they assume that inflation will be kept in check by a combination of weak demand, a lower oil price and a stronger currency. The national trades union group, Rengo, has already signalled a less aggressive stance in this year’s negotiations, saying it is aiming at an across-the-board increase of “around 2 per cent” — less than the 2015 demand for “at least” 2 per cent.

That could threaten progress toward the BoJ’s sole policy target: an inflation rate of 2 per cent. In December Japan's consumer price index stood at 0.1 per cent, excluding fresh food, and 0.8 per cent excluding energy.

“The sluggish increase in nominal wages is thought to reflect low productivity growth and the strong deflationary mindset,” said Mr Nakaso. “My answer to what kind of policies are needed, is that both monetary and fiscal policies and structural reforms are indispensable.”

Mr Nakaso is likely to make similar remarks during a speech to business leaders next month in Okinawa, according to people familiar with his thinking, imploring the government to take bolder measures to unlock growth.

Takuji Okubo, managing director at Japan Macro Advisors, a research boutique, said that the government’s ‘third arrow’ record has been poor, citing a lack of true reform of the labour market, the service sector or the public pension system.

He added that the sharp sell-off in the Japanese stock market since the beginning of the year, coupled with a renewed appreciation of the yen, seems strong enough to put an end to the Abenomics boom.

“The expiry date has now come to pass,” he said.

Iran plans to keep most of the $100bn in assets it holds in foreign banks out of the country now the funds have been unfrozen, in a bid to fend off inflationary pressure from a sudden injection of cash into its economy, according to the country’s vice-president.

“The money will not come to Iran,” says Mohammad-Bagher Nobakht as he outlined plans for how the government would deal with the assets released following Iran’s nuclear agreement with world powers last year. Instead, he said, “we will use it the same way as oil revenues”, with the central bank opening letters of credit for domestic companies, taking their payment in rials and paying overseas creditors in hard currency.

Despite high levels of public debt, analysts say, Tehran plans to direct the funds at infrastructure projects and the purchase of capital goods in a bid to end a recession that has seen negative growth in most years since 2011 and sent youth unemployment to 25 per cent.

After years of sanctions, populist policies under former president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad and falling crude prices, local media put the country’s public debt at around 3,800tn rials ($125.8bn) — almost half of gross domestic product and the highest ratio since the end of its war with Iraq in 1988, analysts say.

The central bank is also owed about $50bn which it loaned to Nico, a Swiss-based subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company, to be used for the continued development of oil projects during the sanctions era.

But after struggling to cut inflation from about 40 per cent to 13 per cent in the past two years, the centrist government of president Hassan Rouhani is concerned about the economic impact of a sudden influx of assets.

Only about $7bn of the unfrozen assets belong to the central administration and will be transferred to Iran, converted to rials and used for development projects, Mr Nobakht says.

The rest includes about $38bn in central bank foreign exchange reserves held in a basket of currencies; up to $50bn belonging to the National Development Fund of Iran, the sovereign wealth fund that collects oil price windfalls for infrastructure investment; and about $6bn that belongs to state-owned companies and banks.

Mr Nobakht, who heads Iran’s planning and management organisation, which drafts the annual budget and supervises spending, says the assets have largely been stuck in China, India and Japan since international nuclear sanctions were imposed in 2012. With China the top importer of Iranian oil in the period, most of the assets are in Chinese banks, say Iranian bankers.

The government’s debts include payments owed to contractors for nearly 3,000 development projects, including sports stadiums, schools and hospitals. Many of these were pledged by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad at a projected cost of $132.5bn, but Mr Nobakht says the government will now only finance those that are more than 80 per cent complete.

Other debts include end-of-service gratuities owed to retired public sector employees, which amount to $14.9bn, he says, and about $21.5bn owed to banks — a figure the central bank puts at about $33bn.

The government plans to pay the retirees this year and settle its bank debts in the next five years, Mr Nobakht says.

But Tehran will “resist” paying debts owed by the country’s highly indebted state-owned companies, which need to generate revenues to pay what they owe each other and the banking system rather than borrowing from the government, he warns. The companies have not been named but some MPs have threatened to disclose the identities of any that attempt to avoid paying their debts.

The companies could tap a range of sources for funds, including the government development project budget, the sovereign wealth fund, the capital markets and the banks, Mr Nobakht says, as well as the $9bn Tehran hopes to attract in foreign direct investment this year.

“Our [five-year development] plan [to start in March] is based on achieving a GDP growth of 8 per cent annually within the next five years . . . [which means] the gross fixed capital . . . should increase by 15.4 per cent, for which we annually need 5,800tn rials,” he says.

“We have a three-dimensional investment policy. The first priority is FDI. The second is with those investors who bring the latest technologies. And third, those who help us create a market outside Iran.”

Italy and France signed multi-billion-dollar contracts with Iran last week to invest in infrastructure and the car industry, buy oil and sell civilian aircraft.

However Iran needs much more financing than Europe — struggling with the aftermath of the financial crisis and a wave of migration from the war-torn the Middle East and elsewhere — can provide, a senior western diplomat says. China is a significant source of financing, the diplomat says, adding: “The rivalry is not between France, Italy and Germany. The main rivalry is between Europe and China.”

But the Islamic Republic is keen to diversify its investment partners after being largely dependent on China during the sanctions era. “There was a time when there was only China,” says Mr Nobakht. “But now there is China . . . and the rest of the world.”

f there is a wonder drug today, it’s the cancer-fighting medicine Opdivo. Shares of its creator, Bristol-Myers Squibb , could prove similarly wonderful for long-term investors.

The treatment’s success in thwarting the progression of an increasing number of cancers, including lung, melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and head and neck, provides a major opportunity for Bristol-Myers Squibb (ticker: BMY). Opdivo is at the forefront of new immuno-oncology drugs that have prolonged the lives of people with advanced-stage cancers and, while not side-effect free, are often less debilitating than traditional treatments, such as chemotherapy. By blocking a key receptor on the surface of T cells, these therapies boost a patient’s immune system and allow it to recognize and attack cancer cells and tumors.

Barron’s highlighted the promise of immuno-oncology drugs in an Aug. 22, 2015, cover story, “Cancer: The New Cure.” So far, Opdivo has proved to be the most successful member of this new class of drugs, outselling rivals and even topping other Bristol-Myers treatments in recent months (see chart at right). No less than five clinical trials involving Opdivo have been stopped early because it showed such a strong survival advantage. The most recent, a Phase 3 study for patients with head-and-neck cancer, was similarly concluded just last month because the treatment showed such promise. Opdivo had seven approvals in 2015 by the Food & Drug Administration for use across three different types of cancer.

Investors are getting another shot at Bristol-Myers shares because of the broad market selloff in the past couple of months that has hit health-care stocks particularly hard. After our favorable mention last summer, the stock rose from $61 to $70.87 by mid-December. Last week, the shares were back down to $60. Even at these levels, it’s by no means a cheap stock, but one that investors with an interest in long-term growth should own.

As Bristol-Myers stock has weakened, the case for buying it has strengthened. Not only has Opdivo gained ground, but the drugmaker has other promising treatments in the pipeline. Most bullish analysts and money managers project the shares to climb by 25% or more to the mid-$70s in the next year, but one outlier, Cowen & Co.’s Steve Scala, has a 12-month target of $100, based on his expectation of double-digit gains in revenue, as well as margin expansion driven by Opdivo sales, promising new combinations of cancer treatments in conjunction with Opdivo, and other new products like its oral blood thinner, Eliquis.

“Bristol-Myers Squibb is and will remain the premier growth story in biopharma for the next several years,” says Seamus Fernandez, health-care analyst at Leerink Partners, who reiterated an Outperform rating when the shares were at $63.

THE COMPANY’S RECENT FINANCIAL results only bolstered confidence in its prospects. It reported “blowout” fourth-quarter results, with sales of $4.3 billion and earnings of 38 cents a share, both well above expectations, driven by what CEO Giovanni Caforio told investors was “an unprecedented year in immuno-oncology.”

The drugmaker, which boasts $16.6 billion in global sales and a market value of $100 billion, also issued its guidance for 2016, forecasting earnings per share of between $2.30 and $2.40 and revenue increasing by mid-single digits to what Wall Street believes will be $17.6 billion. (Caforio, who was promoted to chief executive in May of last year, declined an interview request.)

Bristol-Myers holds an 80% share of the fledgling immuno-oncology marketplace, which is expected to reach $40 billion within five years. While the ground surely will shift as new therapies are rolled out, Bristol-Myers is expected to hold on to a 50% to 60% share if, as many expect, Opdivo grows to $8 billion to $9 billion in annual sales in that time.

“From a commercial standpoint, Opdivo is positioning itself as the immuno-oncology treatment of choice” for oncologists, says Kyle Rasbach, a health-care analyst at T. Rowe Price, which owns more than 2.5% of Bristol-Myers shares in its funds, including T. Rowe Price Growth Stock PRGFX) and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX).

The drugmaker’s first immuno-oncology treatment was Yervoy, launched in 2011 to treat melanoma. Opdivo is the latest generation and has fewer side effects. Combining the two has proved more effective in fighting certain cancers than either one on its own. That has helped sales of Yervoy, which was undercut by Opdivo’s initial success.

Bristol-Myers’ stock isn’t a roaring bargain, particularly compared with competitors Merck (MRK) and AstraZeneca (AZN). At recent levels, it trades at just under 20 times consensus estimates of $3.04 a share for 2017. Shares of Merck, whose Keytruda drug is Opdivo’s main rival in immuno-oncology, trade at less than 13 times 2017 earnings estimates, and AstraZeneca stock changes hands at a multiple of 14 times. Yet, powered by the recent FDA approvals, Opdivo has been widening its sales lead over Keytruda.

T. Rowe Price’s Rasbach thinks an earnings multiple of 25 times is merited. That would translate to a $76 stock price based on consensus estimates of $3.04 a share for 2017. “Based on the potential of Opdivo in the next five years, it’s not an expensive stock,” he says. An added fillip: Bristol-Myers sports a 2.5% dividend yield.

As important as immuno-oncology and Opdivo are to its future, Bristol-Myers has other new treatments that can help support a high multiple. One of them is blood thinner Eliquis, which Bristol-Myers developed with Pfizer (PFE). It’s aimed at preventing blood clots and strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation, and deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms in patients who have had knee- and hip-replacement surgery. It is an alternative to Coumadin, also known as warfarin, that lessens bleeding risk, and requires less-frequent blood monitoring. Global sales of Eliquis more than doubled last year to $1.8 billion. The catch is that Bristol-Myers must split the sales with Pfizer, limiting the overall benefit.

Right now, however, Opdivo is the source of the excitement about the stock. More data are expected this year on Opdivo’s effectiveness in treating four other kinds of cancer.

“It continues to show efficacies, and that’s why the potential is so large,” says Rasbach. The T. Rowe Price manager adds, “This could be one of the better pharmaceutical stocks for a long, long time.” That’s a prognosis investors should take to heart

Bloodletting in the European banking sector may not be over despite last week’s brutal selloff.

There is still a heap of uncertainty in the market, even though the bank subsector of the Stoxx Europe 600 Index last week tumbled nearly 11%, taking losses for the year to more than 28%.

Fears that regulators could require banks to raise fresh capital to ensure they have adequate reserves to protect against future shocks—and worries about the ability of lenders to grow earnings—could continue to weigh on the sector, which has been the worst performer in Europe so far this year.

Complicating the situation, negative interest rates in the euro zone mean that it is increasingly difficult for banks to make money. With the European Central Bank next month possibly pushing rates even deeper into negative territory, the outlook for lenders isn’t going to get any easier. “Earnings expectations are too high and have to fall,” says Dirk Becker, a banking analyst at Allianz Global Investors.

Institutions are rightly being cautious in their guidance for 2016, but they’re getting hammered for it all the same.

Société Générale (ticker: GLE.France) last week reported healthy 2015 earnings and a generous capital cushion, and raised its dividend, but it signaled that it would struggle to meet profitability targets this year due to low interest rates and the cost of regulation.

Its shares fell 12% last week. SocGen CEO Frédéric Oudéa decried the market’s injustice, but his words fell on deaf ears. The stock, which closed on Friday at 28.40 euros ($31.92), is just off its 52-week low and trades for a tempting 6.4 times estimated earnings for 2016, or 0.4 times tangible book value.

And that goes to the crux of the matter. Europe’s bank stocks trade for just 8.3 times projected earnings for 2016, or about 0.6 times tangible book value, a preferred measure for valuing European lenders. The broader Stoxx Europe 600 trades for 13.9 times next year’s earnings.

To be sure, the banking sector looks cheap, but with such a challenging outlook, especially over regulation, buying up bank stocks right now could be extremely risky.

Banks that investors should avoid, in particular, are those with low capital ratios or those undergoing transformations, like Deutsche Bank ( DBK.Germany), Credit Suisse Group (CSGN.Switzerland), and Barclays (BARC.UK).

Deutsche Bank has been particularly hard hit. Its stock has tumbled 32% since the start of the year. A new co-CEO, John Cryan, is attempting to shrink its ailing investment-banking business and to cut costs, but investors seem to have little patience—much to the frustration of corporate chiefs.

Worries that Deutsche Bank was unable to pay the coupon on its contingent convertible bonds undermined the stock last week. In what seems like a message to the market, Deutsche responded by announcing it would repurchase $5.4 billion of senior unsecured debt.

The big German bank’s shares then retraced some of their losses, closing on Friday at €15.30, but its turnaround still has a long way to go.

CREDIT SUISSE HAS SUFFERED even more pain. At Friday’s close of 13.10 Swiss francs ($13.41), its stock is off 40% in 2016. It still trades for 11 times this year’s projected earnings, or 0.6 times tangible book value.

Like Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse has a new CEO, Tidjane Thiam, who is trying to reduce the bank’s reliance on investment banking while growing the wealth management business. But many wealth management firms are struggling to stanch redemptions, and Credit Suisse is no different. A new-share issuancehas strengthened its capital ratio, but the strategy will take time, and investors are in no mood to afford the company such a luxury.

Barclays seems to be moving quickly, but it is getting no credit. CEO James Staley is shedding assets in Asia and Africa as he seeks to improve profitability. The United Kingdom bank’s shares, which closed on Friday at 1.57 pounds sterling ($2.27), trade for just 6.5 times forecast 2016 earnings, or 0.5 times tangible book value.

Among European financials, it isn’t just the banks that are suffering. Insurance stocks have taken a beating, too, shedding 8% last week, taking losses since Jan. 1 of 23%. Real estate stocks fell 6.2% last week, and are down 14% year to date.

One property stock that’s worth a look could be Deutsche Wohnen (DWNI.Germany). The company fended off a drawn-out pursuit by German rival Vonovia (VNA.Germany), so it needs to come up with a new strategy. It trades for about 22 times 2016 estimated earnings, which seems lofty, but that’s a discount to net asset value and a nice entry point to the stock.

Wall Street is in bad shape, but Main Street is even worse off.

About $450 billion has been sucked out of the Americans’ 401(k) plans in the first six weeks of the year — with the typical retirement fund suffering deeper losses than the Dow.

That means the average 45-year-old worker’s 401(k) will be $16,351.99 lighter by retirement age, according to data from Fidelity and the Investment Company Institute.

More than 53 million US workers have a 401(k) plan, which, for many, is a foundation of retirement planning. The plans — which make up about 18 percent of all retirement assets — let people put away money each week, sometimes with a contribution from an employer, and defer taxes until after retirement.

At the end of last year, the average US worker had $87,900 in his or her 401(k), down from an all-time high of $91,800 at the end of March, according Fidelity.

With this year’s market rout, the path to retirement just got longer. The 20 most popular funds for 401(k) assets, as listed by plan analyst Brightscope last year, have had an average slide of 10.3 percent this year. By contrast, the Dow Jones industrial average has lost 8.45 percent this year.

Those plans, which totaled $1.35 trillion in assets at the end of January, include the Vanguard Institutional Index Fund (down 10.3 percent), the PIMCO Total Return Fund (down 0.1 percent) and the Fidelity Growth Company Fund (down 17.57 percent).

Only one has made money this year: the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, which is up 2.07 percent.

While it might be painful to check your account now, it hurt even more after the financial crisis in 2008. The account average hit a low of $46,200 at the end of March 2009, according to Fidelity.

So just because you’ve taken some hits recently, doesn’t mean you should give up on your 401(k).

“Their account balance did go down [during the crisis], but they did go back up again,” said Sarah Holden, ICI’s senior director for retirement and investor research. “The key is really keeping at it.”

Les opérations de crédits ont vite remplacé la tierce propriété de joueurs, interdite par la FIFA depuis mai 2015. Sur le modèle des prêts hypothécaires américains, une société londonienne revend désormais des dettes de clubs aux Etats-Unis.

Les affaires reprennent. La semaine prochaine, la Ligue des champions est de retour avec des duels au sommet, comme Paris-St-Germain-Chelsea. Mais aussi des rencontres moins prestigieuses, comme Benfica Lisbonne face au Zenith St-Petersbourg. Si le premier huitième de finale verra s’affronter des nouveaux riches aux moyens presque illimités, le second oppose deux clubs qui transpirent pour suivre le rythme des multinationales du football.

Mais ces seconds couteaux ont d’autres qualités. Ce sont des clients idéaux pour les intermédiaires du football. Car c’est dans des clubs de ce type que la valeur des futurs grands joueurs explose. Deux exemples: le Parisien Edinson Cavani a vu sa valeur augmenter de 437%, durant ses deux dernières saisons à Naples. La cote du Madrilène Gareth Bale s’est, elle, envolée de 680%, au cours de ses six années passées à Tottenham. Quel investisseur tournerait le dos à de tels bénéfices?

À Londres plutôt qu’à Lisbonne

Jusqu’à l’an dernier, les clubs pouvaient compter sur la tierce propriété pour acheter ou retenir les meilleurs talents. Des investisseurs ou des sociétés devenaient copropriétaires de certains joueurs et touchaient leur part à la revente. Sauf que depuis mai 2015, lesdits TPO – Third-party ownership – sont interdits par la FIFA.

Les TPI, pour Third-party investments, ont vite pris le relais. La différence? Les TPI sont des crédits, qui excluent la notion juridique de propriété. Un exemple, révélé par le site Football Leaks: lorsque le Portugais Bernardo Silva est transféré de Benfica à l’AS Monaco, l’hiver 2014-2015, les 15 millions d’euros ne sont pas versés à Lisbonne, mais à Londres, au bénéfice de la société XXIII Capital. Benfica, coté en bourse, a dû s’expliquer: «Le club a cédé par anticipation la totalité des crédits à XXIII Capital, recevant de façon anticipée la valeur négociée […] Il s’agit d’une opération qui est réalisée par de nombreux clubs ou sociétés sportives dans toute l’Europe».

Benfica n’a pas menti. Les TPI connaissent un développement fulgurant. Dans ce nouveau business, on retrouve à peu près les mêmes que ceux qui réalisaient des TPO. La société d’investissement basée à Londres Doyen Sports, la plus connue d’entre elles, a octroyé quelque 100 millions d’euros de crédits depuis 2011. Des chiffres globaux et officiels n’existent pas, mais une étude du cabinet d’audit KPMG permet de penser que la valeur totale de ce type d’opérations approche aisément le milliard de dollars.

Fair Play Capital, basé au Luxembourg, s’est lancé fin 2014. Sur son site, la société pose le décor: «Dans un contexte économique de resserrement drastique des concours bancaires, de nombreux clubs rencontrent des difficultés pour se financer et donc, pour investir sur le marché des transferts». Depuis la crise financière, en effet, les banques sont devenues plus regardantes. Elles ne prêtent plus aussi facilement à des entités qui, pour certaines, ont démontré leur inaptitude à gérer les millions.

Les premiers «Soccer bonds»

Des clubs demandeurs de liquidités d’un côté, des investisseurs en quête de rendement de l’autre. XXIII Capital a parfaitement saisi l’enjeu. Elle vient de lancer les premières obligations adossées à des dettes de clubs européens. Son credo? «Apporter une valeur significative en amont et en aval de ce marché», selon des documents que Le Temps a obtenus auprès d’un club qui a été approché.

Concrètement, XXIII Capital a prêté 73 millions de dollars à une poignée de clubs européens. En Espagne à l’Atletico Madrid et quelques autres, au Portugal, probablement au Benfica Lisbonne. Mais aussi en France, en Italie aux Pays-Bas et au Royaume-Uni.

XXIII Capital s’est ensuite associé à deux sociétés américaines: Guggenheim Partners pour titriser ces dettes – les regrouper puis les saucissonner – et l’agence de notation KBRA pour leur donner une note. XXIII Capital les a ensuite revendues sous formes d’obligations à des investisseurs américains, avec un taux d’intérêt annuel de 3,7%.

L’agence de notation KBRA, peu connue sous nos latitudes, le concède ouvertement: c’est la première fois qu’elle doit juger la viabilité de «Soccer bonds». Cela ne l’a pas empêché de leur octroyer la note A, que l’on peut assimiler à un 7 sur 10. Le fait que 90% de la valeur des prêts soit assurés contre le défaut de paiement rend la transaction plus sûre, défend l’auteur de cette analyse, Cecil Smart. «Il y a peu de possibilités qu’un club fasse défaut. Contrairement au monde de la musique, où l’on parie sur la somme des royalties, ces opérations sont garanties par des droits TV ou des transferts déjà conclus».

Silence et opacité

Rien ne dit que le système va s’écrouler, comme cela été le cas en 2008 lors de la crise financière aux États-Unis puis partout ailleurs dans le monde. Mais il y a une similitude évidente: l’opacité règne. L’Atletico Madrid a bien confirmé avoir eu recours à ce type de financement mais, contacté par Le Temps, il n’a pas souhaité en dire davantage. Fairplay Capital n’a pas non plus répondu à nos questions.

XXIII Capital est aussi restée muette. Les actionnaires de cette entité créée il y a quelques mois sont introuvables. Gestifute, la société du puissant agent portugais Jorge Mendes, y serait liée, selon nos informations. «En sachant comment fonctionne ce milieu, il est impossible qu’elle n’y ait pas de bonnes connexions», affirme un expert qui, lui aussi, souhaite rester discret. Quoi qu’il en soit, le statut juridique de XXIII Capital lui confère le droit de ne pas dévoiler combien d’obligations – de tranches de saucisson – ont été mises en vente, quels clubs lui sont redevables, ni quelles garanties ces clubs ont fait valoir pour obtenir ces prêts. «Les lignes de crédits sont sécurisées via la valeur de l’effectif», explique notamment la société dans sa documentation.

Et si un club ne peut pas rembourser sa dette? A l’image d’un emprunteur hypothécaire qui se verrait confisquer sa maison, son créancier peut s’approprier sa garantie – ses joueurs. En pratique, l’agence s’octroie généralement le droit de se servir dans les revenus encaissés par le club, que ce soit grâce à un transfert, des droits TV ou sa billetterie.

Le risque d’une «dépendance totale»

La grande question, c’est de savoir si ces tierces partie ont une influence directe sur la gestion de l’effectif des clubs. Pour Fairplay Capital, Doyen, XXIII Capital et KBRA, les équipes restent libres de leurs mouvements. Avec les TPI, complète Francisco Empis, porte-parole de Doyen Sport, «nous mettons à disposition des clubs une somme qu’ils remboursent à la revente d’un joueur». Mais c’est optionnel, et c’est là que se situe toute la nuance, insiste-t-il. Car tous ces contrats incluent une clause de sortie. «Le club n’est donc pas obligé de vendre un joueur, il peut, théoriquement, rembourser sa dette par le biais d’autres rentrées d’argent».

Un avis qui n’est pas partagé par tout le monde. En liant leur sort et celui de leurs joueurs à ces sociétés d’investissement, les clubs s’enferment dans une logique de court terme, avec le risque que les considérations de rentabilité l’emportent sur l’intérêt sportif, expose l’économiste du sport Christophe Lepetit, dans les colonnes de France Football. «S’engager dans la voie du TPI, ajoute-t-il, c’est mettre le doigt dans un engrenage infernal qui peut conduire à une situation de dépendance totale des clubs».

Les instances sportives ne font pas de différence entre TPO et TPI. Interrogée par Le Temps, l’UEFA rappelle, elle aussi, que «plusieurs études ont montré que ces transactions sont loin d’aider les clubs. Elles tendent à les plonger dans une situation d’endettement et de dépendance». Le règlement de la FIFA indique qu’aucun club ne peut signer un contrat qui donnerait à une autre partie la capacité d’influer sur sa politique ou ses performances. De même, un tiers ne peut pas «prétendre à une indemnité en relation avec le futur transfert d’un joueur».

L’interprétation de ces deux nouveaux articles sont aujourd’hui au cœur de l’opposition entre la FIFA et les ligues portugaise et espagnole devant la justice européenne. TPO? TPI? La balle est dans le camp des juristes.