Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Chris's theories are like communism (or libertarianism): great in theory, unworkable in practice. More specifically, they require, to work, that people behave in ways that are totally different from what real life suggests. With such an hypothesis, even current capitalism would work.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 08:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With respect Jerome, I have 35 years of experience of market and enterprise regulation and development and have a fairly clear idea of what will work (and more to the point IS working) in practice and what won't.

Firstly, how do you account for the fact that partnership working - and new enterprise models enabling it - are emerging at such a phenomenal rate (even the Economist has written about it)? In my view this is because these structures harness self-interest and turn it to mutually beneficial purposes.

Secondly, there is the matter of the trend to dis-intermediation. You are yourself - and I congratulate you for taking the plunge - an example of this trend, being now a member of a niche service provider, rather than an employee of a credit intermediary.

It is in the interests of the credit institutions themselves that they should transition to service provision, because this will minimise their capital requirement to the level necessary to cover operating costs.

The fact is that payments to 'unproductive' rentier management and shareholders are unnecessary in a directly connected world, and in my (you think, Utopian) view capitalism will (indeed it already is) eat itself and will re-emerge in a networked; dis-intermediated and non-toxic form operating 'not for loss' rather than 'for rentier profit'.

As for theories: I believe in getting to practical applications, and that is precisely what I am doing.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 09:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I do is a  job that needs to be done in any case between a project developer and its lenders. In normal times, that competence is required within the developer and within the banks, and they don't need to hire external help (developers may outsource this occasionally).

The market I jumped to work in is quite unusual in that the sector-specific competence is still very scarce (it's a new industry, and precedents are few) and the syndication market being still dead, you need to have it in many banks simultaneously to get a deal to happen (as you need many lenders upfront, instead of the usual practice of negotiating just with one, which syndicates later on). And not many banks have it today. So what I do is work on the sponsor side to structure a deal that enough banks can accept, because the banks are, today, not able to structure a deal together on their own.

This will not last. Banks will build up the experience and internalize the competence. The coordination role will become less necessary as underwriting capacity comes back on the market.

In any case, banks are needed just as before to do the actual lending - the money is not found elsewhere.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome a Paris:
This will not last. Banks will build up the experience and internalize the competence.

I think you may be overly pessimistic here. There are an increasing number of niche banking service providers who will IMHO continue to thrive, and I suspect banks may often prefer to use them, rather than training new boys, and then losing them to the next new market entrant with a big cheque book....

Jerome a Paris:

In any case, banks are needed just as before to do the actual lending - the money is not found elsewhere.

I find very useful the distinction - made by the Scottish Futures Trust in their submission to the Scottish Government's recent Independent Budget Review - between high risk; short/medium term financing of development of productive assets; and low risk; medium/long term funding of completed assets.

I believe - in my Utopian way - that there are literally trillions of dollars currently earning negative real returns on T-Bills, Gilts etc, and whose owners would be only too pleased to fund energy assets by direct investment in their pools of production, were the means available.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 11:48:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
between entities willing to finance operating assets, and those willing to take the construction risk by providing funding prior to completion of the project.

And indeed, like in onshore wind, you will see pension funds and other low risk, long term investors coming to hold offshore wind assets, which provide stable revenues over very long periods. But they are not here yet (apart form a couple of deals) because the industry is in its infancy and cannot yet demonstrate the risk profile these investors need.

Even construction risk, which will be borne by project finance banks (and of course, by equity investors) is still difficult to finance, because the risk is so little understood.

And banks cannot externalise the risk analysis - and they shouldn't, as that is what is their core business. And in project finance, they take the job seriously and do it well. But these are conservative times, and it is difficult to get banks to commit to new sectors with no track record, especially as they are asked to take more risk than in other industries (other project finance sector either have construction guarantees by strong sponsors like oil companies, or turnkey construction contracts with very large contractors; here you have multiple contracts with no sponsor guarantees, and higher intrinsic risk due to the weather complication of building offshore).

So yes, there will be room for advisors on the project side, but banks are indispensable, and they need to have the competence in-house, otherwise they cannot approve the loans, and nobody else will provide them

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 11:59:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With such an hypothesis, even current capitalism would work.
 

:D

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 08:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 23
40 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series