The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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
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
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
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
With such an hypothesis, even current capitalism would work.
:D The Fates are kind.
by DoDo - May 23 40 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2340 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments