présentations conférence mi-parcours FIN

Transcription

Conférence de mi-parcours
6 décembre 2013
Clermont-Ferrand, France
Bienvenue
Welcome
Benvenuti
Willkommen
Velkommen
Bienvenidos
Καλώς ήλθατε
Üdvözlet
Laipni lūdzam
Sveiki atvykę
Bem-vindo
Dobrodošli
Conférence de mi-parcours FIN-EN
Ingénierie financière:
Quelles améliorations pour l’avenir ?
6 décembre 2013 à Clermont-Ferrand
Discours d’ouverture
Franck Alcaraz
Directeur Général Adjoint
Développement Economique et Attractivité de l'Auvergne
Conseil régional d’Auvergne
Conférence de mi-parcours FIN-EN, le 6 décembre 2013 à Clermont-Ferrand, France
Le programme Interreg IV C
et le futur Interreg Europe
Benoît Dalbert
Chargé de projet
Secrétariat Technique Conjoint Interreg IV C
EUROPEAN REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FUND
EU Interregional Cooperation
State of play and perspectives
Benoît Dalbert | Project Officer
Joint Technical Secretariat
FIN-EN mid-term conference
06 Dec. 2013, Clermont-Ferrand
FIN-EN mid-term conference, 06 December 2013, Clermont-Ferrand
Summary
1. INTERREG IVC state of play
2. Future of interregional cooperation
6
1. INTERREG IVC programme
‘Learning by sharing’
Local / regional authorities access the experience of
others in Europe facing similar issues to improve their
practices / policies
in the fields of
Innovation and the
knowledge economy
7
Environment and risk
prevention
FIN-EN
FIN-EN mid-term
mid-term conference,
conference,06
06 December
December2013,
2013,Clermont-Ferrand
Clermont-Ferrand
Overview of approved projects
204
2 274
projects
partners
90% of 271 NUTS 2
regions covered
All funds (302 M€) committed
Priority 1
Priority 2
Natural and
technological risks
Innovation, research
and technology
development
19 (16%)
35 (29%)
Water management
10 (12%)
16 (19%)
Entrepreneurship and
SMEs
Waste management
9 (11%)
20 (17%)
Information Society
37 (44%)
46 (38%)
Employment, human
capital and education
5 (6%)
7 (8%)
Biodiversity and
preservation of natural
heritage
Energy and sustainable
transport
Cultural heritage and
landscape
8
Focus on Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Figures:
• 46 projects
• 472 partners from 26 Member States + NO & CH
Only two projects on SMEs access to finance
9
A wealth of knowledge!
4,527 staff with increased capacity
252 good practices transferred
262 local policies improved
10
FIN-EN
mid-term
conference,
06 06
December
2013,
Clermont-Ferrand
FIN-EN
mid-term
conference,
December
2013,
Clermont-Ferrand
2. Future of interregional cooperation
11
2. Future 2014+
Framework for the future: EU2020 strategy
SMART
GROWTH
Economy based
on knowledge &
innovation
GREEN
GROWTH
Resource
efficient, greener
and more
competitive
economy
INCLUSIVE
GROWTH
High-employment
economy
delivering social
and territorial
cohesion
Draft regulation 2014-2020: 11 Thematic Objectives
12
2. Future 2014+
From 3 objectives to 2 goals
Goal 1:
Investment for growth and jobs
Goal 2:
European Territorial Cooperation
Now
13
From 2014
2. Future 2014+
INTERREG EUROPE
Eligible area
- EU 28
- Norway
- Switzerland
14
2. Future 2014+
INTERREG EUROPE
Overall objective
To improve the implementation of policies and
programmes for regional development, principally of
programmes under the Investment for Growth and Jobs
goal and, where relevant, of programmes under the ETC goal
by promoting exchange of experience and policy learning
among actors of regional relevance.
15
2. Future 2014+
INTERREG EUROPE
4 Thematic objectives
TO 1: Strengthening Research, Technological Development and
Innovation
TO 3: Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs
TO 4: Shift towards a Low Carbon Economy
TO 6: Protecting the Environment and promoting Resource
Efficiency
16
2. Future 2014+
Programme objectives achieved through:
1. Policy Learning Projects
17
2. Policy Learning Platforms
2. Future 2014+
Policy Learning Projects
Main features
Implementation in 2 phases
Phase 1
Phase 2
Policy exchange of experience (2 to 3 years)
ending up with the production of 1 Action Plan / Region
Monitoring of the Action Plan’s implementation
+ possible pilot actions (up to 2 years)
Creation of local stakeholder groups
18
2. Future 2014+
Policy Learning Platforms
Objectives
Overall objective: To ensure policy learning across EU
Specific objective:
a) To contribute to EU wide capacity building
‘External
capitalisation’
b) To optimise the exploitation of projects’ results
c)
19
To improve the quality of the programme’s content
‘Internal
capitalisation’
2. Future 2014+
Definition: what is it about?
1 knowledge centre per Thematic Objective
embodied through:
Expert team
Content and coordination role
On-line collaborative tool
With relevant functionalities
20
2. Future 2014+
Indicative timeline
March 2010
EU2020
strategy
October 2011
Draft regulation
June 2012
INTERREG ‘5C’ Programming Committee set up
Adoption of legislative package &
agreement on budget post 2013
End 2013
March / April 2014
2nd half 2014
End 2014 / early 2015
21
submission of the programme to the EC
approval of the programme by the EC
Launch of the 1st call?
interreg4c.eu
facebook.com/interreg4c
twitter.com/interreg4c
changing-regions.eu
22
Thank you for your attention!
23
La place de l’ingénierie financière dans la
programmation 2014-2020
Hanna Dudka
Policy Analyst
DG REGIO - Commission européenne
Financial Instruments supported by
the European Structural
and Investment (ESI) Funds
in 2014-2020
Conference 6 December 2013,
Hanna Dudka, DG Regional and Urban Policy
European Commission
Regional
Policy
Contents:
FIs in Regional Policy 2007-2013 – state of play
and key challenges
Proposed framework for FIs in 2014-2020
26
Regional
Policy
Financial instruments in Regional Policy 2007-2013
ERDF support through financial instruments exists in the last three
programming periods (since 1994)
In 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 FIs were used only in limited extension (few
MSs, limited resources)
In 2007-2013 major expansion of FIs in number, variety, scope
and amounts paid to them (data as at the end of 2012):
More than 800 FIs for enterprises set-up, with both models of implementation: with or
without a holding fund;
More than EUR 10 billion of programme funding delivered through FIs under more than
170 Operational Programmes;
EUR 4.5 billion of SFs & national resources already disbursed to enterprises, mainly
through loan and guarantee products
More than 160.000 of SMEs and micro-enterprises supported
At least 44.000 of jobs created through FIs
Regional
Policy
27
3000
FI implementation – state of play
- payments in EUR
OP contribution to FEIs
OP disbursement to enterprises
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES
** to HF and specific funds
FI
FR HU IT
LT
LV MT NL PL
PT RO SE
SI SK UK
28
Regional
Policy
Number of financial instruments per MS
300
2011
2012
247
250
200
185
150
139
111 95
100
95
73
80
68
50
50
41
33
42
26
15
9
9
4
2 2
9
5
4
AT
BE
BG
CY
3
6
4
6
29
6
6
14
9
1 1
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
3
10
11
8
9
2 2
5
LV
MT
NL
19
3
3
11
10
4
1 1
1 0
0
CZ
DE
FR
HU
IT
LT
PL
PT
RO
SE
Italy: 13HF (and 15 Financial intermediaries) + 67 finanicla intermediaries without HF
Regional
Policy
SI
SK
UK
CBC
29
Financial instruments in Regional Policy 2007-2013
Challenges with regard to design & implementation
• Delays in delivering funds to final recipients: FIs represent a new
approach to CP support, requiring new skills, partnerships and
capacities
• Limited availability of reporting & monitoring data until 2011
• Over allocation of resources to financial instruments
• Shortcomings in the financial or market gap assessment - rationale
for FEI deployment?
• Potential for achieving better leverage effects
• Legal and administrative framework not detailed enough from the
outset (COCOF Guidance, audit methodology)
Regional
Policy
30
Financial instruments 2014-2020
EUROPEAN COUNCIL 24/25 OCTOBER 2013 – CONCLUSIONS:
The programming negotiations of the European Structural and Investment
Funds (ESIF) should be used to:
•
Significantly increase the overall EU support to leverage-based financial
instruments for SMEs in 2014-2020, while at least doubling support in countries
where conditions remain tight.
•
These instruments should be designed in a way which limits market
fragmentation, ensures high leverage effects and quick uptake by the SMEs. This
will help concentrate the funds adequately and expand the volume of new loans
to SMEs.
31
Regional
Policy
Financial Instruments 2014-2020
Commission encourages more extensive use of FIs
Advantages:
• Efficiency gains due to revolving funds
(remain in the programme area)
• Leverage of resources, increase of impact of ESI funds
• Financing provided before investment takes place
(different from grants)
• Better quality of projects (investment must be repaid)
• Incentives to use FIs as alternative to grants
(move away from "grant dependency" culture)
32
Regional
Policy
1. Wider scope:
Common provisions cover all five Funds: ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund,
EAFRD and EMFF
Expansion to all thematic objectives & priorities foreseen by OPs
Support investments expected to be financially viable which do not give rise
to sufficient funding from market sources
2. Ex-ante assessment:
Must be carried out prior to decision to support financial instruments,
including:
rationale/additionality against existing market gaps and demand/supply
value added, potential additional public and private sector involvement
target final recipients, products and indicators
Regional
Policy
33
3. More implementation options for managing authorities
Traditional implementation: MA sets up a FI at national, regional,
transnational or cross-border level:
•
Taylor made instruments (cf 2007-2013)
•
Standardised “off-the-shelf” instruments , quick roll-out
MA can contribute OP allocations to EU level instrument (COSME,
Horizon, "SME Initiative")
MA can implement loans or guarantees directly (or through intermediate
body) without formal set-up of a fund
Regional
Policy
34
"Off-the-shelf" financial instruments
Not mandatory
Managing authority can decide either to select directly financial intermediaries or
to pass OP contribution through a fund of funds
pre-defined but still flexible: keep adaptability to the needs of various type of
regions
focus on the most commonly used type of instruments
compatibility with the state aid rules (no need for notifications)
implementation of the instruments according to market practice
35
Regional
Policy
"Off-the-shelf" financial instruments
Three for SMEs
1.
Loan for SME's based on a portfolio risk sharing loan model (Risk Sharing
Loan).
2.
Guarantee for SMEs (partial first loss portfolio,
capped guarantee).
3.
Venture Capital for SMEs and start-up companies based on a co-investment
model.
One for energy efficiency/renewable energies and one for urban development
1.
Renovation Loan based on a Risk sharing loan model (RS Loan).
2.
Urban Development Fund (under progress).
36
Regional
Policy
4. Better combination of FIs & other forms of support:
within financial instrument operation: Grant component may cover financing
(e.g. state aid compliant subsidy element) or technical support for preparation
of investment (for the benefit of the final recipient)
at the level of final recipients : Combination is possible also with assistance
from other programmes supported by the EU budget
Regional
Policy
37
5. EU co-financing
Incentives regarding EU co-financing rates:
EU-level instruments: Up to 100% of the paid support may come from
ERDF, ESF and CF; separate priority axis to be foreseen
Instruments implemented at national/regional level: ERDF, ESF, CF cofinancing rate to increase by 10% if an entire priority axis is implemented
through financial instruments
Flexibility for national public & private co-financing contributions under
operational programmes:
May be provided at the level of the FI or at the level of the final recipient
(including in-kind contributions where relevant)
National co-financing does not have to be paid to the FI upfront but may
be provided at later stages of FI implementation, but before the end of the
eligibility period
Regional
Policy
38
6. Phased contributions to FIs
MAs are encouraged to pay programme contributions in at least 4 tranches
application for interim payment cannot contain more than 25% of the
total programme contributions committed to the FI under the funding
agreement),
Subsequent payments from MA to FI to be made on the basis of FI
investment rate in relation to programme contributions received
Regional
Policy
39
7. Eligible expenditure at closure,
eligible expenditure at closure: total amount of programme contributions
effectively paid to (or for the benefit*) of final recipient
guarantees committed by FI within eligibility period,
capitalised interest rate subsidies and guarantee fee subsidies (10 years)
management costs and fees,
capitalised management costs or fees for equity instruments and microcredit(6 years)
follow-on investments in equity funds (4 years, under certain conditions)
Regional
Policy
40
8. Interest and other gains, re-use of resources
Interest and other gains generated by support from ESI funds to FIs to be
used for the same purposes until end of eligibility period
Re-use of resources during the eligibility period
Re-use of resources after the eligibility period (8 years)
Regional
Policy
41
9. Reporting on FI implementation
MA to report to COM on FI operations annually (annex to the annual
implementation report); reporting items should be aligned with
requirements of the Financial Regulation
COM to publish annual summary report on the basis of data received
Regional
Policy
42
Additional information on financial instruments
•
Commission Staff Working Document - Financial Instruments in Cohesion
Policy
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/financial/
financial_instruments_2012_en.pdf
•
Factsheet: Financial Instruments in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/
financial_instruments_en.pdf
•
Panorama Autumn 2012: Using financial instruments to leverage support for
regional policy
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/panorama/pdf/mag43
/mag43_en.pdf
•
Financial Instruments: A Stock-taking Exercise in Preparation for the 2014-2020
Programming Period
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/doc/fls_stocktaking_
final.pdf
43
Regional
Policy
Thank you for your attention!
44
Regional
Policy
6 décembre 2013
Pause café / Coffee break
15 minutes
Merci de laisser vos casques dans la salle
Please leave your headset in the room
Le projet FIN-EN
Antonella Pisano
Coordinatrice du projet
Finlombarda, Italie (chef de file)
FIN-EN MID TERM CONFERENCE
Clermont- Ferrand, December 6th 2013
FIN - EN PROJECT
Sharing Methodologies on Financial Engineering for Enterprises
Antonella Pisano, FIN-EN Project Manager
Finlombarda S.p.A, Regione Lombardia (Italy)
Website: www.fin-en.eu
E-mail: [email protected]
FIN-EN in a nutshell…
PARTNERSHIP
13 partners from 13 different EU contries (BE, DK,
FR, DE, GR, HU, IT, LT, LI, PT, SI, ES, UK), managing
FEIs in 2007-2013 for a total budget of around
3,5B€
PROJECT BUDGET
Total Budget: 1,995M€
EU CO-FINANCING
The project is co-funded by the Interreg IVC
Programme, implemented under the European
Cohesion
Policy
(Territorial
Cooperation
Objective).
LEAD PARTNER
Finlombarda S.p.A. with the endorsement of
Lombardy Region
TIMING
36 months (Kick off: March 2012)
FIN-EN goals and added value
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To enhance co-operation among European regions on the implementation of
Financial Engineering Instruments under EU Structural Funds, starting from
concrete experiences to share proposals for a better use of Financial
Instruments in 2014-2020
Develop and maintain an
extensive network across
Europe as natural place
where to exchange
experience about financial
instruments
implementation
Identify good practices to
promote the development of
more effective and efficient
financial instruments in the next
2014-2020 Structural Funds
Raise awareness on the role EU
funds play in addressing market
failures , in stimulating private
co-investment and enhancing
capacity building improvements
in the field of financial
instruments
PROJECT ADDED VALUE
Thanks to the exchange of experience FIN-EN provides a deep qualitative insight of a
sample of 2007-2013 implemented financial instruments which is not elsewhere available
and which could represent a common asset for future 2014-2020 programming period
FIN-EN activities and expected outputs
Mapping of 45 FEIs
managed by
partners in the
2007-2013
programming period
(grid format)
ONE DATABASE OF
MAPPED FEIs
Analysis and Thematic
Working Groups on the
three phases of FEI lyfe
cycle (programming,
implementing,
monitoring and
evaluation) to find out
common difficulties,
identify good practices
and suggest shared
solutions
Exchange of
experiences through
Study Visits to
support the transfer
of knowledge from
one partner to
another
ONE REPORT FOR EACH
FEI LYFE-CYCLE PHASE
+
DATABASE OF GOOD
PRACTICES
3 STUDY VISIT
REPORTS
12 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
IMPLEMENTATION
Mapping of FEIs -Collection of quantitative/qualitative
information
Existence of market analysis; use of bottom-up approach; identification of the
need and relevant market failure; identification of financial instruments targets;
selection of FEI manager; selection process; FEI Action plan by the FEI manager;
content of the agreement between the Holding Fund manager and the FEI
manager; …
IMPLEMENTING
Clear identification by the FEI manager/holding fund manager of the internal staff
involved in FEIs managing and their roles and duties; existence of public
procurement tenders/open calls; evaluating procedures; financial intermediaries
selected; main content of the agreement; …; exit and closing
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and reporting procedure by the holding fund manager; monitoring and
reporting procedure by the FEI manager; Plan of administrative and on the spot
checks/internal audits; plan of a quantitative/qualitative interim and ex-post
performance evaluation; …; customer satisfaction surveys;
Filling – in Guide
PROGRAMMING
References 2007-2013
1) Intermediate Body; 2) Holding Fund (legal status, manager, co-financing
partners, …); 3) Financial Instrument (type, legal status, purpose..); 4) Budget (EU,
public/private co-financing..); 5) State of the art; 6) Other actors involved; 7)
Technical functioning
New Regulation Proposals
GENERAL INFORMATION
Analysis and exchange of experience about the three
phases of FEIs life-cycle
THEMATIC WORKING
GROUP 1
Programming
THEMATIC WORKING
GROUP 2
Implementing
THEMATIC WORKING
GROUP 3
Monitoring
and Evaluation
Technical Advisory Committee
Identification of good practices
Life-cycle phase
Programming
Implementating
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Good practice
criteria
Macro Topics
•
•
•
•
Gap Analysis
Strategy
Governance
Future
•
•
•
•
•
•
Funds
Internal organization
Financial intermediary
Communication
Closing & Exit
Future
• Monitoring & Reporting
requirements
• Evaluation
• Future
14 criteria, among which:
• Precise identification of the need to be addressed
• Strategic relevance of the need with respect to the
Operational Programme
• Political consensus and involvement on the
strategy
• Use of subsidiarity concept
•5 criteria:
…
•
•
•
•
•
Innovative design
Number and type of co-financing actors
High leverage
Limited expenses for the final recipients
Short implementation timing
7 criteria:
• Clear definition of roles, duties, deadlines
• Provision of monitoring and reporting tools
• High spending level
• Timing respect
• Mid-term and final financial instruments
evaluation
• Capacity of corrective actions
• Customer and non-customer satisfaction survey
Database
of good
practices
FIN-EN Study visits support the transfer of knowledge
Lisbon,
Portugal
September
2013
Focus on several innovative
financial instruments managed
by MA COMPETE among which
the “Business Angels (BA) Coinvestment Fund”
ClermontFerrand,
France
December
2013
Focus on Jeremie Auvergne –
seen from the point of view
both of SMEs and of the
Funds managers
Manchester,
UK
March 2014
Focus on the Jeremie Fund
established in North West
of England
The capitalization of project results: the Guidelines and
the Implementation Plan
The Guidelines for FIs implementation
Handbook focusing on traps to avoid, best
practices to adopt, differences from one
country to another, simplification proposal for
the future implementation of financial
instruments in 2014-2020 programming period
The Implementation Plan
Local action plan for the transfer and
adaptation
of
successful
schemes/models/procedures shared thanks to
FIN-EN at local level
Regional Implementation Committee: closed
round table (partners, main local political
stakeholders) to share FIN-EN findings in terms
of good practices and transferability
opportunities to be taken into consideration in
the Ops implementation. Results of these
committees will be the drivers for the drafting
of Implementation Plans
FIN-EN will provide Managing Authorities, Intermediary Bodies, etc. with recommendations
and concrete suggestions supporting an effective and efficient implementation of financial
instruments (in each phase of FI’s life-cycle)
State-of-the-art up to date
Database of 45 mapped FEIs completed + quantitative and qualitative
analysis
3 Thematic Working Groups organized
Report on Thematic Working Group 1 (programming) available
Reports on Thematic Working Group 2 and 3 under way
16 good practices in relation to the Programming phase identified
2 Study visits organized
The last project year will be dedicated to the completion of TWGs/Study visits activities, but
mainly to the elaboration of the Guidelines and the involvement of local stakeholders on the
valorization of FIN-EN results at local level, thanks to the drafting of the Implementation Plan.
FIN-EN working with Europe
Article on FIN-EN published
on PANORAMA #47
April 17° 2013 - FIN-EN
published on Inforegio website
as Project of the Week
Open Days 2013 - FIN-EN workshop
FIN-EN at the Open Days – first recommendations shared
with DG Regio and European stakeholders
To tackle market gaps public authorities should be able to attract
private resources: it means that the implementation options of
financial instruments should be such to lead private actors to take
risks that they usually refuse
A deep expertise in regulations is fundamental, to be able to exploit
all the possibilities offered by the legislative framework
Clarity and transparency in the legislative framework are essential
to avoid problems related to the interpretation of rules
Flexibility is one of the main success factors: it is not true that “one
size fits all”, there should be the possibility to “mix” and adapt all
the elements and knowledge available to design effective
instruments
Thank You
http://www.fin-en.eu/
Contacts details
[email protected]
Direct +39 02 60744451
Cartographie des instruments
d’ingénierie financière
Federica Rosi
Gestionnaire technique
Finlombarda, Italie (chef de file)
Conférence
de mi-parcours FIN-EN, le 6 décembre 2013 à Clermont-Ferrand, France
FIN-EN MID TERM CONFERENCE
Clermont- Ferrand, December 6th 2013
FIN - EN PROJECT
Sharing Methodologies on Financial Engineering for Enterprises
Federica Rosi - Finlombarda S.p.A
FIN-EN Database in a nutshell….
SUBJECTS
12 project partners + 2 members of EAPB:
- Bulgarian Development Bank
- Investitionsbank State of Hesse, Germany
General information
Holding Fund, FEI, Budget, State of the art
STRUCTURE
DATA
Detailed information
Programming, Implementing, Monitoring and
Evaluation
Updating 31.12.2011
FIN-EN Database evidences…Use of Holding Fund
Flexibility
35 HF = 78 % of all monitored FEIs
FIN-EN Database evidences…Type of instruments
FIN-EN 45 Monitored FEIs _Type
Equity
Loan
Guarantee
Flexibility
16 COMBINED
13 EQUITY
29%
36%
10 LOAN
6 GUARANTEE
22%
13%
Combined
FIN-EN Database evidences…Source, Scope
FIN-EN 45 Monitored FEIs _EU source
FIN-EN 45 Monitored
FEIs_Geographical scope
National
ERDF
ESF
OTHER (Slovenia - DPF+EIB Loan)
4
46%
1
54%
40
Regiona
l
FIN-EN Database monetary evidences…
Type of
FEIs
Total
of which
Budget
private
M€
cofinancin
g
Total
allocated
budget
Total
investment
activated
Total
disbursed
budget
Combined
1.962
266,3
289.8
1.707,6
212.9
Equity
519,3
64,2
94.7
186,1
69.7
Guarantee
409,2
79,3
57.1
507,5
1.0
Loan
691,4
116
361.3
485,5
303.9
3,7
1
0.3
0,3
0.3
3.586
526,79
803.2
2.887
587.8
Quasi
equity
Total
Database Conclusions by FEI types – Loans
o
Loan FEIs have the 2nd largest budget, EUR 691 million
o
The biggest amount, EUR 361 million was allocated to final
recipients
o
The largest performance index (52%) was reached among
all type of FEIs
o
Performance index exceeded 100% in two cases:
Lithuanian Small Credit (157%) and Latvian Loan FEI (124%)
Loan is the best performing FEI-type in terms of fund
allocation
Database Conclusions by FEI types –
Guarantees
o Guarantees are implemented solely under De minimis
regulation
o 2nd largest amount of total investment activated
o The biggest rate of theoretic leverage among all FEI types
(Portugal, 878%)
Maximum theoretical leverage achieved
Database Conclusions by FEI types – Equity
o
Equities are basically implemented under GBER and
Community guidelines on risk capital
o
Specific sectorial focus
Less investments activated
Database Conclusions by FEI types – Combined
o
The largest amount of total budget (EUR 1 900 million)
o
The highest rate of private contribution to total budget
(cc.40%)
o
The biggest amount of total investment activated (EUR 1
700 million
Most popular FEI among PPs (16 FEIs out of 45)
Database Conclusions by life – cycle phase 1
• Project partners made market analysis before
launching FEIs
• 80% of the partners involved local actors in the
preparation of analysis
PROGRAMMIN
G
• 80% of partners involved actors also in the design of
financial instruments
• 80% of the partners identified clearly the target of
FEIs (indicators)
• All project partners determined an action plan for
FEIs (business plan, investment strategy)
• Final recipients’ applications are evaluated based on FEI
conditions and according to FEI managers’ / financial
intermediaries’ internal regulations
IMPLEMENTIN
G
• Time difference related to duration of evaluations vary
significantly as implementing structures differ considerably
FEI type
Equity
Min.
Max.
2 months
1 year
1 day
4,5 months
Loan
1 month
10 month
Combined
10 days
1 year
Guarantee
• 90% of PP’s established monitoring committees to
supervise the implementation of FEIs
MONITORING,
EVALUATION
• Realization of FEIs is flexible. 70% of the Project
Partners make corrective measures as follow up of
monitoring results
• 70% of the Partners elaborated plan for carrying out
documentation based checks and on the spot visits
• Appr. 80% of the Partners have plan for interim and expost performance evaluation
Thank You
http://www.fin-en.eu/
Contacts details
[email protected]
Direct line +39 02 60744479
Les meilleures pratiques « Programmation »
identifiées par FIN-EN
Pauline Maillard
Chargée de mission Ingénierie financière
Les phases du projet
Focus sur quelques problématiques
- Les avantages de l’utilisation des instruments financiers
- Les différents choix d’initiative
- L’évaluation ex-ante
- La stratégie d’investissement
- Le co-financement
- La sélection du gestionnaire
Avantages de l’utilisation des instruments financiers
Combler un
manque
Recyclage
des fonds
Esprit
d’entreprendre
Instruments
financiers
Profession
-nalisation
Effet levier
Les différents choix d’initiative
Les avantages du fonds de participation :
- Mise en place d’un investissement progressif dans les
intermédiaires financiers
- Réorientation des allocations
- Meilleure maîtrise des ressources
- Diversification des risques (approche portefeuille)
Non préconisé dans les cas suivants :
- Taille et volume faible
C
- Complexité de gestion et charge administrative
L’évaluation ex-ante
Les éléments incontournables :
- Etablir la liste des acteurs externes
- Impliquer les acteurs locaux
- Vérifier la capacité du territoire
- Anticiper le contexte économique changeant
La stratégie d’investissement
- Flexibilité, maître mot des instruments financiers
- Accompagnement des entreprises
Focus sur 3 bonnes pratiques : la Région Centre du Danemark,
l’Andalousie et la Lettonie.
Le co-financement
- Rassurer le co-financeur
- Motiver le co-financeur
Focus sur 1 bonne pratique :
La Hongrie et le partage asymétrique du risque.
La sélection du gestionnaire
Les différents choix de sélection :
- Fonds Européen d’Investissement
- Gestionnaire public sans appel d’offre
- Gestionnaire privé avec appel d’offre
Focus sur 1 bonne pratique :
L’Auvergne et son gestionnaire public-privé.
Panorama européen des stratégies
et Programmes Opérationnels 2014-2020
Federica Rosi
Gestionnaire technique, Finlombarda, Italie
Audrius Zabotka
Directeur Général Adjoint, INVEGA, Lituanie
Alain Bussière
1er Vice-président du Conseil régional d'Auvergne,
en charge de l’Enseignement Supérieur,
de la Recherche et de l’Innovation
Federica Rosi
Gestionnaire technique, Finlombarda, Italie
Audrius Zabotka
Directeur Général Adjoint, INVEGA, Lituanie
Alain Bussière
1er Vice-président du Conseil régional d'Auvergne,
en charge de l’Enseignement Supérieur,
de la Recherche et de l’Innovation
Déjeuner-buffet / Lunch break
Reprise à 14 heures / Back at 14.00
Merci de laisser vos casques dans la salle
Please leave your headset in the room
Les meilleures pratiques « Mise en œuvre »
identifiées par FIN-EN
Stefan Mathesius
Directeur Fonds remboursables & JEREMIE Andalousie
IDEA
Clermont Ferrand, December 6th
BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING
STEFAN MATHESIUS
HEAD OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
AGENCY FOR INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ANDALUSIA (IDEA)
90
TWG 2: Framework “Implementation”
Structural Funds
Holding Fund
Manager
Financial
Intermediary
Regional
Cofinancing
Holding Fund
Financial
instrument
Private Investors
Final recipient
91
System configuration: Financial Instrument,
Financial Intermediary and Financial GAP
Target Group (= GAP)
Sector/ Company stage/ Geographic scope
Size of target market /number of deals
expected
Severity of market failure
Efficiency
Effectiveness
consistency
consistency
Financial Engineering Instrument
Type of instrument (equity, loan, mezzanine,
guarantee)
Investment criteria and terms (size of FEI, deal
size etc.)
Government of the FEI (control and approval
process)
Reporting duties, control/verification
requirements, corrective measures
Retribution scheme
Financial Intermediary
Structure and capillarity of intermediary
Capacity to generate dealflow according to
the target group/investment criteria
Compatibility with ordinary activity
Capacity to comply with reporting/ verification
requirements/ IT-System and processes
Risk of internal competition with existing
financial products. Opportunity costs /
cannibalization
92
Analyzed parameters
Best practice criteria
Topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Innovative design
Management fees
Co-financing actors
Leverage
Expenses for recipient
Implementation time
Investment process
Funds
HFM internal organization
Financial intermediaries
Communication
Closing and exit
Future
Effectiveness
93
Findings: 2 Archetypes of Financial
Engineering Instruments
Effectiveness
(doing the right things)
goal
Risk capital funds
Mezzanine instruments
Combined instruments
Risk sharing loan
Microcredit
Guarantee instruments
Efficiency
(doing things right)
94
Identification of main drivers for
effectiveness and efficiency
•
•
Capacity to address gap
Capability to create desired impact
Effectiveness
(doing the right things)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leverage
Remuneration scheme
Size of target group
Flexibility of intermediary
Experience
Learning curve
Qualified staff
Political endorsement
•
•
•
•
•
Remuneration scheme
Investment process/ IT systems
Competitiveness between FI
Size of financial instrument
Bureaucratic burdens
Efficiency
(doing things right)
•
•
•
Time to market
Number of deals
Pace of disbursement
95
Critical points for Effectiveness
Remuneration
schemes
A sound design of the remuneration schemes must be always based on the strategy: goals, general
approach, timing, etc. Also, the design should be consistent with the rest of the design, must comply with
the legal regulation (state aid) and must consider the whole life-cycle of the FEIs (even after period of
investments)
Leverage
A market failure in the supply side is intrinsic to the concept of financial market gap (e.g. investment is not
interesting for private money) In function of the gravity of the market failure a high private leverage might
become a constraint for the achievement of effective targeting.
On the other hand a high private co-investment increases the impact for the addressed market segment.
Critical Size of
target group
The target group of a FEI has to exceed a critical mass to manage a FEI effectively, otherwise the perimeter
/definition of the market segment should be adjusted (e.g. amplify geographical scope, amplify sector etc.)
Flexibility of
intermediary
In function of the severity of the market failure it is crucial that the intermediary has the capacity to adapt
the investment criteria to the real needs. Commercial banks and guarantee institutions are regulated and
very limited in their degree of risk level assumption and consequently are not suitable to address effectively
severe structural market gaps.
96
Critical points for efficiency
Remuneration
schemes
Management fees are a key success factor for the overall performance of FEI. Critical points:
• management fees should not cannibalize other financial products of the FI.
• The remuneration scheme should find a balance between success fees (to incentivize quality) and fees
that incentivize the operational performance (pace and volume).
Competitiveness
between Financial
intermediaries
A financial engineering instrument can be managed by 1 or many financial intermediaries (in particular loan
and guarantee instruments). The incorporation of competitiveness between various intermediaries
improves the efficiency of disbursement and ensures a high rate of execution of the FEI by end of the OPperiod
Size of the
financial
instrument
A financial instrument needs a critical size to be run in a efficient way. The financial intermediary has to
assume an important block of fixed cost that has to be paid from the management fees. However, the
management fee is capped by EU-regulation and by profitability criteria of the private investors
(management fees reduces the yield of the financial instrument)
Processes and ITSystems
Well working internal processes and automated interfaces to the holding fund
manager/management authority is crucial for the efficiency of a financial instrument, in particular in
case of intermediaries that deal with high volume of operations.
Bureaucratic
burdens
Bureaucratic burdens for both final beneficiary and financial intermediary may suppose an important
obstacle for efficiency. In particular the exigencies for monitoring /control (separate accounting, evidence of
expenditures, evidence of achievement of objectives) induced by the EU-regulation may overcharge the
existing procedures and business practice of intermediaries.
97
Thank you for your attention
98
Table-ronde « Mise en œuvre »
Ricardo Banha
Secrétaire technique Financement et Partage de risque
COMPETE, Portugal
David Read
Chef du Programme FEDER, Nord-Ouest de l’Angleterre
DCLG, Royaume-Uni
Pascal Voulton
Président du Directoire
SOFIMAC Partners, France
Ricardo Banha
Expert technique senior, Financement et Partage de risque
COMPETE, Portugal
David Read
Chef du Programme FEDER, Nord-Ouest de l’Angleterre
DCLG, Royaume-Uni
Pascal Voulton
Président du Directoire
SOFIMAC Partners, France
Discours de clôture
René Souchon
Président
6 décembre 2013
Merci
Thank you
Grazie
Danke
Tak
Gracias
ευχαριστώ
Köszönöm
Paldies
Ačiū
Obrigado
Hvala

présentations conférence mi-parcours FIN

Transcription

Documents pareils

Curriculum Vitae - Laboratoire de Mathématiques

Colloque à Florence en Italie - La Commission des Cadrans solaires

Invitation MBT course BEFR.pub

Adopting a Business Model View to Study Industry Change: The

liste des danses - SSDC

Info - IFMA

saint joseph parish children`s choir!!!

Acquisition announcement

invitation