Angel investors, hight-net worth individuals, family offices, venture capital/private equity firms, funds of funds, sovereign wealth funds, investment banks or any other institutional investors, this article is for you! 

In this post, I would like to explain to investors located out of France the great opportunity to found, fund and launch Venture Capital investment firms in France. 

 Every day a new startup is created in France. These startups are based on innovative projects, holded by Academic science researchers, engineers or business-marketing professionals from all fields (marketing & buisness concept, internet and web-tech, electronics, telecomunication and high-tech, clean/green-tech, mechanics, optics, chemicals, biotech-pharma, healthcare or medical device .... ).

But our Angel investors networks and clubs are not enough developed, and Private Equity firms, even if some note on their website "VC", prefer to focus on Expansion/Growth Capital investments⁽¹⁾ and Transmission operations such as Leveraged Buy-Out/Mezzanine, Merge&Acquisition and Initial Public Offering, instead of Seed and Venture Capital (Serie-A round)⁽²⁾ investments.

Due to the lack of investors, the French market of equities of privately-held companies, from startups to SMEs, is at present cheap (pre-money valuations of French startups/SMEs are lower than US-ones), but the quality of our basic and applied science, engineering, inventions and technologies is excellent. Indeed, French Government and European Union have a strong Science to Business policy (important grants are available for Research, Development and Innovation) to promote the technology-transfer from Universities into spin-off/spin-out startup companies. But this is insufficient, indeed there is a gap of financing between R&D and technology-transfer stages to early-later startup stage and commercial expansion stages. The financing process of innovation is extremely efficient in countries such as the USA or Israel, because as soon as an innovative startup emerges, Venture Capital firms invest in these companies.  

(1) Expansion/Growth Capital is also called Serie-B, Serie-C and Serie-D investment rounds.

(2) Seed Capital from idea to prototype: €50,000 to €600,000, Serie-A Venture Capital for market introduction: €300,000 to €2,500,000 (except for biotech-pharmaceutical startups developing new drugs, Serie-A can rich-up to €20M).

Some features of Venture Capital industry

- USA continues to be the largest venture capital industry in the world. US VC invested €15 billion vs European VC only €3.7 billion (in 2010)!

- Early-stage VC investments in the US were on average €2.2 million per company, against an average €400,000 per company in the EU!

- A Venture Capital fund in the European Union contains approximately €60 million, a US counterpart has a fund size of €130 million!

- Every week in USA, a dozen of biotech/medical device companies raise $1M to $80M from Venture Capital firms! Europe lags far far behind!

Two major targets for Venture Capital firms seeking to invest in French companies

A) From Science to Business

In France, we have 80 Universities, and each one has a startup incubator dedicated to support the transfer of academic research and cutting-edge technology into spin-off startups. Each incubator holds around 100 technology-based startups (around 8000 startups are currently in our incubators!). We have startups having innovations coming from every academic and scientific fields (Formal Sciences, Physical Sciences, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Life and Medical Sciences ...). 

Our tech-starups are undercapitalized compared to US-ones, there is a great opportunity for venture capital investors!

B) From Classroom to Business

Startup incubators dedicated to students in higher-education (Universities, Business Schools, Engineering Schools, .....) are very promising and such incubators are emerging everywhere in France, linked to each higer-education organisation. Indeed, among the 3 million students in French higher-education, we could have several potential Mark Zukerberg (Facebook's founder-CEO) that have crazy dreams and wishing to change the world. Of course, startups launched by students are less technology-based compared to University spin-out startups backed by several years of scientific research. Nevertheless, the success and profitability of such new ventures based on “good ideas” could very high (Facebook, Goolge, eBay ...).      

The incubators provide to student-entrepreneurs a strong support from the university’s academic ressources (business training, expertise and mentoring from Professors, and also from local expert such as Lawyers, Coporate Finance Experts & Accountants, Strategy & Marketing Consultants, CEOs & Managers of growing companies) and facilities (laboratories, engineering, business offices ...).

The incubators increase dramatically the percentage of success compared to startups without having had the support of an incubator. The incubation clearly diminishes the risk of failure:

- Without incubator: Over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years (according to the US Small Business Administration)

- With incubator: 90% of new ventures are still alive and are operating 5 year after leaving the incubator. 

Other studies has shown that the survival percentage of new ventures is intimately linked to the capitalisation at the launching (incorporation). More the capital stock (or equity) is higher, more the company has chance to survive during the 5 following years. 

Therefore, the idea of combining in one structure “incubator and seed-capital investment fund” has emerged. 

Some well-known combo incubators [Startup incubator + Seed stage investment fund], all are located in USA :

- Y Combinator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Combinator_(company)  

- 500Startups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_McClure  

- TechStars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techstars  

Currently, in France we do not have such combo incubators mixing both business mentoring/education and seed investments. There is a real opportunity for investors to take part of such incubators.

In conclusion

The ecosystem of innovation by science & technology is very dense and active in France. We are very good at supporting academic research in applied science and the transfer of technology into startups or big companies. But we still lake venture capital investments (compared to other western countries), and more precisely we lake seed-investors (angel investors) and serie-A venture capital investments up to a couple of millions. Our private equity investment firms focus on middle-sized to big companies and they invest in growth stage or transmission operations (LBO, IPO ...) instead of Venture Capital investments. Therefore, our innovative startups remain undercapitalized, inducing lower pre-money valuations.

The French market of startups and SMEs private equity is at present cheap:

Buy the highest quality at the lowest prices!

That's what I propose to you!  

If a such project could interest you

........................................... Do not wait anymore, contact me

........................................................ and  Let's Invest in the French Genius !

 When you look at the LinkedIn profile (or in any other profile) of a person you don't know and you would like to contact, if the person indicates in his/her education to have a PhD, this means that you should start your email with :

Dear Doctor Last-Name or Dear Dr. Last-Name,

Indeed, PhD means that the person has followed a doctorate program. If the person is occupying a teaching position at a University, and if the teaching position is Professor or Associate-Professor, you should start your email with:

Dear Professor Last-Name or Dear Prof. Last-Name,

If the teaching position is Assistant-Professor, the etiquette is to start with: Dear Dr. Last-name (if of course, he/she holds a PhD)

The Doctorate is the highest degree delivered by a University recognized by its country (or state or county). And every people, in every disciplines, having succeed a doctorate program should be called Doctor. 

The PhD is the Doctorate degree commonly delivered in soft or hard sciences (soft sciences = human sciences + social sciences / hard sciences = formal sciences + natural sciences). Even if the PhD is not a job position, but a degree, the etiquette is to called a PhD holder: Doctor. In France, a journalist after an interview of an academic researcher in chemistry, mentioned the researcher name in the article with quotes "Doctor X" to indicate to readers that the researcher claims to be a "doctor" but in fact he is not or he is not a real doc (as physicians)! Of course, the researcher offended by the quotes, sued the journalist and Dr. Chemistry won, and got serious and published apologizes from the journal.

The etiquette explained above concerning starting your email with "Dear Dr. X," is also true for other kinds of Doctorate degrees: 

- MD = Doctor in Medical Sciences (physicians hold a Medical Doctor degree)

- JD = Doctor in Juridical Sciences (some lawyers can hold a Juris Doctor degree)

- For a complete list of Doctorate degrees : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

The Doctorate degree in some healthcare fields is both a University degree and a professional title/job position. The best-known is in the medecine where MD = Physician/Surgeon, but also your dentist having a DDM (Doctor in Dental Medicine), your pharmacyst holding a PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy), or your veterinarian holding a VMD (Veterinary Medicine Doctor).

Therefore, as a responsible CEO or Manager, you know that:

"YOU MUST INNOVATE!"

.... but how?! 

For the very first time in the history, I will reveal the "Secret Magic Mathematic Formula of Innovation" used by Apple, Google, 3M .... . Hereafter, the full demonstration to obtain the formula with which you will innovate safely, without any uncertainty.

Let's start:

• You need some "Explicit Knowledge" or simply "Knowledge"

Knowledge (including all your know-what, know-why, know-who) is everywhere, you can acquire it from your parents and family, during studies at school and higher education, by reading books, articles or blogs, by watching the world around you ... .

But Knowledge without Imagination = An inert book (handbook, textbook, articles, encyclopedia or any other data in a data container such a digital database or the mass of your brain in your skull!)

• You need some "Imagination"

But Imagination without Knowledge = Production of ideas (good and bad ones), useless by itself.

• You need some Tacit Knowledge or simply "Know-how"

But Know-how alone = Craft = A useful skill but without a mission, still valueless

and

(Imagination + Know-how) without Knowledge = Creativity = A piece of art, maybe beautiful (or not) but still useless!

• If you add all the previous ingredients together, you could get:

Knowledge + Imagination + Know-how = Invention

But "Invention" alone = a (tangible or intangible) prototype ... or just a gadget!

• Therefore, you have to add something (X) to the invention to transform it into innovation. Here the final equation:

Invention + X = Innovation

X = Entrepreneurship

Invention + Entrepreneurship = Innovation

But somthing sounds wrong with this formula!

We cannot predict the future, and therefore we cannot predict if a (Invention + Entrepreneurship) can become an innovation. Indeed, we can judge if an invention brought into the market is an innovation (or not = a fail), only in posteriori.

What we have learned in posteriori from all innovations (or what one could name business successes):

A) All innovations have had needed around 35% of Invention (Creativity, R&D, Know-how, Conception, ...) and 75% of Entrepreneurship!

(These percentages are in relation of the use of investment done by innovative companies)

B) All Innovations have in common to have created new behaviours of users, new uses and meanings and therefore new knowledge.

So the final equation could be:

Invention + Entrepreneurship = Innovation + "New-Knowledge"

A) Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is the energy, resources and leadership needed to change, with the use of the invention, the behaviour of users, consumers. Therefore, a good CEO, managing an innovation project, must want to change the world, or at minimum the world of his customers!

Entrepreneurship is not an exact science. It's a mix of talent, leadership, opportunism, business sense/business education/business know-how, financial resources, .... and some Luck!

Entrepreneurship = Talent + Leadership + Business sense/education/know-how + Financial resources + Opportunism + Luck

• Talent is innate and cannot be learned!

• Leadership can be innate or can be learned in business schools, in books, blogs and websites, or from a Mentor.

• Business sense/business education/business know-how can be learned (= Rational analysis of the business opportunity: Strategy and Business Model, Marketing, Business planning ...).

• Opportunism and Luck may be provocated by developing a good "Life and Social Skills". Be curious and have thirst of knowledge! Share your passions and surround your life with people having a high curiosity and thirst of knowledge.

• Financial resources can be supplied by investors.

B) New Meanings and Knowledge

The innovation process is inseparable from the knowledge production. Indeed, innovation cannot be done without a base of knowledge (nothing has been created from the nothingness!), and when an innovation is produced, there is systematically new meanings and knowledge produced at the same time. Consequently, organizations should consider knowledge as “capital”. This immaterial capital is deeply neglected in most organization, due to ignorance its value or due to the pressure of rapid financial return.

Identifying very carefully the knowledge produced during innovation process could have two benefits:

1. The reinjection of the capital "knowledge" produced during the innovation process to the next innovation process is absolutely necessary to ensure the sustainability of future innovations. This is what should do the knowledge management. The knowledge management should not just be the use of a "software" or a suggestion/idea box! Do you deal with the cash of you company with a box? No, of course, therefore respect your knowledge as gold! 
2. If the company makes the effort to share its new base of knowledge with its users/consumers, then its invention is much more likely to be accepted, and thus become an innovation. This is what should do the community management. The community manager should not just share fun things or news about the company in the Facebook fan page or in the Twitter account. He/she should be a talented teacher^* having the mission to educate users, customers.

^*Companies should hire talented and creative teachers!

Finally, what characterizes the failure of an invention to become an innovation is to assume that the company has failed to share its knowledge base and to educate its audience (specially early-adopters and lead-users).

Therefore, (Invention + Entrepreneurship) cannot be equal to Innovation, but rather to New meanings/New Knowledge that the entrepreneur share with his community.

Finally, we have:

a) Invention + Entrepreneurship = New-knowledge

+

b) New-knowledge + Community = Innovation

=

Invention + Entrepreneurship + New-kowledge + Community = Innovation +New-knowledge

Innovation Formula:

Invention + Entrepreneurship + Community = Innovation

The term Knowledge is not anymore visible in the final equation due to the arithmetic rules, but it is still present and very important! It is the key of the success of the innovation process.

In conclusion, yes I lied in the title of this article: "The Magic Mathematic Formula of Innovation" ! There is no magic and no mathematic formula, but rather a cooking recipe and a sort of road map! And what makes the success of a cooking recipe is the dosage and quality of ingredients, sharing passion and of course the experience of the chef!

So, try and don't fear about failure!

 BioTech and MedTech Entrepreneurs, 

There is now a new and exciting way to raise funds for your startup, or even for your established company: CROWD FUNDING! 

Crowd funding could be very suitable for healthcare, medicale device, white and red biotech startup companies because you can touch the heart of the Crowd! 

Hereafter the introduction of one my article: 

"Types of Crowd Funding: Ways Entrepreneurs Can Face the Investment Crisis" 

To face against the current crisis, and more precisely to face against the investment crisis that affects Start-ups, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, a new way to raise funds has emerged, supported by the power of Internet: Crowd Funding. Start-ups and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises seeking investors have to knock at the doors of Business Angels networks/clubs or at Venture Capital firms. But the process of selection used by Venture Capitalists, and even by Business Angels, is difficult, time-consuming, and only a few percents of companies are financed. Crowd funding allows entrepreneurs to by-pass Business Angels and Venture Capitalists, by directly asking people to invest in their companies. ....

Read more at: 

- Part1: http://goo.gl/6Dket 

- Part2: http://goo.gl/LlSjq 

- Crowd funding can be used to raised big money: http://0z.fr/My1Lx

For a full list of Crowd funding website platforms: http://0z.fr/LBq61 

Here 3 examples of French botech startups raising or having raised funds by Crowd funding with the support of Wiseed (a French Crowdfunding/Crowd-Mircoinvesting platform) :

• Urodelia, a biotech startup developing innovative drugs against cancer 

 http://www.urodelia.com/ (fund raising closed)

• Ambiotis, a Contract Research Organization (CRO)

http://www.ambiotis.com (fund raising closed)

• Selexel, a biotech startup developing anti-cancer drugs

http://www.selexel.com (currenlty, raising funds)

Crowdfunding can also be very suitable for non-profit organizations such as public academic research institutions, Universities or laboratories.

If you are a biotech/medtech entrepreneurs, or if you are leading a research group (Director, or Principal Investigator), interested by Crowdfunding, contact me to discuss further. 

But until now, I did not have any example of a big project having raised big money!

Take a look at the “Iron Sky” film project:  http://www.ironsky.net/

The producer is raising funds by a mix strategy: http://goo.gl/waZ14 

1) Crowd funding (fans support the project by money donation and get goodies and rewards)

2) Crowd mirco-investing (fans can become co-producer by investing and hope to have royalties on future revenues)

3) Secured financing (classical way to get funds for film such as banks …)

Concerning the Crowd funding strategy, Iron Sky has already obtained €616,270 towards the goal of €900,000! The total budget (1+2+3) of this film project is €7,500,000.

More about crowd funding: http://www.strategy-of-innovation.com/pages/List_of_Crowd_Funding_Websites_and_Websites_To_Find_Investors-4605700.html

 

Il faut déverrouiller tous les freins et boulets réglementaires qui pourrissent la vie de nos entrepreneurs !

Politiques ! Libérez les Forces Créatives et Créatrices de la France !

Chaque semaine, une dizaine de sociétés US secteur biotech/instrument médical lèvent des fonds VC de 1-80M$! L'Europe est vraiment très en retard!

Every week in USA, a dozen of biotech/medical device companies raise $1M to $80M from Venture Capital firms! Europe lags far far behind!

J'ai été plutôt satisfait par les mesures qu'il a annoncé, notamment sur l'immobilier. En revanche, le Président a prononcé qu'une seule fois le mot "innovation", et jamais les mots entrepreneurs, startup, business angels et capital risque ! Là je suis vraiment déçu.

  Il a annoncé la création d'une banque publique de crédit, filiale d'Oseo, destinée aux besoins des PME. Cette banque sera dotée d'1 milliard d'euro en fonds propres (ou plus exactement 1 Mrd d'euro de capacité de crédit) !!!

Cette idée d'une banque publique de crédit pour PME est une mauvaise idée pour la raison développée dans cet article lien (crédit/prêt vs prise de participation au capital). Il faut arrêter avec cet interventionnisme étatique incessant ! De plus, il y a pléthore de banques commerciales privées, surtout qu'elles ont grassement bénéficié des généreux prêts de la BCE à taux quasi-nulle ! Si ces banques privées font du refus de ventes de services à l'économie réelle ... alors oui, l'Etat devrait intervenir en imposant son autorité, et il n'y aurait pas besoin de créer une banque publique !

En lieu et place de cette banque étatique, il faut favoriser l'engagement direct de l'épargne des français dans l'économie entrepreneuriale, et favoriser la création et le développement de sociétés de capital risque en France !

Voila une proposition qui serait audacieuse :

Pourquoi ne pas investir ce milliard d'euro dans 1000 nouvelles sociétés de capital risque (soit 1M d'euro par société de capital risque) ?

Ces nouvelles sociétés de capital risque avec chacune leur million d'euro, auraient un coup de pouce évident pour convaincre les personnes physiques (business angels) et les entreprises locales, mais également et surtout les investisseurs institutionnels* d'abonder dans leur fond d'investissement capital risque.

En France, nous avons 274 sociétés de capital-investissement (adhérentes à l'AFIC) dont 99% ont leur siège en région parisienne, et la très grande majorité de ces sociétés ne font pas du capital risque (elles interviennent sur des opérations de capital développement, transmission et retournement) ! 

Donc, avec ma proposition, nous aurions dans chaque région (1000/27 régions), 37 nouvelles sociétés de capital investissement spécialisées en capital risque. Ces sociétés seront fondées par des équipes indépendantes de l'Etat (qui ne sera qu'un investisseur parmi d'autres), comme des entrepreneurs et managers expériementés connaissant l'entreprise, des scientifiques, des ingénieurs, pouvant apporter une véritable valeur ajoutée par l'accompagnement et le mentoring qu'ils consacreront aux startups !

Avec une telle mesure, nours serions un des pays leader dans ce secteur ! Pour information, les USA comptent environ 8000 sociétés d'investissement de type "capital risque" (selon la NVCA) !

*Investisseurs institutionnels = fonds de fonds, banques d'investissement, hedge funds, fonds souverains, fonds de pension, grande compagnies d'assurance, grandes entreprises multinationales, familly office .... 

Manuels d'Economie des Lycéens ! from Ari Massoudi on Vimeo.

Manuels d'Economie des Lycéens allemands from Ari Massoudi on Vimeo.

*Banque au sens de banque commerciale, de détail, de dépôt et de crédit.

Que les banques ne fassent pas leur métier de prêteur pour des besoins court-termistes (crédit, facilités de caisse, BFR ...), c'est vrai, et c'est surtout vrai pour les TPE-PME (innovantes) en très forte croissance, celles que l'on nomme "Gazelles". Ces entreprises ont des commandes qui augmentent rapidement, mais elles doivent faire l'avance de trésorerie pour produire (ce qui creuse leur tréso puisqu'elles ne seront payées que plus tard). Là oui, il y a un véritable problème.

Mais encore une fois, concernant les besoins financiers à long terme (investissements R&D, infrastructures, internationalisation ...), ce n'est pas le métier des banques que de financer ces opérations ! La faute incombe, en partie, aux chefs d'entreprise qui sont fermés à l'idée d'ouvrir leur capital à des investisseurs (business angels, ou sociétés d'investissement de type Private Equity/Venture Capital). Ouvrir son capital n'est pas dans le logiciel de nos chefs d'entreprise. Ils ont été traumatisés par les rares mais néanmoins spectaculaires histoires d'éviction de CEO (comme l'illustre Steve Jobs) par des investisseurs. Ces cas sont des « faits divers », et non la règle !

Que la France (et l'Europe en général) soit moins bien équipée, en nombre et en volume, en fonds de capital investissement, que les gestionnaires de ces fonds aient une appréciation du risque différente de celle de leurs homologues anglosaxons (surtout US), oui, là est le véritable problème. Et c'est sur ce point que l'on devrait se battre ! La création et le développement d’entreprise innovante (à dominante technologique ou non) n’ont pas besoin des banques et ne doivent pas avoir recours aux banques (sous-entendu n’ont pas besoin d’être financés par le « prêt », l’usure). Je ne suis pas anti-banque, loin de là. Effet, un boulanger, une scierie, un garage auto, un restaurant … qui veut se développer (par ex. acheter les murs du voisin pour s’agrandir), là le financement par prêt se justifie pleinement. Pour l’innovation seul, le financement par capital investissement et le "partage des risques" doivent être envisagés. Similairement à nos états surendettés à cause de l'usure, le coût du capital via l’emprunt serait tout simplement intenable si on finançait les 500-600k euros de l’amorçage, et les 1,5-2M d'euros de développement d’une entreprise innovante par de l’emprunt. Donc, aujourd’hui c’est bien le Private Equity (capital investissement en français) en amorçage (ou comme le nomme les anglosaxons : Seed-Capital et Serie-A Venture Capital) qui fait cruellement défaut en France.

Par conséquent, il faut que les pouvoirs publics démocratisent et popularisent le Business Angelisme et le Venture Capitalisme.

Il faut d'une part réorienter de façon plus volontariste l'épargne des français** dans les fonds de capital investissement (capital amorçage, capital risque et capital développement), et d'autre part faire en sorte que les investisseurs institutionnels français mais surtout étrangers (fonds de fonds, banques d'investissement, hedge funds, fonds souverains, fonds de pension, grandes compagnies d'assurance, grandes entreprises multinationales, familly office .... ) abondent dans ces fonds qui je le rappelle, sont les "« seuls »" à investir dans l'économie réelle !

Une mesure très simple serait d’augmenter significativement le pourcentage de la réduction sur l’Impôt sur le Revenue pour les personnes physiques qui investissent au capital d’entreprises non cotées. Tout le petit monde de la microéconomie française a hurlé au scandale lorsque le gouvernement à annoncé le rabot sur la loi TEPA et la fameuse réduction de 75% sur l’ISF qui passait à 50%, mais personne ne demande une augmentation de la réduction sur l’IR (aujourd’hui à 25% de réduction avec en plus un plafond ridicule)! Il me semble jusqu’à preuve du contraire, que les personnes assujetties à l’IR sont bien plus nombreuses que les ISF, mais également bien plus volumineux en terme de potentiel financier. Donc, il faut inciter fiscalement toutes les assujettis à l’IR d’investir dans du non cotée ! Et je me répète, il faut également créer des conditions favorables pour que les investisseurs institutionnels (et notamment les fonds d’investissement basés à l’étranger) financent des fonds de capital risque en France (toujours avec l’outil fiscal).

La France doit devenir un Paradis (fiscal) de l'entrepreneuriat et de l'innovation.

L'investissement dans les entreprises non cotées peut sembler à priori très risqué, mais les rendements des sociétés de gestion de fonds de type Private Equity/Venture Capital démontrent clairement le contraire. Le Private Equity (incluant les activités de Venture Capital), bien que risqué comme tout placement (depuis 2008, nous avons appris qu'il n'existera plus jamais aucun placement "sans risque" !), rémunère très bien ses investisseurs, bien mieux que les actions cotées et les titres obligataires du marché boursier. Mais pour bénéficier de son retour sur investissement, l'investisseur doit accepter d'une part d'être patient (5-10 ans avant retour, et oui le temps de l'économie réelle !), et d'autre part accepter d'enregistrer des pertes à court terme dues aux frais de gestion.

Quelques chiffres sur le capital risque :

- USA continues to be the largest venture capital industry in the world. US VC invested €15 billion vs European VC only €3.7 billion (in 2010)!

- A Venture Capital fund in the European Union contains approximately €60 million, a US counterpart has a fund size of €130 million!

- Early-stage VC investments in the US were on average €2.2 million per company, against an average €400,000 per company in the EU!

Courte réaction à l'interview du Président Sarkozy du 29/01/2012 :

J'ai été plutôt satisfait par les mesures qu'il a annoncé, notamment sur l'immobilier. En revanche, le Président a prononcé qu'une seule fois le mot "innovation", et jamais les mots entrepreneurs, startup, business angels et capital risque ! Là je suis vraiment déçu.

Il a annoncé la création d'une banque publique de crédit, filiale d'Oseo, destinée aux besoins des PME. Cette banque sera dotée d'1 milliard d'euro en fonds propres (ou plus exactement 1 Mrd d'euro de capacité de crédit) !!!

Cette idée d'une banque publique de crédit pour PME est une mauvaise idée pour la raison développée plus haut dans cet article (crédit/prêt vs prise de participation au capital). Il faut arrêter avec cet interventionnisme étatique incessant ! De plus, il y a pléthore de banques commerciales privées, surtout qu'elles ont grassement bénéficié des généreux prêts de la BCE à taux quasi-nulle ! Si ces banques privées font du refus de ventes de services à l'économie réelle ... alors oui, l'Etat devrait intervenir en imposant son autorité, et il n'y aurait pas besoin de créer une banque publique !

En lieu et place de cette banque étatique, il faut favoriser l'engagement direct de l'épargne des français dans l'économie entrepreneuriale, et favoriser la création et le développement de sociétés de capital risque en France !

Voila une proposition qui serait audacieuse :

Pourquoi ne pas investir ce milliard d'euro dans 1000 nouvelles sociétés de capital risque (soit 1M d'euro par société de capital risque) ?

Ces nouvelles sociétés de capital risque avec chacune leur million d'euro, auraient un coup de pouce évident pour convaincre les investisseurs institutionnels d'abonder dans leur fond d'investissement capital risque

En France, nous avons 274 sociétés de capital-investissement (adhérentes à l'AFIC) dont 99% ont leur siège en région parisienne, et la très grande majorité de ces sociétés ne font pas du capital risque (elles interviennent sur des opérations de capital développement, transmission et retournement) ! 

Donc, avec ma proposition, nous aurions dans chaque région (1000/27 régions), 37 nouvelles sociétés de capital investissement spécialisées en capital risque. Ces sociétés seront fondées par des équipes indépendantes de l'Etat (qui ne sera qu'un investisseur), comme des entrepreneurs expériementés connaissant l'entreprise, des scientifiques, des ingénieurs, pouvant apporter une véritable valeur-ajoutée par l'accompagnement et le mentoring qu'ils consacreront aux startups !

Avec une telle mesure, nours serions un des pays leader dans ce secteur ! Pour information, les USA comptent environ 8000 sociétés d'investissement de type "capital risque" (selon la NVCA) !