Eurazeo

Power Better Growth

Type d'entreprise

Grande entreprise


Secteur

Banque / Finance


Localisation

1, rue Georges Berger 75017 Paris

Actualités (3)

  • Vie d'entreprise

    A promising future for Tech M&A

    Despite the dramatic slowdown in tech M&A dealmaking this year, several factors continue to provide strong incentives for European entrepreneurs and their investment backers to pursue consolidation, argue Romain Mombert, Pierre Meignen, and Olivier Sesboüé   Future consolidation in the tech industry to respark M&A dealflow The number and value of tech sector M&A transactions have dropped markedly since the middle of last year, hit by higher interest rates, stock market volatility in the tech sector, and a slowdown in private equity fundraising. In Europe, according to Dealogic, the number of deals in the first six months of 2023 was just 27, half the number recorded in H1 2022, for a total value of $30 billion down by about a quarter from $43 billion in H1 2022. That’s a steep fall, but the market is far from dead, and tech investors need not despair of seeing their portfolio companies engage in M&A deals going forward, given how many positive reasons there are for ambitious tech entrepreneurs and shareholders to pursue industry consolidation. What follows represents a handful of the factors that we consider will continue to drive deal-making in the European tech sector.   Bulking up to create global champions One powerful factor that will continue to drive tech M&A is the race to build dominant players in some emerging, but still fragmented, tech sectors such as online marketplaces, software, digital business services, and gaming. With everything still to play for, entrepreneurs are likely to aggressively pursue geographic expansion into new national markets, angling for a “winner-takes-all” endgame as they snap up local players to create a regional or even global champion.   Economies of scale to boost profitability In addition to expanding the serviceable market, “build-up” transactions can also help management teams accelerate their push for profitability by providing economies of scale, for example by rationalizing their research & development efforts, or in merging their sales forces. This is especially true in a context in which tech companies are not exclusively focused on top-line growth and are intently eyeing profitability. Another tangible advantage in acquiring rival companies in the tech sector, notably in software, is the potential for adding new adjacent clients and/or products to one’s own client lists and sales catalogs, thus opening the prospect of boosting profit margins by “cross-selling” new products to existing clients.   The race for talent The HR challenge of finding digital-savvy, business-oriented employees has become a major headache for many entrepreneurs since the Covid pandemic, as they have struggled to keep pace with the booming demand in sectors like e-commerce, remote working tools, and gaming. As a result, many entrepreneurs today complain that they can’t find the well-trained talent they need to continue to grow their companies. Although pressures on tech talent recruitment have eased somewhat since the pandemic, the shortage is ever increasing in booming sectors like AI and provides yet another incentive to pursue M&A acquisitions, namely in the shape of “talent-driven” deals dubbed “acqui-hires”.   European push for tech sovereignty A specifically European factor that provides a positive tailwind for dealmaking in the region is the willingness of several national governments – and indeed the European Investment Fund, with its pan-European Scale-up Initiative - to encourage state-sponsored investment in a bid to build regional tech champions to counterbalance the US and Asian tech giants. France was an early player in this trend, with its Tibi initiative launched in 2019, which aimed at encouraging institutional investors to allocate funds to the national tech sector. The first round of the Tibi initiative raised an initial €6 billion of late-stage funds, and this year it has been followed by plans for a second tranche of €7bn, targeting early-stage, deep tech, and cleantech investments. That French program has now been followed by an ambitious UK government plan announced in July to encourage the country’s largest pension schemes to allocate 5% of their assets to unlisted equities within the next seven years. Admittedly, most of these initiatives are backing VC and growth funds, so will not immediately boost the M&A tend, but will likely create M&A opportunities further down the line, within five to 10 years.   For some, a requirement to sell One factor that could sustain or even resuscitate the pace of tech M&A is the need for some smaller companies to sell. This will be because some smaller or weaker growth companies may find themselves short of cash in coming months, as their private equity backers hold back on follow-up funding rounds in order to conserve their “dry powder” until such time as their own backers – or limited partners – themselves reopen their gates to further fundraising rounds. Faced with the need for cash, an M&A sale might well be some tech entrepreneurs’ best, or only, option for survival.   Reasons to believe the M&A market will bounce back There are several additional reasons to be confident that the tech M&A market will bounce back, over and above the strategic factors driving the entrepreneurs themselves to pursue deals. One such factor will be an eventual recovery in the stock market valuations of listed tech stocks. This would have the advantage of allowing a change in attitude among institutional investors, who need to keep a careful eye on the relative allocations they make to listed and unlisted markets. Secondly, the venture capital and private equity funds have important stocks of “dry powder” money, available to back transactions when deal flow picks up again. A third factor that might spark a new round of dealmaking could be the uptick in profitability among many of the more ambitious tech companies, making them attractive targets for sponsor-backed acquisitions. This will be the result of the recent shift in approach among many growth tech companies – and their backers – today putting greater emphasis on the importance of earnings-related KPIs than the previous focus on revenue growth alone. Concerns about inflation and the pressure of high interest rates have encouraged many companies to look more closely at how to right-size their teams, cut back on their less-promising markets, or re-examine their pricing models to reach profitability more rapidly than they would have at in the previous “easy-money” period. As a result, when the tech M&A wave picks up again, as it certainly will, there will likely be many attractive targets for ambitious and opportunistic acquirers looking to build the future champions of their industry sectors.

  • Vie d'entreprise

    Towards a cleaner, more sustainable shipping industry

    The global shipping industry, which is key to our globalized economy, is facing major challenges as it looks towards a cleaner and more sustainable future. Sylvain Makaya and Audrey Lambry argue that addressing these issues will require substantial investment, opening opportunities for innovative financing solutions.   Investing for a cleaner, more sustainable shipping industry The huge cargo ships plying the oceans are crucial to maintaining a globalized economy, with maritime trade delivering approximately 90% of the world’s traded goods. After bouncing back from the impact of the Covid shutdown in 2020, cargo shipments today are estimated at over 11 billion tons a year and predicted to triple in volume by 2050. Such a sustained pace of future growth will require significant levels of investment for the shipping industry as it confronts a number of urgent challenges.   Cutting down emissions One of the most pressing issues the industry faces is ships’ emissions, currently estimated to account for 2.8% of all greenhouse gases. The International Maritime Organization has already set an ambitious target of reducing that amount by 50% by 2050, and the EU is expected to follow that with even more ambitious goals soon. It will require some creative thinking to determine where industry turns to for its future energy sources, with a wide range of possible options such as methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, biofuels, electricity and liquified natural gas. All alternatives to the fuel oil currently used will require heavy capital investment, not only in ships and their engines, but also in ports’ infrastructure, to provide bunkering facilities, charging stations, and other essential facilities. The IMO took the first steps to clean up the industry in 2020 by imposing a tight 0.5% cap on the dangerous sulfur content of the heavy fuel oil that ships used until then and also by extending its designated “emission-control areas” which impose an even stricter 0.1% sulfur limit.   Retrofitting the old, developing the new A third expensive issue that needs to be addressed by the shipping industry is the age of the world’s fleet. Ships today are typically scrapped earlier than they used to be. The average age of ships leaving service now is 25 years or less, well down from the average in 2007 of over 30 years. Today, one-fifth of the global fleet is already more than 20 years old, old in shipping terms, and therefore more expensive both to run and to insure. The costs of retrofitting a fleet to address the problems of GHG emissions and waste can be substantial, prompting shipowners to adopt a two-pronged approach: progressively replace their fleets with new generation, more sustainable vessels, and improve the performance of vessels of intermediate age through retrofit.   As banks withdraw, alternative financing will step in The burden of financing these three challenges is compounded by the fact that the banking sector has significantly tightened its lending criteria to the maritime industry, and today allocates 25% less to shipping operators than it did 10 years ago. This withdrawal of the banks from the sector is likely to continue in coming years, as the major financial institutions accelerate their de-leveraging to align with the requirements of the Basel IV standards. At the same time, equity financing remains only a small part of the ship financing pool, thus opening the way for innovative alternative lenders to step in, providing the means for ship owners to comply with the new regulations, especially in the small- and mid-market sector, which represents around two-thirds or more of the global fleet.

  • Vie d'entreprise

    The era of the adaptation economy, and the need for a common ESG benchmark

    The future is now upon us. A summer of natural disasters has shone a harsh light on the need for investors to assess whether their portfolio companies are equipped to be resilient in the face of demands of profound climate-induced volatility. Sophie Flak and Mathieu Teisseire call for urgent action to establish a common and coherent ESG benchmark to guide institutional investors as we move into the adaptation economy.   Act to adapt, or simply disappear Wildfires, heatwaves, storms, and drought – if the alarming catalog of recent natural disasters has taught us anything, it’s that time has run out for discussion. Climate change is upon us. The only choice we face now is whether to act to adapt, or succumb to the vagaries of a frighteningly unpredictable new world. For the investment community, the urgent question this poses for us today is how to ensure that the companies that we back are not only future-proofed but will continue to perform profitably in this new age of the “adaptation economy”. The demands of this new economic era are profound. Real change, not marginal tinkering, is essential if we are to reverse the dramatic consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss, allowing us to live within the nine “Planetary Boundaries” that define the limits of human impact on a self-regulating and sustainable environment. The recent spate of natural catastrophes has brought us face-to-face in every sector with the vulnerability of many companies to the potentially lethal impact of changes in the physical world. The ramifications of these physical changes are so far-reaching as to threaten multiple aspects of a company’s business, be it in terms of food and water supplies, employee safety, consumer demand, or even accessibility of trade routes and resilience of supply chains.   Every company has to assess its vulnerability to new physical challenges The big change for investors is that any review of a company’s ESG considerations is no longer guided by hypothetical or potential risks, but by real vulnerability. This means that the investment industry needs to move fast to determine which criteria are the most relevant to determine a company’s ability to survive - and thrive - under the new conditions. Within the private equity industry, we have already observed how institutional investors, on whose behalf we invest in our portfolio companies, have raised their game in recent years and are today well-versed in ESG considerations. Five or so years ago, many institutional investors’ interest in ESG matters appeared to reflect the need to check off a limited number of routine questions. Today, one rare piece of good news is that almost all the major institutions fully understand what is at stake. Now, private equity firms like ours are facing tough and very pertinent questions from their limited partners about how ESG criteria have guided our investment choices. LPs drill down to assess not only how “responsible” our companies are, but how well-adapted they are, and even urge us to go still further in our approach. There now is a deep understanding among investors that any company’s future performance is related to its awareness of - and ability to adapt to – present and future risks. Will the company still be able to operate, will it be able to access its suppliers, will its business even be relevant in coming years under such rapidly changing conditions?   No time to waste in establishing a common ESG benchmark But – and it’s an important “but” – our industry must now move even faster to establish a clear, coherent, and relevant system to assess and benchmark the non-financial ESG criteria that indicate how well-adapted a company is to the new world. As things stand today, there is a confusing plethora of literally hundreds of Key Performance Indicators related to ESG criteria that different stakeholders refer to. This has to change, and fast. Admittedly, it took decades for the investment industry to align on a small number of universally accepted financial KPIs, with a common methodology allowing investors to benchmark corporate performance. We don’t have the luxury of such a lengthy time span for all the various players, including regulators, to converge on a commonly agreed set of standardized ESG KPIs. We must move fast. There are some promising initiatives. The One Planet Sovereign Wealth Fund Summit, which brings together the largest asset managers, sovereign wealth funds from across the globe and innovative private equity firms, including Eurazeo, have adopted a common ESG framework for climate data disclosure from private market participants. Another initiative to be applauded is the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, which provides a useful outline of the most significant 20 ESG-related KPIs, even if the calculation methodology of certain indicators remains to be settled. The urgent call to action, for all of us in the investment industry, is to seize such an opportunity to converge around those criteria, using them to establish an actionable ESG performance benchmark to assess the extent to which individual companies and, indeed, entire industries are “future-proofed”, and where they need to make progress in their ability to adapt to present and future conditions. The temptation that we must resist is a fragmentation of KPIs, as each industry association or national regulator, for example, pleads for its own disparate set of criteria reflecting some local specificity. Such complexity would make benchmarking impossible, and without benchmarking, investors will have a tough time taking a realistic view of how to assess a company’s resilience and potential within the new “adaptation economy”.