Column: Florence Anglès In the previous column, the focus was on verifying the project’s viability. But once this point is clarified, the question shifts. It’s no longer about whether value can be created, but whether it can be sustained. In a constantly evolving environment, the challenge is understanding when the equilibrium might become fragile. Sustaining Value: From EBITDA Volatility to NPV Sensitivity After verifying the structure’s solidity, the focus shifts to the sustainability of value rather than its mere existence. The question then becomes: do the projected cash flows remain stable in a realistic operating context, considering all technical constraints? Unlike traditional infrastructure, BESS construction projects are heavily dependent on revenues generated in the market. This makes them sensitive not only to price fluctuations but also to profound changes in market dynamics. At this stage, the aim is to assess risks to transform operational uncertainties into financial uncertainties, and thus measure how the investment reacts to key assumptions. Fragility of Revenue Streams and Risk of Market Saturation BESS projects often rely on multiple revenue streams, such as arbitrage, frequency response, voltage support, and sometimes capacity mechanisms. This diversity can reduce risk, but it also leads to exposure to market fluctuations. These markets are often highly competitive and can change rapidly. When new capacity is added, revenue margins tend to decrease, and past performance is no longer a guarantee of future results. In this context, the main risk is not the fluctuation of short-term earnings, but rather the gradual decline in margins over time. The key questions are: Weak revenues primarily affect EBITDA levels, but due to discounting and leverage effects, they can have a much greater impact on internal rate of equity. A project evaluated using overly optimistic growth assumptions, without considering downside risks, demonstrates financial vulnerability rather than genuine strength. Degradation, Efficiency, and Integrity of Long-Term Cash Flows Technical assumptions significantly influence financial results. In battery energy storage (BESS) projects, factors such as degradation, efficiency, and system condition directly impact the sustainability and reliability of cash flows. Battery degradation plays a significant role in energy production capacity, the duration of revenue generation, the need for capacity expansion, and the remaining asset value. Overly optimistic degradation assumptions may lead to inflated final cash flow projections, potentially resulting in an excessively high net present value (NPV). Other technical assumptions follow a similar trend: Even small deviations in these assumptions can have significant financial consequences. In some cases, they may be enough to push the project’s IRR below the investor’s cost of capital. The key question is: at what level of technical degradation or underperformance does the project become unprofitable? If small deviations in technical performance have significant consequences for returns, robustness should be prioritized over optimization. Schedule-related risk: commissioning delays and discounting effects Time is a critical but often underestimated risk factor. Delays in commissioning not only postpone revenue generation but also reduce the net present value. Initial cash flow plays a more significant role in net present value (NPV). An initial cash flow lag increases the risk to NPV, particularly in capital-intensive projects. A six-month lag may have a limited nominal impact but a disproportionate effect on NPV due to the discounting effect. From an investor’s perspective, the question is not only whether the lag can occur but also what lag the project can withstand without impacting its returns. Furthermore, a delay in commissioning can lead to various side effects, including: In leveraged structures, schedule risk can directly impact debt repayment capacity and refinancing conditions, thereby amplifying its effect on return on equity. The question, therefore, is not whether the project will ultimately be operational, but rather: how significant is the value erosion caused by an execution delay? Leverage, Coverage Ratios, and Resilience to Risk Ultimately, a project’s “bankability” is tested in a crisis, not in baseline scenarios. A project may appear robust under optimistic assumptions but prove fragile under more realistic adverse conditions. Stress tests must assess the robustness of the investment project under adverse scenarios, such as: At this stage, it is essential to make the following distinction: A project with a stable NPV under adverse scenarios is considered investable despite fluctuating short-term performance. A project with a marginal NPV under moderate crisis scenarios is considered inherently fragile. Conclusion Ultimately, the goal of risk assessment in battery energy storage (BES) mergers and acquisitions is not to create a perfect model or to account for every possible scenario. It is to answer a few practical questions, even if the answers are not always clear or perfectly structured. First, is the project feasible in a safe and realistic way? This is the starting point. Grid access, permits, regulatory compliance: if any of these elements are uncertain, the projected revenues become meaningless. The project may look promising on paper, but it simply won’t materialize. Then, assuming it does materialize, the question is whether its value will hold over time. BESS assets do not operate in a stable environment. Performance fluctuates, equipment ages, and market conditions change. What matters is not the base-case scenario, but the project’s behavior when conditions are less favorable. There is also the question of execution. Delays or friction, even relatively minor ones, can have disproportionate effects, not necessarily because they significantly alter the project, but because the time factor may not be as secondary as one might think. Costs skyrocket, revenues fluctuate, and the overall balance sheet changes. Over time, operational stability becomes equally crucial. A project unable to maintain consistent performance tends to accumulate problems. Individually, these problems may seem manageable. Together, they can become far more significant. Finally, there is resilience. A project should not be evaluated solely under favorable conditions. The real test is observing its reaction to pressure, declining revenues, rising costs, or less favorable market conditions. This is where the distinction becomes clearer. Some projects remain largely intact even when assumptions change. Others do not. This isn’t always immediately apparent, but ultimately, it’s what makes an investment worthwhile. Therefore, risk assessment
AEFR Seminar, 7 April 2026 Insurance and Coverage of Major Risks: Towards a European Approach
Jean-Jacques Pluchart Club Turgot attended the seminar on the insurance and reinsurance of systemic risks. Daphné Le Conte des Floris (AXA) presented AXA’s latest study on the perception of major risks in 2025, based on a survey of 23,000 policyholders and 3,600 experts in 27 countries. The survey reveals an increase in the impact of claims since the 2000s. The main factors, in order of frequency, are climate change, cybersecurity, geopolitical instability (since 2025), social divisions (especially in France), and damage to biodiversity. The survey also indicates that respondents are aware of the inadequacy of the current governance of polycrisis insurance in democratic systems. Rémy Lecat (ACPR) reported on the stress tests carried out by the ACPR to cover the risks posed by the climate and energy transitions. The tests show that coverage of the impacts of CO₂ emissions can be considered satisfactory overall, but that significant differences can be observed between regions and sectors of activity. The tests also focused on the coverage of property losses caused by clay subsidence and dam failures. They show that companies’ value chains can be severely affected by certain risks. These growing impacts will increasingly be covered by higher premiums and excesses, but also by ever-larger contributions from reinsurers and governments. Amélie Breitburd (independent expert) proposed the creation of interactive online platforms to serve policyholders, bringing together insurers, pension funds, brokers, mutual insurance companies, private equity firms, etc., based on the model of the platform created by Lloyd’s. These platforms would make it possible – for example, under EUInc status – to collect data on claims, calculate losses, pool coverage and provide back-office support. Edouard Viellefond (CCR) then presented the French ‘Natural Disasters’ scheme (CATNAT), which manages compensation for damage caused by exceptionally severe natural phenomena. This compensation scheme is activated following a ministerial order recognising a state of natural disaster. It applies to natural events that cannot be insured under standard policies, such as floods and mudslides, earthquakes, ground movements, avalanches and cyclones. However, CATNAT has been operating in the red for nine years, as the cost of natural disasters has continued to rise, reaching €6.5 billion in France in 2023. A reform in 2023–2024 introduced an increase in the CatNat surcharge (included in home and business insurance policies) in order to strengthen the scheme’s resources in the face of a sharp rise in climate-related claims. The reform also introduces a ‘presumption of refusal of insurance’, making it easier for uninsurable claimants to access cover. One seminar participant pointed out that coverage for major risks is increasingly provided by the claimants themselves (who are uninsured or subject to high excesses) and by the state (which is increasingly called upon). Another participant noted that the more numerous and significant the claims, the higher the insurers’ financial performance. At the European level, three directives regulate life and non-life insurance activities: Solvency I (introduced in the 1970s), which harmonises the minimum coverage rules; Solvency II (2016), which sets out the rules for calculating capital based on actual risks (market, credit, underwriting, operational – with two capital tiers) and defines the governance and reporting requirements for insurers; and Solvency III, which is currently under discussion.
Nicolas DUFOURCQ ,La Dette sociale de la France (1974-2024) – Éditions Odile Jacob, 2025, 544 pages
In his essay, France’s social debt (1974-2024), Nicolas Dufourcq performs far more than a mere fiscal autopsy; he conducts an ontological deconstruction of the French welfare state. As the head of BPI France, the country’s public investment bank, Mr Dufourcq exposes what he terms a “family secret”: that two-thirds of France’s sovereign debt, some €2 trillion, has morphed into a colossal “consumer credit” facility, used to bankroll daily benefits rather than to invest in the nation’s future. The diagnosis is as clinical as it is compelling. Mr Dufourcq identifies 1974 as the year of the fall, when France inaugurated its first “whatever it takes” policy, shifting from a contributory insurance model to a permanent infusion of debt-funded assistance. Invoking Clément Rosset’s philosophy of “the real and its double,” the author lambasts a collective denial that ignores the “longevity revolution” and its impact on a sclerotic economy. While the “social horse” gallops ahead, fueled by the “white powder” of debt, the “economic horse” is left gasping for air. To break this cycle, he proposes an “Iron Rule”: a constitutional mandate for strictly balanced social accounts. The work is meticulously documented, drawing on testimonies from fifty members of the political and administrative elite. Yet, despite being dedicated to the nation’s entrepreneurs, they are conspicuously absent from the interviews. Here lies the work’s tragic paradox, and perhaps that of France itself: by giving voice solely to the mandarins of the state, the analysis remains partially confined within the circle of those who managed, justified, or presided over the very imbalances it decries. When former minister Marisol Touraine “vigorously contests that deficits stem from runaway social spending”, the reader perceives the extent to which the chronicle of failure is still being written by its own protagonists. The original sin of the system has been the progressive decoupling of social rights from the requirement of production. This is the hamartia of a system that, by substituting social entitlements for wealth creation, has condemned its pact of solidarity to become little more than a pious wish, broken by the unforgiving arithmetic of economy and demographics. Recalling Virgil’s labor improbus omnia vincit, Mr Dufourcq reminds us that one does not reform a country by fighting against reality. The ultimate lesson is clear: the social Republic will be saved neither by incantations nor denial, but by rehabilitating wealth creation as the prerequisite for solidarity. France must now decide if it is ready for the discipline of the real. A lifetime civil servant and graduate of HEC Paris and Sciences Po, Nicolas Dufourcq is a former official of the Inspection générale des finances and has served as Chief Executive Officer of Bpifrance since its inception in 2013. Yoann Lopez
BESS: Securing the Foundations of Value Before Any Investment Decision
Florence Anglès Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are now widely recognized as essential assets of the energy transition. This is no longer in dispute. However, how their value is realized in practice is more complex. Unlike traditional infrastructure, there is no single revenue stream that guarantees their sustainability. Value generally stems from a combination of services, optimization strategies, performance degradation, and regulatory conditions—all elements that do not necessarily evolve linearly or predictably. This creates a unique situation in the context of a merger or acquisition. It is not a matter of acquiring a stable asset, but a system that evolves over time. Some aspects can be modeled, but a significant portion depends on the actual evolution of the situation—from a technical, commercial, and regulatory perspective. The question, therefore, is not simply whether the model works on paper. It’s more about understanding where it starts to weaken. In practice, risk assessment is less about listing problems one by one than about forming an opinion—admittedly imperfect, but coherent—on the actual viability of the investment project. And ultimately, this should answer a fairly simple question: should we move forward, renegotiate, or back down? Ensuring Structural Viability: Protecting the Foundations of NPV Before examining performance, a crucial question must be asked: does the project have a solid and enforceable right to generate cash-flow? In an M&A transaction in the field of battery energy storage systems (BESS), the most concerning risks are not those affecting margins, but rather those relating to the legal, technical, and/or regulatory foundations of the project. These factors are essential to the existence, duration, and execution of future cash flows and therefore have a direct impact on valuation. The goal here is not to optimize returns, but to ensure that value can exist. Grid Access and Interconnection Certainty For a battery energy storage system (BESS), grid access goes beyond a simple technical criterion; it represents the economic lever through which all revenues flow. The main risk factors are: Without firm and transferable interconnection rights, projected revenues remain largely hypothetical. From a valuation perspective, network fragility affects: • Cash flow duration, • Eligibility for ancillary services, • The long-term viability of the asset. If network access is uncertain, the numerator of the NPV equation becomes speculative. In this context, simply changing the discount rate does not remedy the structural deficiencies. It is essential to address the risk at its source, or to review the investment. 1.2 Regulatory Stability and Market Eligibility Battery energy storage system (BESS) projects operate within an evolving regulatory environment. Market rules, remuneration schemes, and network code requirements can change over time, sometimes significantly. The key questions are: Regulatory uncertainty not only affects potential growth potential but can also directly impact on the asset’s ability to contribute to the market. In this context, risks must be assessed beyond the current situation, considering the project’s resilience to different regulatory scenarios. Permits, Land Rights, and Transferability In the context of mergers and acquisitions of battery energy storage systems (BESS), it is important to emphasize that legal transferability is not a minor detail, but a key element for value creation. The ability to transfer permits, land rights, and contractual commitments to the buyer directly impacts the project’s transition from the development phase to the operational phase. At first glance, the permits and authorizations appear complete. However, their validity depends on their validity, conditions, and, above all, their transferability. Any uncertainty at this stage introduces an execution risk that is often underestimated during due diligence. Hidden charges may include unresolved legal challenges, conditional permits, or unusual obligations imposed on the developer. These factors These issues can have a considerable impact on the operation. They are not always clearly visible in the documentation but can have immediate operational implications. In practice, these risks can lead to: Time is a critical factor in infrastructure investments. Delays reduce NPV through discounting effects, while legal uncertainty increases perceived risk and, consequently, the required return. In this context, ambiguity regarding permit transferability is a classic source of value erosion. Delivery Model and Contractual Architecture The robustness of a battery energy storage system (BESS) project depends primarily on the consistency between its implementation model and its contractual framework. Even if the contracts appear comprehensive, their success largely depends on their adaptation to technical requirements and actual operation. One problem often overlooked in this field is battery degradation. It’s frequently considered a purely technical aspect, but it has a direct impact on finances. Over time, battery capacity and efficiency decrease, which also reduces their ability to generate revenue. If this isn’t properly factored into investment analysis, there’s a risk of overestimating expected performance. This naturally raises the issue of replacement. Indeed, key components (particularly batteries and containers) will require replacement during the system’s lifecycle. These interventions can lead to additional costs, operational constraints, and potential downtime. Consequently, in such an isolated or complex environment, the logistical challenges associated with these replacements can significantly contribute to increased costs and complexity. End-of-life issues are often neglected. Whether it’s recycling, recovery, or reuse, these aspects can impact residual value and must therefore be considered from the outset. Ignoring this can provide a partial view of the project’s profitability. Furthermore, managing battery degradation requires more than just technological improvements. It’s also essential to consider preserving their value over the long term. A sound investment isn’t solely based on perfect conditions, but also on considering the real-world constraints of use. Therefore, it’s crucial to anticipate degradation and its implications to ensure lasting protection. The responsibilities between the various stakeholders – system integrator, inverter supplier, energy management service provider, and maintenance provider – are often unclear from the outset. On paper, this seems manageable, but it can cause performance issues or even conflicts once the system is operational. Contracts don’t cover all possible situations. If the commissioning doesn’t accurately reflect actual operation, gaps appear. Over time, these shortcomings become risks borne primarily by the investor. These risks have very real consequences. They can delay operational
Round table organized on 31 March 2023 by the AEFR
The 28th regime: a new legal framework for innovative companies Jean-Jacques Pluchart The purpose of the round table is to examine the European proposal for a new European company status, provisionally referred to as the ‘28th regime’ (in addition to the 27 national regimes), EU Inc or Societas Europaea Unificata. On 18 March 2026, the European Commission presented to the Council a proposal for a regulation establishing a new company form that would complement the framework for the organization of services in the internal market (the 2009 Bolkestein Directive). It would complement the little-used statuses of the European Company and the European Economic Interest Grouping. The EUInc status is intended primarily for innovative European SMEs, SMIs and mid-cap companies. In his introductory remarks, Michel Cojean (AEFR) stated that this status would be primarily aimed at innovative start-ups and scale-ups. Its purpose would be to facilitate their financing during the development phase. It would respond to the proposals set out in the Draghi-Letta and Noyer-Kukies reports, which aim to enhance the competitiveness of European companies vis-à-vis US and Asian industries and services. Didier Martin (Bredin Prot law firm) clarified that the EUInc status would be fully digital, with registration taking less than 48 hours via a single European portal. It would not entail a minimum capital requirement and would provide access to the financial markets. However, the creation of this status would raise several challenges: how to reconcile it with national legal frameworks in terms of stock options, employment law, insolvency law, etc. Christian Noyer (former Governor of the Banque de France) argued that this status should be ‘simple, flexible and digital’. He highlighted the value of this project, which aims to raise between €50 million and €100 million in capital to finance scale-ups using European and foreign pension funds. André Trade (legal expert at the European Commission) clarified that the proposal is based on a regulation under Article 114 of the Treaty, which requires approval by the Council by a qualified majority, rather than a directive (which requires unanimous approval). This is why the proposal reflects a minimalist vision of the legal framework for the European company. It falls solely within the scope of company law, which raises issues of compatibility with other branches of law. Martin Guesdon (legal expert at the French Ministry of Justice) identified three advantages of this status: it can attract foreign investors; it encourages the creation of companies in Europe; and it stabilises the legal framework for business creation. However, it raises issues concerning the valuation of assets and the protection of financiers and creditors. He raised the question of which court would have jurisdiction in the event of disputes. Sandrine Mesnard (Director General of the Treasury) raised questions about the accounting and regulatory frameworks applicable to UEInc and about the tax regime applicable based on the company’s registered office or operational headquarters. Alain Clot (France Fintech) pointed out that the European market is currently experiencing a veritable exodus of talent working for fintech companies to the US market, as the European market is unable to raise the capital required (around €10 billion per year) to develop its 14 ‘diamonds’ and 100 fintech companies. He pointed out that in France, over €6 trillion of savings are held in current accounts or short-term guaranteed investments, and do not contribute to the financing of young, innovative companies. He believes that this status would prevent these start-ups from seeking tax loopholes rather than opportunities for productive investment. René Repassy (Member of the European Parliament and Professor of European Law) expressed pessimism about the chances of this statute being adopted quickly, given the debates it would generate within the European Council and Parliament. He is not certain that this status would sufficiently protect contracts and public interests, particularly in terms of taxation. He also criticised the name EUInc, which is borrowed from the US model. During the round table chaired by Pervenche Berès (President of the AFER), all the speakers acknowledged the strategic nature of the project, which is essential for Europe to regain a competitive advantage over the United States and China. However, they were also unanimous in acknowledging that its implementation will be a long and challenging process, given the scale of the issues it addresses and the interfaces it shares with other branches of European and national law, particularly with German co-management.
Jean-Luc BUCHALET, Equation taiwanaise. Vers une troisième guerre mondiale, Editions Plume libre, 2026, 388 pages.
The multitude of regional conflicts raging across our planet (Ukraine, Iran, Palestine, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, among others) is fuelling growing fears about the risks of globalisation ultimately leading to the outbreak of a third world war. A ‘non-zero’ risk, as experts would say! However, it would be too hasty to forget that the supreme art of war, as advocated by Sun Tzu, is to subdue the enemy without combat. The importance of strategy and cunning, of subtle tactics to neutralise the adversary without engagement, therefore remains the true victory: the ability to neutralise the enemy’s actions without resorting to brute force. In this new publication, Jean-Luc Buchalet, a renowned expert, lecturer and author of numerous books on economics (winner of the Turgot Special Prize in 2013), draws on his in-depth knowledge of Chinese history and culture to convey a form of subliminal message through a work of fiction with clear family ties. As the pages unfold , a highly complex Chinese reality emerges, intertwined with that of contrasting personalities and great leaders – profoundly human figures, most often dark and manipulative, from Mao to Xi. Through the intersecting perspectives, the history and the testimonies of the extraordinary characters in this novel, some of whom are members of the author’s own family (his own father-in-law, a veterinarian who was in charge of a region and was imprisoned, and whose wife, a soldier and Red Guard, saved his life), we also discover the harsh reality of China’s modern history. Under Xi, digitalisation ‘has become a tool of mass control, extending the authoritarian legacy of the Cultural Revolution’. China’s growing rivalry with the United States raises the spectre of a major conflict, particularly over Taiwan… But the worst is never over… at least, we can hope so! The plot of this remarkable novel combines historical narrative and suspense, offering an intimate immersion into the ‘Chinese soul’. The author’s excellent writing skills play a significant role in this. This is also one of his great strengths , which readers will particularly appreciate. Jean-Luc Buchalet: agricultural engineer and economist – lecturer at the Sorbonne and at IAE Paris, speaker, columnist, author of numerous books and leading specialist on China Jean-Luc CHAMBON
Markowitz’s Portfolio Theory
By Philippe Alezard With Wiener, modern finance had found a way to give uncertainty a mathematical form. Brownian motion made it possible to conceive of price fluctuations as the cumulative effect of an infinite number of elementary shocks – random, unpredictable, yet nevertheless capable of being placed within a rigorous probabilistic framework. In other words, uncertainty ceased to be a mere market intuition and became a mathematical object. However, this initial breakthrough did not exhaust the issue. For knowing that prices fluctuate according to a stochastic dynamic does not yet tell us how an investor should behave in the face of this instability. Once uncertainty had been described, the next step was to structure how it was used. It is precisely at this point that Harry Markowitz enters the picture. Whereas Wiener provided finance with the probabilistic grammar of uncertainty, Markowitz developed its decision-making logic. His primary concern was no longer the evolution of a price over time, but rather the selection of a portfolio of assets in a world where the future remains irreducibly uncertain. With him, finance crossed a new threshold of formalisation: it no longer contented itself with modelling market movements, but sought to determine how a rational agent should allocate their capital within these movements. The only son of a Chicago grocery store owner couple, Harry Markowitz was born in Chicago on 24 August 1927. At secondary school, his first interests were physics and philosophy [1]. One of the arguments that particularly impressed him was David Hume’s claim that, even if we drop a ball a thousand times and it falls to the ground each time, we have no necessary proof that it will fall the thousand and first time. In 1947, he enrolled at the University of Chicago to study for a Bachelor of Philosophy degree on the OII (‘Observation, Interpretation and Integration’) programme, but by 1950, he was drawn to the economics of uncertainty. At that time, he was interested in the work of von Neumann [2] and Morgenstern on expected utility, as well as that of Milton Friedman and Leonard Savage on the utility function. Having never taken a single finance course and never bought a single share, he was invited to join the renowned Cowles Commission for Research in Economics [3], an institution that has produced twelve Nobel Prize winners in Economics to date, including Markowitz himself. At the time, its director was Tjalling Koopmans [4], who would go on to win the Nobel Prize in 1975 for his work on the theory of the optimal allocation of resources. Among the lecturers who would teach the young Markowitz were, notably, Milton Friedman and Leonard J. Savage [5]. For the record, it is to the latter that we owe the rediscovery of Louis Bachelier’s thesis, which he had Paul Samuelson read. It was also while reading John Burr Williams’ The Theory of Investment Value [6] that Markowitz came up with the idea for his doctoral thesis topic. As he himself recounts in his autobiography, published on the occasion of his Nobel Prize award, ‘Williams proposed that the value of a share should be equal to the present value of its future dividends. Since future dividends are uncertain, I interpreted Williams’ proposition as meaning that a share should be valued on the basis of its expected future dividends. But if the investor were concerned only with the expected values of securities, he or she would be concerned only with the expected value of the portfolio; and, to maximise the expected value of a portfolio, it would be sufficient to invest in a single security. I knew that this was neither how investors behaved nor how they should behave. Investors diversify because they are as concerned about risk as they are about return.” Markowitz’s insight [7], though seemingly simple, is in fact of considerable significance. Prior to him, financial analysis tended to assess investments primarily on an individual basis, based on their promised returns, their soundness or their reputation. Markowitz radically shifted the focus of the problem by demonstrating that, from the investor’s perspective, the relevant unit is not the individual asset, but the portfolio as a whole. In his seminal article, ‘Portfolio Selection’, published in the March 1952 issue of the Journal of Finance, he proposed representing a portfolio not as the simple sum of several securities, but as an overall structure resulting from their combination. This is because what matters is not only the intrinsic quality of each asset, but the combination of their behaviours, since the risk of a portfolio depends not only on the risk inherent in each security, but also on how these securities vary in relation to one another. The financial decision thus ceases to be a simple matter of selecting good securities and becomes a question of portfolio composition. This shift is decisive, as it reveals that risk itself cannot be considered in a purely individual manner. An asset may be highly volatile when considered in isolation, but it can become fully acceptable within a portfolio if, through its relationships with other assets, it helps to stabilise the whole. Conversely, apparently safe securities, if they all react in the same way to the same events, can collectively generate greater fragility than one might imagine. In this way, Markowitz introduces the idea that financial rationality is not a property of individual instruments, but of the way they are combined. This idea is formulated through the distinction between expected return and risk. According to Markowitz, the investor optimises this return–risk pair at the portfolio level, either by seeking the highest return for a given risk or by seeking the lowest risk for a given return. It thus becomes possible to represent the portfolio using utility functions that depend solely on the expected return, i.e., the mathematical expectation, and on a measure of risk, i.e., variance. In Markowitz’s work, variance derives its legitimacy not from its common use in statistics, but from its economic relevance. It is justified by the
Edouard ROBLOT , Vivre sans CO2, Édition Hermann, 2026, 200 pages.
Edouard Roblotdescribes electricity as a natural resource that should continue to be supported, and even developed, given the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels. He outlines the history of electricity since the 1970s, with the development of nuclear power in France, the aim of which was already to move away from fossil fuels and achieve energy independence. The author identifies the various sectors in which the development of electricity presents an opportunity in the years to come, particularly in domestic applications. He then addresses the power supply for electric vehicles, whether private cars or road transport, whose widespread adoption of electric power would require the installation of charging stations at all parking spaces to enable them to be charged. The author also proposes reducing daily travel distances by clustering residential areas, thereby limiting emissions, with the added benefit of revitalising local shops. Another challenge outlined is the need to promote the thermal renovation of buildings, but also, and above all, to eliminate energy-inefficient buildings, by implementing a programEdouard me for new, eco-friendly buildings with the support of the State. This would have the advantage of avoiding certain shortcomings of the current thermal renovation programmes, which involve the preparation of voluminous applications that rarely lead to successful outcomes. Finally, the large-scale deployment of low-cost, low-carbon electricity generated from renewable energy sources is a key issue in securing the future of energy in France, given the ageing nuclear power plants. In this context, the proposal is to focus on new nuclear power, offshore wind energy, solar energy for car parks and buildings, and hydropower. Edouard Roblot emphasises the importance of concentrating on these seven battles to be fought, without spreading oneself too thin and ultimately achieving nothing in an effective and meaningful way, by focusing on the fight against global warming and CO₂ emissions. These are challenges that need to be addressed within a reasonable timeframe. Throughout the book, the technological shifts proposed could lead to a societal change that would support these new developments, as possible future solutions to emerge from the current crisis and envisage a better life. Edouard Roblot is a graduate of the École Polytechnique and the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, specialising in energy transition. His career has focused on the energy sector, where he held the position of Low-Carbon Buildings Director at IDEX. He has worked as a Renewable Energy Project Manager at the Energy Regulatory Commission and as a Foresight Manager for the Total Group. Pona SAMNIK
FACCHINI françois, Quelle fiscalité pour demain ?, décrypter les enjeux des futures réformes, DBS, 2026, 312 pages.
This book deserves the attention of elected officials and election candidates, as well as that of all taxpayers. It traces the history of the taxes, duties and contributions that increasingly affect the French population. While presented as a textbook on comparative taxation, it encompasses an in-depth examination of the theoretical foundations, the triggering events, the positive and negative externalities, and, above all, the possible avenues for reform of the French socio-tax system. The book is structured into five chapters covering taxes on expenditure (VAT), personal income, corporations, inheritance and property wealth. The book is rounded off by two chapters on the full cost of public funds and on the ‘Laffer effect’. The evolution of the CSG (contribution sociale généralisée – general social contribution) illustrates the entire history of French taxation: a contribution that initially had a broad base and a reduced rate has, for electoral reasons, become a complex tax with numerous exemptions. The author analyses the causes of the inefficiency of public services, demonstrating that demand for most public services has more negative effects than demand for equivalent private services, since, in a market, everyone must pay the price of what they consume. He identifies the inactivity traps created by certain taxes. He deconstructs certain claims advanced by the ‘egalitarian economists’, who developed the numerous theories underpinning France’s socio-tax systems. He distinguishes between economic taxes and ideological (or ‘clientelist’) taxes, and observes that the latter are increasingly dominating the former. His analysis of the Laffer curve is original. In principle, the curve, or the theorem, makes it possible to determine the rate at which taxation becomes inefficient, as it is perceived as excessive by the taxpayer and leads to deviant behavior. The author observes that the effects of over-taxation are unpredictable due to the differences between countries in the elasticity of income and/or profits in relation to taxation. The author concludes by arguing that the taxation of the future must be fair and efficient. To achieve this, it is necessary to shift the tax burden as far as possible onto consumption, to introduce a proportional rate of income tax, to set corporate tax at 15%, and to abolish inheritance tax and property wealth tax. Priority should be given to broad-based, low-rate taxes. Taxation must not hinder the functioning of markets, which generate productive jobs and create value. Every citizen must take responsibility for themselves. Taxation is not intended to be redistributive. To achieve this objective, the tax structure must be fundamentally reformed. The main economic handicaps are of fiscal origin. If the French do not abandon their utopian egalitarian ideal, France will come under the control of other nations and the financial markets. François Facchini is professeur in économics at Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne University. Jean-Jacques Pluchart
Cybersecurity in France: Current Situation and Challenges
Nadia Antonin The explosion of data in the digital world, referred to as the concept of big data, poses numerous challenges for contemporary society. Data security is now a major challenge of unprecedented scale in the face of data breaches. ‘For almost two years now, not a week – or even a day – has gone by without us hearing about a new data breach in France,’ says Clément Domingo, a security expert. Recent examples of massive data breaches illustrating France’s digital vulnerability On 18 February 2026, the Ministry of Finance revealed in a press release that, since the end of January 2026, a cybercriminal had been able to access 1.2 million accounts in the National Bank Account Database (FICOBA). The hack is said to have been made possible by the theft of a civil servant’s login credentials, with access lasting approximately one month. The personal data disclosed included ‘bank details (RIB/IBAN), the account holder’s identity, their address and, in some cases, the user’s tax identifier’. What about securing such a sensitive application? Can access to such sensitive databases be based solely possessing a username and a password? According to Clément Domingo, ‘an employee’s password and email address are sufficient, in each case, to hack sensitive data’. According to Etienne Wery, a lawyer practising in Brussels and Paris, ‘In principle, access to such sensitive databases requires strong authentication mechanisms, strict limitation of the rights granted, and detailed tracking of the accesses made. In addition, there are monitoring requirements.” On 27 February 2026, the French Ministry of Health confirmed the enormous scale of a health data breach. The cyberattack targeted 1,500 doctors who use the Cegedim software. Gérôme Billois, a cybersecurity expert at Wavestone, sees this as the result of ‘years of underinvestment in cybersecurity’ in the healthcare sector. Cyberattacks can also have disastrous consequences for businesses (theft of sensitive data, financial losses, damage to reputation, etc.) and, in the worst-case scenario, can lead them to bankruptcy. An overview of cybersecurity in France According to Check Point’s annual report on the threat landscape in France, published in February 2026, France ranks second among the most targeted European countries. With 13% of attacks, it ranks second, behind the United Kingdom (17%). Furthermore, according to data published on 19 February 2026 by the Public Statistics Service for Internal Security, around 17,600 cyberattacks were recorded in France in 2025, an increase of 4% compared to 2024. Why is France being targeted? How can we explain the targeting of French companies or public authorities? According to the aforementioned report, the main hypotheses put forward are: France’s economic clout, its increasing use of digital technologies, and its geopolitical role, particularly within the EU and in its support for Ukraine. The sectors most targeted are the government sector, with 22% of attacks, business services (18%), and retail (15%). The most common forms of attack remain the same, with a marked increase in phishing, which, according to the third cybersecurity barometer by Docaposte and Cyblex Consulting, affects 38% of organisations, ransomware, which remains high at 28%, and data loss or theft, which stands at 17%. Finally, cybercrime comes at a considerable cost. According to Statista, the annual cost of cybercrime in France is estimated at €118 billion in 2024, equivalent to 4% of GDP. In 2023, it reached €93.5 billion, whereas in 2016, it stood at €5.1 billion. The gap between the measures put in place to combat cybercrime and the level of the threat continues to widen, due in particular to underinvestment in cybersecurity, a lack of an overarching strategy, etc. Overall, we are observing a lack of ‘digital hygiene’ within businesses and public administrations, i.e., a set of best practices to protect data and avoid digital pitfalls. A cybersecurity culture should not be optional: it is essential Neglecting security is a serious mistake. It is essential to develop a genuine culture of digital security. In mid-January 2026, the Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nunez, acknowledged before the Senate a ‘lack of digital hygiene’ in connection with the cyberattack on his ministry. Good digital hygiene is not based solely on tools, but also on a culture of cybersecurity. A cybersecurity culture refers to the set of attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and practices adopted by individuals and organisations to protect IT systems, networks and data from cyberattacks and unauthorised access. Developing an effective and sustainable cybersecurity culture requires a number of principles: – Understanding that security is everyone’s responsibility. It is a collective responsibility rather than a matter for experts alone; – Acknowledge that human error remains the primary vulnerability in cybersecurity. 82% of data breaches are linked to human factors; – Provide regular training for employees; – Integrating cybersecurity into all projects from the design stage (security by design); – Implement cyberattack simulations that enable the proactive identification and remediation of security vulnerabilities, before they can be exploited by real criminals. Organisations such as the French National Agency for the Security of Information Systems (ANSSI) and the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) emphasise the importance of this cultural approach. In short, cybersecurity is a collective mindset, a daily discipline and a cornerstone of modern governance. Not investing in a cybersecurity culture means accepting major risks.