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

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.

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

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.

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.

Jean-Jacques Pluchart In a collective work entitled ‘Nouvelles réflexions sur la richesse des Nations. Les leçons de Turgot et de Smith’ (‘New Reflections on the Wealth of Nations. The Lessons of Turgot and Smith’), published in 2025, the Club Turgot examined the legacy of Adam Smith’s ideas in recent works on political economy written in French. Les leçons de Turgot et de Smith’, published in 2025, the Club Turgot examined the legacy of Adam Smith’s ideas in recent French-language books on political economy. The Turgot Club’s conclusion was that the ideas put forward in Smith’s seminal work, published in 1776 and entitled ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, were still relevant today. In 1776, England and France were in transition from an agricultural society to a pre-industrial world. These countries were entering an era of institutional, economic and social transformation. At that time, Smith observed that the drivers of prosperity did not stem primarily from land, gold or the state, but rather from the organization of labour. He argued that, through the division of labour, the manufacture of goods became more efficient. He cites the well-known example of a worker who, on his own, could only make a few pins a day, whereas a production line organized according to the division of labour could make thousands. This pioneering vision remains relevant in most industries today. Today, global supply chains, made up of digital platforms and specialized companies, operate on the same principle.  Furthermore, the specialization of suppliers and subcontractors fosters technical and organizational innovation. The ‘invisible hand of the market’ ensures coordination between producers and consumers, who, while pursuing their own particular interests, contribute to the public interest through competition and the dual interplay of supply and demand. Today, this market mechanism is even more efficient thanks to Artificial Intelligence and new information and communication technologies.   However, Adam Smith opposes uncontrolled market freedom.   He entrusted the state with the roles of regulating competition, guaranteeing the right of co-ownership, punishing price manipulation, and defending the domestic market against external threats. In particular, he opposed the formation of monopolies, the granting of subsidies or the setting of excessively protectionist customs tariffs, believing that these measures hindered the free market. He also tasks the state with promoting trade through appropriate infrastructure, in line with the state’s current initiatives to develop digital networks, electricity infrastructure and research activities. Smith therefore opposes mercantilism, which regulates the market through customs duties and interventions that run counter to the international division of labour and harm a country’s prosperity. 250 years after its publication, ‘The Wealth of Nations’ remains much more than a historical document; it is neither an ideology nor a scientific theory; it is a rational principle and an intellectual logic that lie at the heart of today’s and tomorrow’s political and social debates.

Jean-Jacques Pluchart Since its creation in 1987, the Turgot Club has observed a recurring statistical imbalance between male and female authors in the publication of French-language economic and financial works. Is this inequality attributable to the French educational guidance process or to other factors of a more sociological nature?  A recent survey by the Chair for Women’s Employment and Entrepreneurship (Sciences Po Paris) on gender diversity in ‘science and technology’ courses – and in economics in particular – sought to answer this question. The results of this survey were published by the Well-Being Observatory of the Centre for Economic Research and its Applications (Cepremap). The survey complements the latest government initiatives to promote gender diversity in all higher education programmes. It follows on from the ‘Filles et maths’ (‘Girls and Maths’) action plan, launched by the Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research in May 2025.  This plan aims to support growth in high-potential sectors while reducing inequalities, particularly in terms of pay. The survey was conducted among a sample of 1,400 final-year pupils applying to enrol in public or private higher education via the Parcoursup platform in 2025.  The results clearly show that girls are less likely than boys to choose science-related courses: boys account for around 70% of applications for science and technology courses (including economics), while girls account for 75% of applications for courses in health, humanities and social sciences, literature, languages and the arts. More male students than female students reported that they only liked science subjects at secondary school (29% of male students compared to 14% of female students). These disparities can be explained by multiple factors – such as gender stereotypes, early rejection of mathematics, the attractiveness of better-paid jobs for men, or the pursuit of more diversified educational pathways for women – but these factors alone are not sufficient to account for such disparities. The survey reveals that the majority of women prefer to forgo well-paid careers in order to pursue their interests in health, social or cultural fields. These preferences on the part of girls are reportedly encouraged by their parents during their secondary education, whereas parents are said to encourage boys more to pursue courses that will ultimately be more lucrative. Paradoxically, the lack of parental guidance on girls’ choices may explain why they are more likely to follow their passions and why they subsequently find themselves more constrained  in the labour market. So, how can we attract women to science and technology? The authors of the study argue in favour of greater diversification of these courses and more interactive teaching methods in order to foster greater enthusiasm among pupils, particularly girls. Highlighting the contributions of these sciences and technologies to the success of the ongoing and future digital, energy, environmental and social transitions would be one of the drivers for achieving greater gender diversity in science education.

We are entering a war economy. Not a military economy, but an economy where the priority is no longer simply to optimize costs but to guarantee business continuity. For thirty years the dominant model was built on speed, globalization, and the constant reduction of safety margins. The low-cost model delivered efficiency gains, but it relied on a simple assumption: a stable world. That world no longer exists. Geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, industrial dependency and competition between economic blocs are reshaping the rules. Companies must now secure before they optimize. Economic models should not be opposed because they complement each other. The low-cost model remains necessary to stay competitive, simplify offerings and control costs. The frugal model brings profitable resilience, doing better with less, cooperating rather than over-competing, relocating rather than over-globalizing, regenerating rather than over-consuming. The war economy adds a third dimension: security. It requires protecting supply chains, cash flow, margins, leadership and productive assets. Economic performance no longer comes from a single model but from the ability to combine efficiency, robustness and security. This shift directly transforms corporate financial management. The low-cost model aimed to reduce working capital needs by minimizing inventories and accelerating capital turnover. The war economy does the opposite. It encourages strategic inventories, supplier diversification and operational redundancy to avoid disruption. This mechanically increases cash requirements and puts short-term financing back at the center of the system. At this point one reality becomes clear: in the coming war economy, short-term financing becomes an issue of economic sovereignty. The figures confirm this trend. Corporate lending in France represents roughly €1.4 trillion in outstanding loans, including nearly €300 billion in short-term cash financing according to Banque de France and French Banking Federation data. At the same time, the Banque de France has observed a slowdown in short-term lending, around –3% year-on-year in late 2025. This means that needs are increasing while credit supply is tightening. This tension is structural. The clearest example is the Military Programming Law. The 2024-2030 program represents €413 billion in investment. Behind this budget figure lies a major industrial reality. If we assume conservatively that 40% flows directly into private production, this represents around €24 billion per year for industry. With an average industrial cycle of four months, this creates roughly €8 billion in permanent cash-flow needs. Industrial ramp-up will therefore depend not only on long-term investment but on the ability to finance the operating cycle. In this new environment one discipline becomes essential: dependency analysis. Business leaders must understand the financial strength of their suppliers, measure concentration risks and anticipate possible disruptions. A company can look strong on paper yet remain fragile through its supply chain. Banks must do the same. Financing a client without analyzing its ecosystem becomes an incomplete risk assessment. In a war economy risk travels through economic chains. Security needs translate into concrete banking solutions. – Securing supply chains involves documentary credits, bank guarantees and short-term lines dedicated to strategic inventories. – Securing cash flow relies on overdraft facilities, revolving credit lines, structured short-term credit, factoring and reverse factoring to accelerate liquidity from receivables. – Securing margins requires financing capable of absorbing cost gaps and appropriate hedging tools. – Securing the business leader means protecting the private sphere through protection insurance and key-person coverage to ensure decision continuity. – Securing productive assets relies on property and casualty insurance and business interruption coverage, since any disruption immediately becomes a liquidity risk. In this context the role of banks is changing fundamentally. For years they mainly financed growth. Tomorrow they will have to finance continuity. This requires faster decisions, an industrial understanding of business models and dedicated short-term financing envelopes. Short-term financing is no longer a simple banking product. It becomes a strategic tool. The question of risk remains central. In an uncertain environment banks may be tempted to reduce exposure. That would be a collective mistake. As during the Covid crisis, a public reinsurance mechanism for short-term credit could be introduced. The principle is simple: banks distribute financing quickly, the State guarantees part of the risk, and Bpifrance coordinates and mutualizes the system. Such a framework would support industrial ramp-up without blocking financing to the real economy. Bpifrance would then play a central role as coordinator, sharing risk, guiding sector priorities and securing the overall system, while commercial banks maintain proximity to businesses and execution speed. The war economy does not replace the previous economic model; it corrects it. Low-cost brings efficiency, the frugal model brings resilience, and the war economy imposes security. Real performance will no longer be measured only by growth speed but by the ability to endure. In this new environment short-term financing returns to the core of the economic system because it determines whether companies can continue to produce. Ultimately, the economy that is emerging reminds us of a simple truth: resilience comes before performance. Business continuity, control of dependencies and the ability to finance the short operating cycle become conditions of economic sovereignty. As Jacques Rueff wrote: “Order, and order alone, ultimately creates freedom. Disorder creates servitude.” In the coming war economy, that order also depends on our collective ability to finance and secure the real economy. Benoit Frayer

Jean-Jacques PluchartEditor-in-Chief  ​Clubturgot.com celebrates its 100th issue. ​​Since March 2024, the leading French- and English-language newsletter on economic and financial literature has published over 300 articles, book reviews and tributes to the works of leading economists. ​​Over the weeks, in order to better meet the expectations of their readers, the newsletter’s editors have published their articles first in French and then in English, focusing on the work of theorists and the insights of practitioners in the increasingly numerous and complex fields of economics and finance.​Every week, in just a few minutes, the 30,000 readers of clubturgot.com are thus able to learn about the key economic and financial events of the day. The authors of the articles published on clubturgot.com are Turgot Prize winners, representatives of partner associations and members of the Club Turgot, which pre-selects the books submitted to a jury of distinguished figures chaired by Jean-Claude Trichet.​ ​​Since the Turgot Prize was established in 1987, the Club has read around 5,000 books and reviewed nearly 4,000, and the jury has awarded, first in the halls of the Senate and then at Bercy, 39 Grand Prizes, 41 Jury Prizes, 102 honourable mentions and 120 Special Prizes (for collective works, educational books, French-language books, young authors, the DFCG and AF2i). ​​Together with Prize winners brought together in the Cercle Turgot, the Club Turgot has also published 22 collective works on key economic and managerial issues. ​​The reviews of the award-winning books have been compiled into three volumes: La pensée économique française (French Economic Thought, 2 volumes) and Les leçons de Turgot et de Smith (The Lessons of Turgot and Smith). For its 100th issue, clubturgot.com presents:  ​​- An original review by Jean-Jacques Pluchart on the impact of Artificial Intelligence on the banking profession, – a presentation by Philippe Alezard on the work of Norbert Wiener, a leading mathematician in the field of finance, – an analysis by Sophie Ffriot of Eric Weil’s book Retraites, un blocage français (Pensions, a French Impasse).

Phlippe  ​Alezard According to classical economic theory, the price of an asset is determined by the interaction between supply and demand: between a seller wishing to dispose of the asset and a buyer wishing to acquire it. ​​The stronger the demand, for various reasons, the higher the price of the asset will be pushed. ​​Indeed, in theory, demand can be almost unlimited, whereas the asset, by definition, is limited in number. ​​Conversely, when demand is low, the seller seeking to dispose of their asset will tend to lower the price in order to find a buyer. ​​We can therefore understand that, at any given moment, the price corresponds to the point of equilibrium between supply and demand.All of this is true in an ideal, theoretical world. ​​In reality, a wide range of events can occur at any time: geopolitical, climatic, informational, economic or financial events. ​​These events trigger emotional reactions – panic, rumours, euphoria – which in turn lead to human decisions, as well as algorithmic positioning in one direction or another. ​​This multitude of random shocks affects the behaviour of economic agents and creates erratic and unpredictable movements in the short term. ​​It is precisely these random fluctuations, this constant uncertainty, that mathematicians have sought to model in the form of stochastic processes. The first person to have this insight was Louis Bachelier. ​​In his now famous thesis[1] ‘Théorie de la spéculation’ (‘Theory of Speculation’), submitted in 1900, he introduced the use of probabilities to describe price movements and showed that price changes can be represented as a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. ​​He went even further by constructing histograms that showed that these variations were distributed according to a bell-shaped curve, in other words, a Gaussian distribution. ​​In this way, Bachelier laid the initial foundations for finance based on Brownian motion, a diffusion process, and the normal distribution.However , the history of Brownian motion begins long before finance. ​​In 1827, Robert Brown[2] used a microscope to observe the persistent agitation of pollen particles suspended in a fluid. ​​This phenomenon can be explained by the incessant and random impacts of the fluid molecules on the particles. ​​The individual movement of each molecule is negligible, but the combined effect of all these impacts produces a completely erratic overall movement. ​​The Brownian motion of a particle can therefore be modelled as a stochastic process characterised by a succession of independent increments, with a mean of zero, whose magnitude and direction vary unpredictably.In finance, the pollen particle becomes the price of an asset suspended in a market. ​​The molecules of the fluid are replaced by the multitude of buy and sell orders, which are themselves driven by an infinite amount of information, events and sometimes conflicting decisions. For a process to be classified as standard Brownian motion, three properties must be satisfied: 1. ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ All trajectories start at the origin, or more precisely, in the probabilistic sense, the probability that the trajectory starts at zero is equal to one. 2. ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ Each increment of the process is independent of the previous one: future changes do not depend on the past. ​​Brownian motion has no memory. 3. ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ The distribution of the increments P(t+1) – P(t) at each instant follows a normal distribution with a mean of zero, whose variance (t+1) – t is proportional to the elapsed time. It was precisely these properties that Bachelier had already observed when studying the prices on the Paris Stock Exchange. ​​However, it was Norbert Wiener who would provide this phenomenon with its rigorous mathematical formalisation. Born in 1894 in Columbia, Missouri, Wiener came from a Russian Jewish family who had immigrated to the United States. ​​His father, Leo Wiener, a translator of Leo Tolstoy’s complete works and later a professor of Slavic languages at Harvard, personally oversaw his son’s education, employing innovative teaching methods. ​​A child prodigy, Norbert received his primary education at home, entered secondary school in 1903 and obtained his equivalent of the baccalaureate in 1906, at the age of twelve. He then attended Tufts University before moving on to Harvard, where he defended a thesis on mathematical logic. ​​At the age of just eighteen, he became the youngest doctoral graduate in the history of this prestigious university. ​​After his thesis defence, he travelled to Europe: in Cambridge, he attended Bertrand Russell’s lectures; in Göttingen, he studied with David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. Back in the United States, after several temporary positions, Wiener joined MIT in 1919, where he would spend the majority of his career. ​​There, he developed a remarkably diverse body of scientific work, spanning the fields of mathematical analysis, probability, engineering and the philosophy of science. Brownian motion had been known since Brown’s observation in 1827. ​​In 1900, Bachelier had applied it to price fluctuations. ​​In 1905, Albert Einstein published his theory of Brownian motion, while Marian Smoluchowski [3] independently developed an approach based on the random collisions of molecules. These works provided a physical interpretation of Brownian motion. However, a fundamental question remained: how could a continuous random trajectory over time be rigorously defined in mathematics? By 1923, discrete random walks, such as those resulting from a game of heads or tails, were already well understood. ​​At that time, a finite number of random variables were used. ​​However, the transition to continuous time posed a major conceptual challenge: how could a probability be defined over a non-countable infinity of random variables? In his article ‘Differential-Space [4]’, Wiener proposed an elegant solution. ​​He considered the set of possible trajectories as the points of a functional space of infinite dimension. ​​To construct a probability measure on this space, he begins by discretising time by subdividing the interval [0,1] into n segments: 0 = t0 < t1 < t2 … ​< tn =1 He then studied only the increments: X1 = J(t1) – J(0) X2 = J(t2) – J(t1) …. Xn = j(tn) – J(tn−1)  ​​ Three points are crucial: 1. ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ It is not the successive positions that are independent, but the displacements over each interval;2 . ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ Each increment follows a normal distribution, the variance of which is proportional to the length of the interval.3 . ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​