\GESTION FINANCIERE DES ENTREPRISES

LSG année académiaue 2001-2002

Examen du 23 mars 2002

Question 1.

Sur base de l'article suivant,1.1. expliquer ce qu'est le « commercial paper»1.2. expliquer quel est le problème qui se pose en termes gestion de trésorerie ~\.3. que pensez-vous de l'efficience du marché des ce1'fti~ats1le.-trt:S0t'erie (dll1(M

...

\

Question 2

Combien seriez-vous prêts à payer pour une société de risque moyen, qui dégage un bénéfice de € 100.000stabledans le temps et dont le pay-our ratio est de 100 % ?

Question 3

Expliquer pourquoi l'endettement d'une entreprise peut conduire à un transfert de valeur des créanciers vers lesactionnaires.

,.

GESTION FINANCIERE DES ENTREPRISES

LSG année académique 2003-2004

Examen du 24 ianvier 2004

Question 1.

Sur base de l'article suivant,1.1. expliquez le lien spécifique que fait l'auteur entre comptabilité et fmance,1.2. décrivez le conflit d'intérêt entre actionnaires et créanciers auquel l'auteur fait allusion1.3. expliquez ce que sont des «loan covenants »1.4. à votre avis, tous les raisonnements de cet article sont-ils compatibles avec l'hypothèse des marchés efficients

Gustifiez votre réponse)

A doomsday threat to European dividendsBy John PlenderPublished: December 15 2003 in the Financial Times

A doomsday threatEuropean dividends

to

JOHNPLENDER....................................................................

And watch out for those loan covenants

Be warned. Seemingly arcane changes in accountancy practice can produce devastating economic upheavals. Europe is aboutto learn this lesson thanks to the European Union's decision in June last year to adopt international accounting standards for listedcompanies ITom January 2005. Brutal dividend cuts may be inescapable if the move goes ahead as planned. .

The problem lies in the interaction ofproposed international accounting standards with the capital maintenance regime in thesecond and fourth EU company law directives and in national companies legislation. These are rules designed mainly to protectcreditors ITomexcessive transfers of assets to shareholders. To prevent over-distribution, they usually stipulate a minimumlevel ofnet assets and a test based on accumulated and realised profits. A mechanicallink is thus established betweenaccountancy and the law in reaching a definition of distributable profit. It clumsily puts form before economic substance.

The more specific snag arises in the proposed treatrnent of pension fund sUIpluses and deficits and to a lesser extent in theexpensing of stock options. This is because the International Accounting Standards Board wants company income statements toinclude aIl gains and losses recognised during the year. These would include such things as fixed asset revaluations, changes inthe fair value of derivatives and actuarial gains and losses on a pension scheme. So pension fund sUIpluses and deficits nowtucked away in the notes would, appear on the face of the accounts.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the proposai, the capital maintenance implications are serious. The volatility and size ofpension fund deficits, which in the UK have been measured in hundreds of billions this year, could hit companies' normaldistribution policies. This makes no sense where a company is a going concem, making payments into the pension fund overtime. Yet the new standards, combined with current law, would reduce investors' returns, raise companies' cost of capital,undermine loan covenants and put jobs at risk without any change in the underlying economic position of those affected.

It is, in effect, a potential pensions doomsday machine that vastly increases the risk ofinvesting in already risky equities. Ifmarkets are weak, pension fund deficits will hit distributable profits, leading to dividend cuts and lower share prices, which willin turn impose higher pension contributions or even bigger deficits and lower profits. And so on until a crunch.

Officiaidom, praise be, is on the case. ln the UK a group of accountants, lawyers and other experts working, under JonathanRickford, former project director of the UK Company Law Review, has identified an urgent need for reform. Two civil servantsITomthe Department ofTrade and Industry are represented on the group, which is working under the aegis of the Company LawCentre at the British Institute Of International and Comparative Law. 1 hear that in a report next month they will calI for theexisting capital maintenance regime to be scrapped in favour of one imposing a certification of solvency, whereby directorswould be required publicly to state that they were satisfied the company was a going concern with a reasonable expectation ofmeeting its liabilities. Strict liability rules would attach to any failure to meet this standard.

This is doable: it already exists in New Zealand. The difficulty is that it requires legislative change both in Europe anddomestically. Business should lobby furiously for reform, while thinking hard about the potential implications for its loancovenants. Investors should join În. Much is at stake in these technical but explosive issues of accountancy and law.

Question 2

Sur base des tableaux ci-joints extrait de L'Echo du 20janvier 2004, calculez le taux de change à terme de 3 moisentre l'euro (EUR) et la livre sterling (GBP)

;!;,"':.

d~~~arf~s,ou

Question 3

a. Lorsqu'il est question de dette, expliquez le concept de subordination.b. Pourquoi est-ce que dans une opération de « tinancial buy-out », il est fait appel à des dettes de niveaux desubordination différents ?c. Quelles sont les deux manières qui peuvent être utilisées dans un opération de « fmancial buy-out » pour organiserla subordination des différents niveaux de dette?