LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

On Poul Byrup Rasmussen's "Taming the private equity fund "locusts""

Summer 2008
Sir, 

In just one generation, the venture capital and private equity industry has grown to become a dynamo for growth, innovation and enterprise. This has provoked a debate in which the two sides are now very clear.

On one side are those such as the President of the European Socialists, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen. In his article on private equity, Mr Rasmussen’s critique of private equity can basically be boiled down to “competition is a bad thing, free markets don’t work, and what we need is more regulation”. Although he tries to have it both ways, by accepting that private equity might invest in innovation, Mr Rasmussen clearly sees company take-overs as a “menace”.

I applaud Mr Rasmussen for taking such a clear position, but I regret that he appears to still be living in the 1970s, when central planning and regulation were all the rage. He fails to understand some simple truths which most politicians – including those on the left – now accept.

First, when a private equity fund buys a company it is often because, that company is in difficulty. Were it not taken over it might well go bust and see all its workforce laid off – something Mr Rasmussen does not mention.

Second, studies of such companies show that, after an initial period of restructuring lasting two or three years, new jobs are created. The investment is for the long term – not for short term gains, as Mr Rasmussen contends.

Third, those companies often receive far more investment in innovation and R&D than other companies, boosting productivity, sales and exports.

Fourth, the returns on private equity boost pension funds – many of which support trade unionists when they retire, a fact Mr Rasmussen glosses over.

And fifth, companies backed by private equity have on the whole gone on to be profitable concerns which pay large sums of tax to help fund public services – again, something that does not fit with Mr Rasmussen’s world view.

Should there be more transparency in private equity? Yes. That is why in the UK the industry is implementing new guidelines to improve transparency. But the call for “more transparency” should not become a cloak to hide demands from Mr Rasmussen and others for excessive, heavy handed regulation that would damage an industry that is securing jobs, pensions and long-term prosperity – things that, until reading Mr Rasmussen’s article, I thought the Party of European Socialists wanted.

You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.

 
You are not logged in.
Please log in or register to submit
comments or rate articles.
 
 
Kent_University_BXLs
Pratt_and_Whitney

The twelfth edition of Europe's World is out. We feel it's fair to say that few if any publications in the field of international relations and policy debate have grown as fast or widened their scope so remarkably as Europe's World.

Europe's World is also adding a new section entitled the Arab World to complement existing sections that as well as covering international and European issues include Security & defence, the Developing World and Sustainable Europe.

 

Has the crisis shown that “a European economy” is just a pipe dream?

Job losses in the EU, warns BUSINESSEUROPE, are expected to reach 4.5m this year, with Spain and the UK each accounting for almost 1m unemployed people. By 2010 Europe’s unemployment rate could reach 10%. It will not strike every EU country equally, but it is clear that the majority of them will be faced with unemployment rates of over 10% by the end of this year. Forecasted unemployment in countries like Spain could rise to 16-19% by December. Has the crisis shown that “a European economy” is just a pipe dream? 

 


What do YOU think?
 Leave your comments at the end of the article