Reprise du message précédent :
genre denham capital ?

 
Exactement, merci beaucoup   . Est-ce que vous en connaissez d'autres comme Denham Capital?

 
 
Tu as Truffle Capital aussi.

perso j'ai utilisé    
 
tu peux faire pareil  

 
Bien sur, mais sur ce forum, c'est aussi pour avoir des avis sur tel ou tel fond.

 
 
j'ai un pot qui est en stage en ce moment chez truffle, il en est content, pas mal d'activités en ce moment

 
As-tu quelques feebacks concrets de ton pote? Ambiance de travail? etc.

 
 
Je viens de lui demander, il m'a dit bonne ambiance, petite boutique donc assez convivial, assez impliqué et beaucoup de boulot..

 
Killterion, pourrais-tu faire un petit copier coller de l'article, car pas acces? Merci  

 
Who wouldn’t want to be a venture capitalist right now? Investment bankers may be reviled and private equity executives hammered but Silicon Valley’s billionaire elite can do no wrong.
 
Stephen Hester, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, is forced by a public outcry to waive a bonus of less than £1m and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs gains little credit for seeing his share bonus nearly halved to $7m. Yet no one minds that Jim Breyer of Accel Partners could gain $500m from Facebook’s initial public offering, alongside the $9bn his firm stands to reap.
 
Perhaps that’s fair enough. Mr Breyer risked his own money in Facebook in 2005, not knowing how astonishingly successful it would be, and Silicon Valley, although built on government-funded research, is not too big to fail. Venture capital firms are like Wall Street partnerships of a generation ago – their partners can do very well but no one saves them when they go wrong.
 
Yet Silicon Valley’s top-tier financiers – funds such as Accel, Sequoia Capital and Benchmark Capital – lost their halos before in the crash that ended the 1990s dotcom boom. That mistake could recur unless they are restrained in the face of this gold rush.
 
“Our greatest enemy is losing our discipline,” says one venture capitalist. “We did that once and it took a lot of time and work to rectify it. We know the consequences of binge investing and we don’t want to go back to rehab.”
 
Venture capital is now on the same threshold that both banking and private equity crossed before, with unintended consequences. It is a craft industry, hitherto small and private, that is increasingly dominated by a few “bulge bracket” firms, which are growing and turning global. Size has benefits but it will also put them in the spotlight, as an industry and as individuals.
 
Being disciplined, exploiting their brands and networks and keeping their heads down has worked well for the top venture firms during the past few decades. The industry as a whole is only now recovering from the damage wreaked on its long-term returns by the dotcom crash, yet the elite firms have flourished.  
 
Some of their partners have gained hundreds of millions (John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is estimated by Forbes to be worth $2.3bn) without attracting hostility. Venture capital has not yet faced the opprobrium that the 60th birthday party of Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder of Blackstone, and Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign have drawn on to private equity.
 
It has a better pitch. “A financial system that gives the best and brightest out of MIT an incentive to cure cancer and figure out the world’s information problems feels like a healthy area of the economy,” observes Chris Dixon, an angel investor and entrepreneur.
 
It is also small, which has been an essential ingredient in its success and good reputation. Venture capital firms did not raise large private equity-style funds because they could not put the cash to good use. Accel’s early-stage investment in Facebook was typical, albeit outlandishly successful – Mr Breyer invested $12.7m of his firm’s money (and about $1m of his own).
 
They scatter bets around many start-ups, most of which fail or produce mediocre returns, relying on a few big winners. It is done with equity rather than by piling on debt and it clearly involves risk-taking. Since the firms remain private, their partners’ wealth is well-hidden, save for occasional IPO filings.
 
This is a fine business for the best partnerships, despite some ups and downs – Accel was living on its past glories when Mr Breyer invested in Facebook. “All the action is in the top decile,” says Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School. “Their brands and connections give them a sustained competitive advantage.”
 
The problem is that others have noticed. The social media boom, and Facebook in particular, has brought lots of new money into Silicon Valley, both from “super-angels” (entrepreneurs turned venture capitalists who have raised seed funds) and outsiders such as Digital Sky Technologies, an investment firm run by Yuri Milner, a Russian internet mogul.
 
The bulk of new money has gone to late-stage investing, where the barriers to entry are lower – it requires less expertise to spot an established company than a start-up with potential – and so are the returns. Some companies have raised huge sums from late-stage investors – Groupon raised $950m last year as its last step before going public.
 
The leading venture capital outfits on Sand Hill Road have responded by getting bigger themselves. Khosla Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners and Sequoia have each raised more than $1bn recently (Sequoia’s $1.3bn fundraising was split between three funds – two in China and a classic $425m US venture fund).
 
As they grow, they are starting to look like private equity firms such as Carlyle, which has a variety of funds in different countries and is now going public. They risk undermining the qualities that brought them both success and immunity from popular criticism – being small, private and entrepreneurial.
 
Bigger funds lead to temptation – a firm that wants to put the cash to work cannot simply make a series of small bets. Despite good intentions, some will dilute their early-stage focus and risk-taking credentials. That will reduce their returns and make them look like members of the financial engineering class.
 
The last time venture capitalists strayed into the public gaze, it was for floating immature companies with no real prospects in the dotcom boom. This time, the IPOs are more solid but the industry itself is at stake. If it gets too big, it could fail.

A oim de contribuer
 
Private equity
Keep calm and carry on
Why London will remain a hub for buy-out firms
Feb 11th 2012 | from the print edition
PEOPLE who work in private equity love a good party. But at a recent gala, many revellers looked beleaguered. “This industry is going to go through a period where everybody gets sacked,” groused one private-equity executive to another.
 
Life isn’t as flush as it used to be for private-equity, or buy-out, firms, which purchase companies with debt, fix them up and sell them. Debt, which juices the profits of private-equity firms, is harder to come by. And firms are stuck holding investments for longer, since the public markets are not strong enough to list companies and cash out.
 
All buy-out firms share these tough conditions. But British outfits, which managed £146 billion ($234 billion) and 19% of global buy-out assets in June 2011, are having a tougher time than their American peers. Many British firms focus on investing in Europe, where the economic outlook is rotten. European banks are more loth to provide debt given their own funding difficulties. Another source of financing—the high-yield debt market—is weaker in Europe than in America.
 
In this section
Pulled hither and thither
Just more of the same?
Brewers’ droop
A legal bombshell
Natural selection
»Keep calm and carry on
The Midlandstand
The death of meritocracy
Reprints
Related topics
Europe
Industries
Business
Financial services
Private-equity firms
Many investors are wary of putting money into the euro-denominated funds that many British buy-out firms raise. Executives complain that they show up to meetings to be pummelled with questions about the European sovereign-debt crisis, not about their fund. One buy-out boss said that before the crisis, his executives had to meet with no more than 150 investors to raise their fund; this time the tally was nearly 700. Some firms, like BC Partners and Cinven, have had to offer a discount on fees to entice investors.
 
Some British buy-outs have failed spectacularly. Think of Terra Firma’s disastrous ownership of EMI, a music label, before it was taken over by Citibank, its major creditor, last year. British private-equity firms used to specialise in smaller deals, but some strayed, joining larger American firms such as KKR in big buy-outs. Many now regret it.
 
Britain’s largest listed private-equity group, 3i, is struggling. In September it was relegated from the FTSE 100; soon after, it announced another round of job cuts. Its share price has been battered over the past year. Iain Scouller of Oriel Securities, a boutique investment bank, reckons 3i could receive a takeover offer. Many question whether the model of private-equity firms going public is sensible, given the additional scrutiny.
 
Some firms have accepted that they will not raise another fund. Candover, once a private-equity star, is winding down after some of its investments imploded. Duke Street is the latest British firm to scrap fund-raising plans. It takes a while for private-equity firms to admit illness, and even longer to die. Executives live on fees for as long as possible while they sell off investments. “Death is slow in private equity, and it’s not in penury,” says Tim Jenkinson, professor of finance at Oxford’s Saïd Business School.
 
But London could yet benefit from the crisis across the English Channel. Some smaller private-equity firms in continental Europe are struggling even more than British outfits, weakening the competition. International firms could decide it is not cost-effective to keep open their other European offices and retrench to London. Meanwhile some American firms are descending on London to expand their offices or set up new ones. They plan to take advantage of distressed buying opportunities in Europe, as banks sell assets.
 
The boss of one firm’s European operations predicts London will consolidate its position as Europe’s private-equity hub. Cushy treatment of non-domiciled residents helps, he says. Although Britain has hiked taxes on the rich, foreigners’ favourable tax status, which permits them to avoid levies on income earned elsewhere, has not been touched since an annual charge was imposed in 2008. Most funds are registered offshore, so many executives can book profits as foreign-earned income. One reason to go wild at next year’s gala.

Bonjour
J'ai 2 questions à propos d'un stage en Private Equity :
- Existe t-il des stages possibles en PE avec une L3 Sciences Eco d'une Université Parisienne ?
- Quelles sont les principales fonds sur Paris ? J'ai entendu parlé d'AXA mais après...
 
Merci

http://www.editionsdumanagement.com/liste_capital.html

Merci beaucoup

 
Chez AXA PE, c'est impossible, ils ne prennent qu'à partir de M2.

 
Ils en prennent en césure post-M1 également (en mezz en tout cas).

 
 
Autant pour moi, mais c'est rare.
LBO, fonds de fonds, infra -> M2

 
Quand tu dis infra, c'est infrastructure ? (project finance ? )

non c est pas rare. les fonds prennent en stage les eleves en cesure en GE (donc pre M2)

Apres qq1 en L3 a la fac. tres difficile. peut etre dans les petites structures

je parlais de m2 fac, pas GE

 
 
oui infrastructure ou project finance

 
En L3 fac, tes chances en PE sont proches de zero.  
 
Tu peux essayer de postuler en reporting/middle office dans les gros fonds type Axa, ca te fait une premiere experience pas degueu sur le CV

Ok ! Question CV, ils demandent une XP audit ou banque avant ? (même si je me doute bien que ce serait apprécié .. )

 
 
Project Finance, cest quand on parle de financement. Je suis pas sur qu AXA fasse ca. Je les vois plus en sponsor

 
 
Je ne sais pas trop, mais c'est fort probable.
En ta faveur, tu as le fait que l'ESSEC est un gros fournisseur d'AXA PE, donc je pense que tu as tes chances

 
 
Financement dans des sociétés spécialisées dans les infrastructures, ou financement dans des sociétés crées spécialement pour des projets.
Je suis en stage chez AXA PE, je suis un peu au courant

 
Tu veux dire qu AXA prete de l argent aux SPV ou aux boite qui font du PF?

 
Quelle division?
ça bosse?

Comment tu sais que je suis à l'ESSEC ? Je pensais être assez discret mis-à-part sur le topic unique de l'école ...

En tous cas, merci pour les infos Je dois dire que les personnes de BNP et de la SoGé que j'ai rencontrées la semaine dernière m'ont pas mal refroidi concernant ce domaine la ! Grosso modo, y'a des stages, mais pour les CDI ensuite ... Un truc que je n'arrive pas à savoir, c'est si les départements "investissement" des grands groupes (Total, EDF, Airbus ...) recrutent des JD (ce qui serait alors une exit opp intéressante même si je pense que la réponse est plutôt négative).

 
 
Axa private equity investit via des SICAR ou autre dans des sociétés specialisés par ex dans l'éolien

 
 
Tout dépend dans quel domaine du PE, fonds de fonds? LBO? Infra? Mezz?

 
A priori, moi c'est l'infrastructure au sens large qui m'intéresse.

 
ce que tu peux faire, c'est contacter par linkedin, un ancien stagiaire ou un analyste infra, en lui demandant les personnes à contacter

 
Avant de faire le guignol, "moi je suis chez Axa, moi je sais de quoi je parle", verifie ce que tu racontes.  
 
Tu dis qu AXA fait du financement de projet (en faisant au passage l amalgame avec de l infra) ce qui semble etre faux. Le financement de projet c est de la dette. Axa investissent en capital (sauf les fonds specialise mezz) d ou le "equity" dans private equity . En infra comme en financement de projet l equity investor est appele sponsor.
 
 

 
Will do

 
 
I see, je vais te citer texto les types d'invest fait:
Brownfield : privatization buyout and private placement
Greenfield : development of new Infrastructures
Long term investments : 'Buy and Hold'
Investments with trade partners and institutional/financial partners
Equity and quasi-equity investments in Infrastructures companie and assets
 
à toi d'en juger

 
Il est ou le financement de projet dans tes exemples?    
 
tout ce que tu cites (sauf peut etre le PP) sont des equity investments.

 
euhhhhhhh.
+1.  

j'ai considéré que le PP était du financement, mais bon si tu penses le contraire..

 
  ratrappe toi aux branches comme tu peux. Avec des enormite pareilles, tu te fais eclater direct en entretien, surtout si t as deja fait un stage.
 
by the way, le PP c est pas du financement de projet
 
Pour ceux que ca interesse, la page wiki project finance est tres bien faite pour comprendre qui fait quoi.