Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

SME: The Rise of Private Capital
Nov 17, 2015

• 24 views
• 1 Comment

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

One of the largest changes in company financing in the last few years has largely gone unnoticed by SMEs. Private debt and capital, provided by institutional fund managers is fast becoming a true alternative to bank lending for European companies. These private capital providers are often funded by large pension funds and insurance companies, hence they can deploy capital patiently and over long time horizons, unlike banks or the more traditional hedge funds.

The global private debt market is fast approaching $500bn and there is no sign of this growth slowing. An industry survey of debt managers suggests that the majority of participants expect the market to increase by 50% over the next five years, (Preqin).

North America accounts for a large proportion of non-bank lending - approximately 80% of loans in the region are not bank led. However, the recent growth of private debt markets can be attributed to the rise of non-bank lending across Europe. In 2014 €17.44bn (31%) of capital raised globally stemmed from European focused private funds, up 8% from the year before.

The amount of money being raised for private debt funds combined with the lack of commercial awareness (see our first article in this series, What is ‘Direct Lending’) of this potential funding source, has led to a shortage in high quality deals. This means some funds are unable to deploy their capital as quickly as they would like. From 2006 to 2015 the ‘dry powder’ dedicated to private lending has increased by 923% from €5.34bn to €55.1bn, (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Private debt ‘dry powder’ (€ billions)

please log in to view this image

Small and medium sized European companies access and view non-bank lending very differently from North American companies. The latter consider non-bank lending to be at par with bank loans, they are very aware of the options and have access to a large array of capital providers. On the other hand, many European companies are new to the concept and still view it as ‘alternative’. The companies in Europe that are aware of non-bank lending often have to use multiple intermediaries in order to gain a large enough audience to find the optimal capital providers.

With increasing publicity driving public awareness, combined with the push by the UK’s British Business Bank and the British Bank Referral Scheme, UK non-bank lending is set to grow and potentially reach the scale of North America in the medium term. The rest of Europe is also likely to follow suit through similar local initiatives.

 

Scientific research is increasingly target- based and funded by those seeking a particular result. This is symptomatic of a society which puts profit above all else.
Perhaps because of this we may see a return to ( a modern version of ) the Victorian gentlemen scientist interested in pure research.
At least on some scale.

 

Sadly, highly unlikely in this day and age.

 

I was daydreaming.

 

I wish. You are exactly right in what you say, commercially funded science always leaves out negative results, but, government funds more science than multinationals and any science politically incorrect will not get through the filter.

Most inventors who actually invent stuff are outside of this funding mechanism, might as well go to Dragon's den and get raped for funding

 

No but am sure you said it shows we are in a cycle and that's all i wanted you to clarify.

 

Any reference to a cycle is not related to this chart, this was a rebuttal to Michael E Mann'sfraudulent reconstruction and I used it to prove that the current is cooler than 1000 years ago and that our repsent rate of warming has happened twice since 1900 before CO2 was around to bring doom.

I then followed up as you know quite well, with data from much further back which do show the cycles of warm and cool, 400000 years of it like, that not enough? I then went back 600 million years to show how much of a joke the CAGW CO2 argument is.

Here is the premise of the CAGW completely busted.

For AGW to be real this is what needs to happen, as earth's temp goes up, a layer of greenhouse gases are meant to act as a blanket on the earth. So as we get warmer from CO2 this should create a blanket meaning less and less radation escapes back into space.

This was disproven in 2009 by satellite readings of the effcts, the following from top climate scientists Lindzena nd Choi 2009.
The centra graph is the measurements, the ones around it are the various IPCC models that predicted the greenhouse blanked trapping more heat "Essential" to "tipping point" claims.
AS shown here from the paper, the satellite readings are exactly the opposite of what CAGW models claimed. Fancy that, this fact, ends the fraud, but politics drives it now, not science

please log in to view this image

Temperature rise v radiation emission to space from earth's surface

of course because I cited (pasted) a scientific source of data, and am able to explain what it represents, that's a bad thing

No doubt this will not be "debunked" by the usual suspects, by talking about me..

 

My post about condescending attitudes also briefly touched on creating a completely false version of the world as an escape.

One of your standard diversion tactics is to talk about when you proved me wrong re obama and also a classic example of the above.

 

So why did you say it shows we are in a cycle?

 

so after all that, this is your question, one about me? Not interested in epic scientific fraud, you are interested in making up claims that I said "this chart shows cycles"

and you wonder why I mostly ignore you?

Actual measurements empirical data, and you ignore it You are a blight on learning pal

 

Ocean warming trend measurement vs IPCC models, one model shows 2 times the warming, policies are written based on the models, that is why the science is dangerous. Some models have produced 6 times more warming!

please log in to view this image

The warming and cooling below 700m down into the deep ocean doesn't even make sense. Warmer at 5000m cools significantly at 4000m, warms again at 2500m and cools again 1000 and warms again to the surface.

Junk, this one model was used to blame the deep oceans "they are are hiding the missing heat of the last 18 years missing from the satellite measurements" according to heidi Cullen supposed scientist, making factual claims on the results of one model out of 15. Y'all need to realise that most of what these frauds claim is from computer models, not reality.

#science

 

so,....can you explain what you mean here then?

""Lizards?" he said, post: 8570175, member: 1024305"]This is what a real temperature reconstruction looks like, it shows how we are clearly in a cycle

please log in to view this image

 

Well if you think about it, what have we got.? We have a trend, with cycles, notice that red line going up and down, the oscillations. Those are climate cycles. The whole chart is not one cycle, which is why I followed up with 400.000 years of data after this chart to show this chart in 400 cycles

 

Do you now agree I wasn't making up claims about you then?

I thought you said these things have to be looked at in the long term, so you don't think it shows a long term pattern?

 

His stalling publication had more to do with upsetting science than religion. Chambers had published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation several years earlier in which he argued for evolution. It was highly controversial and condemned by all leading biologists in England. Darwin was shocked by the similarity of some of the theories and seeing the attacks by leading scientists on the book, made him realise the same criticisms would be aimed at him. So he took the opportunity to address all possible arguments against biological evolution prior to publication of his Origin of Species. He knew his credibility was at stake.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously are not reading what is posted or more importantly not actually looking at the best data we have in science to work this out.

1000 years and 400.000 years, you think that is not long enough to measure climate cycles big and small?
Justify that with an explanation?

 

I like that this post also points out the fallacy that is scientific consensus, scientific domga and group think and self preservation that still exists today, in fact it's worse

 

Yes then why is the IPCC only looking at 100 years back and promoting science that actually tried ot rewrite history prior to 1900 to suit their agenda? The fraud was not even up for debate, the work was falsified by other scientists.

And they are tring to repdict 100 years into the future without even being able to predict 2 weeks into the future. Does that not sound ridiculous?

 

So no apology for yet more lies about me, that's OK I am used to you doing it now. Anyway back on topic you said the chart showed we are in a cycle. What time frame are you choosing for that cycle?

 

You are funny, you called me a liar because I said "Science advisor to thatcher" instead of "policy advisor that also advised on science matters, to Thatcher"
Don't remember any apology?



"What time frame are you choosing for that cycle?"
Not reading again? why should I bother if you are not reading the posts. I clearly repeatedly mentioned 2 time frames