Agefi Luxembourg - janvier 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 18 Janvier 2025 Fonds d’investissement Par Christopher DEMBIK, Senior Investment StrategyAdviser PictetAssetManagement S ur 2025, deux segments devraient tirer leur épin- gle du jeu, selon nous. Les actions américaines, en particulier celles du numérique. Trois facteurs vont continuer de soutenir leur hausse : les rachats d'actions par les entreprises qui con- tribuent à accroître la valeur en bourse et ont dé- passé 1000 milliards de dollars en 2024 ; la solidité financière des entreprises américaines qui devraient dégager une marge nette proche de leur point haut à 10,5% ; et la bonne santé de l'économie américaine avec une croissance qui devraient être supérieure à 2% cette année. Parmi ces entreprises, il convient de citer Nvidia qui possède quasiment un monopole dans la pro- ductionde puces pour l'intelligence artificielle. Elle affiche une santé financière incroyable : sa tré- sorerie disponible a quasiment été multipliée par quinze enmoins de deux ans. Peu d'entreprises peuvent se vanter d'un tel résultat. Nous con- tinuons de penser que ce sera un acteur essen- tiel qui va tirer la performance de la bourse américaine en 2025. Les entreprises des énergies renouvelables pourraient réserver de bonnes surprises. C'est contrariant car beaucoup d'analystes s'atten- dent à ce qu'elles soient pénalisées par une présidence Trump. En réalité, elles bénéficieront d'une de- mande croissante de la part des acteurs de la tech et de l'intelligence artifi- cielle qui ont besoin à tout prix d'une énergie abon- dante à bas coût. Amazon et Google sont parmi les principaux acheteurs directs d'énergie re- nouvelable aux États-Unis, par exemple. Là-bas, 95%des projets d'infras- tructure énergétique en attente d'approbation sont solaires ou éoliens, 3% fonctionnent au gaz naturel, et 0,4% est nucléaire. Cela va peut-être donner quelques idées à l'Europe... Pour investir sur ces deux segments, un épargnant a plusieurs choix à sa disposition : les fonds actions, qu'il peut placer dans son assurance-vie par exem- ple, afinde bénéficier des avantages fiscaux liés, ou les ETFs qui permettent de répliquer la perfor- mance d'un indice. Attention, tous les ETFs ne se valent pas. Ceuxpositionnés sur les énergies renou- velables ont affiché ces dernières années des per- formancesmédiocres et souvent inférieures à celles des fonds actions. Il convient donc de comparer les offres disponibles. Et la France dans tout ça ? La France a connu une mauvaise performance boursière en 2024. L'écart est de 10%par rapport au Stoxx Europe 600, par exemple.Malgré les niveaux de valorisation attrayants du CAC 40 (ratio cours sur bénéfice qui se situe seulement entre 12-13), nous doutons qu'un rattrapage puisse avoir lieu dans les semaines, voire les mois à venir. Le CAC 40 est certes fortement internationalisé, avec des entreprises comme Schneider, Sanofi et Hermès qui réalisent plus de 75%de leurs activités en dehors de l'Europe. Mais il n'est clairement pas immunisé face au risque politique français, comme nous avons pu le constater depuis mi-juillet. Nous préférons rester prudents, et rester à l'écart, à part si on opte pour des stratégies de stock picking (achat d'une valeur spécifique). Cela vaut égale- ment pour les petites et les moyennes valeurs qui ont encore plus répercuté les mauvaises nouvelles sur le front politique que le CAC 40. Actuellement, il n'y a que deux manières d'ap- préhender l'univers des petites entreprises : - Stratégie de stock picking en misant sur des so- ciétés très présentes aux États-Unis et qui de- vraient bénéficier des mesures économiques de Trump. Par exemple : Interparfumqui réalise 40% de son chiffre d'affaires outre-Atlantique, ou en- core Virbac qui est spécialisé dans la nourriture pour les animaux de compagnie. - Jouer les opérations financières, comme l'an dernier. Il y en avait eu plus d'une trentaine à la Bourse de Paris, essentiellement des sorties de co- tation. Cela concerne tous les secteurs d'activité. Il risque d'y en avoir beaucoup dans l'industrie, no- tamment dans le compartiment des équipemen- tiers automobiles. Il y a beaucoup trop d'acteurs côtés sur ce créneau, qui souffre de la crise auto- mobile. Pour ainsi dire, étant donné le peu de dy- namisme sur ce compartiment de marché, toutes les entreprises ayant une capitalisation inférieure à un milliard d'euros sont susceptibles de faire l'objet d'une opération financière. Pour l'é- pargnant, c'est plutôt une belle opération. En moyenne, la prime octroyée était d'au moins 30% l'an passé. On peut considérer que ça restera à peu près à ce niveau en 2025. 2025, encore une bonne année boursière ? ByAnnieELFASSI,Partner&JohannBENSIMON, Associate, Baker&McKenzie Luxembourg A s of June 17, 2024, theGrand Duchy of Luxembourg has officiallywithdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). (1) The ECT came into force in Luxembourg on April 16, 1998. (2) This treaty aims to promote international investment in the energy sector and pro- vides protection to foreign investors against govern- ment interference.At the time of writing, there are 48 contracting States to the ECT around theworld (Contracting Parties). (3) What is the ECT? TheECTseeks topromote international cooperation in the energy sector, to establish an open, non-dis- criminatory and competitive international energy markets, and to fosterprivate initiative (4) . To this end, the treaty incorporates substantive investment pro- tectionprovisions, including fair andequitable treat- ment, prohibiting expropriation without compensation and protecting against discrimina- tory trade in energy-related products. It also in- cludes inArticle 26 an offer to arbitrate investment disputes betweenStates and foreign investorsunder the International Centre for Settlement of Invest- mentDisputesConventionandRules ( ICSIDCon- vention ), the UNCITRAL Rules, or the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Rules ( SCCRules ). TheECThas comeunder increasedcriticismas some investors have used dispute settlement provisions to challenge policy initiatives aimed at promoting the transition to greener economies. Why has Luxembourg withdrawn fromthe ECT? TensionbetweentherevisedECTtextandtheLuxem- bourg’scommitmentsundertheParisAgreementand the EUGreenPact TheECT investment protectionoffered to fossil fuel has longbeen criticized tobe anobstacle to the clean energy transition. The Contracting Parties at- tempted to negotiate a series of reforms tomodern- ize the ECT. An agreement in principle to modernize ECT was reached on June 24, 2022 and an amended version of that agreement was ex- pected to be put to a vote on November 22, 2022. However, the vote was rescheduled to mid-2023 and then further postponed indefinitely. In the subsequent months, Luxembourg triggered the process to withdraw from the ECT expressing discomfort with the results of the ECT moderniza- tion process as several European Union Member States ( EUMember States ) before.Whenannounc- ing the Luxembourg government decision to exit theECT, theEnergyMinister pinpointed that the re- visedECT textwas not alignedwithLuxembourg’s energy commitments: “ Even if themodernization of the Energy Charter Treaty leads to some progress, the treaty is still not compatible with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, as it continues to protect investments in fossil and nuclear energies ”. (5) In July 2023, the European Commission suggested a coordinated withdrawal from the ECT by the Euro- peanUnion ( EU ) and itsMember States and, inMay 2024, the EU Council and then the European Parlia- ment approved the proposal for the EU’s with- drawal. (6) As Luxembourg, the EU main reason for withdrawing from the treaty was that the ECT is no longercompatiblewithitsclimategoalsundertheEu- ropeanGreenDeal (7) andtheParisAgreement (8) ,given thattheprotectionforfossilfuelinvestmentscamereg- ulatorychillforStatesseekingtophaseoutfossilfuels. ManyEUMemberStatesthenannouncedtheirinten- tion towithdrawfromthe ECT. Conflict arising fromintra-EUclaims under the ECT Since the 2018 Achmea decision (9) , under which the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU ) found investor-Statearbitrationclause in intra-Euro- pean Union Bilateral Investment Treaties ( BIT ), the validity of the intra-EU ECT-based arbitration has raised endless debates among practitioners.Are the intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings under the ECT compatible with EU law? In the 2021 Kom- stroy decision (10) , the CJEU found that such proceed- ings under the ECT infringed EU law, making clear that the later overrides EU Member States’ obliga- tions under the former. However,while arbitral tribunals have facednumer- ous objections basedon intra-EUclaims, a significant number of arbitral tribunals have continued tomain- taintheirjurisdictionovertheseintra-EUdisputes.Pri- marily,theyfoundthattheircompetencederivesfrom an international treaty and are therefore subject to publicinternationallaw.OnJune16,2022,forthefirst time,anarbitraltribunalupheldaState’sintra-EUob- jection inan intra-EUECTcase - GreenPower andSCE v. Spain . (11) OnOctober 11, 2024, two other arbitral tri- bunalsfoundbymajoritythattheylackedjurisdiction over those intra-EUdisputes under the ECT. ThecompetencewastransferredtotheEU. (12) Similarly, growing tensions in the recogni- tion and enforcement of intra-EU awards under the ECT were observed. For in- stance, ina judgment datedApril 3, 2024 (13) , the Swiss Supreme Court rejected Spain’s challenge of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tri- bunal. First, the Supreme Court ruled that the Komstroy and Achmea decisions do not bind the Swiss courts since Switzerland is not a part of the EU. Then, the Supreme Court found that Article 26 ECT (dispute settlement provi- sions) encompassed intra- EU disputes according to publicinternationallaw.Itheld that the language of Article 26 ECT wasclearandtheconsentoftheECTContractingPar- ties to arbitration was unconditional apart from the exceptions exhaustively listed in the ECT. None of these exceptions involved intra-EUdisputes. What should investors consider to protect their investment? Claims already brought before arbitral tribunal Arbitration proceedings brought by Luxembourg investors or against Luxembourg before June 17, 2024 (effective date of Luxembourg withdrawal) shouldnot be affected. Proceedings shouldcontinue without any impact. For instance, Greentech and NovEnergia filed a request for arbitration on July 7, 2015 against Italyon thegrounds that Italybreached the fair and equitable treatment clause and the um- brella clause under ECT Article 10(1). (14) They had made investment inphotovoltaic power plants and alleged that Italy had, at the time of making of the investment, promisedcertainfinancial incentives to induce the investment. However, Italy implementeda series ofmeasures to cut tariff incentives forphotovoltaicplants originally offered for a 20-year periodaswell asmodifications to the taxation regime and minimum guaranteed price scheme, cancellation of inflation adjustment and impositionof newfees. Thesemeasures dimin- ished the value of the incentives offered to Green- tech and NovEnergia. The latter brought their claims against Italy several months after Italy’s no- tification towithdrawal from the ECT. Indeed, onDecember 31, 2014, Italynotified theECT Depositary (15) of its withdrawal (16) and on January 1, 2016, the withdrawal became effective. The arbitral tribunal issued the award on December 23, 2018, holding Italy liable for violationof the Fair andEqui- tableTreatmentstandardundertheECTArticle10(1). Sunset clause and investments alreadymade Inthesameway,theprotectiongrantedtoexistingin- vestments should not be affected by Luxembourg’s withdrawal. In fact, a sunset clausewas incorporated intheECT(Article47.3)whichgrantsprotectiontoin- vestmentalreadymadeintheterritoryofawithdraw- ing Contracting Party for a further 20 years. For in- stance,onAugust26,2016,SunReservefiledarequest for arbitration against Italy while at that moment, Italy’s withdrawal from ECT has been effective for several months. (17) The case arose from SunReserve’s investment in Italy’s photovoltaic energy market in 2010and2011.Atthattime,ItalywasstillaContracting Party of the ECT. So, despite Italy’s effective with- drawalattheverybeginningof2016,SunReserve’sin- vestment was still protected by the ECT with the sunset clause for additional 20 years. NewInvestments and solutions suggested Newinvestments inLuxembourgwill be affectedby thewithdrawal.Thismeansthatnewinvestorsshould consider how to protect their investments by the use ofalternativemechanismscontaininginvestmentpro- tections, inparticular: -Investorswouldbewell-advisedtoseektonegotiate appropriateinvestmentprotectionswiththehostState in their contractual agreements related to the invest- ment in the energy sector. For instance, a stabilisation clause (18) couldbe used to shield investors frompolit- ical risks and subsequent adverse legislative or regu- latory changes in the host State. - Investors should consider whether they can benefit from investor protections contained in BITs, as an al- ternative to the ECT. For instance, Luxembourg is a party tomore than 100 BITs. 1) Notification of Luxembourg withdrawal from the Energy CharterTreatysenttotheECTDepositary,June16,2023 2) International EnergyCharterwebsite, Members &Observers, Luxembourg 3)InternationalEnergyCharterwebsite,Members 4)EnergyCharterTreaty,TitleI :objectives. 5 Energy in demand, the latest EU state to leave the Energy Charter Treaty :Luxembourg ,November19,2022. 6) EUCommission, proposal for a council decision on the with- drawal of the Union from the ECT, 7 July 2023, COM(2023) 447 final, 2023/0273(NLE) ; Council of the EU decision on the with- drawal of the Union from the Energy Charter Treaty, 4 March 2024, No. 6509/24 ; Press release from the Council of the EU, 30 May2024,no.473/24. 7)AccordingtotheEuropeanCouncil,theEuropeanGreenDeal aims to create a cleaner, healthier and climate-neutral Europe. It sets up the policy and strategy tomake the EU the first climate- neutral area in the world by 2050, to cut pollution and restore a healthybalanceinnatureandecosystems. 8) The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty onclimatechange,adoptedonNovember4,2016by196Parties. Accordingtoitsarticle2,itsgoalisto“ holdtheincreaseintheglobal average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuingeffortstolimitthetemperatureincreaseto1.5°Cabovepre-in- dustriallevels,recognizingthatthiswouldsignificantlyreducetherisks and impactsofclimatechange ”. 9)CJEU,C-284/16, Achmeav.Slovakia ,6March2018 10)CJEU,C-741/19, Komstroyv.Moldova ,2September2021. 11) SCC Case No. V2016/135, Green Power and SCE v. Spain , Award,16June2022. 12) ICSID Case No. 1RB/19/23, Sapec, S.A. v. Spain ; ICSID Case No. ARB/18/45, European Solar Farms v. Spain ; Spanish Govern- ment’spressrelease 13)SwissSupremeCourt,3April2024,No.4A_244/2023. 14 SCC Case No. V2015/095, Greentech and NovEnergia v. Italy , Award,23December2018. 15) Pursuant toArticle 49 ECT, the depositary of the ECT is the GovernmentofthePortugueseRepublic. 16)Asrequiredunderarticle47ECT. 17) SCC Case No. 132/2016, SunReserve Luxco Holdings v. Italy , Award,25March2020. 18)Astabilisationclausecanbeincorporatedinacontracttofreeze thelawsofthestatehostingtheinvestmentasatthetimeofentry into force of that contract. Thus, it ensures that future changes to the host state’s domestic lawwill not apply to the contract and thereforetotheinvestment. Luxembourg’s effective withdrawal from the ECT: What is the impact on investors?