The EWB SME funds annual fee amounts to 5

Created an economic or social purpose, tax niches are also the happiness of financial intermediaries (banks, insurance, Fund, holdings) that capture a part of the benefit in ensuring the management and distribution of these devices: credit research, investment rental, etc. Ministries and parliamentarians, in the first rank of which centrist Senator Jean Arthuis, many worry about their pricing practices.

To see clearer, Christine Lagarde was responsible for the General Inspection of Finance (IGF) to analyze the fees collected by the managers in the Madelin and EWB - SME, devices which, at a cost of 500 million euros in 2008, encourage individuals to reduce their tax on the income or on capital by investing in an SME. These charges "may lead intermediaries to capture ...". "a significant share of the tax benefit, thus affecting the effectiveness of the device", stated the Minister in the engagement letter dated as of June 25.

Lack of transparency

The report prepared at the end of multiple hearings (BNP Paribas, AXA, Boursorama, Vatel Capital, 123 Venture, etc.), confirms a part of his fears. Funds and holdings are "expensive", indicates the financial Inspection. The EWB - SME funds, annual fee amounts to 5.5 of the initial investment, on average, calculates the IGF. If the taxpayer engages for eight years in an SME, it loses in commissions 38 of its initial investment, "which corresponds to the amount of the tax benefit obtained"! But the splitting of fees (rights of entry, exit, operating costs, commission performance, etc.), and their lack of transparency prevented him to realize that his tax cut is thus absorbed. "The amount of the tax advantage makes investors less sensitive to performance issues and therefore costs of products", indicates the Inspection.

To win, and offset his risk taking (very superior to that of the life insurance for example), the individual must therefore have relied on a highly cost-effective SMEs (above 10 yield), explains the IGF.

Decree in preparation

So, it rejects the proposition that it is the tax benefit (and thus public money) which would encourage managers to increase their margins. Comparison with non-subsidized devices ("Lite" RPF) shows that management fees are equivalent, that there is or not a key tax reduction.

The magnitude of the costs is rather due to the strategy of distributors (banks, insurance, etc.), which guide their wealthy clientele to these devices, capturing 10 of their initial investment, through lending, on the duration of the investment. "Excessive" be (they are more than a quarter of management fees), these forfeitures "are justified economically or legally", believes the IGF, to the extent where distributors provide no service for the duration of blocking (minimum five years).

Without a cap on management fees - a proposal made by Jean Arthuis last June - the IGF therefore advocates to prohibit these forfeitures. Remuneration of distributors would then be limited to a simple right of entry. A decree to that effect, under the law of finance 2010, is under preparation. Development capital fund are concerned about this initiative: they fear that the banks and insurance forgo their products, lack of adequate remuneration. But the argument does not convince Bercy, "in view of the power of the tax advantage and the absence of substitutable products.

The study of the IGF on lesechos.fr/documentslesechos.fr/documents