The Italian Bank Bail-outs: A Decade-old Issue for Financial Regulation
At the beginning of the month, we discussed here
in Financial Regulation Matters the
state-backed rescue of the world’s oldest bank – Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS)
– and what it may have meant for the issue of ‘too-big-to-fail’. Over the past
weekend, news emerged from Italy that confirmed that the deterioration of BMPS
was, as
had been predicted, only the start of the troubling financial environment
that is enveloping Italy at the moment. With the Italian Government receiving
the support from the European Commission to provide financial assistance to two
Venetian banks – Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca – the Government
duly ‘bailed-out’ the two banks to the tune of €5.2 billion, with additional guarantees
of €12 billion being put in place. In this post we shall therefore assess these
recent developments, but then it will be important to ask what this means for
the role, better yet the belief in
financial regulation as an ideal – if the financial elite are conscious of the
fact the institutions they represent will be ‘bailed-out’ with taxpayer money
in times of crisis, what really prevents them from taking excessive risks? With
the noticeable lack of punishment after the financial crisis bail-outs, the new
millennium is seemingly being defined by a systemic lack of deterrent which,
potentially, means that news like that emanating from Italy may be the new
normal, or perhaps it has been that way for a while.
The biggest fear for Banking regulators and politicians is a
‘run’ on a bank, which essentially denotes the collective
panic to withdraw funds from a failing bank. It was for this reason, predominantly,
that Italian banking ministers took action on Sunday to wind-down the two banks
in question, with the process entailing the banks being split up into ‘good’
and ‘bad’ banks – in terms of assets – with the good assets being acquired by
the largest retail bank in Italy, Intesa Sanpaolo, which as part of the deal
also saw the Government provide
€5 billion to Intesa. As for the ‘bad’ components, the Government will foot
that particular bill to the tune of €12 billion, which takes the bail-out to a
likely total of €17 billion as it is assumed the quantification of the amount
of ‘bad’ loans controlled by the banks is accurate. The move to dissolve the
banks came after an announcement on Friday from the European Central Bank that
the two lenders were ‘failing,
or likely to fail’, which allowed the Government to bring an end to
attempts to resolve this issue privately and circumvent the supposed viewpoint
of the European Union: ‘taxpayers
are no longer meant to stump the cost to rescue a failing bank’. The
government’s response was staunch, with the Economy Minister stating ‘those who criticise us
should say what a better alternative would have been. I can’t see it’, with
the European Commission’s Competition Commissioner supporting the action,
ultimately suggesting that the provision of state aid would ‘avoid an economic
disturbance in the Veneto region’. Whilst this may be the case, some of the
details will be extremely disheartening for the Italian taxpayer.
The first point to mention is that it is predicted that even
though the ‘good’ components of the banks are being transferred to Intesa,
along with €5 billion, there could be up to 4,000 job losses and the
closure of many branches is a distinct possibility. Also, it will provide no
comfort for the taxpayers footing the bill that senior bondholders have been
protected from suffering losses, with those
bonds being transferred to Intesa as part of the deal – the Government were
able to skirt the rules imposed by the E.U. – that investors pay the penalty
for bank failures, not taxpayers – by invoking a ‘public interest’ clause that
argues the bank failures would have ‘wrecked’
the economy in the region. To perhaps rub salt in the wounds, the news at the
time of writing is that the value of the bonds are soaring
on the back of this governmental protection, which is unlikely to reduce the
amount of criticism towards the situation. German Politicians have been quick
to show their displeasure – given their status within the Union – with MEP
Markus Ferber declaring that ‘with this decision, the European Commission
accompanies the banking union to its deathbed’ and that ‘the
promise that the taxpayer will not stand in to rescue failing banks any more is
broken for good’. This point is crucial, as the situation is continually
developing. News has just broken that the recapitalisation
of BMPS has just been formally completed, which comes after news that the
large Italian lender UniCredit is also experiencing problems which have seen it
tap the marketplace for financing on three
separate occasions since the Crisis. The recent rescue of the Spanish bank Banco
Popular saw junior bondholders and shareholders suffer losses instead of
the taxpayer, but the Italian taxpayers have not been so lucky this time.
Yet, whilst the news is bad for the Italian taxpayer, it is
even worse in the grand scheme of things. The proclamations stemming from the
E.U. regarding the end to taxpayer bailouts has been proven to be false, which
hints at a much bigger issue. The appropriation of the ‘public interest’
defence means that banks can and will be rescued, despite any political
rhetoric to the contrary. The news that the major U.S. banks have passed
the first phase of their annual stress testing, in spite of some worrying
news, arguably means very little in the modern environment because,
unfortunately, the Financial Crisis produced an extremely anti-social
precedent: the taxpayer will be
forced to rescue a filing bank, particularly if its interconnectedness is such
that its failure would have systemic effects. Whilst many would presume this to
be just i.e. a banking crisis could affect our way of life, what does it mean
for the ‘balance’ within society? At the moment, there is very little deterrent
for the leaders of a banking institution to act responsibly: will they be
imprisoned for their negligence? No. Will the institution they represent perish
as a result? No. Will they be allowed to keep all of their bonuses which were
tied to short-term targets? Yes. There will be those that read this and will
argue that things have changed, that regulation has made a repeat of the
Financial Crisis impossible. There will be those that read this and will argue
that there is plenty of deterrent and that these banks represent a tiny
minority. Whatever merit those viewpoints have is irrelevant when we look at
the amount of money being taken from the pockets of taxpayers to supplement
these grand games of finance. Whilst it is suggested here that the pendulum has
already swung, any more crises in the near-future will cement this lack of
deterrent and confirm that the public will always pay the price for private
failures; financial regulation and financial penalties are thus obsolete in the
battle against venality and negligence in the financial sector – only extensive prison sentences, in real prisons, can stem this particularly
awful tide.
Comments
Post a Comment