Blog Post

A tangled tale of bank liquidation in Venice

What can we learn about the Italian banking sector from the decision to liquidate Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza? Silvia Merler sees a tendency for Italy to let politics outweigh economics.

By: and Date: June 26, 2017 Topic: Banking and capital markets

The long and troubled journey of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza (BPVI) has come to an end. The conclusion of the story highlights once again a pattern that has characterised the Italian approach to banking problems over the past years. The distinctive features of this approach are a desire to postpone solutions to long-lived problems (like MPS) and a tendency to subordinate economic to political logic. This raises questions at both the Italian and the EU level.

Veneto and BPVI were due to launch a capital raise in April 2016. If the operation had failed – as it was widely anticipated – the banks would have been put into resolution and subject to the required bail-in. On 11 April, the creation of a new bank-funded backstop was announced. This fund – named Atlas – ended up becoming the majority shareholder in the two banks.

By acting as an underwriter of last resort, Atlas prevented bank resolution in the short run, but it also spread the risk across the balance sheets of the rest of the Italian banking sector. The cost of that is now evident, as some of the participating banks have been writing off the value of their stakes in Atlas (in some cases at a loss). And in any case, Atlas did not end the two banks’ problems. Both announced in 2017 that they would need yet more capital.

This raised the thorny question of how to deal with retail bondholders. Initially, the government tried to obtain a precautionary recapitalisation. This option is based on the assumption that the banks are systemic, as the aim is “to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a member state and preserve financial stability”.

But the extraordinary public support allowed in precautionary recapitalisation cannot be used to offset losses that the institution has incurred or is likely to incur in the near future. So, in order to do a precautionary recapitalisation and be able to spare the retail senior bondholders, it would have been necessary to find private capital willing to plug the hole.

But no Italian bank was eager to do it. This is hardly surprising. It is not the first time that Italian banks have been called to the rescue of the weakest links in the system and previous episodes have not exactly been a success. After all, the two Venetian banks were supposed to be fine after Atlas recapitalised them with other Italian banks’ money but they were not.

In the absence of private investors, one option would have been resolution. But this would have required bailing in senior bondholders, which in the Italian case includes a large number of retail clients to whom the banks mis-sold the bonds. So, like in all good pieces of theatre, the impasse is resolved by a deus ex machine – here embodied as Intesa San Paolo, Italy’s largest retail bank.

Intesa offered to buy the “good” parts of the two Veneto banks for a symbolic sum of 1 euro. All the non-performing loans (NPLs), equity and junior debt will be bailed in. Equity is mostly held by the Atlas fund, whose participating banks have already started to write-off their stakes. Junior bondholders – about 200 million – will be bailed-in and reimbursed afterwards (as in Etruria & co.).

Many have compared the deal to the resolution of Popular, but it is more reminiscent of Banca Romagna Cooperativa (BRC), a small Italian lender liquidated in July 2015. BRC’s assets and liabilities were transferred to Banca Sviluppo, part of the ICCREA Group. In the process, BRC equity and junior debt were left behind in the liquidation estate. The operation was conducted under national insolvency law by selling only parts of assets and liabilities out of liquidation (gone concern). In that case, junior bondholders were reimbursed by the Italian mutual sector’s Institutional Guarantee Fund “to preserve the reputation of the sector”.

Intesa is striking a very good deal, as it made its commitment conditional on the operation being capital-neutral for its balance sheet. To this effect, it will receive a cash injection from the state of about €4.8 billion – covering, among other things, the cost of redundancies – plus 400m in guarantees against the risk that some of the credits acquired will not be paid. Intesa will also be transferred the Deferred Tax Credits of the two banks. Moreover, the state will provide guarantees of a maximum of about €12 billion to cover losses from NPLs. The actual bill will thus only be known in the future. This money will not increase the Italian debt, as they are part of the €20 billion earmarked for banking issues last year.

This operation is possible because the banks will not be resolved but liquidated, thus opening the door to liquidation aid. In the absence of an EU insolvency law, liquidation happens under national insolvency frameworks, which in this case will be the Italian “forced administrative liquidation”, managed by the Bank of Italy. For a bank to be liquidated, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) has to decide that resolving it is not in the public interest and this entails – among other things – an assessment that the failure is not likely to result in significant adverse effects on financial stability.

This is what the SRB states about the two banks, but it raises question about Italy’s initial pursuit of precautionary recapitalisation based on an argument of systematicity. Were these banks systemic or not? If yes, why are they not subject to resolution? If not, why ask for precautionary recap in the first place? The government decree states that “there is an extraordinary need and urgency to adopt measures aimed at ensuring the orderly exit of the banks from the market and avoiding a serious disturbance in the economy of the areas where they operate”, which in a way seems to reinstate the public interest negated by the SRB, but without the consequences of it.

A second question is whether this is to some extent a pawn sacrifice. This liquidation in fact frees up funds of Atlas-2 (a successor of Atlas), which was supposed to invest €450 million in the securitisation of the Venetians’ NPLs. In the liquidation this will no longer be necessary and Atlas-2 could then invest more in securitising the junior tranche of MPS’ NPLs, which is a prerequisite for MPS to get precautionary recapitalisation. That junior tranche is worth €1.6 billion, but earlier this month there were doubts this could be achieved without the participation of equity funds that have recently backtracked. Now Atlas-2 would have enough money to do the job and prevent an unravelling of the MPS deal.

A third question concerns senior bondholders. The European Commission’s communication states that senior bondholders will not have to contribute to the burden sharing, as written in the 2013 Banking Communication. But an explainer from the Bank of Italy – which manages the Italian forced administrative liquidation – states that under that procedure “all creditors, so not just the subordinated bondholders, would be reimbursed only after the liquidation of the bank’s assets, most likely partially and after years”. Today’s government decree does not explicitly prevent their transfer to Intesa but we will need more clarity in the coming days.

Overall, this episode confirms a pattern in the management of Italian banking sector problems over the past years. Authorities try to kick the can down the road and often let political considerations outweigh economic issues. We have seen this in the delay of MPS’ recapitalisation until after the constitutional referendum, in the creation of Atlas, and in the never-ending effort to shield retail junior bondholders to whom the sale of those product should have instead been better prevented. And we see it again here, in the use of generous liquidation aid. Some in Italy will see this last turn as a happy ending. Others will see it for what it actually is: a political choice. In Brussels, this episode will perhaps finally demonstrate that harmonising bank insolvency law is an indispensable complement to BRRD, as argued strongly by others before. As long as this is not done, the door remains open for the use of national insolvency frameworks to escape from resolution.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article
 

External Publication

European Parliament

Don't let up - The EU needs to maintain high standards for its banking sector as the European economy emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic

In-depth analysis prepared for the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON).

By: Rebecca Christie and Monika Grzegorczyk Topic: Banking and capital markets, European Parliament Date: October 21, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

The Value of Money, Controversial Economic Cultures in Europe: Italy and Germany

A discussion of Italian and German macro-economic cultures and performances.

By: Francesco Papadia Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: June 10, 2021
Read article Download PDF More by this author
 

External Publication

European Parliament

What Are the Effects of the ECB’s Negative Interest Rate Policy?

This paper explores the potential effects (and side effects) of negative rates in theory and examines the evidence to determine what these effects have been in practice in the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: Banking and capital markets, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: June 9, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governance

Urgent reform of the EU resolution framework is needed

In this blog, the authors argue that two aspects of the European resolution framework are particularly in need of reform – the bail-in regime and the resolution mechanism for cross-border banks – and propose a reform of both.

By: Mathias Dewatripont, Lucrezia Reichlin and André Sapir Topic: Banking and capital markets, European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: April 16, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

An alpine divide? Comparing economic cultures in Germany and Italy

A discussion of Italian and German macro-economic cultures and performances.

Speakers: Thomas Mayer, Patricia Mosser, Marianne Nessén, Hiroshi Nakaso, Francesco Papadia, André Sapir and Jean-Claude Trichet Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: April 13, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Think green act local: the role of the G20 in sustainable infrastructure

In this workshop, invited guests will discuss priorities and proposals for the Italian G20 Presidency for a green local infrastructure agenda.

Speakers: Amar Bhattacharya, Marco Bucci, Adriana Calderon, Maria Demertzis, Matthias Helble, Elly Schlein, Niclas Poitiers and Gelsomina Vigliotti Topic: Green economy Date: March 15, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Presentation of the Euro Yearbook 2021

Join us for the launch of the eighth edition of the 'Euro Yearbook'

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Fernando Fernández, Fiona Maharg-Bravo, Antonio Roldán and Jorge Yzaguirre Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: March 12, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Working Paper

COVID-19 credit-support programmes in Europe’s five largest economies

This paper assesses COVID-19 credit-support programmes in five of the largest European economies, and examines how countries have dealt with trade-offs raised by the programmes.

By: Julia Anderson, Francesco Papadia and Nicolas Véron Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: February 24, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

Europe’s banking union should learn the right lessons from the US

In revived discussions on European banking union, some have suggested a new regime to deal with failing banks, alongside existing ones, drawn from parts of the United States’ bank resolution framework. This fragmented approach could be counterproductive. Europe should adopt a unitary regime, like the US, that applies to all banks irrespective of size.

By: Anna Gelpern and Nicolas Véron Topic: Banking and capital markets, Macroeconomic policy Date: October 29, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Growth uncertainty, European Central Bank intervention and the Italian debt

European Central Bank intervention provides a buffer against the uncertainty faced by European Union economies in the face of COVID-19. For the time being, this intervention has alleviated concern about Italy's debt, but without it Italy is vulnerable to a debt crisis.

By: Andrea Consiglio and Stavros Zenios Topic: Macroeconomic policy Date: October 28, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Completing the banking union in the age of Next Generation EU

Invitation only event to discuss the banking union.

Speakers: Tuomas Saarenheimo and Nicolas Véron Topic: Banking and capital markets Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 27, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Boosting the resilience of Europe’s financial system in the coronavirus crisis

Europe has a heavily bank-based financial structure, but bank-based financial structures are associated with higher systemic risk than market-based financial structures. The higher level of systemic risk in Europe suggests caution when pursuing policies that stimulate risk taking and debt creation by banks, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Priority should be given to financial diversification and equity finance.

By: Joost Bats, Aerdt Houben and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Banking and capital markets Date: July 17, 2020
Load more posts