PDA

View Full Version : How the banking meltdown in Veneto Italy destroyed 200,000 savers and 40,000 businesses.



wvwvw
11-15-2017, 06:42 AM
At the beginning of the month, we explained how the banking meltdown in Veneto Italy destroyed 200,000 savers and 40,000 businesses.

In that same article, we outlined how exposed Italians were to the banking system. Over €31 billion of sub-retail bonds have been sold to everyday savers, investors, and pensioners. It is these bonds that will be sucked into the sinkhole each time a bank goes under.

– Italy’s Veneto banking meltdown destroyed 200,000 savers and 40,000 businesses
– EU bail-in rules have wiped out billions for savers and and businesses, with more at risk
– Bail-ins are not unique to Italy, all Western savers are at risk of seeing savings disappear
– Counterparty-free, physical gold bullion is best defence against bail-ins

http://didafpq4qto6w.cloudfront.net/ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/10/War_of_wealth_bank_run_poster.jpg?x78236

One of Italy’s twenty regions is calling for more autonomy from the state following a nonbonding referendum. Why? Because a government supported ‘rescue package’ caused the lifesavings of 200,000 savers to be wiped out during the implosions of Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca.

Since then the banks have been rescued in one way or another yet the impact of the collapse on individuals and small businesses is only just becoming clear.

As in Spain’s Catalonia the region of Veneto is wealthier than the average Italian region, with its own industries and language yet it has been left with a pile of ash when it comes to its banking sector.

The region is proud to be the home of successful brands such as Benetton, De’Longhi, Geox and Luxottica. But it is the 40,000 small businesses that are in a state of limbo unable to pay workers, find credit or operate on a day-to-day basis.

Sadly the case of Veneto is one of a growing list of regions of banking customers that have been destroyed due to the incompetence of national authorities and the overbearing powers of the EU.

Profitable businesses take the hit

What is seen is as surprising to many reading about the story of Veneto is that profitable, stable businesses are also suffering as a result of a banking collapse.

When someone’s savings are wiped out, that isn’t the end of the nightmare. Many businesses were exposed to those banks both through credit and shares.

Many businesses operate on credit. This happens in companies of all scales and levels of success. The businesses that borrowed from the two Veneto banks are now in a state of limbo. They have no line of credit due to their exposure to the collapsed banks.

This is despite a government-led body stepping into help manage the fallout and finances of the ruined institutions. Bloomberg explains:

Even a perfect credit score is useless in Veneto now if your only collateral is stock in either bank, which were coveted investments for generations of locals.
Bail-in of the first resort

Italians are in very deep financially when it comes to their banking system. The 2015 IMF report states:

Retail holdings in Italy are relatively large compared to other countries, comprising about one- third of about €600 billion worth of bank bonds and half of about €60 billion worth of subordinated bonds.
That is all money that will just disappear overnight in the case of bank failure. In some cases, it already has.

In Italy a common problem has been that savers and businesses were persuaded to invest in subordinated (junior) bonds by their bank managers.

By 2015 over €31 billion of retail sub bonds had been sold to retail investors. Retail investors are ordinary savers and small businesses.

‘Households hold about one-third of senior bank debt and almost half of total subordinated bank debt.’ – IMF

These bondholders are seen as creditors. The same type of creditor that EU rules state must take responsibility for a bank’s financial failure, rather than the taxpayer. This is a bail-in scenario.

In a bail-in scenario the type of junior bonds held by the retail investors in the street is the first to take the hit. When the world’s oldest bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena collapsed ordinary people (who also happen to be taxpayers) owned €5 billion ($5.5 billion) of subordinated debt. It vanished.

A 2015 IMF study found that the majority of Italy’s 15 largest banks a bank rescue would ‘imply bail-in of retail investors of subordinated debt’. Only two-thirds of potential bail-ins would affect senior bond-holders.

Nothing will respect you like gold does

Why put so much faith in the bank? Because, despite many financial crises in the last 100 years, savers and businesses still believe their money will be safe.

The graph above shows just how much we still trust our banks. The least trusting country is Italy yet their exposure has been so great, imagine what damage will be done when the likes of the UK, US or Germany face a bail-in situation.

In Italy where banks have been around for literally hundreds of years, many family business owners are still dealing with bank accounts, investments and loans their ancestors organised a century ago.

This kind of relationship can lead to an almost Stockholm Syndrome situation. Despite receiving consistency bad treatment from your bank you want to support it and help it out. You still trust it. So when the bank suggests you hold shares then you take their advice.

“We jealously guarded those shares like you would gold bars,” A 60 year old baker told Bloomberg, “Buying your bank’s stock was the traditional thing to do. We got it badly wrong.”
Of course what everyone forgets is that banks are not there to look after you. They are there to make money. They do this almost instantly the second you deposit funds, it’s their money. The second you take out a loan, they own you. The second you buy shares, they have a license to be reckless.

Naively treating anything other than gold like gold is the first step in financial mismanagement. Nothing is like physical, allocated and segregated gold. For a start it is all yours.

Is your government or the EU there for you? Don’t bet on it

A bail-in forces creditors of a bank to shoulder losses when the firm fails. The term covers cover every case of creditor loss-sharing when a bank goes belly-up.

This is different to events we saw during the 2008 financial crisis when taxpayers tended to bail-out banks. Since 2016 European Union rules have stated there must be a bail-in before a government bailout is allowed.

Governments would clearly like to prevent savings of hardworking individuals and businesses from being wiped out. However they are fearful of the EU, trying to skirt their bail-in rules would no doubt sour relations with a body that is keen to stick to rules it only recently passed.

There is a conflict of interest it seems between pleasing the EU and doing the right thing by voters.

Given Brexit and now Catalonia the EU is unlikely to be in the mood to bend its rules for another troublesome country. This is despite it costing the EU’s own citizens billions of euros in lost savings and investments.

This is a risk for the EU, especially in Italy where there is already strong anti-EU sentiment. The case of Veneto, where 75% require more power and 15% would like to see total autonomous rule is another Catalonia again. A further sign of increased populism thanks to an overbearing and indifferent EU.

Invest in gold, or prepare to fail

Depositors and investors should be aware of their country’s requirements when it comes to keeping their money safe in the banks. Whilst bail-ins will at present only hurt those who hold deposits above EUR 100,000, there is little stopping the protected amount being decreased, or ignored altogether.

For those living in the EU, the European Commission has forced all 28 countries to implement bail-in legislation. This means depositors must be more vigilant than ever about the health of a particular bank, and the risk exposure of their portfolio. This means diversifying your invesments and decreasing the level of counterparty exposure.

One area of portfolio diversification that is growing due to concerns over the safety of bank accounts, is gold investment which saw a 15% climb in Q2 of 2016. Europe, in 2015, showed the largest regional demand for gold bars and coins (an increase of 12% year on year).

Unallocated gold is as much at risk as any other asset exposed to counterparties. Savers and businesses can protect their wealth by investing in allocated gold, in segregated accounts. This gives your outright legal ownership. There are no counterparties who can pop along after going bust and take what is legally theirs. It cannot be made to disappear overnight.

Gold is the financial insurance against bail-ins, political mismanagement and overreaching government bodies.

http://didafpq4qto6w.cloudfront.net/ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/10/bail-ins-considerations.png?x78236

wvwvw
11-15-2017, 07:11 AM
Get Your Money Out of the Banks
ECB to end deposit protection. Will US follow?
By Jan Skoyles
GoldCore
November 15, 2017

It is the ‘opinion of the European Central Bank’ that the deposit protection scheme is no longer necessary:

‘covered deposits and claims under investor compensation schemes should be replaced by limited discretionary exemptions to be granted by the competent authority in order to retain a degree of flexibility.’

To translate the legalese jargon of the ECB bureaucrats this could mean that the current €100,000 (£85,000) deposit level currently protected in the event of a bail-in may soon be no more.

But worry not fellow savers as the ECB is fully aware of the uproar this may cause so they have been kind enough to propose that:

“…during a transitional period, depositors should have access to an appropriate amount of their covered deposits to cover the cost of living within five working days of a request.”

So that’s a relief, you’ll only need to wait five days for some ‘competent authority’ to deem what is an ‘appropriate amount’ of your own money for you to have access to in order eat, pay bills and get to work.

The above has been taken from an ECB paper published on 8 November 2017 entitled ‘on revisions to the Union crisis management framework’.

It’s 58 pages long, the majority of which are proposed amendments to the Union crisis management framework and the current text of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD).

It’s pretty boring reading but there are some key snippets which should be raising a few alarms. It is evidence that once again a central bank can keep manipulating situations well beyond the likes of monetary policy. It is also a lesson for savers to diversify their assets in order to reduce their exposure to counterparty risks.

Bail-ins, who are they for?

According to the May 2016 Financial Stability Review, the EU bail-in tool is ‘welcome’ as it:

…contributes to reducing the burden on taxpayers when resolving large, systemic financial institutions and mitigates some of the moral hazard incentives associated with too-big-to-fail institutions.

As we have discussed in the past, we’re confused by the apparent separation between ‘taxpayer’ and those who have put their hard-earned cash into the bank. After all, are they not taxpayers?

This doesn’t matter, believes Matthew C.Klein in the FT who recently argued:

Bail-ins are theoretically preferable because they preserve market discipline without causing undue harm to innocent people.

Ultimately bail-ins are so central banks can keep their merry game of easy money and irresponsibility going. They have been sanctioned because rather than fix and learn from the mess of the bailouts nearly a decade ago, they have just decided to find an even bigger band-aid to patch up the system.

‘Bailouts, by contrast, are unfair and inefficient. Governments tend to do them, however, out of misplaced concern about “preserving the system”. This stokes (justified) resentment that elites care about protecting their friends more than they care about helping regular people.’ Matthew C. Klein

But what about the regular people who have placed their money in the bank, believing they’re safe from another financial crisis? Are they not ‘innocent’ and deserving of protection?

When Klein wrote his latest on bail-ins, it was just over a week before the release of this latest ECB paper. With fairness to Klein at the time of his writing depositors with less than €100,000 in the bank were protected under the terms of the ECB covered deposit rules.

This still seemed absurd to us who thought it questionable that anyone’s money in the bank could suddenly be sanctioned for use to prop up an ailing institution. We have regularly pointed out that just because there is currently a protected level at which deposits will not be pilfered, this could change at any minute.

The latest proposed amendments suggest this is about to happen.

http://www.goldcore.com/ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/11/Snip20171114_3-1024x1021.png?x64374

Why change the bail-in rules?

The ECB’s 58-page amendment proposal is tough going but it is about halfway through when you come across the suggestion that ‘covered deposits’ no longer need to be protected. This is determined because the ECB is concerned about a run on the failing bank:

If the failure of a bank appears to be imminent, a substantial number of covered depositors might still withdraw their funds immediately in order to ensure uninterrupted access or because they have no faith in the guarantee scheme.

This could be particularly damning for big banks and cause a further crisis of confidence in the system:

Such a scenario is particularly likely for large banks, where the sheer amount of covered deposits might erode confidence in the capacity of the deposit guarantee scheme. In such a scenario, if the scope of the moratorium power does not include covered deposits, the moratorium might alert covered depositors of the strong possibility that the institution has a failing or likely to fail assessment.

Therefore, argue the ECB the current moratorium that protects deposits could be ‘counterproductive’. (For the banks, obviously, not for the people whose money it really is:

The moratorium would therefore be counterproductive, causing a bank run instead of preventing it. Such an outcome could be detrimental to the bank’s orderly resolution, which could ultimately cause severe harm to creditors and significantly strain the deposit guarantee scheme. In addition, such an exemption could lead to a worse treatment for depositor funded banks, as the exemption needs to be factored in when determining the seriousness of the liquidity situation of the bank. Finally, any potential technical impediments may require further assessment.

The ECB instead proposes that ‘certain safeguards’ be put in place to allow restricted access to deposits…for no more than five working days. But let’s see how long that lasts for.

Therefore, an exception for covered depositors from the application of the moratorium would cast serious doubts on the overall usefulness of the tool. Instead of mandating a general exemption, the BRRD should instead include certain safeguards to protect the rights of depositors, such as clear communication on when access will be regained and a restriction of the suspension to a maximum of five working days by avoiding a cumulative use by the competent authority and the resolution authority.

Even after a year of studying and reading bail-ins I am still horrified that something like this is deemed to be preferable and fairer to other solutions, namely fixing the banking system. The bureaucrats running the EU and ECB are still blind to the pain such proposals can cause and have caused.

Look to Italy for damage prevention

A 2015 IMF study found that the majority of Italy’s 15 largest banks a bank rescue would ‘imply bail-in of retail investors of subordinated debt’. Only two-thirds of potential bail-ins would affect senior bond-holders, i.e. those who are most likely to be institutional investors rather than pensioners with limited funds.

Why is this the case? As we have previously explained:

Bondholders are seen as creditors. The same type of creditor that EU rules state must take responsibility for a bank’s financial failure, rather than the taxpayer. This is a bail-in scenario.

In a bail-in scenario the type of junior bonds held by the retail investors in the street is the first to take the hit. When the world’s oldest bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena collapsed ordinary people (who also happen to be taxpayers) owned €5 billion ($5.5 billion) of subordinated debt. It vanished.

Despite the biggest bail-in in history occurring within the EU, few people have paid attention and protested against such measures. A bail-in is not unique to Italy, it is possible for all those living and banking within the EU.

Yet, so few protests. We’re not talking about protesting on the streets, we’re talking about protesting where it hurts – with your money.

Read well, protest loudly and trust what you know and not just what you are told.

http://www.goldcore.com/ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/10/bail-ins-considerations.png?x64374

As we have seen from the EU’s response to Brexit and Catalonia, officials could not give two hoots about the grievances of its citizens. So when it comes to banking there is little point in expressing disgust in the same way.

Instead, investors must take stock and assess the best way for them to protect their savings from the tyranny of central bank policy.

To refresh your memory, the ECB is proposing that in the event of a bail-in it will give you an allowance from your own savings. An allowance it will control:

“…during a transitional period, depositors should have access to an appropriate amount of their covered deposits to cover the cost of living within five working days of a request.”

Savers should be looking for means in which they can keep their money within instant reach and their reach only. At this point physical, allocated and segregated gold and silver comes to mind.

This gives you outright legal ownership. There are no counterparties who can claim it is legally theirs (unlike with cash in the bank) or legislation that rules they get first dibs on it.

Gold and silver are the financial insurance against bail-ins, political mismanagement, and overreaching government bodies. As each year goes by it becomes more pertinent than ever to protect yourself from such risks.

http://www.goldcore.com/ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/10/Are_Your_Savings_Safe_From_Bail-Ins_International_Edition.jpg?x64374