Meetings upon meetings, but still the picture to save Eurolife it is not defined. It was hoped this week in the table organized at mef, who would like to avoid the liquidation of the insurance group, which banks and insurance companies have joined. But nothing. A meeting was also held this week between the associations of the consumers and the extraordinary administrator Alessandro Santoliquido. But nothing.
Even the governor of the Bank of Italy Ignazio Visco in his Final Considerations he mentioned the construction sites open for a system solution on Eurovita, given the absence of a guarantee fund. Via Nazionale "carefully follows the issue in collaboration with Ivass and in contact with the government authorities" said Ignazio Visco yesterday, recalling that, despite the contraction in net inflows from segregated funds, Italian insurance companies "are overall robust and well capitalized and capable of reacting to the changed market conditions by returning to favoring the purely insurance component of its offer”. But nothing moves.
As we know, the "plan A" to save Eurovita was for the five major insurance companies (Poste Vita, Intesa Vita, Generali, Unipol and Allianz) to each acquire a piece of the company - with related policies - thus guaranteeing the continuity of contracts to customers , which would thus only see the counterparty's name change. However, this plan turns out to be much more complicated than expected. This is why "plan B" is making its way for the immediate future: the big insurance companies open their wallets and recapitalize Eurovita, to then cook the stew in complete calm.
The date of June 30 can be postponed only with an agreement
But, at least at the moment, of course there is only the date of 30nd June, when the freeze on the redemptions of life policies ends, tax from IVASS. As Santoliquido himself said, if an agreement were reached, it could be moved by another month and theoretically by 3 months, i.e. until September. But these are hypotheses: "the extension of the blockade will only take place if a solution is found by the end of June, because if the proposed solution fails, then it will probably go into liquidation" explained the lawyer Antonio Pinto who represents Confconsumatori. After all, the consumer associations themselves, Pinto said after the meeting, are taking it upon themselves to explain to customers that the rush to the counters for redemptions would make no logical or even economic sense. In fact, everyone will obviously be free to ask for the ransom once they are switched to another company. However, for those who do not have any real short-term economic need (for example the purchase of a house or child support ...), a basic principle of financial education would be to continue with the original contract, to avoid possible physiological losses market, linked, for example, to bonds".
Moreover, it must be considered that the quality of Eurovita's assets is good, there are no investments in securities in default, the investments are in solid assets. Investments in the securities of some of the distributing banks also represent a minimal component (1%) of the portfolio.
The real crux is: who, how much and how you pay. The requested rate
There are quite a few cogs that are part of the mechanism that is being built to prevent the Eurovita case from becoming a systemic case, the Lehman model. But in the end everything revolves around one theme: who will have to pay any ransoms, if they occur and obviously it will cost.
If the banks sitting at the table (about fifteen in all with Intesa, Fineco, Fideuram, Credem and Sparkasse as leaders) say they are aware of the need to shoulder this burden for the Eurovita policies they have distributed in their branches, it is precisely on the methods of intervention that the positions with the five big insurance companies involved (Intesa Vita, Poste, Generali, Unipol and Allianz) currently appear divergent.
The number that the banks they should guarantee would be around 6 billion in separate management, again if, in theory, all customers redeemed their policies in advance. But the rise in interest rates hits hard here too and the institutions, according to some sources, have asked the companies for a 2,5% rate on the liquidity they will have to provide, starting from the yield of the underlying securities.
Companies and smaller banks disagree
But not only them company I don't agree at all, but also the smaller banks among those who have distributed Eurovita policies in their branches, they believe the pricing of systemic institutes is considered unacceptable. Among these are Banca di Piacenza, Banca Popolare di Puglia and Basilicata, but also Mps and Credem which have asked for support from the largest banks, the "systemic" ones up to 2 billion. Furthermore, the banks have raised the problem of the uncertainties related to the accounting of the granting of credit lines granted to customers at non-market conditions.
The role of the Ministry of Economy
The five companies (Generali, Poste Vita, Unipol, Intesa Sanpaolo Vita and Allianz) who met the leaders of the ministry led by Giancarlo Giorgetti this week confirmed their willingness to take part in the rescue, but no agreement came out of that table. The Ministry of the Economy, apparently intending to take over the direction of the operation to secure the company that ended up in extraordinary administration, will now presumably have to call the banks to the table to look for a summary. The only real turning point could come from the granting of one public guarantee that it can cover the costs for smaller banks, but the request in this sense has so far gone unheeded.
