The Commission of Inquiry into Banks continues to focus on the Monte dei Paschi recalling for the third time the head of supervision of Bank of Italy for a hearing, Carmelo Barbagallo, according to which, in the crisis of the Sienese institute the Foundation played a “significant role”.
The reason, according to Barbagallo, lies in the fact that the institution "intended to maintain for a long time, even when the conditions no longer existed, a position of dominance that was in any case important, eroding its assets and getting into debt".
Based on what was stated by the Bank of Italy's head of supervision, "the effects of the economic situation and in general of the external context on the bank's balance sheet, already profound in themselves, have been amplified by serious and fraudulent conduct implemented since 2008 by previous top management, which have seriously weakened the bank and called its reputation into question". added Barbagallo, who also specified that: “financial risks have put MPS in serious difficulty; in the long run, however, it was the credit risk that most deeply undermined the economic-patrimonial equilibrium”.
As for suffering, the official recalled that NPLs "have generated losses of around 26 billion in the last decade". The Sienese institute "reaches a peak of around 160 billion in loans in the two-year period 2009-2010".
Some clarifications were also made on debtors. In detail, at the end of 2016, MPS had NPLs “divided among almost 190.000 debtors, divided and distributed throughout the national territory; for 84 per cent they concern companies, mostly medium-small; the takers they received loans individually exceeding 25 million are 107 and represent, by amount, 12,7 per cent of total non-performing loans”.
However, the MEF's intervention could save the situation, given that, on the basis of what Barbagallo specified, "the prerequisites for a decisive "cleaning" of the budget have now been fulfilled, through the sale of the non-performing portfolio".
During the hearing, references to Antonveneta and former top management of the bank.
On the first issue, the head of Bank of Italy supervision clarified that: “Here we don't want to say that Antonenveta did not play an important role – he clarified -. Information is given that, if we look at the losses on credits” they are “from all over the national territory and not generated only by former Antonvenetas”.
