At a time when the electoral campaign threatens to crush the analysis of the serious crisis of Monte dei Paschi di Siena more on the responsibilities of the past than on the most effective and transparent ways to get out of it, Giacomo Vaciago's provocation is timely. In fact, it is necessary to identify, beyond the judicial vicnede, the best way to start the rehabilitation of the Monte by cutting at the root the causes that led to the bad management of the bank. In fact, without indulging too much in the controversies about the past, nevertheless understanding why the Monte has ended up in its current difficulties, is essential to prepare the most appropriate tools to be able to quickly heal the wounds.
There is no doubt that the mix between politics and banking is a knot to be solved. In fact, for a long time the Foundation wanted to maintain the absolute majority of the Bank's capital precisely in order to be able to fully control it, i.e. not so much because it was the best possible investment in terms of return on capital, but because of the influence that this position allowed in the appointments top management, executives and credit management. In other words, the city of Siena had and has every right to use the funds of the Foundation as it sees fit (to finance the Palio, or the hospitals or the airports) so the problem is not so much that of the waste of the Foundation which "charity" in favor of its political owners, but the influence that the Foundation itself has exercised on the management of the bank and on the acquisition operations carried out at a high price such as that of Antonveneta.
Moreover, the politicians who dominate the Foundation's board have for a long time prevented the bank from making agreements, such as the merger with BNL, which would have allowed the creation of a fairly large and competitive group, but would have caused the Foundation itself to lose its absolute majority of the capital of the new company and therefore the exclusive influence on the strategies and management of the banking company.
Now the Bank's Board, under the supervision of the Bank of Italy, should communicate an updated balance sheet and economic situation as soon as possible, so as to be able to assess the risks that still persist, the capital needs, and the restructuring plans for improve the trend of economic results.
Only on this basis will it be possible to evaluate concretely and without ideological blinders which path is more convenient to follow. In other words, if a real nationalization is necessary or if a receivership is possible which in any case the current legislation links to precise economic and financial situations, or if instead it is not convenient to follow other paths. If, as mentioned, the problem is that of the Foundation which, moreover, President Guzzetti believes has a statute contrary to the current laws, then the Minister of the Treasury should evaluate the possibility of placing the Foundation under commission by sending home all the current politically appointed councilors to send a man above the parties to exercise the role of shareholder with the task of facilitating all possible operations to secure the bank, even by reducing his own participation, and to repair as far as possible the holes in the assets of the Foundation itself which is even dangerously in debt.
In this way, the relationship between politics and the bank, which is the first thing to do, would be cut to the core, leaving ample room for the current summit chaired by Alessandro Profumo to implement the managerial and equity restructurings to bring Monte dei Paschi back to being the big bank that it deserves to be.
