Mps: if the plan fails, the bail-in arrives. That's who pays the bill

There must have been an editing problem in the hasty drafting of the chapter on "Protection of savings" that stands out on page 15 of the Program contract of the new government drawn up by the League and the Five Star Movement. It's hard to ask for everything and the opposite of everything in a few lines but that's exactly what happened.

The chapter on the defense of savings in the Contract starts and continues with the request to overcome the European rules on the bail-in of banks, i.e. those rules which, in the event of bank failure, no longer make taxpayers pay the bill but to shareholders, bondholders and depositors over 100 thousand euros. A legitimate request because, while valid in its basic principles, the bail-in was introduced almost by surprise, without a transitional period of preparation for public opinion and savers and was introduced, as the Bank of Italy itself often recalls , with substantially retroactive effects. A legitimate request, therefore, but substantially impracticable, because the modification of a European directive presupposes that there is a very broad consensus among the States, of which the shadow is not even remotely visible.

On the other hand, when the Letta government approved the bail-in, it did so in full awareness that it was the lesser evil because the then Economy Minister, Fabrizio Saccomanni, had to recall that the German Finance Minister Wolfang Schaeuble was inflexible in the final squeeze and basically said like this: "Dear Italians, if you don't approve the bail-in, we will have to separate the sovereign debt risk from the banking risk, i.e. place a ceiling on the government bonds in the banks' portfolios to prevent the sovereign risk of a country, the crisis also brings with it that of the banks”. An entirely specious position, because, if the public debt crisis breaks out, not only the banks go into crisis but an entire country and if this were Italy, it would drag the whole of Europe into the crisis. But so be it. Lega and Cinque Stelle want to try again to question the bail-in? Congratulations.

However, the paradoxical side of the whole story are the final lines of the chapter on the "Protection of savings" of the Contract, where it is proposed to redefine the mission of Monte dei Paschi. What this means was explained, in open markets, by the economist of the League and parliamentarian from Siena, Claudio Borghi, according to whom the new government will not privatize the Monte at all and will not close the redundant branches, but will make it an eternally public at the service of the territory. It is a pity that those clauses of the Monte plan are an integral and essential part of the agreement stipulated by the Minister of Economy, Pier Carlo Padoan, with the European Commission in order to be able to recapitalize the Sienese bank and avoid its bankruptcy.

But if the privatization of MPS fails, the plan fails and if the plan fails, the agreement with the EU also fails and, if the latter fails, Monte is back in trouble and faces its definitive crisis complete with a bail-in . More own goals than that could not be imagined. The new government repudiates the bail-in and then paves the way for it by blowing up the Monte dei Paschi plan agreed with Brussels. Amateurs on the loose? You judge the reader, but without forgetting two points.

The first is simple but clear-cut: in the event of a MPS bail-in, who pays the bill? It is paid by shareholders, bondholders (all) and account holders who have deposits of over 100 euros. But the taxpayers also pay it, that is all of us, because 68% of Monte dei Paschi is currently in the hands of the Treasury, which would remain, like all citizens, with a fistful of flies in hand. If it happens, Professor Borghi seriously risks being chased with pitchforks not only on the Piazza del Campo in Siena and throughout Italy and we don't wish him that. Your imprudent statements on Monte have already caused a drain on the Sienese bank's stock on the Stock Exchange, which in two days has virtually burned 400 million with breakneck losses, and it would be appropriate to stop.

But the second point to think about is the alternative to bankruptcy that the new government imagines for Monte after having obviously got its hands on its seats (call it, if you want, spoil system) and that is a consolidation, which has been talked about for time, of the Sienese bank with Cassa depositi e prestiti and perhaps with Poste Italiane. Fascinating hypothesis which naturally should pass under the gauntlet of Brussels but which has a contradiction that only inexperienced minds can ignore and that is that, in the event it effectively incorporates Mps, the Cassa would end up under the strict supervision of the Bank of Italy and the ECB with a reduction of his freedom to maneuver wholly incompatible with the pharaonic and costly projects that the new government imagines.

In short, one own goal after another. Yet in the League there is a serious person like Giancarlo Giorgetti, Matteo Salvini's right hand man, who knows these things very well: shut up the imprudent Borghi and take over the MPS dossier. Explaining, if appropriate and it is precisely the case, even to the Five Stars how things really are. Before doing any more damage.