Populism, ignorance and dirigisme: the government's gross move on the banks stems from here

If in our system the profit is (still) legitimate, when does it become “extra”? AND who decides it? According to what ratio? The questions suggested by out of the blue of surcharge on bank profits there are many and all with a weight that goes far beyond the heavy effects it has caused on the financial market. In addition to these questions, which we will now go into, there is then one, preliminary to all of them, but which we leave to the analysis of those who are more knowledgeable than us in the matter: a tax imposed retroactively on the profits of an economic activity is constitutional carried out in a free market regime, moreover mainly by companies listed on the stock exchange whose ownership is disseminated directly or indirectly in the thousands and thousands of Italian and non-Italian savers?

Banks gain from raising interest rates after years of heavy losses

But let's go in order: that the banks have made profits following the increase in interest rates determined by the ECB as the cornerstone of the dutiful anti-inflationary policy, it is something there for all to see. But it was there for all to see - so to speak - even there severe loss of profitability that the banks suffered in the years of easy money with interest rates at zero or even negative. As with all economic activities carried out in a free market regime, there are periods of fat cows and periods of lean cows; this is how the world goes in regimes that are or should be free markets and, therefore, kept in balance by prices determined by the encounter between free demand and free supply. Banking services do not escape this absolutely fundamental rule to guarantee the certainty of the conditions in which entrepreneurial initiatives such as those for the allocation of savings are decided.

Thousands of savers have invested in the shares of banks

That's why lightning from the blue like this surcharge leads to breakdowns which go far beyond the objective reaction of the market to involve the credibility of the factors on the basis of which production initiatives and the use of savings are decided. I don't know if you realize that the thousands and thousands of savers they had invested in the shares of banks having correctly seen the convenience of that employment, envisaged by the recovery of quotations compared to the time of the lean cows, they are now defrauded of a good part of the fruit of their investment, with systemic consequences that anyone who is barely prudent can evaluate for themselves.

The gap between lending and deposit rates

It is true, as has been said, that i passive rates they have not followed, if not in small part, the notable rise in lending rates, but before intervening it would have been appropriate for our ineffable Robin Hoods in government to have asked themselves why this gap could have formed. In other words: why were the banks able to keep the former compressed while the gap with the latter widened? We have already given a partial answer by recalling that there was a recovery of profitability to be achieved with respect to the years of almost zero rates. But in part the practicability of this tactic was certainly favored by the still modest role that competition plays, or should play, in the offer of banking services. There are historical reasons evidently deeply rooted so that the average customer of a bank passively accepts the conditions without discussing them, without comparing them, and consequently without taking steps to identify the most convenient ones that the market can offer. The degree of bank customer loyalty type is higher than in any other sector, to the point that the banks - few, but there were - have received little evidence and poor results - that the rates on deposits have begun to raise them. Among these reasons there is also the widespread conception that the current account is a use of savings and not, more correctly, a cash service, with the consequence, which should be implicit, that if it is right to expect that the job pays off, it is equally right that the service should be remunerated.

Gross measure generated by populism

Ultimately, if there are distortions, they are distortions of cultural origin which certainly are not cured with extemporaneous measures that intervene in the opposite direction to that which would be necessary to establish trust and certainty in the conditions in which it would be good for bankers, entrepreneurs, savers to operate and every ordinary citizen who, perhaps unbeknownst to him, is always and in any case also an economic operator. Beyond its practical consequences, this surcharge on the fruit of money intermediation is one gross measure dictated by populism it is not new that it arises from a culture that considers everything pertaining to money (primarily, therefore, the profits of banks) to be the devil's excrement and from ignorance of the profound meaning that legislative provisions such as this can have behind their literal formulation.

If we were hypothesize its operational effectin fact, the result will not be that of re-establishing a relationship considered correct between lending rates and lending rates, but presumably the banks will be induced to keep lending rates very low to determine a margin which, in addition to ensuring the profitability envisaged by the industrial plans, also allows you to pay this new and impromptu tax. The risk that this tax does not penalize the banks so much, but above all those who deposit their savings in banks, is therefore far from remote. With all due respect to the "social equity" heralded by Minister Salvini! The governor of the Bank of Italy in the not too distant past liked to repeat that banks are, yes, profit-making businesses, but they are not businesses like the others because the liabilities in their balance sheet are the money of businesses and citizens. Go make it clear to whoever signed this decree, the result of a harmful mixture of approximation, lack of culture and dirigiste inclinations.