Clauses land: The last rescue banks

Since the fall of Lehman Brothers on 15 August 2008, there have been a few good days for Spanish banks. Yesterday was one of the rare exceptions that have occurred in that time. The attorney general of the EU publish their conclusions about the clauses floor with great news for the financial sector: it does not have to return the customers what they charge for the clauses from the earth when they signed mortgages . The decision means that banks saved a fortune, but the euphoria may not be complete. The opinion of the European lawyer is not final and will play wait for the European Court, which will resolve the issue a ruling later this year, although the sentences match the general law in 80% of cases. The decision has raised a wave of criticism once again put the bank in the crosshairs of all suspicion.
The resolution of the lawyer was eagerly awaited by customers and banks after recent rulings gave the reason, one after the other, to consumers. But the key issue remains dependent on Europe: it is considered if the banks have to pay what they charge the earth clauses since May 2013, the date from which the Supreme Court declared null, or from the beginning of the mortgage. The European lawyer, Paolo MENGOZZI, said yesterday that he is right to limit retroactive to May 9, 2013, which saves the entities that had acquired for this purpose before then. But his decision is based on a controversial aspect: the economic impact it would have for the financial sector to agree with the bank. Now we have to wait for the final judgment.
Indeed, the resolution calls for a retroactive "limited in time" to take into account the "economic consequences" that would return all the money collected over. Consumer protection associations already protested at the time against this economic argument, which use the Supreme at the time, because they understood that validates irregular behavior simply because it would have severe consequences for violators. And, given the fact that the Spanish Civil Code provides that if a clause is invalid, must be annulled completely, then would repay the money received from the date of signing the contract.
The Advocate General states that apply from May 2013 cancellation clauses land is legal, since European legislation does not seek the "harmonization of sanctions" or a "retroactive cancellation" of all the clauses. In addition, the findings include that apply retroactively as of May 2013 is already "a fine with deterrent" enough for the bench. With the ban on new land Supreme clauses and the return of money to the victims, the Advocate General considers that it is just fine.
One case of systemic magnitude
The decision, if confirmed, would be a huge lifeline for Spanish banks at a time of lean by low interest rates, especially for those who are leaders in retail banking. International Financial Analyst (Afi) estimated that some companies entered 4474 million between November 2009, when the industry began marketing them- and May 2013.
But the dance numbers is important, Goldman Sachs estimated that Spanish banks would have to pay 3,000 million euros of which have already provisioned if being forced to return the land clauses from day one. The figure grew to 7.500 million, according to calculations BBVA included in his defense case; Adicae and who is raising more and figure approaches 20,000 million, ie almost what it cost to rescue Bankia.
Entities, BBVA is the most exposed because it has the most active mortgage would face a cost of 1815 million. It would also be a blow to CaixaBank, the first Catalan bank, because it would mean 660 million. Behind are Popular and Bankia, which would have an impact of 334 and 160 million, respectively. No wonder, then, that CaixaBank and Popular (plus Sabadell) were between the values of the Ibex-35 rose more than yesterday.
Disbelief and outrage
The consumer association Facua branded as "outrageous and bizarre" conclusions of the attorney general of the EU and regretted his "special sensitivity" to the interests of the banks "and with the families who have been victims of a fraud of billions. " Facua also described as "absurd" that in the pleadings submitted, the Spanish government defends the interests of the financial sector.
While organizations and employers in the sector held in favor of the position that decided the Supreme OCU asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to set aside political and economic arguments and limited "exclusively" to apply the law, provisions "clearly" the invalidity of such clauses.
Several law firms explained the decision saying the Brexit as a decisive factor. The managing partner of Navas & Cusí, Juan Ignacio Navas, stated that "the European context of the resolution is shock. You can not pretend ordinary resolutions exceptional contexts, "said. "Luxembourg has not done what is desirable, but it is responsible," he added. Yesterday's decision should be refrendada, but the impression was yesterday that the bank has received a new rescue.