Bamboozling bankers

The ongoing appearances before Congress of the former CEOs and publicly appointed officials allegedly responsible for the country’s savings banks is of unquestionable interest. Each of them contributes their own particular grain of sand or piece in the puzzle, enabling us to begin to understand part of what has happened. But if their joint aim is to provide the electorate with a sweeping canvas of the events of the last decade or so, and along with that, to blame those responsible, then this exercise can only be judged a failure. This can be blamed in large part on the manner in which the appearances have been organized, but it can still be corrected.

Instead of calling on everybody involved in the collapse of the country’s savings banks, Congress — or the Popular Party (PP), which controls the lower house — has limited itself to hearing from just a few select witnesses. The level of questioning could hardly be described as tough; as a result, the statements made by most of those being quizzed are little more than of anecdotal value. This is largely because all those who have appeared before Congress have primarily sought to justify their behavior, and most have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe that they have any charges to answer.

The most blatant example of this so far has come from Julio Fernández Gayoso, the former chairman of Novagalicia savings bank, which was taken over by the government last year when it became clear it could not cope with the huge loans it holds that are linked to the collapsed real estate sector. If he was not responsible for anything that happened at the bank, why did he accept a multimillion-euro pension settlement?

At other times we have seen the spectacle of senior figures from the world of finance passing the buck to others. The former governor of the Bank of Spain, Miguel Ángel Fernández Ordóñez, says that he did not force the merger of Bancaja and Caja Madrid, which resulted in Bankia. The former chairman of Bankia, Rodrigo Rato, insists that Fernández Ordóñez did indeed compel the merger. From his statements, it can only be deduced that the merger was pushed through but that he was more heavily involved in its creation than being just a tolerant figure, despite trying to hide behind the audits carried out by different consulting companies in the run up to the merger. This is just one aspect, although an important one, of why we are where we are: it highlights the need for detail, for more appearances, and for the investigations into the savings banks to continue.

The electorate doesn’t want to see how those responsible for the mess blame each other; rather it wants to know what happened, and why. After all, we are the ones who will be paying for this mess for years to come.