El Consejo de Estabilidad Financiera lleva a cabo una serie de revisiones periódicas de los distintos sistemas que están vinculados a aquél, como es el caso español. La evaluación de las reformas operadas en nuestro sistema financiero ha dado lugar a la difusión del segundo informe de evaluación que se difundió el pasado 27 de enero de 2011. Este informe -Peer Review of Spain. Review Report- se ha elaborado sustancialmente sobre la base de la propia información facilitada por las autoridades españolas. El Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda y el Banco de España ostentan la representación española en el propio Consejo. Para entender cuál es la finalidad de estas evaluaciones nacionales, que se llevan a cabo por parte del Consejo, basta con leer la explicación que consta en la página 5:
“The FSB has established a regular programme of country peer reviews of its member jurisdictions. The objective of the reviews is to examine the steps taken or planned by national authorities to address IMF-World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) recommendations concerning financial regulation and supervision as well as institutional and market infrastructure. FSB member jurisdictions have committed to undergo an FSAP assessment every 5 years, and peer reviews taking place typically around 2-3 years following an FSAP will complement that cycle.
A country peer review evaluates the progress made by the jurisdiction in implementing FSAP recommendations against the background of subsequent developments that may have influenced the policy reform agenda. It provides an opportunity for FSB members to engage in dialogue with their peers and to share lessons and experiences. Unlike the FSAP, a peer review does not comprehensively analyse a jurisdiction's financial system structure or policies, nor does it provide an assessment of its conjunctural vulnerabilities or its compliance with international financial standards”.
Por lo tanto, esta revisión ha arrancado de lo que fue en su momento la conclusión principal de la actuación que el Fondo Monetario Internacional desarrolló en el año 2006:
“Spain underwent an FSAP in 2006, in which the IMF assessment team concluded that “Spain’s financial sector is vibrant, resilient, highly competitive, and well-supervised and regulated.” The main challenges in the areas of financial regulation and supervision were related to the need to address the risks posed by rapid credit growth, especially in the housing sector; address the risks associated with banks’ large equity investments in nonfinancial firms; enhance the regulation, supervision and governance of savings banks (cajas); and improve inter-agency coordination and supervisory autonomy. The FSAP also identified steps to further strengthen insurance supervision and securities settlement systems”.
El informe es una síntesis sumamente interesante de la evaluación que se lleva a cabo de las medidas adoptadas desde entonces por las autoridades españolas y con relación a los distintos mercados financieros. Por su interés, cara a la actualidad y a lo que puede ser la evolución futura de nuestro ordenamiento financiero, me remitiré a los dos aspectos anteriormente subrayados. En primer lugar, la posición y recomendación del Consejo con respecto al marco legal aplicable a las participaciones industriales de las entidades de crédito. Es un tema que tiene un largo debate tras de sí y una especial trascendencia económica, pues a nadie escapa que es difícil entender la estabilidad de algunas grandes corporaciones españolas sin la presencia de entidades de crédito en su capital:
“The equity investments of large Spanish banks in nonfinancial companies (“industrial participations”) have dropped in relative terms, although they remain high compared to other developed countries (see section 3). These participations are often intrinsically linked to, and supportive of, nonfinancial companies’ business models and strategies, making them difficult to untangle. The FSB is of the view that large industrial participations by banks not only create potential conflicts of interest, but may also pose concentration, reputational and systemic risks. Further regulatory efforts may therefore be necessary to ensure that industrial participations do not generate such risks, and that exposures continue to decrease in an orderly fashion. The authorities agree that proper monitoring and supervision of these participations is required, although they believe that there exist few alternative domestic sources of equity finance and that such investments have had clear benefits in terms of the growth and competitiveness (including internationally) of the private sector”.
El segundo de los aspectos destacables del informe del Consejo de Estabilidad Financiera es el referido a las cajas de ahorros. Me limitaré a transcribir el párrafo correspondiente dentro del resumen del informe, que trata con especial detalle el proceso de restructuración en el que nos encontramos actualmente, si bien la evaluación se llevó a cabo con relación a las medidas previstas en el Real Decreto-ley 11/2010:
“The comprehensive reform of cajas introduced in 2010 addresses FSAP recommendations related to strengthening corporate governance and their ability to raise capital from external sources (see section 4). However, it is too early to judge its effectiveness since most integration processes were only recently initiated. Savings banks have traditionally played an important role in several European countries. Although the forms such institutions take vary considerably from one country to another, they are often characterised by distinct business models (in terms of lending and/or funding) compared to commercial banks and by unique challenges with respect to governance and their ability to raise capital from external sources. One key lesson from Spain’s experience is that such institutions should follow very conservative risk-taking policies when they lack access to external capital sources”.
