A long time yet. In the meantime, the loans obtained have to be paid before Covid-19.
Faced with this situation, there is only one way for banks: to implement a credit crunch.
A strategic decision unavoidable which is based not only on closing the credit tap they will be able to access only those “perfect” enterprises in order to avoid committing prudential capital as provisions for forecasting losses, but above all on the “disengagement from probable defaults. This locution of the Welsh vocabulary indicates the request for early and forced repayment of the loan made to a counterpart that has seen its credit rating deteriorate or – remember – the probability of default to a year. The higher the rating, the more likely it is that the firm will no longer be able to repay the loans received.
This is the scenario, unfortunately dramatic, for the next 12-18 months in which an already suffering banking system and entrepreneurship (especially small) will move to the limit of collapse not only because of the banks.
The 121 euro area banks, which have yet to solve the 500 billion in impaired loans as of December 31, 2019, they began to calculate the impact of this new crisis.
UniCreditfor example, in its last quarterly closed in full lockdown and therefore without yet clearly imagining the scenario, it has already put aside 900 million of new provisions! Translated into simple words, it means that the institution in Piazza Gae Aulenti, at the moment, expects that 900 million of funding made before Covid will not be returned.
And in your opinion, in the face of this scenario, will the banks remain inert? It is a film that I have already seen. As they say in the jargon, they will seek at all costs the “formal regularization” and of “Activate guarantees”.
In the second case it is a question of requesting money from the client’s guarantors or acting on their real estate.
The formal regularization, on the other hand, is carried out in a surreptitious and sometimes incorrect way and serves to put a patch on irregular contracts previously entered into with the same customer. It is “camouflaged” through the concession of a 3 to 5 year loan (even those, although prohibited by law, provided for by the liquidity decree) which does not constitute new finance for the saver but only serves to eliminate previous exposure. It’s about a repayment plan disguised as financing.
But the even more subtle aspect consists in the insertion in the new loan contract of a clause that relieves the bank of any responsibility regarding the “crap” contained in the previous disbursement contract, of which, obviously, the entrepreneur knows nothing. Therefore, when the customer thinks that the institution is meeting him, in reality he’s just screwing him for the second time.
In short, with a simple firm the “scurdammece ‘or past” strategy is realized with all that follows.
These two operation of “Cleansing” they are the extreme attempt to “settle” old assignments that could contain many formal irregularities, which, even if they were not recognized at the time, could turn out to be arrows during the trial phase.
How to defend yourself? At the first signs of an inflexible approach, it is necessary “Anticipate” the bank and to counter the described behavior by initiating, in the protection of their rights, a preventive judicial defense action in order to propose all the legal issues that the credit institution would have wanted, surreptitiously, to avoid and therefore transforming an evident criticality in a serious opportunity to resist both pressing and vexatious demands.
Obviously these treatments will be reserved only for small entrepreneurs (80% of the productive fabric of our country). Because the “big money takers” receive more attention.