Qui a fait des profits sur les ingénieries financières au Liban ? Pas tant les banques (dont les profits étaient factices) mais les actionnaires qui ont bénéficié des généreux dividendes servis. Commentaire de Jean Riachi sur X à propos d’une analyse de l’économiste Toufic Gaspard récemment publié par le centre Issam Fares de l’AUB : ▻https://www.aub.edu.lb/ifi/Documents/Banque-Du-Liban-A-Forensic-Analysis.pdf
: « The latest IFI-AUB/Toufic Gaspard report, as expected, provides invaluable insights and a thorough analysis of the Lebanese financial crisis. It delves into various aspects of the crisis and dispels several myths, such as the misconception that the state acquired BDL’s dollars,… » / X
▻https://twitter.com/riachi_jean/status/1758766325835423986
The latest IFI-AUB/Toufic Gaspard report, as expected, provides invaluable insights and a thorough analysis of the Lebanese financial crisis. It delves into various aspects of the crisis and dispels several myths, such as the misconception that the state acquired BDL’s dollars, when, in fact, the opposite occurred. However, I’d like to focus on one particular issue related to financial engineering transactions.
During a recent televised program, the legal advisor of the Association of Banks stated that banks incurred losses in financial engineering transactions. While this declaration sparked criticism, it is, in fact, factually accurate. Presently, banks are insolvent, with negative equity, rendering this issue beyond debate.
So, what truly transpired, and who benefited from these transactions? In essence, profits from financial engineering transactions in Lebanese pounds and US dollars were recorded by banks. However, these profits were essentially paper gains. The majority of the profits were in Lebanese pounds, printed by BDL and transferred to banks’ books, albeit sterilized with BDL. At the current exchange rate of 89500, these profits are essentially worthless. Similarly, the interests and principal blocked at BDL on the dollar side of the transactions are now nearly worthless. Hence, banks did incur losses on financial engineering transactions.
However, not everyone suffered losses. At the time, many considered it absurd for Riad Salameh to provide banks with free money to bolster their equity without requiring counterparts. However, what proved even more irrational was allowing them to distribute dividends. While direct data is not readily available, Toufic Gaspard conducted astute calculations and estimated that approximately $21 billion in profits were transferred out of banks to individuals. This pertains not to deposit transfers but to bank profits. Consequently, banks distributed profits (dividends, bonuses, etc.) when financial engineering transactions appeared as profits in their books, and now it seems these profits must be written off. This scenario represents a typical case of clawback, as losses on banks’ balance sheets are now impacting depositors.
As for Article 113 and decisions by the State Council, claiming that it is the state’s obligation to compensate depositors for their losses cannot be considered a just and equitable solution. While I am a taxpayer willing to contribute to national solidarity, I am not inclined to foot the bill for depositors’ losses that others have benefited from