.jpg)
The bill aims to restore financial stability and set a mechanism for deposit recovery. It benefits from political will to pass a plan to address the crisis after years of deadlock instead of the shadow plan being implemented today, as well as alignment on the need to secure an IMF program.
However, despite progress, the text suffers from inconsistencies that risk compromising its objectives.
1/ The text is ambiguous on the hierarchy of claims: Depositors should be prioritized over shareholders. More clarity is required on the treatment of irregular deposits to confirm adherence to the hierarchy of claims.
2/ The fate of gold is unclear and level of state contribution to deposit recovery is undefined:
The bill does not clearly specify how liabilities will be financed and who will be ultimately responsible for them, leaving the fate of the gold and the extent of the involvement of the state in deposit recovery unknown, thus transferring significant risks onto both the BDL and the state. This poses serious financial and legal risks if not addressed. Deposits above the protection threshold should be ring-fenced in a Special Purpose Vehicle with no government recourse.
3/ Accountability measures should be anchored in a forensic audit: The text introduces improvements at the level of accountability, but omits any requirement for a forensic audit of both BDL and commercial banks, and fees imposed on certain irregular transactions remain low.
4/ Figures are missing: A macro-fiscal framework and debt sustainability analysis are needed, in addition to the draft bill, to be able to specify state contribution levels to BDL recapitalization, among other variables.
5/ IMF endorsement is needed: Government officials have expressed that they will be working towards a plan with the IMF, but it remains unclear whether this version of the bill will secure IMF endorsement and subsequent support from the international community
If the issues above remain unaddressed the current law will be unable to provide the basis
