ANNOUNCEMENT 05 Dec 2012In December 2012, the government of Slovenia announced a change in private-sector financial support.
NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS
letter from the EC to Slovenia, Brussels 18.12.2013
letter from the EC to Slovenia, Brussels 20.12.2012
Banking sector analysis by the OECD , stakeholders of the top 5 banks as affected countries
On 5 December 2012, Slovenia notified to the European Commission a recapitalisation of Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor (NKBM). The aid amounts to EUR 100 million. The capital injection is followed by a restructuring plan notified on 21 March 2013.
NKBM is the second largest bank in Slovenia, holding around 10 per cent of the assets in the national banking sector (par. 8, letter from the EC to Slovenia, Brussels 18.12.2013)The state is the biggest shareholder of the bank with 27.7 per cent. In December 2012, The total assets of the bank amounted to EUR 5.32 billion.
While the bank was profitable in the direct aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008-2010, NKBM generated losses of EUR 80 million and EUR 211 million in 2011 and 2012 respectively (par. 12).
The support measures for NKBM consists of:
- EUR 100 million capital injection in the form of contingent convertible instruments (CoCos)
- An additional EUR 870 million in the form of government bonds and cash
- A transfer of EUR 1.15 billion in impaired assets to the State Bank Asset Management Company
With regard to the first capital injection, the EC already acknowledged potential trade distortions (par 26, letter from the EC to Slovenia, Brussels 20.12.2012)
With regard to the second recapitalisation, the EC finds that: 'the second recapitalisation would not have been provided by a market economy investor. The second recapitalisation must therefore be regarded as providing an advantage to NKBM. Moreover, that advantage is selective since it only benefits one bank. ' (par. 67)
The EC therefore concludes: Given that NKBM is and will be active in the financial sector, which is open to intense international competition, any advantage from State resources to the bank has the potential to affect intra-Union trade and to distort competition. (par. 68)
A state measure in the GTA database is assessed solely in terms of the extent to which its implementation affects the extent of discrimination against foreign commercial interests. On this metric, the state aid proposed here is discriminatory