In Spain, almost all of the Cajas de Ahorros (it is not the same but to not go in details, imagine a some sort of credit union) went under due the financial crisis.
They were merged and transformed into a bank that then was rescued with lot of public money from taxpayers and it never repay to the society (either by returning the money or lowering fees and mortgage interest, in fact it almost erased people savings while the board of directors increased their bonuses.
Now the bank no longer exists, it was purchased by another bank, the one with most egregious fees in the country.
That tracks. Most European banks appear to be risk averse, unlike their American counterparts. I had assumed most of them either stayed away or lightly dealt with subprime bullshit.
No. Those portuguese banks failed in different years because of internal corruption. It had nothing to do to the failed investment assets that caused the subprime crisis.
The Icelandic banks failed because they invested heavily in toxic assets.
It is true that their failure was due to internal corruption and not the issues that led to the subprime crisis. I misunderstood the question and concede the point.
But the subprime crisis (or the financial landscape after it) did expose the frailties (and in those cases I mentioned, corruption) of the Portuguese banks and was a non-insignificant factor in their demise. But I suppose you can say the same for a lot of other banks in other countries.
Other than banks in Iceland, any other European banks were affected by the subprime crisis?
All the major British banks were.
UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland both. UBS required a bail out at the time.
In Spain, almost all of the Cajas de Ahorros (it is not the same but to not go in details, imagine a some sort of credit union) went under due the financial crisis.
They were merged and transformed into a bank that then was rescued with lot of public money from taxpayers and it never repay to the society (either by returning the money or lowering fees and mortgage interest, in fact it almost erased people savings while the board of directors increased their bonuses.
Now the bank no longer exists, it was purchased by another bank, the one with most egregious fees in the country.
That tracks. Most European banks appear to be risk averse, unlike their American counterparts. I had assumed most of them either stayed away or lightly dealt with subprime bullshit.
Portugal as well. Off the top of my head, BES, Banif and BPP were the most seriously affected, such that they no longer exist.
No. Those portuguese banks failed in different years because of internal corruption. It had nothing to do to the failed investment assets that caused the subprime crisis. The Icelandic banks failed because they invested heavily in toxic assets.
It is true that their failure was due to internal corruption and not the issues that led to the subprime crisis. I misunderstood the question and concede the point.
But the subprime crisis (or the financial landscape after it) did expose the frailties (and in those cases I mentioned, corruption) of the Portuguese banks and was a non-insignificant factor in their demise. But I suppose you can say the same for a lot of other banks in other countries.
Wow. I always thought European banks were more risk-averse than American ones.