11.6.4 Concluding remarks

For a bank, funding is key (see subsection 11.6.1). The most conspicuous finding of the present section is that funding issues are not mentioned in every decision (see subsection 11.6.2). In that regard, there is a remarkable contrast in the Commission’s approach to corporate governance problems and its approach to funding problems. As was discussed in section 11.3.2, the Commission does not mention that a bank does not have corporate governance problems.1 By contrast, as is shown in subsection 11.6.3, the Commission does sometimes mention that a bank does not have funding problems.2 This happened in 9 decisions. This makes it all the more surprising that there are 36 decisions that omit to mention funding issues. In my opinion, the omission to mention the relevant characteristic in these 36 cases amounts to an inconsistency.

This inconsistency can be avoided in future bank State aid cases if the Commission always mentions funding issues in its decisions. In other words: the decision should either indicate i) that the bank did not have funding problems, ii) that the bank had funding problems and has committed to improve its funding strategy, or iii) that the bank had funding problems but did not improve its funding strategy. Situation (i) and (ii) will be noted positively by the Commission, while situation (iii) will be noted negatively. Thus far, situation (i) is only mentioned in 9 cases. My recommendation to the Commission would be to always mention funding issues – and thus also when situation (i) occurs.