[ad_1]
The fight against the new crisis will wait, because the culprits of the crisis that started a decade ago must be clarified: the Seimas has begun to consider the conclusions of the investigation carried out by politicians. After the presentation, the conclusions were agreed and will now be taken by the committees.
He also received questions about the present.
On Tuesday, S. Jakeliūnas introduced the beginning and course of the crisis investigation to Seimas members. The main initiator of the study, Stasys Jakeliūnas, is currently a member of the European Parliament.
“The indebtedness was not very transparent then,” repeated S. Jakeliūnas and presented the previously known conclusions.
By the way, he received questions about the current loans from the rulers.
“Both then and now, you need to borrow, the only question is under what conditions is it provided.” It is very dangerous to take risks and collect that debt ”, S. Jakeliūnas did not dare to criticize the rulers.
“Instead of worrying about helping people who have been affected by quarantine and the virus, he is engaged in archaeological excavations,” conservative Mykolas Majauskas told S. Jakeliūnas, reminding Invega of the latest statistics.
He recalled the study’s findings.
Findings indicate that the 2009-2010 crisis in Lithuania and other Baltic countries was caused by foreign capital banks operating here, and the Bank of Lithuania did not guarantee their adequate supervision, and part of the responsibility lies with the financial supervisory authorities Swedish.
The document establishes that in 2008 the budget was adopted in violation of fiscal discipline. This has damaged the state of public finances: there has been a lack of capacity to accumulate reserves, which has led to an increase in loans, spending cuts and tax increases in 2009-2010.
Sigismund Gedvila / 15min photo / Stasys Jakeliūnas and Saulius Skvernelis
In addition, according to the committee, the government had the opportunity to obtain loans from international institutions cheaper than in 2009-2012, but did not use them.
S.Jakeliūnas also reminded the Bank of Lithuania of VILIBOR’s allegations. The MEP presented the slides to Seimas members on Tuesday. They claim that there was insufficient supervision of the banks, therefore their concentration should be limited, said the former Seimas member.
The rulers of S.Jakeliūnas asked what were the responsibilities of those who made decisions a decade ago.
Proposed for evaluation by the Attorney General’s Office
It is proposed that the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation evaluate the government’s decisions to borrow in 2009-2012 and that the resulting 2,100 million. Damage to the state, as well as the provision of loans with an interest rate of 8% to Sodra, discrediting it and significantly reducing the purchasing power of old-age pensions.
The findings suggest that the Government examine the possibility of establishing a state commercial bank, a supervisory authority independent of the central bank and financed by contributions from financial institutions. This is expected to strengthen consumer protection. It is proposed to reduce the dependence of the country’s financial system on the decisions of several parent banks, especially if they are from a single country.
Bank of Lithuania: the conclusions are selective and wrong
In a statement released Tuesday, the Bank of Lithuania stated that the information in the study report is presented selectively, regardless of certain calculations and facts presented to the committee.
“The estimates provided are wrong and misleading, not based on objective data provided to the Committee, but on one-sided preconceived notions and interpretations, without providing meaningful arguments,” the report said.
According to him, the witnesses interviewed during the investigation were selectively selected, deliberately ignoring the experts who worked on the topics addressed in the investigation, such as VILIBOR.
According to the Bank of Lithuania, the investigative material and conclusions, if approved, will mislead the public, as the information in the investigative report is presented unilaterally, that is, choosing only arguments that supposedly support the narrative of the Research, but deliberately without providing another increase in interest rates during a crisis, is evaluated by selectively emphasizing the consequences of only one type of increase in interest rates. ‘
The bank also accuses the investigators in the conclusion of deliberately ignoring the calculations made by the Bank of Lithuania at the request of the BFK itself and other information provided when it fails to comply with the pre-formulated narrative.
“Assessing the development of the VILIBOR indicator during the crisis ignores the facts that contradict the unilateral opinion prevailing in the conclusion of the study,” the report said.
He claims that the information provided in the research material does not correspond substantially to the circumstances related to the functions of the Bank of Lithuania that have changed over the past decade.
According to the Bank of Lithuania, certain recommendations presented in the research material are irrelevant, may contradict the principles of the European Union (EU) or do not reflect the regulatory changes that have already taken place, the changed economic environment and the decisions made by others. institutions.
The Seimas Committee received instructions to carry out the investigation in March 2018.
[ad_2]
