(1)

On 10 November 2008 Latvia notified to the Commission a package of measures in favour of JSC Parex Banka (hereinafter “Parex” or “the bank”), designed to support the stability of the financial system, which was approved on 24 November 2008 (1) (hereinafter “first Parex decision”). On 26 January 2009, Latvia informed the Commission about several changes to the public support measures to JSC Parex Banka, which were approved on 11 February 2009 (2) (hereinafter “second Parex decision”). On 29 March 2009, Latvia notified to the Commission the need for further changes to the recapitalisation measure, which was approved by Commission Decision of 11 May 2009 (3) (hereinafter “third Parex decision”).

(2)

On the final date of the rescue period, which ended on 11 May 2009 (4), Latvia notified a restructuring plan for Parex. On 5 June 2009 a request for information was sent to the Latvian authorities. On 15 June 2009 a meeting was held between the Latvian authorities and the Commission. The documents provided by the Latvian authorities during the meeting were registered on 16 June 2009. Latvia replied partially to the above request for information by letter of 7 July 2009, registered on the same day.

(3)

The beneficiary, Parex, is a financial institution based in Latvia. It is a universal bank offering the full range of banking products directly and through specialised subsidiaries. Parex is the second largest bank in Latvia in terms of assets (5) and considered to be of systemic importance for the Latvian financial system. The bank was particularly active in business with non-resident (and non-OECD, mostly CIS) clients, particularly in the deposits segment.

(4)

The bank was founded in 1992 and was majority owned by two individuals until the current financial crisis, when due to the bank's difficulties the Latvian authorities decided to partly nationalise the bank and to provide public support measures in favour of Parex. Parex was nationalised through acquisition of a 84,83 % stake by the Government of Latvia in November and December 2008. After the recapitalization measure approved as rescue aid, the Latvian State increased its participation in Parex up to about 95 %. The rest of Parex’ shares are owned by institutional investors.

(5)

Parex is the parent company of the Parex Group and it accounts for 98 % of the group’s assets. The Parex Group is currently present in 15 countries through operating subsidiaries or, in certain cases, representative offices. The bank has branches in Stockholm, Tallinn, Hamburg and Berlin and 11 representative offices in 9 other countries. Operations in Sweden and Germany are limited to taking of deposits. The bank owns leasing companies in all three Baltic States since 2003. It has acquired six leasing companies in CIS countries (6) (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Azerbaijan) to offer both operating and financial leases to its clients. The group's asset and pension fund management activities are principally carried out through IPAS Parex Asset Management (“PAM”), which provides investment management and advisory services to local and foreign high net worth individuals, corporations, mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, foundations and endowments. The Swiss private banking subsidiary AP Anlage & Privatbank AG provides specialised private banking services to Latvian and other international customers.

(6)

Parex’ loan portfolio grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28 % during Latvia's credit boom (2004- 2008). While historically the bank focused on corporate lending, over the last three years it has been expanding the retail book, particularly mortgages. The loan portfolio of the bank is relatively concentrated with the real estate sector representing 26 % of the gross loan portfolio as of year end 2008 (YE 08). In addition, more than half of the retail loans, which amount to 33 % of the portfolio, are mortgage loans. Parex’ real estate exposure is in line with the Latvian market where lending growth over the last two years has been in parallel to the real estate boom.

(7)

Parex ran into difficulties in October 2008, when the financial environment deteriorated dramatically. Parex, as the largest Latvian bank without a strong foreign parent, suffered most from the lack of trust in the Latvian financial sector with a loss in depositor confidence. However, it must be noted that even when the liquidity tensions emerged, the bank continued the dynamic growth of the loan portfolio assuming easy access to wholesale funding. Overall, in the absence of significant long-term funding, the bank's maturity mismatch between assets and liabilities was very significant, as the funds collected on very short-term deposits were lent for mostly real estate related projects. The run on deposits peaked at a daily outflow of EUR 100 million, which resulted in a fall in deposits of 36 % compared to end 2007 (mostly due to a run by corporate depositors and individual residents). The resulting shortfall in funding was replaced by State liquidity measures (7).

(8)

Parex sought government assistance in early November 2008 when it faced a severe liquidity crisis. Before providing liquidity and other measures, the Latvian State took over an initial 51 % stake in the bank. However, trust was not restored and the deposit run continued. This forced the government to acquire the remaining 34 % held by the bank’s founders. In total, the Latvian State acquired the bank's shares, which represent 84,83 % of the bank's paid-up share capital, at a symbolic total purchase price of LVL 2 (EUR 3). Due to unstopping bank run, limits on deposit withdrawals (partial deposit freeze) were imposed and, as the Commission was initially informed, these restrictions should have been withdrawn by mid 2009. However, from the last submission of 7 July 2009, it can be inferred that they are still in place.

(9)

The […] (8) report prepared by an external consultant on 26 January 2009, which was submitted with the restructuring plan, identified the following issues that need to be addressed by the bank:

(10)

Following a due diligence exercise, the bank booked losses amounting to LVL 131 million (EUR 185 million) in 2008 on group level compared to a profit of LVL 40 million (EUR 58 million) in 2007. As of YE 08 total shareholder’s equity fell by 65 % to LVL 77 million mainly because of increased loan loss provisions and losses on the securities portfolio. As of YE 08, Parex’ Capital Adequacy Ratio (hereinafter “CAR”) and Parex’ Group CAR was only 4,1 % and 3,1 % respectively. Therefore, the bank was not fulfilling its regulatory obligations for several months before seeking an amended recapitalisation measure by the State. Provisions as of YE 08 amounted to 6,4 % of gross loan portfolio (GLP), well above the Latvian banking market provisioning of 2,1 % reported by the regulatory authority (12). The bank has breached a number of prudential requirements. Whilst some of the breaches were remedied following the recapitalisation by the State, some will still need to be remedied in the restructuring phase, notably, with regard to the foreign currency open positions limits, the liquidity ratio and the mandatory reserve requirements. Due to non-compliance with mandatory reserve requirement, the bank suffers penalty fines which will substantially impact the current year's result.

(11)

It has to be noted that the bank had relatively high operational costs. Parex’ management historically focused on business expansion and to this end expanded the bank’s cost base substantially. This is illustrated by its cost-income ratio when compared to the sector (65 % vs. sector average of 43 % in 2007). Furthermore, high operational costs also resulted from excessive allowances to shareholder managers.

(12)

The previously approved rescue aid measures for Parex are the following:

(13)

The submitted restructuring plan covers a period from 2009 to 2013. It foresees the implementation of a new strategy with the bank aiming to become a leading pan-Baltic bank. Its operations will be organised in the three main business segments: corporate, retail and private capital management, deemed to be the future core segments of Parex.

(14)

The bank defines the three Baltic markets as its domestic market places and plans to take advantage of their similarities, in spite of limited market presence to date, in particular in Estonia, where it only held a 0,5 % share in terms of total assets. In the Baltic market, Parex aims to be the nearest, most easily accessible, local bank, focusing on the retail business with private and corporate clients, especially targeting the SME sector. The bank will use its existing branch network to implement its strategy of localness. Attractive rates and […] marketing strategy (14) shall support the growth path of Parex.

(15)

The bank's future core business activities are shown in the figure below.

(16)

However, by letter of 7 July 2009 Latvia informed the Commission of the planned change in Parex’ business strategy that consists in focusing of Parex lending activities to the strategic sectors of the Latvian economy, State and government institutions as well as companies that would be co-financed by the European structural funds. It is envisaged that Latvia would issue State guarantees to the bank, providing financing for implementation of the State aid loan programmes.

(17)

Parex considers all other international activities, such as its Western European operations, the private capital management in CIS and the leasing subsidiaries in CIS as non-core activities. Parex is currently in the process of identifying assets that can be segregated as non-core or legacy and eventually run-off (15) or sold (see section 2.4.6. below). Given the current market environment, wherein the bank does not see possibilities for imminent sale of assets, the restructuring plan foresees sustaining the value of these operations in order for them to be spun off at a later, yet unspecified, date. Before that, these international activities are stated to be necessary for a successful restructuring of the bank mainly due to the funding gap resulting from the run on the bank.

(18)

In this regard, the Latvian authorities consider that in the near term the bank could not dispose of any deposit taking operation. Notably, some of the current exposure to Russia and other CIS lending markets should be retained for loan portfolio diversification reasons. The bank also seeks opportunities to attract retail funding from the Western European subsidiaries by offering competitive interest rates. As regards CIS clients’ retail deposits, they are regarded as vital for the bank in the short to medium term to achieve the funding targets of the restructuring plan. In the long run, however, the bank will implement a new business model as regards CIS clients based on targeting higher value-added customers to whom products and services with a higher profit margin can be sold. Moreover, new loans to CIS based customers […].

(19)

To focus on its new core business, Parex plans to retain its current footprint in the loans market but to restrict its new lending to its core client segments. Loan books to the sectors or geographies where the bank is over-exposed are planned to be decreased, notably in the real estate and construction sectors and CIS (according to the latest submission, it is planned to reduce CIS loans and leasing portfolio by LVL [between 150 and 250] million and LVL [between 100 and 200] million respectively by 2013). However pursuant to the notified restructuring plan, under the base scenario, the bank is planning to achieve a larger net volume of loans both in total and in each of the three above-mentioned segments by 2013. The balance sheet would contract slightly only due to a decrease in the securities’ portfolio. Under a negative scenario, the bank would slightly contract its retail and corporate loans’ portfolio by 2013. Moreover, maintaining and improving the liquidity and reducing the bank’s over-reliance on short term funding, as well as a reduction of operating costs and an improvement of risk management are said to be a top priority for the bank during the restructuring phase. To regain the lost deposit base the bank envisages pursuing […] pricing strategy, especially in relation to the top corporate clients who are a substantial source of the bank’s funds. Under the base scenario Parex plans to achieve in 2013 a larger deposits volume than in the pre-crisis year of 2007.

(20)

Nonetheless, the future private capital management activity will have no geographical focus, even if in the long term the Latvian home market is regarded as priority area. The restructuring strategy of this business segment foresees the broadening of the existing product range to increase the fee generation […]. Initially, Parex will offer its Private Capital Management services for […] low prices […] (16).

(21)

Another corner stone of the restructuring process is […] and notably to achieve the goals that are set by the retail segment. […] aim to keep existing customers and to attract new customers to widen the bank's deposit base. The bank thus intends to signal to the market a fundamental change of Parex. Nevertheless, in this regard no clear decision seems to have been taken yet and the work seems only to be starting.

(22)

Finally, the bank's operational processes are to be evaluated and optimized to utilise possible synergies.

(23)

Taking into account the risk of negative developments, the Latvian authorities consider that liquidity support up to LVL 1,5 billion may need to be provided to the bank. Under the base scenario, the expected outstanding amount at the end of the forecast period in 2013 is planned at LVL 305 million. On the basis of the provided information it is not clear when this support would be entirely repaid. In the negative scenario, it is assumed that the repayment of the funding could be delayed or the bank would require additional funding. Nonetheless, the Latvian authorities envisage that under the negative scenario the State liquidity measures would amount to a smaller amount of LVL 217 million in YE 2013. In the alternative, i.e. optimistic scenario (hereinafter “optimistic”), the liquidity support will end in 2012.

(24)

The Latvian authorities plan to roll over the liquidity support in the form of short-term deposits which have been provided in the rescue phase (indicatively, the maturity will be in the range of three months to one year). In order to reflect normal market conditions and the bank's risk profile, the Latvian authorities intend to adjust the remuneration mechanism for renewed deposits. In this regard, the Latvian authorities use as a benchmark the interest rate obtained under the renegotiated syndicated loan agreements, which are State guaranteed. The interest rate is a sum of a short-term floating base rate (currently 1 month EURIBOR) and 3 % fixed spread.

(25)

The interest rate for liquidity measures in EUR will be set, by analogy to the abovementioned interest rate, as the sum of the following components: (i) short term floating base rate EURIBOR (17); (ii) 3 % fixed spread; (iii) 44,8 bps (the same as for A-rated fundamentally sound banks) and (iv) 50 bps add-on fee. As a result, the remuneration as set in the rescue phase increases by around 180 bps, since the previous element of remuneration representing credit spread for Latvia over EUR mid-swaps, then at 120 bps, is replaced by the above-mentioned fixed spread of 3 %. However, if the fixed spread of 3 % is eventually lower than the credit risk spread over benchmark EURIBOR/mid-swap rate for further public borrowings, the fixed spread will be accordingly adjusted upward to the higher credit risk spread in order to reflect the Latvian government’s actual funding costs. In any case, the interest rate for deposits will not fall below the interest rate applied for the last received tranche of the loan to Latvia under the Economic Stabilisation and Growth Programme.

(26)

The interest rate for liquidity measures in LVL will remain unchanged as set in the rescue phase. It amounts to the sum of: (i) an annual yield of the most recently issued domestic T-bills; (ii) 44.8 bps; and (iii) 50 bps add-on fee.

(27)

All State liquidity measures in Parex are guaranteed by good quality loans, i.e. standard loans paid back without any delay as well as supervised loans repayment of which can be delayed in principle no more than 30 days (90 days, if the secondary source of loan repayment is reliable). The proportion between a pledge and deposits should not be less than […] (18). In case of some impairment, amendments in the pledge agreement are to be made.

(28)

As regards State guarantees, in both the base and the negative scenario they are envisaged to be terminated by YE 2011. Based on the base scenario of the notified restructuring plan, the bank may, however, require additional State guarantees in respect of the outstanding Eurobonds, amounting to LVL 89 million. Moreover, in the optimistic scenario, the restructuring plan envisages more significant State guarantees to be provided in respect of funding to be obtained from international financial institutions including, amongst others, the European Investment Bank. In this scenario it is planned that the State guarantees would remain beyond the end of the forecast period and at YE 2013 the State guarantees would amount to LVL 200 million.

(29)

The remuneration for new or renewed guarantees has not been specified explicitly. As for existing guarantees, no adjustment of the pricing methodology applied under the rescue phase is foreseen (19).

Table 1

State liquidity measures and guaranteed loans (the balances at the year end)

(30)

As regards additional recapitalisation measures, the restructuring plan envisages that by the end of 2009 Parex will receive additional LVL 24 million of share capital. According to the negative scenario, the bank may need additional share capital in the amount of up to LVL 25 million to ensure a Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of 9 % for the bank and additional LVL 32 million to ensure a CAR of 11 %. This is, however, not in line with the stress testing exercise of the supervisory authority, as orally presented in the meeting with the Latvian authorities of 15 June 2009, which shows higher capital needs (20).

(31)

Furthermore, the restructuring plan assumes that Parex will receive also additional LVL 12 million in subordinated loans (21). To date the remuneration for the additional capital has not been specified.

(32)

The financial projections comprise bottom-up forecasts of business volumes by customer segments (the latest submission refers to volumes for the following business segments: retail banking, corporate banking and private capital management, split according to geographical segments, currencies, standard vs. credit card loans). The Latvian authorities state that business managers of respective units have forecasted loans and deposits in these segments under three different scenarios based on the bank’s strategy of restoring lost market share (22).

(33)

On the basis of the information provided by Latvia, the base scenario relies on the following assumption:

(34)

As provided by Latvia, the negative scenario and the optimistic scenario rely on the following assumptions as compared to the base case:

(35)

According to the base scenario and negative scenario the main indicators of Parex will develop as shown in the table below.

Table 2

Financial Projections

(36)

The restructuring plan does not include a stress test carried out by the supervisory authority, which would reflect, in particular, all exposures, macroeconomic risks, the exit of the State aid and other market risks for the whole length of the restructuring period (25).

(37)

Parex’ business strategy is not based upon market studies developed by an independent expert. According to Latvia, in the current economic circumstances, it is highly unlikely that any reliable institution will publish forecasts for more than the next two years. The same stands for the more detailed projections related to the banking sector. Since Parex’ operations in other countries are not significant and are irrelevant in terms of market shares, Latvia states that it is unreasonable to commission external studies. Instead, the Latvian authorities intend, in cooperation with an investment bank (acting as Parex’ consultant) to build a reasonable set of independent projections and, using Parex’ historic data on market shares, develop future market shares forecasts.

(38)

In April 2009, the Latvian authorities signed an agreement to sell 25 % plus one share of the bank's equity to the EBRD. The EBRD intends to be a long-term investor and participate in the development of the Bank and ultimately return it to the private sector. Based on the information provided, the deal has not yet been completed (26).

(39)

In the context of the third Parex decision, the Latvian authorities stated that it is their intention that the State would sell Parex’ shares as soon as possible once the exit price is reasonable and achievable, but not later than after a period of three years since the first rescue measures were provided to Parex. To this end, an investment bank has been entrusted to support this process. The Latvian authorities and the investment bank declare that they will use best efforts to run an efficient process that should allow the closing of the transaction by the end of 2009. The investment bank will contact a wide list of potential investors. This will include Western European banks who have a presence in Eastern Europe, Eastern European banks looking to expand in the region, the larger Russian banks as well as private equity investors who are targeting financial services. Ahead of the process the investment bank will remain open to receiving pro-active approaches and determine jointly with the Latvian authorities whether to consider initiating any bilateral discussions before September. However, in its latest submission of 7 July 2009, Latvia expressed certain doubts as for the possibility of Parex’ quick privatisation related, among others, to Latvia's and the world economic situation and short term challenges such as potential deposit outflows […] and closing of the EBRD's investment.

(40)

The restructuring plan does not identify restructuring costs and does not explain in detail how these costs are to be covered. It assumes the EBRD's capital investment in Parex and ultimately also its return to the private sector. The potential private buyer will supposedly replace the granted State aid with its own funds. However, according to the Latvian authorities, it cannot be excluded that some State aid measures will be retained even after the privatisation.

(41)

As mentioned above, Parex is currently in the process of identifying assets that can be segregated as non-core or legacy and eventually run-off or sold. According to the latest submission of the Latvian authorities of 7 July 2009, the legacy and non-core assets initially intended for the run-off or sale amount to LVL [between 650 and 950] million. According to the Latvian authorities, however, the restructuring plan does not provide any reserves for spin-offs that decrease capital, therefore any spin-off under that plan should be done in a “capital-neutral” manner. None of the buyers approached to date were willing to continue negotiating based on the terms offered by the bank and expressed the need for […], which was considered not feasible by the bank taking into account its capital position. Among the assets Parex plans to include are c. LVL [between 150 and 250] million of CIS loans in addition to the complete CIS leasing portfolio (LVL [between 100 and 200] million) and a significant proportion of the securities portfolio (LVL [between 90 and 400] million). LVL [between 650 and 900] million represents ~ […] % of Parex’ assets as of March 2009. The timeline for this disposal was not specified by the Latvian authorities to date.

(42)

In addition, it has to be noted that the notified restructuring plan submitted by the Latvian authorities provides that the business synergies between private capital management and other divisions are […]. Therefore, according to the Latvian authorities, the spin-off of the private capital management division could be potentially envisaged. The Latvian authorities also noted that this business segment does not constitute part of the future activities of Parex as envisaged by the EBRD.

(43)

As for the behavioural constraints Latvia undertakes that Parex will not invoke State support as a source of competitive advantage when marketing its financial offer.

(44)

Latvia also indicates in the latest submission of 7 July 2009 that Parex will not be an overall price leader in its core markets. Latvia submits that this does not exclude the bank providing attractive terms to its customers for a limited period of time and for specific products increasing overall profitability of the specific client or client group. This statement, however, would seem to be in contradiction to the basic assumption of Parex’s restructuring plan and its current operation (27).

(45)

Regarding an adequate remuneration, the Latvian authorities propose the adjusted methodology for pricing the liquidity support. However, the Latvian position on the remuneration of other State measures envisaged in the restructuring plan is not clear (see section 2.4.2 above).

(46)

As stated in Article 87(1) EC, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty.

(47)

The Commission notes that Parex is involved in cross-border and international activities, so that any advantage from State resources would affect competition in the banking sector and have an impact on intra-Community trade.

(48)

In line with the assessment of the rescue measures granted to Parex (see decision of 24 November 2008 (28)), which are to be maintained during the restructuring phase, the Commission agrees with the position of Latvia that the State measures provided and to be provided to Parex in the context of its restructuring in the form of State guarantee, liquidity measures and capital injection constitute State aid pursuant to Article 87(1) EC.

(49)

As regards the consideration of the Latvian authorities that all additional State guarantees for Parex will be provided under the State guarantee scheme approved by the Commission on 22 December 2008 (29), the Commission considers that this is not covered by the approved Latvian guarantee scheme. The Latvian guarantee scheme applies to emergency aid measures. However, further State guarantees as well as the maintenance of the State guarantees granted in the rescue phase are beyond the initial 6 months’ rescue period, which ended with the submission of the restructuring plan for Parex by the Latvian authorities on 11 May 2009. Thus, these measures do not constitute an emergency measure but a measure that is part of the restructuring. The State guarantees therefore have to be assessed as ad hoc aid in the context of the present restructuring.

(50)

Latvia claims that the aid should be assessed on the basis of Article (87)(3)(b) EC. Latvia considers that Parex is a bank with systemic relevance since it is the second largest bank in Latvia in terms of assets. In addition, the Latvian authorities underline that Parex is the main bank involved in non-resident deposit business, which is of significant importance for the Latvian economy (40 % of total deposits are non-domestic, mostly from CIS). The support measures were necessary in order to remedy a serious disturbance of the Latvian economy.

(51)

Article 87(3)(b) EC enables the Commission to declare aid compatible with the Common market, if it is aimed at remedying “a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State”. The Commission recalls that the Court of First Instance has stressed that Article 87(3)(b) EC needs to be applied restrictively and must tackle a disturbance in the entire economy of a Member State (30).

(52)

On 13 October 2008 the Commission adopted a Communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (“Banking Communication”) (31). In the Banking Communication the Commission acknowledges that, in light of the severity of the current crisis in the financial markets and of its possible impact on the overall economy of Member States, Article 87(3)(b) EC is, in the present circumstances, available as a legal basis for aid measures undertaken to address this systemic crisis.

(53)

In addition, in its decisions approving the Latvian guarantee scheme and the rescue aid in favour of Parex the Commission considered that Article 87(3)(b) applies.

(54)

The Commission assumes therefore, due to the systemic relevance of Parex, that not granting State aid to Parex would have led to a serious disturbance in the Latvian economy. On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that Article 87(3)(b) EC can be applied in the case at stake and that the notified aid measures should be assessed on this basis.

(55)

As the Commission has set out in the three Communications adopted in the context of the current financial crisis (32), aid measures granted to banks in the context of the ongoing financial crisis should be assessed in line with the principles of the rescue and restructuring aid Guidelines, while taking into consideration the particular features of the systemic crisis in the financial markets (33). That means that the principles of the rescue and restructuring aid Guidelines may have to be adapted when applied to the restructuring of Parex in the present crisis, which is assessed on the basis of Article 87(3)(b) EC. Within this context attention should be given to the rules set out in the rescue and restructuring aid Guidelines for own contribution. Given the fact that the external financing for Parex has dried up and that the 50 % requirement set in rescue and restructuring aid Guidelines appears unfeasible in the current economic setting, the Commission accepts that during the crisis in the financial markets it may not be appropriate to request that the own contribution represents a predefined proportion of the costs of restructuring. Furthermore, the design and implementation of measures to limit distortion of competition may also need to be reconsidered in so far as Parex may need more time for their implementation due to the current market circumstances.

(56)

As the Commission has indicated in previous guidance, the depth of restructuring required to return to viability is likely to be in direct proportion, on the one hand, to the scope and volume of the aid provided to Parex and, on the other, to the fragility of its business model (34).

(57)

The restructuring plan must provide a credible basis on which it can be expected that the viability of the company will be restored within a reasonable time span. In other words, it must enable the bank to “stand on its own feet”, without continued State support. At this stage the Commission is unable to conclude that it is likely that this will be ascertained.

(58)

More specifically, the Commission’s doubts on the restoration of viability are based on the following elements.

(59)

First, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to clarify how and when the bank would re-establish compliance with relevant regulatory requirements (see paragraph (10) above).

(60)

Second, the Commission considers that the restructuring plan needs to address more thoroughly the risk factors identified in the […] report drawn up by the external consultant (see paragraph (9) above). The notified restructuring plan does not seem to clarify how these issues will be addressed during the restructuring phase. Hence, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to comprehensively address all the above-mentioned risk factors. Notably, with respect to non-OECD loans, large loans and real estate related loans, the Commission would like to obtain from the Latvian authorities further information on performance of these sub-segments of loans to date as well as their forecasted net growth, repayment and provisioning levels during the restructuring period. At this stage, the Commission agrees with the external consultant's considerations that the Probability of default (PD) and Loss-given-default (LGD) ratios should not be more optimistic than the respective average ratios in the banking sector in Central and Eastern Europe.

(61)

Third, the Commission has doubts on how the bank will manage the lifting of deposit withdrawal restrictions. It observes that the previously estimated end date for such restrictions seems to be postponed and invites the Latvian authorities to provide a strategy in this regard.

(62)

Fourth, the notified restructuring plan does not have a clear focus and in the base scenario seems to be built on an expanding business strategy for all lending segments with the exception of […] as illustrated by the financial projections with regard to the net loans and receivables over the restructuring period. At this stage the Commission observes that the restructuring plan does not provide for abandoning or significant reduction of all more risky activities, such as lending to high net worth individuals in CIS countries, either. Due to the lack of detailed projections, the Commission cannot assess at this stage whether the exposure to the mortgage lending business or lending to other sectors currently experiencing particular difficulties will be decreased during the restructuring exercise (see paragraphs (66) et seq. below). For instance, the bottom-up financial projections provided as on 7 July 2009 show a growth in lending to CIS clients in the private capital management segment in spite of the general indication in the restructuring plan that […]. Furthermore, the Commission doubts that the liquidity constraints are duly reflected in the bank's restructuring strategy with regard to new lending. Notably, given the fact that the restructuring plan aims to restore the previous size of the gross loan portfolio, Parex needs significant funds, which could only be achieved through a slower reduction of the State funding and/or by assuming a rapid restoration of lost deposit volumes. As a result, the Commission at this stage considers that a smaller scale and more focused bank might provide a less costly and/or less distortive alternative solution whilst preserving financial stability.

(63)

To address funding concerns, the deposits volumes are forecasted to increase for all sub-segments. In particular, a twofold increase is envisaged for the largest private capital management deposits sub-segment by YE 2013 as compared to YE 2009. The Commission doubts whether this is realistic and whether this can be achieved only through “service and innovation”. Furthermore, the Commission observes that the bank seems to expand all deposit raising activities, including through its Western European subsidiaries. At this stage, the Commission doubts whether this is cost efficient. Therefore, the plan seems to be depending on rather optimistic assumptions as to future operating conditions. As a consequence, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to reconsider the restructuring plan for the bank in this regard and to justify all substantial increases of assets and funding categories.

(64)

In relation to the above, the Commission has doubts on the assumptions on the bank's penetration in different market segments and would seek further information on this aspect.

(65)

Fifth, given the significant maturity mismatch of the bank’s assets and liabilities to date, the Commission doubts whether the reliance on deposits alone can provide for a sustainable long-term solution for the bank. It seems that the bank would also need more long-term and stable means of financing. In this context, the Commission considers that the restructured bank should be able to compete in the marketplace for capital and/or long-term debt funding on its own merits.

(66)

Finally, the financial projections comprise bottom-up forecasts of business volumes by customer segments. Due to the use of such approach, it is unclear to the Commission what underlying assumptions were used with regard to gross and net new lending, provisioning levels, and macroeconomic assumptions, notably with regard to real estate market developments. The separation between previously dominating large loans and currently targeted SME loans is not visible either. The impact of the interest rate margin on net income and the assumptions related to the increase of commission income are not comprehensible either. In other words, the Commission does not see the link between the assumptions provided in the notified plan and the resulting financial forecasts for the whole bank during the restructuring period. Furthermore, some of the assumptions, i.e. concerning the interest rates on different loans and deposits, provide for swings over the restructuring period, which are not explained in the plan.

(67)

In the light of the above, the Commission is not able at this stage to ascertain how the increases in different segments of loans and income may be explained. Notably, the Commission has not been made aware of how the significant exposure to the real estate sector in the context of the ongoing economic crisis, the projected low price strategy and relatively expensive funding costs would impact the financial projections of the bank. In this respect, the Commission notes that a high price strategy in funding is likely to have a negative effect on the bank's margin and has doubts whether this has been duly reflected in the bank's restructuring strategy.

(68)

In addition, the Commission has not been provided with the results of the stress testing by the Regulator. The Commission has not been provided with the full list of assumptions underlying the base case, the negative case and the optimistic case either (notably, macroeconomic assumptions on projected development of the real estate sector, loss provisions by subcategory of loans, other factors explaining substantial increases in fee income or substantial decreases in expenses). In this regard, in view of the severe nature of the present economic crisis in Latvia with a contraction of the economy of 4,6 % in 2008 and a predicted contraction of 15 % in 2009 (35), the Commission needs to underline the importance of adequate stress testing. The Commission's assessment will take into account the uncertainties of the underlying assumptions about the further macroeconomic development in general, including the real estate sector. The Commission invites the Latvian authorities to clarify why the negative case provides for less State aid than the base case (see table 1 above which shows that: (a) for the whole period, the amount of State guaranteed loans is less in the negative scenario than in the base one; and (b) for 2013, the amount of State liquidity measures is lower in the negative scenario than in the base one).

(69)

As regards the portfolio of securities, which is envisaged to decrease substantially under all three scenarios, the Commission observes that the majority were reclassified to held-to-maturity (HTM). Therefore, it is not clear whether securities are projected to mature or to be sold and invites the Latvian authorities to provide information on this issue.

(70)

At this stage, the Commission has therefore not been able to assess in sufficient detail the restructuring plan and to verify whether it was made on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future operating conditions. The Commission observes that even the partially revised and more segregated financial projections submitted by the Latvian authorities on 7 July 2009 are not detailed enough. Therefore, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to submit the financial projections wherein all the relevant and significant segments would be visible also including deposits from institutional customers (municipalities, public sector enterprises and State institutions).

(71)

Measures to limit distortions of competition in banking restructuring cases must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid. In particular, the nature and form of these measures need to reflect the amount of the aid and the conditions and circumstances under which it was granted and, second, the characteristics of the market or markets on which the beneficiary bank will operate, including the bank's relative importance on these markets.

(72)

In this regard, the Commission observes that the bank was the second largest bank in Latvia. In contrast to other major banks (36) operating in the Baltic States, Parex is not owned by larger banks of other Member States or third countries. Parex continued the growth of the loan portfolio when the liquidity crisis emerged (37). In the light of the envisaged business expansion strategy, the Commission needs to investigate in more detail whether the implementation of the envisaged restructuring, as notified on 11 May 2009, may not lead to undue distortions of competition. In particular, the Commission observes that the plan seems to rely on an […] pricing and marketing policy (38), e.g. Parex might use its competitive advantage due to the secured refinancing by the State to the detriment of competitors. Moreover, under the plan the bank will receive significant amounts of aid and envisages a rapid regaining of its lost market shares in different market segments, whilst also entering a new market segment of lending to […].

(73)

The Commission doubts that sufficient measures are taken to offset the negative effects of the aid. As regards the envisaged spin-offs or divestitures, they seem, at least partly, necessary for the restoration of viability. The Commission has doubts whether these measures offset specific market distortions. Furthermore, it is not clear how the disposals will be achieved given the aim to execute them only in a “capital friendly manner”. The Commission preliminarily considers that it cannot be excluded that at least for part of the disposable assets the underlying economic value may prove to be below book value and hence in the medium term perspective the bank may need to provide some further discount in order to be able to sell them. As regards the behavioural commitments provided by the Latvian authorities, at this stage the Commission considers them to be insufficient. Indeed, they should be designed in a way as to prevent the bank from using […] pricing to regain lost market shares which would unduly distort competition.

(74)

In view of the above, the Commission at this stage considers that the currently envisaged measures to limit distortions of competition are insufficient. In particular, a non-price leadership clause and possible growth limitations in core market segments, the further shrinkage of the bank's lending activities and hence reduction of its currently envisaged funding needs through deposits might be needed to mitigate competition distortions.

(75)

As regards the apparent reliance of Parex on operating State aid schemes (as referred to in point 16) in its future business, the Commission at this stage doubts whether the direct entrustment of Parex does not include further aid elements to the bank. Furthermore, the Commission recalls that the bank's viability should derive mainly from internal measures as opposed to future reliance on the State. It needs to be noted that it seems, at this stage, open whether and how this task should be assigned to Parex and how the remuneration for this potential assignment should be fixed. At this stage, it is also unclear how the separation between Parex’ purely commercial activities and the State assigned ones, in terms of financial and organizational structure, would be ensured. In this regard, the Latvian authorities are invited to clarify to what extent the bank would lend on the basis of a State guarantee in relation to, inter alia, SME State aid schemes.

(76)

The Commission invites the interested parties to comment on all the above issues and to indicate what other measures might be needed to prevent undue distortions of competition caused by the aid at issue.

(77)

The Commission does not yet have clear information on the whole amount of own contribution. On this basis the Commission has no indication that the own contribution to the restructuring would be sufficient.

(78)

In the case at hand, the Commission doubts whether the restructuring plan is focussed so as to provide the bank with the minimum State aid necessary to enable it to restore its long-term viability and to be able to compete on its own merits in a medium term. In this context, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to specify in detail the State measures envisaged for the bank's restructuring under all three scenarios. Notably the Latvian authorities are requested to clarify the maximum amounts that they intend to provide to Parex.

(79)

As regard the aid being limited to the minimum necessary, little information has been submitted so far by the Latvian authorities.

(80)

First, the Commission observes that under all three scenarios even by the “end” of the restructuring period, i.e. by YE 2013, the bank remains dependent on the State liquidity facilities or State guarantees (see table 1 above). In this regard, the Commission considers that the bank should be able to obtain funding and to refinance its operations without State support in the form of State guarantees or loans in order to be considered viable on a standalone basis. The Commission preliminarily considers that this should be possible within a maximum period of 5 years. To this end, the Commission observes that the negative case, which assumes [between - 1 and 2] % loan growth post 2009, provides for less State support as at YE 2013 than the base case. By analogy, the Commission preliminarily considers that lower growth of the loan portfolio could reduce the outstanding State aid amounts in the form of liquidity measures.

(81)

Furthermore, the Commission needs to investigate to what extent Parex’ funding needs could be reduced by a greater focus on core activities and an overall further reduction of the bank's size. As regards the optimistic scenario, the Commission observes that attracting funds from international financial institutions would require additional State guarantees. However, a viable business should be able to finance itself in the medium term without any State guarantees. The fact that it is not projected even in a more optimistic scenario to attract funding from the markets without State guarantee raises further doubts on whether the envisaged restructuring plan is capable of restoring the bank's long-term viability. Therefore, the Commission invites the Latvian authorities to reconsider the minimum aid necessary to restore the viability of the bank.

(82)

Second, the Commission doubts whether the currently envisaged remuneration for the State measures liquidity measures can be considered as sufficient even when taking into account the collateral provided by the bank. Thus, at this stage it cannot exclude that the remuneration may need to be revised upward to adequately reflect the risk profile of the bank. In addition, it invites the Latvian authorities to clarify the remuneration of all aid measures and to possibly envisage step up clauses that would incentivise the bank to repay the aid as soon as possible.

(83)

Third, the Commission recalls that a clear and timed exit commitment by the Latvian State and its implementation would be a strong signal for the belief of the market in the long-term viability of Parex.

(84)

Fourth, the Commission cannot exclude at this stage that Parex may use the State aid to pursue […] price strategy (39) negatively reflecting on its margins. In the Commission's view this seems to indicate that the aid might not be limited to the minimum necessary. The Latvian authorities are thus invited to reconsider the overall amounts of aid in connection with the revised business strategy for the bank in light of viability concerns and limiting the aid to the minimum. Third parties are also invited to comment on the above issues.

(85)

On the basis of the above the Commission comes to the preliminary conclusion that the notified restructuring measures consisting of the prolongation of State guarantees, potential new State guarantees to ensure further funding needs of the bank, liquidity measures and capital injections constitute State aid. The Commission has at this stage doubts that such aid can be found to be compatible with the common market.