natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If we argue that if we are going to go down this road and hand everything down to Frankfurt so that they decide what the value of a house in Dublin is worth rather than the Dublin banking system itself, this will have severe ramifications.
Nastavimo li ovim putem i sve predamo Frankfurtu, da oni odlučuju koja je vrijednost kuće u Dublinu, a ne dablinski bankarski sustav, to će imati ozbiljne posljedice.
Also, we don't have a banking union, there is one and a half out of three pillars, we don't have the resolution mechanism, we don't have the guarantee system in place and the fact of the matter is, as many commentators have mentioned, that we have not yet set up a mechanism to deal with serious debt problems that exist in Europe, that the ECB have produced with ECF 60 billion, when the whole world knows that non-performing loans are ten times that at the minimum.
Isto tako, mi uopće nemamo bankarsku uniju, imamo jedan i pol od tri stupa, nemamo mehanizam sanacije, nemamo sustav garancije, a činjenica je, kao što su to mnogi komentatori već spomenuli, da još nismo uspostavili mehanizam za rješavanje ozbiljnih dužničkih problema koji postoje u Europi, da je ESB zajedno s Europskim kreditnim fondom napravila 60 milijardi duga, a cijeli svijet zna da je iznos loših kredita minimalno deset puta veći od toga.
And this mechanism was initially a very grand design.
Ispočetka je to bila velika tvorevina.
We are going to bring in a European banking union where we will have joint responsibility to support all the banks, and in return for that, we'll have all supervisory authority.
Uvest ćemo europsku bankarsku uniju, gdje ćemo imati zajedničku odgovornost u potpori bankama, a u zamjenu za to, imat ćemo nadzorni autoritet.
But they have given us a bit and they have given us the real thing and as a result, they have not supported the real problem at all and therefore countries like Italy have severe difficulty trying to deal with this problem.
No, oni su nam malo dali, nisu pružili potporu za pravi problem pa zemlje poput Italije imaju ozbiljne poteškoće u pokušaju da se nose sa situacijom.
DSF obviously has no use to it, trying to deal with the scale of its debt issues and its banking issues, yet the ECB are not able to help either.
Fond za osiguranje depozita očito nema koristi od njega, pokušava se nositi sa svojim dugovima i sa svojim bankarskim problemima, ali ni ESB ne može pomoći.
And as we recognized, there is very little domestic potential of investment in it.
I kao što smo prepoznali, tu je vrlo malo potencijala za domaća ulaganja.
So how to solve this problem?
Dakle, kako riješiti ovaj problem?
Who is going to deal with this problem?
Tko će se nositi s njime?
It is just being ignored.
Zar se jednostavno ignorira?
Unfortunately, the grand idea originally, that a banking union followed by a fiscal union would underpin what is a true common currency, is not what we got.
Nažalost, ono što je izvorno bila velika ideja, da će bankarska unija koju slijedi fiskalna unija poduprijeti zajedničku valutu, nije ono što smo dobili.
We heard none of that.
Ništa od toga još nemamo.
We have ditched the fiscal union.
Fiskalnu uniju smo odbacili.
We have one pillar out of three pillar banking union, and we have taken the control away from the local territories.
Imamo bankarsku uniju s jednim stupom umjesto s njih tri, a lokalnim područjima oduzeli smo kontrolu.
If you give a whole lot, you can have a whole lot.
Ako mnogo date, možete mnogo i dobiti.
But to give a little bit and take a lot, I think is dangerous.
No, pružiti malo i uzeti puno, mislim da je opasno.
That is my own personal view in terms of overall policy.
To je moje osobno mišljenje o ukupnoj politici.
Can I turn to an issue I've been thinking a lot about recently?
A sada o nečemu o čemu mnogo razmišljam u posljednje vrijeme.
How do we get to the bottom of what size the non-performing loans are, how do we assess them, how do we deal with them?
Kako ćemo doznati veličinu loših kredita, kako ćemo ih procijeniti, kako ćemo se nositi s njima?
It is a problem between sovereigns, debts and four major accounting firms, who seem to run the global financial world by auditing each of the banks.
To je problem između vladara, dugova i četiri glavne knjigovodstvene tvrtke, koje, čini se, pokreću globalni financijski svijet kroz reviziju svake banke.
My view is that this is not given anywhere near the attention that it deserves.
Smatram da to ni približno ne dobiva pozornost koju zaslužuje.
There is a serious breach of Company Law in many jurisdictions, concerning the reporting of bank profits, which seems to be happily ignored by most people who deal with it and also by a lot of shareholders who rely on these accounting statements.
U mnogim zemljama dolazi do ozbiljnog kršenja Zakona o trgovačkim društvima, pri izvještavanju o bankarskoj dobiti, a čini se da većina ljudi koji se time bave to uspješno ignoriraju, kao i brojni dioničari koji se oslanjaju na ta knjigovodstvena izvješća.
The whole accounting policy of profits is that banks simply do not have to mark the market.
Čitava knjigovodstvena politika dobiti je da se banke jednostavno ne moraju uskladiti prema tržištu.
They don't have to write the loan if the loan is in any way performing or may well perform at any time in the future and there is no need to write the loan to markers so you don't have to recognize losses until the loss actually occurs, arises and is there.
One ne moraju zabilježiti kredit ako je kredit naplativ ili se može naplatiti u bilo kojem trenutku u budućnosti i nema potrebe uskladiti vrijednost u knjigama, gubitak ne mora priznati dok god se on zapravo i ne dogodi, ne nastane i doista ne postoji.
Also, you don't have to provide against the loss.
Također, ne morate se osigurati protiv gubitka.
This whole method of reporting just started, it started in the US, where what happened was the following.
Cijeli ovaj način izvještavanja tek je počeo, i to u SAD-u, gdje je dogodilo sljedeće.
The people who invented them did not understand half of them, as we all know.
Ni oni koji su ih izmislili pola ih ne razumiju, kao što svi znamo.
Also, all the people who invented these mechanisms were getting paid based upon the profits that these products made, so they said: How are we going to account for these things?
Također, oni koji su ih izmislili plaćeni su na temelju dobiti koju su ti proizvodi stvarali, pa su govorili: Kako ćemo to objasniti?
How do we know if we made a loss on the policy?
Kako znamo da li smo time stvorili gubitak?
They took a view if you have a financial instrument of any description, be it a loan, an instrument etc., and only recognize that if you sell it, you make a loss.
Zauzeli su stajalište da ako imate financijski instrument bilo kojeg opisa, bilo da je kredit, instrument i sl., prepoznate da stvarate gubitak samo ako ga prodate.
If it's still in your balance sheet, leave it there.
Ako je još u vašoj bilanci, ondje ga i ostavite.
No marked mark.
Bez usklađivanja.
Just recognize that when you sell it, you lose it.
Samo prepoznajte da kada ga prodate, gubite.
And no provisioning.
I bez rezerviranja.
And they introduced it as a US accounting standard.
I to su uveli kao američki knjigovodstveni standard.
Of course, the International Accounting Standards Board in Europe were always battling with the US.
Naravno, Međunarodni odbor za knjigovodstvene standarde u Europi, uvijek se borio sa SAD-om.
There is a battle going on there, they compete with them as much as anyone else competes with them for business.
I oni se natječu s njima, kao i svatko drugi, za posao.
So this made its way into accounting standards.
I tako je to postalo dio knjigovodstvenih standarda.
This form of reporting for financial assets was adopted as a major accounting standard throughout the world, not just America.
Ovaj oblik izvještavanja o financijskoj imovini usvojen je kao jedan od glavnih knjigovodstvenih standarda u cijelom svijetu, a ne samo u Americi.
This means that many banks were reporting on that basis.
To znači da su mnoge banke izvještavale na tim temeljima.
As a result, losses were seriously underprovisioned.
Kao rezultat toga, za značajne gubitke nije postojala rezervacija.
On a very significant scale.
Za značajne gubitke.
Even in Ireland, we don't know the situation, no one really does, but the numbers do look a bit odd in terms of provisioning.
Čak ni u Irskoj ne znamo kakvo je pravo stanje stvari, nitko ne zna, ali te brojke izgledaju čudno u odnosu na rezervacije.
If you look at the Bank of Ireland, last year it had a 108 billion in loans, with 5 % provision against them, whereas the Bank of Scotland had 33 % of provision against their 27.6 billion in loans.
Bank of Ireland prošle je godine imala 108 milijardi u kreditima i 5% rezervacije za njih, dok je Bank of Scotland imala 33% za svoje 27,6 milijarde kredita.
There is a significant variation in provisioning between banks that were within the Irish system and wanted to continue keeping their profits up and their assets intact and ones that didn't care anymore and just reported it as it was because they were branches of the UK bank.
Doduše, situacija tu nije posve ista, ali postoji značajna razlika u rezervacijama između banaka koje su bile u irskom sustavu i htjele zadržati rast svog profita, i svoju aktivu netaknutom, i onih kojima do toga nije bilo stalo, i koje su prijavile pravo stanje stvari jer su ogranci britanskih banaka.
Of any standard, 5 % doesn't seem like a lot, but having said that, they aren't doing anything on toward because they are following the accounting standard.
Po bilo kojem standardu, 5% ne čini se mnogo, ali oni ne čine ništa više od toga, jer slijede knjigovodstvene standarde.
Because under Company Law in Europe, auditors are required to give a true and fair view of the results of the year.
Zato što prema Zakonu o trgovačkim društvima u Europi, revizori su dužni dati istinitu i objektivnu sliku financijskih rezultata.
That is paramount.
To je ključno.
That is a matter of law and what they now say is we give a true and fair view, in accordance with international accounting standards, which they counteract with, which means they are not giving you a true and fair view, we are giving you a version of a true and fair view.
To je zakonski regulirano i oni sada tvrde da daju istinitu i objektivnu sliku, u skladu s međunarodnim knjigovodstvenim standardima, kojima su zapravo oprečni, što znači da ne daju istinitu i objektivnu sliku nego njezinu verziju.
This has been commented upon.
O ovome se već govorilo.
The accounting standards body in England took opinions from major experts to get guidance, and guidance they didn't like.
Tijelo za knjigovodstvene standarde u Engleskoj tražilo je mišljenja od vodećih stručnjaka kako bi dobili smjernice, ali oni te smjernice nisu željeli čuti.
And the guidance was very much, you can't do this, you must show it as is, shareholders must be shown the true story.
Rečeno im je da ne mogu tako raditi, da moraju prikazati pravo stanje stvari jer dioničari moraju dobiti istinitu priču.
But they found the way to avoid it and have come up with a new formulation and it is going on to this day.
Ali našli su način da to izbjegnu, osmislili novu formulaciju kojom se koriste i danas.
Significant financial assets are underprovided for, opinions given by very senior professional lawyers in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere seem to be ignored and they can't figure out why any kind of firms and accountants would take that risk, but they appear to be able to do so.
Značajna financijska imovina nema pokriće, mišljenja jako iskusnih pravnika u Velikoj Britaniji, Irskoj i drugdje, ignoriraju se i nije jasno zašto bi bilo koja tvrtka ili pojedinac preuzeo taj rizik, no čini se da ga preuzimaju.
So that is something going forward and it brings me now to this new asset quality review process, which is about to happen now.
Dakle, to je nešto što se događa i što me dovodi do ovoga novog postupka pregleda kvalitete aktive, koji nas tek čeka.
It is interesting because the asset quality review process about to commence is going to try to harmonize the diverse definitions of non-performing loans and they are going to draw a new definition being prepared by the EU regulator, the European Banking Authority, which incidentally didn't cover itself in glory when they reported last time on the loans.
Zanimljivo je, jer postupkom pregleda kvalitete aktive pokušat će uskladiti različite definicije NPL-ova i izraditi novu, koju priprema regulator EU-a, Europsko nadzorno tijelo za bankarstvo, koje se posljednji put kad su izvijestili o kreditima i nije baš proslavilo.
This will be followed by stress tests.
Nakon toga slijede stres testovi.
And at the end of this asset quality review process, they are going to prepare, as Boris has pointed out, a published list of all the banks, their financial health, compare it to the CAMELS system in the US, where each bank will have strength of capital, quality, asset management, management, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risks etc. The big question is what rules they are going to use to do asset test, what principles they are going to use for non performing, what accounting rules they are going to adopt, are they going to continue the existing ones, what happens if they come up with a list of findings that quite a number of European banks are in serious difficulty?
A na kraju procesa pregleda kvalitete aktive, kao što je Boris istaknuo, pripremit će popis svih banaka, njihovo financijsko zdravlje, procjenu prema američkoj CAMEL metodologiji, gdje će za svaku banka biti izražena kvaliteta aktive, upravljanje aktivom, upravljanje, dobit, likvidnost, osjetljivost na tržišne rizike itd. Veliko pitanje je kojim će se pravilima koristiti kod ispitivanja aktive, kojim načelima za NPL-ove, koja će knjigovodstvena pravila usvojiti, hoće li nastaviti s postojećim, što će se dogoditi pokažu li njihovi nalazi da je velik broj europskih banaka u ozbiljnim teškoćama?
What do you do about it?
Što onda učiniti?
It is interesting because Wolfgang Münchau, who writes for the Financial Times, is a very interesting chap to read and is very perceptive on many things.
To je zanimljivo jer Wolfgang Münchau, koji piše za Financial Times, vrlo pronicavo piše o mnogim stvarima.
Two days ago he wrote about this whole process and said: The monetary and banking data are telling us that the economy will teeter on the brink of zero growth in the foreseeable future because the financial sector is not supplying the economy with sufficient funds.
Prije dva dana pisao je o cijelom tom procesu i rekao: Monetarni i bankarski podaci govore nam da će se u bliskoj budućnosti gospodarstvo klackati oko nulte stope rasta, jer financijski sektor ne opskrbljuje gospodarstvo s dovoljno sredstava.
And he goes on to say: The banking union could help, but only if it were to break the relationship between banks and sovereigns and clean up the balance sheets, yet neither is going to happen.
Nastavlja: Bankarska unija mogla bi pomoći, ali samo kad bi se prekinuo odnos između banaka i vladara i očistile bilance, a to se neće dogoditi.
I believe Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank has serious determination to produce a clean and honest asset quality review, which will start next month.
Vjerujem da je Mario Draghi, predsjednik Europske središnje banke, doista odlučan u namjeri da producira točan pregled kvalitete aktive, koji kreće sljedeći mjesec.
He certainly doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of the European Banking Authority which has lost all of its credibility with farcical stress tests.
On sigurno ne želi ponoviti pogreške Europskog nadzornog tijela za bankarstvo koje je izgubilo svu svoju vjerodostojnost s lakrdijaškim stres testovima.
He goes on to say: But what can he do if governments fail to agree fiscal backstop for this exercise?
Dalje: Ali što on može učiniti ako države ne mogu dogovoriti fiskalni backstop za to?
Would it not be irresponsible to admit that banks need several hundred billion euro in euro capital when that money is simply not there?
Ne bi li bilo neodgovorno priznati da bankama treba nekoliko stotina milijardi eura kapitala, kada taj novac jednostavno ne postoji?
But without the clean bill of the banking sector I see no trend change in the monetary and banking indicators?
No bez čistog računa u bankarskom sektoru, ne vidim nikakvu promjenu trenda u monetarnim i bankarskim pokazateljima?
If the EU do what they say they are going to do, if they come up with this, we are presented and created not a truly honest problem, but a major problem, and how are we going to deal with the results of such an asset review if a trillion dollars, or somewhere close to it, is needed and Germany is not prepared to put it up.
Učini li EU ono što kaže da će učiniti, ako to provedu, naći ćemo se ne samo pred pravim problemom nego i pred golemim problemom, a kako ćemo se nositi s rezultatom takvoga pregleda aktive ako nam bude trebala trilijarda dolara, ili nešto blizu toga iznosa, a Njemačka je ne bude spremna dati.
It's very difficult and recently we've had Victor Costanzio saying that he believed European banks were in very good health and that the capital ratios were in average better in Europe than in America, which, given what we've seen today, and given what is common knowledge, is hardly the case.
To je vrlo teško, a nedavno je Victor Costanzio izjavio da vjeruje da su europske banke u vrlo dobrom stanju i da su kapitalni omjeri u prosjeku bolji u Europi nego u Americi, što, s obzirom na ono što smo danas čuli, i s obzirom na ono što je opće poznato, nije baš tako.
Anyway, those are my general comments.
U svakom slučaju, to bi općenito bili moji komentari.
Can I just turn to another issue, and then I'll let you go, which is a hobby of mine, of course, again, but it is relevant.
Još samo nekoliko riječi o nečemu što je ponovno moj hobi, ali je i relevantno, i onda vas puštam.
This will move to the center of Europe, away from peripheries, away from the smaller states, into the center, bringing in control.
Sve se seli u središte Europe, daleko od periferije, daleko od manjih država, u centar, i donosi mu kontrolu.
It is not just happening where we are now considering it, in stress tests and banking supervision.
To se ne događa samo na područjima koje smo razmotrili; stres testovima i nadzoru banaka.
But if you look at taxation matters, it is also indicative of what is occurring.
Pozabavite li se poreznim pitanjima, jasno je da je to što se događa indikativno.
If you look at new rules of what corporation tax policy in European Union is, it is potentially very concerning.
Pogledate li novu politiku poreza na dobit u Europskoj uniji, potencijalno je to vrlo zabrinjavajuće.
That has been a main driving force for our economy for a long period of time.
To je već dugo glavna pokretačka snaga našeg gospodarstva.
There have been difficulties with it that I am sure many of you are aware, it hasn't had the best publicity at times.
Siguran sam da su mnogi od vas upoznati s poteškoćama koje smo u tom području imali i da tu praksu nije uvijek pratio najbolji glas.
Nonetheless, it has been a major contributor to the economy and lots of East European states are copying the low corporate tax, attracting multinationals to their jurisdiction because of low tax, they are getting them in there to look at it.
Ipak, to je najveći doprinos našem gospodarstvu i mnoge istočnoeuropske države kopiraju model niske stope poreza na dobit, te zbog niskog poreza privlače multinacionalne kompanije u svoje zemlje.
Google is based in Ireland, but not based in France, for instance.
Google npr. ima svoje urede u Irskoj, a ne u Francuskoj.
So the income, the advertising revenue goes to Ireland even though the revenue is created by French customers, but under current tax law because Google don't have a base in France, a physical presence there, they don't pay tax there.
Dakle, prihod od oglašavanja ide u Irsku premda su ga stvorili francuski kupci, ali prema postojećem poreznom zakonu, budući da Google nije fizički prisutan u Francuskoj, oni ondje ne plaćaju porez.
They only pay it in Ireland even though the revenue is generated there and this is the root cause of the problem.
Oni ga plaćaju samo u Irskoj, iako je prihod ostvaren drugdje i to je uzrok problema.
They want to introduce a new rule and what they are now seeking to pass through is that, in the future, all profits in European country companies and groups will be consolidated together and the profits will be shared out to various other countries based upon turnover in those countries and based upon assets in those countries.
U budućnosti bismo mogli imati drugo pravilo, a to je da se sva dobit tvrtki u europskim zemljama konsolidira i dijeli između zemalja na temelju prometa u tim zemljama i na temelju kapitala u njima.
This obviously means we get nothing and Germany, because the turnover might be 30 % will get 30 % in profits and tax, and we'll obviously get 1 %.
To znači da mi ne dobivamo ništa, a Njemačka, u kojoj bi promet mogao biti 30% zaradit će 30% od dobiti i poreza, dok ćemo mi zaraditi 1%.
This means they are transferring profits from smaller jurisdictions to larger jurisdictions because obviously that's where the main customers are and that is how the portion profit is going forward.
Drugim riječima, dobit prenosi iz manjih u veće zemlje, jer je očito da su ondje glavni kupci.
To this end the OCD are following up by other similar mechanisms.
U tu svrhu OCD je već osmislio druge popratne mehanizame.
This is very damaging because one of the best selling points a smaller jurisdiction has is corporate tax.
Vrlo štetna praksa jer je porez na dobit jedna od najvećih prednosti manje zemlje.
It is a means of attracting international business, especially American, and once you get them through the door, you can sell them everything else, but if you don't have that to sell them and if they have to pay the same tax in Germany as in Ireland, in Croatia or elsewhere, then basically that is where they will go.
Njime se privlače međunarodne tvrtke, posebno američke, a nakon što ih privučete, lako im prodate i sve ostalo, no ako im to ne možete prodati i ako moraju platiti isti porez u Irskoj, u Hrvatskoj ili negdje drugdje kao u Njemačkoj, onda će otići tamo.
There will be differences in labor costs, but other efficiencies being in those larger jurisdictions will make a lot of more sense to them.
Tu će biti razlike u troškovima rada, ali njih će u te zemlje privući druge efikasnosti koje u njima postoje.
That is moving through the European Union as we speak and it is possible that it will be implemented within the next three or four years.
To se upravo sprema u Europskoj uniji i moguće je da će se realizirati u sljedeće tri ili četiri godine.
Again, it is moving to the center, away from peripheries and it is a disconcerting trend in my own view.
Ponovno se krećemo prema centru, daleko od periferije i to je, po mom mišljenju, uznemirujući trend.
Much more control is being harnessed in Central European countries.
Mnogo više kontrole seli se u središte Europe.
It has been a great pleasure to be here, I appreciate the opportunity.
Drago mi je što sam bio s vama, hvala vam na toj prilici.
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
Download PowerPoint
Preuzmi PowerPoint
Transcript:
Zapis izlaganja:
Thanks a lot, Gerry.
Hvala puno, Gerry.
Only you can make such an introduction.
Samo ti možeš dati ovakav uvod.
It has become a tradition to remember our first governor.
Ono je postalo tradicija da se prisjetimo našega prvog guvernera.
I had a talk yesterday.
Jučer sam održao jedno predavanje.
It is very unusual for a governor to have back to back talks.
Neuobičajeno je da guverner drži jedno predavanje za drugim.
The title is Banking in Europe: What went wrong and how to fix it.
Naslov je Bankarstvo u Europi: Što se dogodilo i kako to popraviti?.
I'll talk more about what went wrong than how to fix it, but later on I'll talk about the banking union, which is on our menu at the moment and we haven't been talking about it much in Croatia so far.
Više ću govoriti o tome što je pošlo po zlu nego kako to popraviti, ali kasnije ću govoriti o bankarskoj uniji, koja nam je u ovome trenutku aktualna, i o kojoj do sada u Hrvatskoj i nismo baš mnogo razgovarali.