Caixabank Y Santander Bank have reduced their exposure to mortgages linked to the IRPH in 2.6 billion euros after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of March 3, 2020. This is more than 20% of what they had in their portfolio just a year ago.
Specifically, Caixabank has reduced them by 1,000 million euros. At the beginning of 2019 there were more than 6,700 million euros of mortgage loans indexed to this index and at the end of 2020 the figure had been reduced to 5,328 million according to their accounts.
The last two years have experienced opposite stages, thus in 2019 the uncertainty about what Europe would decide in its sentence and how it would affect if it determined that the IRPH was abusive, led the president of the entity, Jordi Gual, to ensure that the results of that exercise “They have not been satisfactory, because the uncertainty of the IRPH has paralyzed us.”
Already in 2020, after the March ruling of the CJEU was known and the Supreme Court sided with it in September, the entity relaxed. So much so that it assures in its financial report that “it does not maintain provisions for this concept.”
But this chapter is not closed, as several magistrates have once again raised a preliminary question to the CJEU, asking it to clarify whether the IRPH is abusive or not. Regarding this matter, Caixabank emphasizes that “it will be the object of particular monitoring”.
Santander deducts 1,200 million
After Caixabank, Banco Santander is the entity most exposed to these mortgages. According to their accounts, the amount pending payment of mortgage loans to individuals, referenced to IRPH and included in the group’s balance sheet, amounts to approximately 3,052 million euros.
This are 1.2 billion less than a year before, because at the end of 2019, the bank chaired by Ana Botín had 4,300 million euros. This entity is also calm and considers that there will be no further complication.
In its financial report, it highlights that the Supreme Court (TS) issued four judgments in November and they point out that the lack of transparency in the IRPH “does not mean that the clause is abusive to the detriment of the client, so the clause is valid and fully applicable ”.
In the same line, BBVA considers that the judgment of the CJEU and those of the Supreme Court “should not have significant effects on the business, the financial situation or the results of the Group.” So if the clause is not abusive, the possible breach of any obligation of transparency cannot have legal consequences.
Under this pretext, the bank chaired by Carlos Torres does not provide data at the end of 2020 on what its portfolio exposure to these mortgages is, but at the end of 2019, the amount of mortgage loans to individuals referenced to IRPH and up-to-date with payment was approximately 2,800 million euros. And this was 300 million less than a year before.
Kutxabank is another of the most exposed entities with 550 million euros
The bank chaired by José Ignacio Goirigolzarri also has these mortgages in its portfolio, specifically Bankia at the end of 2020 it had approximately 1,100 million euros of loans Mortgages in force with individuals up to date with payments, which include a contractual clause referenced to IRPH.
In his case, the year-on-year reduction has been 200 million since at the end of 2019 he had 1,300 million euros. In Banco Sabadell the reduction has been minimal; at the end of last year it had an outstanding balance of mortgage loans to consumers indexed to the IRPH of 654 million euros. A year earlier it was 751 million euros.
Kutxabank is another of the most exposed entities and in its case there has been no reduction, because according to its accounts both in 2019 and 2020, the outstanding balance of the mortgage loans indexed to IRPH with consumers, who are up to date with payments, is approximately 550 million euros.
The bank starts to negotiate
According to Cristina Gonzalez Piñeiro, legal director of Reclama Por Mí a Economía Digital, after the notification of the General Counsel’s conclusions on the IRPH and the decision of the CJEU, banks did not hesitate to try to get agreements with clients in exchange for “advantageous” conditions.
Of course, in all cases they required the client to renounce to claim in the future. However, since the Supreme Court considered at the end of the year that although it appreciated a lack of transparency, there was no abusiveness in the mortgages that used this benchmark, they stopped offering agreements to clients.
An opinion they share from Asufin. The rough of the negotiations took place between the second and third quarters of the year, then they refused. From these platforms they consider that now “the banks are the great beneficiaries since those affected do not dare to complain about the lack of security”.
That is why they recommend waiting for the CJEU to pass judgment again and they hope that the situation will soon be clarified and that the more than one million affected by mortgages referenced to the IRPH will benefit.
–
