Firstly, our Report indicates that the Banco de España did not adopt measures that could, perhaps, have checked the sizeable increase in credit to the private sector recorded between 2001 and 2007, in particular in the construction and real estate development 12/14  sectors, and in mortgage lending for house purchases. But it should be pointed out that there were then no legal regulations that could have provided for such action and that other measures adopted in those years – the countercyclical provisions and the more severe treatment of the so-called “special-purpose vehicles” – were effective in helping withstand the first crisis, although they did not suffice to protect our banks from the double-dip recession that began in 2011. Secondly, the treatment of the most characteristic problems of the savings banks through the risk-pooling schemes contained in the institutional protection systems (IPSs) did not suffice to resolve the solvency and governance problems of most savings banks; nor was there much success with certain innovations such as equity units with voting rights, with which it was sought to resolve, or at least alleviate, savings banks’ difficulties in raising resources equivalent to capital. Thirdly, it seems clear that the Banco de España estimated that the 2009 recession would have what the economists call a “V” shape, and not a “W” shape, without anticipating the strong impact of the second recession on many credit institutions’ solvency.
The integration processes called for a voluntary agreement between the parties. In the midst of the crisis, these agreements were not easy and they required, moreover, the approval of the related regional government authorities. But in 2011 nobody, or practically nobody foresaw the double-dip recession and less still how violently it would affect the Spanish economy. In April 2011 most agencies, including the IMF, the OECD, the European Commission and the Banco de España, were forecasting growth for our economy of around 0.8%, which at the end of the year turned out to be a decline in GDP of 1.0%, the biggest forecasting error on record in recent times for these institutions. The European Central Bank was acting in response to what it saw as a recovery scenario for the euro area, as testified by the fact that it raised its benchmark interest rate by 25 bp on two occasions, in April and in July 2011, only to reverse these rises from November, in light of the worsening sovereign debt crisis. The forecasting error was also most significant in 2012: in their 2012 spring projections, most institutions estimated a decline in GDP of around 1.6%, and ultimately it was 2.9%. Overview As is addressed in the final chapter of the Report, I should now like to take an overall view of the crisis.