Yesterday it was announced that Banco Espírito Santo (BES) was going to be broken into two. One, a bad bank, that will have only toxic assets and will continue to use the same bank name, with the same shareholders just before the bank be broken, meaning that they will face a huge loss, and other brand new, with the name Novobanco (literally new bank) with capital injected by a rescue fund created to support the sins of Portuguese banks, at the time when the IMF and the European Union bail out the country.
BES was a case study among the BPM community, by the sum of awards that collected over the years. More than that, it was a bank with huge societal influence and lobbing, that passed decades thought independently of the type of political orientation of the Portuguese government. For example, ruled before and during the dictatorial years and after the revolution, with the family leaders that were the main shareholders being put in prison under the “new” communist political orientation, that decided in 1975, banks, bankers were evil and should give all it’s fortune that was taken from the oppressed people. In the middle of the 90’s the bank was privatised and the Espírito Santo family took over and got back the control of the bank. BES was the only and single bank to achieve such status quo. It was until yesterday, the biggest private bank.
During the press conference given by the regulator, it was stated that the BES administration, did not comply with direct orders from the regulator with acts like: assuring premature reimbursement of creditors that bought bonds, like for example the government of Venezuela (lucky them, because others starting today, have a hand full of nothing); lend or warrant Ponzi borrowing operations from the organisations that belonged to the bank’s holding (meaning that they were making reimbursements or borrowing money using as collateral the bank’s currents and savings accounts). The regulator stated clearly, twice, for the record, that some acts raised questions related with criminal activity and were going to be investigated by the Portuguese prosecutors.
Having said that, based on facts, not on the vested interests and bubble gum hype, that in the last couple of years we read from the leading BPM and architects mavens, I would like to raise a question (that I assume that will have no answer, once it is inconvenient).
If under architecture principles a bank consumer it is not allowed to produce acts that can put the bank in jeopardy, independently , but mainly, in these new interaction channels (mobile) where the consumer have the power to solely and by himself execute such acts, why there is not a reverse architecture from the bank to the regulator that makes the bank to force compliance with acts that cannot be executed?