THE MPS HAVE CAST THEIR VOTE ON THE LAW OF GIVING IN PAYMENT FOR THE SECOND TIME A law voted almost unanimously, 40% chances of implementation?

The law of giving in payment has passed the Chamber of Deputies yesterday with a crushing number of votes in favor after previously being voted unanimously in the Senate. That did not discourage ING, which expects that the law has only a 40% chance to be applied in the form that was voted by the deputies yesterday.

We are talking about a report for the bank's customers, which was conveniently leaked in the press as a marketing anchor (speaking of which, aren't the bank's customers who are paying for these reports one way or another bothered by their made available in the media for free?)

The ING report starts on a shocked tone. "We have been caught off guard this morning, when the Chamber of Deputies has included on its agenda the law of giving in payment, which can be given as an example of what the unpredictability of policies means in an electoral year". But things aren't hopeless! "The law can still be changed, perhaps by the Constitutional Court, if the latter gets a notified by the President, by either of the two presidents of the Parliament's chambers, by the government, by the High Court, the Ombudsman or by a minimum of 50 deputies or 25 senators", according to the bank.

But where could the rescue come from, first?

"We believe that the government is the main «candidate» for that, because the passing of the draft law will affect Romania's financing cost and can lead to warnings over the country's ratings.

The President may consider that as well, especially if we keep into account the fact that most of his remarks, including the need to obtain the approval of the ECB, have been disregarded", ING states. The group of MPs option has not been mentioned, given the number of votes in favor of the law in the two chambers.

The fact that ING thinks that a law that favors consumers, which gets an almost 100% unanimity in the parliament doesn't have a 100% chance of being implemented, and that is in an electoral year, shouldn't surprise us too much. It could be a sample of "wishful thinking". But we are surprised at the way that ING rates the possibility of the law being amended. First of all the Government, then the President can challenge it in the Constitutional Court, and the likelihood of the institution in question amending it afterwards is 60%. Isn't there an excess of optimism here? "We don't know if the legal entities entitled to dispute a legislative act with the Constitutional Court are going to do it or not, we don't know if once that dispute has been submitted it gets a positive solution or not, but we know for sure that the combined likelihood of these two processes happening, is 60%"! What algorithm did they use to reach that number?

Besides, the banks' reports have been heavily used in the periods when the legislative was debating projects that would have an impact on the profitability of the sector, an indirect, but often successful method of pressuring the MPs. After the passing of the law of giving in payment in the Senate, an ING report would promptly appear to announce that the law may be amended by the Chamber of Deputies by removing its applicability to the First Home Program, and another report by Raiffeisen would state, in turn, that the law would see amendments by the Chamber of Deputies.