-
Q.
-
The Suruga Bank’s third-party committee released a detailed 300-page report on the bank’s issues. I would like to ask for your views on that Suruga Bank has been long engaged in the management practices described in the report.
-
A.
-
I have nothing to comment on a specific case involving an individual bank.
-
Q.
-
I think that a part of the reason that Suruga Bank came around to adopting a profit-above-all management is the difficulty that banks face now in making a profit. How likely do you think that the same problem lies undiscovered at other regional banks, even if not to the same degree as Suruga Bank?
-
A.
-
This is essentially the same topic as the earlier question, and I have nothing to comment on an individual case. I think that regional banks are finding it difficult to make profits by lending out money in various forms, due not only to the current low-interest rate environment but also to declining population. Lending out money for “share houses” is not itself a problem; the problem is that the Suruga Bank made loans for “share houses” without carefully considering the borrowers’ repayment capacity. Other banks are making their own efforts but, as for how these will turn out, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the circumstances of any particular bank, so I do not answer that question.
-
Q.
-
Earlier you said that Suruga Bank’s approach to financing was inappropriate and problematic. Already there are some recipients of that financing who have declared personal bankruptcy, and there are many who assert that the agreements were invalid or who are seeking to return land or buildings in exchange for having their loans erased. What solutions would you like to see in this regard?
-
A.
-
This is entirely related to an individual case, so the Financial Services Agency cannot make a comment on this.