English
Radu Soviani: How do you think the mass privatization program has evolved, from the beginning and announcements to what we have now?
Ben Madadi: Me, considering that I came to Romania in 1996, I don't think I have the moral quality to talk about what happened before I came. But so, from what I studied, from what I heard, it was a disaster. Considering the purpose and finality, it can only be called a disaster. But it was poorly thought out, because they wanted, theoretically, to offer ownership in Romania for some businesses to simple people, individually. That is to say, to give shares to some people who have never had enterprises in Romania, never had any part of business, never had any kind of companies. And for that you need some culture. So the theory as it was conceived at first was wrong, but later on, as we know, and the result was a disaster because they, not knowing what it was about, either sold them or didn't even sell them. they found out they had them. And in the end, that hypothetical appropriation did not materialize. Because of this it can only be called a disaster.
For example, in SIFs, shareholders who are found in the shareholders' register have absolutely nothing to do with the companies.
Radu Soviani: You mean? Details...I don't know there are shareholders there?
Ben Madadi: I think either they don't know or they died, I think more than 90% of them. This spells disaster.
Radu Soviani: Who is responsible and who benefits from the fact that they are asleep in this disaster?
Ben Madadi: Those who manage them benefit the most, because, very simply, they are not answerable to the shareholders because the shareholders do not exist, it is an asset without an owner, after which the partners of the administrators benefit - various partners who found themselves by- over time. They made partnerships with various brokers, they made partnerships with various officials, with the press, they made partnerships, in the sense that the administrators collect money from what the SIFs earn and share a small part of that money with so-called partners, who help them and the rest remain for them.
Radu Soviani: How did you end up annoying those who led SIF1, SIF4 and SIF5?
Ben Madadi: I arrived by accident or by mistake. I mean, I didn't know it was like that. I knew that something was wrong, but at the same time I trusted in my knowledge, in my abilities, in terms of investor I mean, that I could do something that would bring benefits to me and other shareholders. That's what I thought without knowing the details. I knew that things were wrong, but already over a year has passed, I realized that things are not wrong, but that they are extremely serious. SIFs can no longer be considered individually as problems. Now the SIFs represent the cancer of the market. That's how I found out.
How did I get to piss them off so badly? Because I ended up being the only investor, that they claim to have investors, which they don't. Investors in the true sense, they don't. I ended up being the only relatively large investor who could say the irregularities that happen there. They would have wanted the lack of transparency to remain, so that they can continue to do what they want. That is, instead of providing benefits to the owners, the shareholders, which is both fair and legal, to take for themselves and share something with their partners that I talked about earlier.
Radu Soviani: The main irregularity, or maybe it's not the main one, maybe that's how it seems to me, reported not only to the SIFs, not only the public, not only the ASF, was the way in which, through some investment funds, on the money of the shareholders, investors, SIF1 management, which also controls the others, buys votes, decreasing in value, in the end, paying the commissions. I'm going to ask you to elaborate, and why do you think it annoyed them so much that you exposed this mechanism?
Ben Madadi: The mechanism, as far as I know, has never been exposed. There were a few people who knew, but it was not exposed. And out of disinterest, but also because they managed to suppress public information. These people achieved some performance, let's say, in a negative sense. In order to be able to have access without any disturbance to the resources of companies that belong to millions of shareholders, they managed to create a partnership with the so-called press, but unfortunately this is the Romanian press, through which to suppress the information of investors. A banality, he hadn't found it. I didn't know either. When I entered, I was surprised that a fund like a SIF, a closed investment fund, had a discount of over 60%. That's how SIF4 was then. I also went there because it had the biggest discount.
Radu Soviani: And you said, there is room to grow...
Ben Madadi: Yes.
Radu Soviani: Let's move towards the net asset value per share...
Ben Madadi: Yes. I didn't know then, I had suspicions that something was wrong. But I didn't know. I rather believed then, how things were in the old days, before the current scheme, it was a simpler, more banal scheme, I suspect you know. The former administrators, until 10-12 years ago, also committed electoral fraud in some way at the SIFs, that is, the shareholders did not vote, they voted on behalf of the shareholders.
Radu Soviani: Simply...
Ben Madadi: Yes. They were simply voting on behalf of the shareholders. I was also thinking that it would be something similar. After that I found out that no, there are no more shareholders, the real shareholders, who anyway did not vote before, but voted in their place in a fraudulent way, now the shares have been bought with the shareholders' money and voting is theoretically legal because no there was also signature fraud, but that fraud was hidden behind a fictitious fund. It's probably worse than it was before.
Radu Soviani: Before you mentioned the situation 10-12 years ago, but we also had with the former management, with Dragoş Bîlteanu, Najib el-Lakis, who seemed to be siphoning SIF1 money for Romenergo. How different is this situation from what it is there, where it ended with criminal cases and convictions?
Ben Madadi: One situation is embezzlement for Romenergo, another situation is to use the company's money for voting.
Radu Soviani: Against commission.
Ben Madadi: Against commission, yes. I think there were different things, but the shares bought, as far as I know, at that time, remained, only they were transferred from certain companies to these funds, but I don't know exactly what happened with ROMENERGO. I don't know all the details. It seems to me that the major difference is that, then, since it was not about third parties, i.e. these funds, and being them directly, it was better, because these commissions were no longer paid. Whatever the goal was, the means then were better than now for the company and for the shareholders, because the commissions were no longer lost.
Radu Soviani: Now commissions must also be paid to the investment funds.
Ben Madadi: Yes. Now millions of lei are given in completely aberrant commissions, which if the ASF did its job, would no longer take place, because that is the purpose of the ASF, to protect investors - these commissions, during the time of Bîlteanu and Lakis, were not they existed. I mean, I don't know that it existed.
Radu Soviani: I mean, it sips less. There weren't that many at the table...
Ben Madadi: The finality was better then, now it is much worse. Only then there were not so many partners. Now the whole scheme seems to be much better set up because there are many partners. Everyone eats, everyone, obviously neither the market nor investors, the vast majority of participants have to lose. But now a lot of people are eating, some who represent the administrators of those funds collect millions of lei and are happy, I wrote about some of them, that is, the biggest ones at the time, Bîlteanu and Lakis, did not give sponsorships to the press, as proof the press when he found out, he wrote, now the press doesn't write anymore. Now in all respects it is worse than then and that is very sad for the stock market. That is, the Romanian stock market, compared to 8-10 or 12 years ago, although Romania has become richer since then and until now, the stock market has evolved.
Radu Soviani: It's very plastic as you describe that there are more people at the table now, the banquet is bigger, all on the money of the shareholders and investors. But how do you explain the disturbing passivity - usually a passivity does not bother - of ASF?
Ben Madadi: It probably shows two things, I can't give my opinion more, but this is my belief: how Romanian politics has evolved and how the capital market has evolved. The latter has evolved while the economy has evolved fantastically. And the economy has really grown since then, people have gotten richer, but the capital market has lagged behind. The only explanation or the simplest explanation is LUCK. Effectively it was about LUCK. Because Romanian politics has involved and ASF is the product of politics. They are politically appointed by the Parliament. Even 8-10 years ago, the Romanian parliament was not something extraordinary, nor is it now, but I think that the Parliament is probably weaker than 8-10 years ago, or careless. Why did this happen? It's quite a complicated matter. Now I think that any institution that is under the control of the Parliament, at this moment has a real chance to stop doing its duty and to find other opportunities for the people there, because a weak parliament can lead to that.
Radu Soviani: So one component of the explanation of the ASF's passivity is the political one. What is the second one?
Ben Madadi: Second - that bad luck. And my opinion is that the biggest misfortune of the capital market in Romania was precisely the existence of SIFs. We are talking about a wealth that is not large, it is not large at all, compared to GDP, but because the market has not evolved, the stock market has not increased, that wealth is huge compared to the market. And the five SIFs, but especially the three, offered some people, in such a small market, the opportunity to use other people's money, i.e. the shareholders' money, for whatever they wanted. And what did they do? They corrupted the market to stay there. And with how much the SIFs collect every year from dividends, tens of millions of euros, you can corrupt enormously. You can bribe officials, you can bribe the press, you can bribe politicians. I don't have any proof about the politicians, but the fact that the SIFs pay a lot of money to the press is obvious, that is, it is with invoices. And if the SIFs did not have this money at hand and had to return to the shareholders, that bad luck would not have existed. The existence of SIFs made the market effectively destroyed. Some money for which no one was responsible and still is not responsible led to the corruption of many of those who were responsible for the market and those who functioned in the market.
Radu Soviani: You said that SIFs no longer represent as much as they used to represent in relation to the entire economy. But relative to the real beneficiaries does this small fortune become a big fortune?
Ben Madadi: It depends how we take the real beneficiaries.
Radu Soviani: Who are the real beneficiaries?
Ben Madadi: If we include those who do not know that they have the shares and those who have died, my opinion is that over 90%, that is, each SIF has 5-6 million shareholders. In reality, the interested shareholders do not think there are more than hundreds of thousands, all of them. Millions are in the papers. In reality I don't think there are more than 300,000 or 500,000 left.
Radu Soviani: I also met you at the AGM on April 28, 2022, there were 14 shareholders there, physically...
Ben Madadi: Yes, but if it wasn't for me and a few other people who were in our Association, there would have been no one. That is, it would have been Bogdan Drăgoi and the employees of the SIFs. There were also some agitators who came to support Bogdan Drăgoi. But if they knew we weren't coming, there would have been absolutely no one. It would have been exclusively the employees of SIF Banat-Crişana.
Radu Soviani: And then, who are the real beneficiaries?
Ben Madadi: The shareholders, whether they know they have them, whether they don't know they have them, the vast majority own what is worth 1000-2000 lei. It's not worth the money to make a trip. There were agitators who had dozens of actions. I mean, it's not really worth going there if you have 1000 shares. Because the shareholders of SIF Banat, for example, where we were, not all of them are from Arad, they are also from Wallachia, and from Cluj, from Moldova, you cannot travel that way for some shares that are worth less than the way. And the real beneficiaries end up being very few people, who make up this group that I talked about, i.e. Bogdan Drăgoi, his partners, his partners from the press who collect millions of lei per year, so that they don't write about what is happening there, it must be said the so-called press. And another beneficiary for example - you know Mr. Copariu, he was employed at ASF - after he was no longer employed at ASF, he became employed at SIF Oltenia which was taken over by Bogdan Dragoi. They are the beneficiaries. They, for the sake of earning a lot and without doing much, they managed for so many years to destroy what could be a fair capital market, as it is in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, in these countries that are not very far from Romania, but which have a much larger scholarship. And here I am not talking so much about capitalization, capitalization is an incorrect thing for comparison.
If you compare the liquidity in Bucharest with the liquidity in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, it is incomparable. You cannot compare with a developed country, for example Denmark. At one point I had a discussion with the CFO of Saxo Bank, who told me that Denmark has a population of 5 million and the stock market in Denmark is 10 times larger than the stock market in Romania. This is the result. This tragedy is; the fact that a few people win without merit, that is very little important. The problem is that, for them, those few, to win without merit, all the others who could win with merit no longer win anything. And the economy does not win, the market remains underdeveloped and affects the whole country.
Radu Soviani: Why did Bogdan Drăgoi become allergic to you?
Ben Madadi: Apart from the fact that I wrote the truths, the facts, for which he sued me, he is asking me for a million euros.
Radu Soviani: The equivalent of his income for one year.
Ben Madadi: Yes, for him it is not much. Apart from the fact that I wrote some truths, they also did not deny what I wrote. They did not deny. They just said that because I wrote those things, I defamed him. But they did not deny what I wrote. They could somehow deny it. Total silence. The purpose of the lawsuit is only intimidation. I don't know, he's going to win, he's going to lose, I have no idea...
Radu Soviani: Out of curiosity, did he sue you for SIF's money?
Ben Madadi: On his own money. As far as I know, he gave me his money, as a natural person. Apart from the fact that I have written truths, I think the biggest problem is my quality as an investor. They were always talking about investors. That they have investors, that investors vote for them. Which investors? I was a big investor and I said I don't vote for them, and that bothered me. They would have wanted there to be a myth in the market that they are supported by investors. But they are not backed by any kind of investors, or almost any kind of investors, because it is possible that there are investors, I don't know, any. For example, at SIF4 when I went to the meeting, my proposals were voted by almost all the investors, including the funds, which were real investors-shareholders. That is, they had not bought SIF1 and SIF4 shares with the money of SIF1 and SIF4.
Radu Soviani: They had bought for investment and not to trade votes in favor of those who gave them the money.
Ben Madadi: Yes. So they voted in favor of my proposals. However, in all the years when the real shareholders were not allowed to exceed 5%, the funds supplied with SIF1 and SIF4 had, and bought 30% of SIF4 and the rest are dormant shareholders and the rest coupon holders. And effectively they ended up owning the vast majority of free trading shares, on those funds, bought with the shareholders' money.
Radu Soviani: This was at the time when there was a 5% threshold and you were not allowed to exceed the 5% threshold level, they used these companies as screens...
Ben Madadi: Yeah, right.
Radu Soviani: And that's how they got hold of SIF4.
Ben Madadi: On SIF 4, SIF1 and SIF5. Ciurezu was yelling at SIF5 that they exceed 5% and ASF told him no, that the funds are independent.
Radu Soviani: How do you explain this cross-party protection from the point of view of supervision? Bogdan Drăgoi, protected by Mişu Negriţoiu - the old ASF President. Bogdan Drăgoi - protected by Nicu Marcu, until recently the President of ASF.
Ben Madadi: And many others probably.
Radu Soviani: You wrote at the time when you left SIF4's shareholding almost completely that "I swindled those who swindle SIF4's shareholders". Did they recover from the wrinkling?
Ben Madadi: I don't think so. SIF1 bought from me at 1.565. And he bought a large amount of shares. They didn't just buy from me. They would have wanted to get rid of me. I didn't know that. But considering that they bought, they had shares in the market as I had, only the interposed funds. I don't think they were worried about the interposed funds selling the shares without their knowledge. And when they found out he was a seller with so many shares, I think they thought it was me. And given that they bought, I think they wanted to get me out of there. But overall I don't think they're that happy - I don't know what they were thinking, but they probably thought that after I sold, I'd disappear and not bother them in any way. But I still had shares at SIF1, I still had shares, I can't confuse them with SIF4, it's true, I sold.
Radu Soviani: The package was over 5%, if I recall correctly?
Ben Madadi: We had a little over 6%.
Radu Soviani: And the funds that buy with their money, of the SIFs, how much did they have?
Ben Madadi: The funds, as far as I remember, each had a little over 5%, but he had also bought SIF Oltenia, he had also bought SIF Oltenia and had reached almost my holding, I think a little more than my holding.
Radu Soviani: After you left SIF4 as a shareholder, in the end it turned out that SIF1 bought it.
Ben Madadi: Later I found out that SIF1 bought.
Unfortunately, the mentality of the Romanian stock market is to be small investors, because large investors are usually sophisticated and it is difficult to take their money, because large investors demand things. They have claims. But in Romania, in the capital market, investors are not wanted in the true sense. They want small investors, whom they can manipulate with the so-called press and take their money. That's it. And not answer for that money. This is the problem. The big investor will always have claims. Whatever he does wrong, a big investor with some financial education, he will demand an account. And you don't want that.
Radu Soviani: Please contradict the following statement: SIFs have always been cash cows, for some, for a few. Please contradict me!
Ben Madadi: They were never anything but milk cows. In the process of being cash cows, in some SIFs the small shareholders also benefited, which was better than nothing and in others hardly at all.
Radu Soviani: The cows still give milk, if after 30 years, they started with participations having 30% of the economy. Is there a risk that those in charge of this process will leave them, continuing the metaphor, without milk? Where do you see the SIFs in 5-7 years if the supervision continues like this, if the administration continues like this, if the shareholders are kept dormant, preventing access to at least the information that they have shares in the Central Depository, where you see them in five years ?
Ben Madadi: They, the administrators, will make efforts from now on so that the SIFs do not disappear, because there must remain a milk cow. I don't know if it will work for them. They will make efforts. I don't think their goal is to make SIFs disappear, I haven't seen that trend. They are making efforts not to disappear, but to make efforts for the SIFs to grow for the benefit of the shareholders, I have not seen that. The worst part is the harmful effect it will continue to have on the capital market in general. Because they have the largest stake in BVB.
Radu Soviani: Does BVB control?
Ben Madadi: Yes, and this is a tragedy. So some entities that do not follow the interests of investors control the capital market operator in Romania. That is the real tragedy. And being at the buttons, at the stock market and therefore having the greatest influence at the ASF and other entities that deal with the capital market, they will mean cancer for the capital market. The capital market with such people has no way to develop, which is a very bad thing for the whole economy. I mean, how can you put - no one put, it was an unfortunate accident - head of the capital market someone who is against the capital market? Which is doing things that are completely against investors? How can that capital market develop? There is no way.
Radu Soviani: You said that the group controls BVB. BVB, if I'm not mistaken, controls the Central Depository. The central depository controls the sleep of dormant shareholders. How does this circle close?
Ben Madadi: It is closing as it is already. And it will unfortunately remain like that, as long as the situation will remain like this, abnormal. That is, some people who are incompetent, who do not know the capital market, who are against investors and show that they are against investors, as long as they control the capital market, it will not develop. Nothing will be closed, but nothing will grow either.
Radu Soviani: In the vicinity of this interview, you made an offer to buy shares in SIF Oltenia. Suddenly someone else appeared interested. I'm going to ask you to detail how you think of this move.
Ben Madadi: Yes, it's the messes, unfortunately, that happen. I mean, if something like this had happened in another market, there would have been a supervisor who would have taken an interest. I sold SIF4 because I saw SIF5 cheap. I had no intention of selling SIF4. I sold because I said, why should I keep SIF4, at a discount of 30 or so percent compared to the net asset, while SIF5 has a discount of over 60%? As an investor, it's a logical move. And at SIF4 I wasn't so sure that I could find a buyer. But he found a buyer. About whom I then suspected, who it would be later, it was confirmed that it was actually SIF1. When I sold my shares at SIF4, at SIF5 the share was 1.65 lei, if I'm not mistaken. I also bought a not very large, but large package in the market, through a hill, and anyone who had the opportunity could see at the Central Depository that Behboud Madadi became a larger shareholder in SIF5. After that I didn't do any more transactions and I thought about making a public offer, because some investors complained that I shouldn't have sold at SIF4, because, please, you know that story. And I said, instead of buying from the market, let's make a public offer from the beginning, so that no one complains about me. Anyway, it wasn't very logical, because, after all, I can do both ways with my money - both being fair and moral. But a share that was not bought at 1.6 lei was seen by everyone, after I submitted the offer to the ASF and that offer is confidential...
Radu Soviani: Until approval.
Ben Madadi: Yes. That offer became very tempting. No one was buying and suddenly they started buying, but how much? That is, they started buying interest at almost any price.
Radu Soviani: You are offering a price above the market price.
Ben Madadi: Yes. And they started buying, I have no proof and I don't know, real, I don't know who bought, real. But considering the huge amounts, I suspect that most probably the funds fed by SIFs.
Radu Soviani: Just like that, should the information be sent from ASF immediately? Only the ASF had the information at that time. And you when you submitted the offer.
Ben Madadi: Yes. There were other people, but, for example, the broker, my lawyer, and so on.
Radu Soviani: Yes, but they were not in the category to buy on their behalf.
Ben Madadi: There was no way they could buy. Normally they weren't supposed to buy, and I don't know that they did, but there was no way they were going to buy that amount. I don't think they could have the madness, let's say, even if they had the money, to have the madness to do something like that because, apart from me, no one in Romania had this madness. And given that they bought above my bid price, that makes it very clear that they didn't buy with the intention of selling at my bid. They bought with the intention of selling higher or keeping them. But they bought with the intention, at that moment, so that I wouldn't buy. That is very clear. They bought so that I wouldn't buy, that I wouldn't be a nuisance. Normally, I shouldn't have been bothered. That's another story. That I said from the beginning. I would not have wanted to sell my SIF4 shares at nearly 1.60. I would have wanted to stay there for years, because I bought very cheaply and together with a reasonable management, the company would develop and everyone would win. When I saw that it was not possible, that I actually had no one to go with, I sold.
Radu Soviani: Anyway, since you started buying SIF4, the value of the spread, between the net asset per share and the share price, has tightened. Your input led to an appreciation closer to the real value of the SIF4 share.
Ben Madadi: Yes. Normally, such a thing should not be done. Because a company that theoretically has 100% free-float (all shares are free on the market) and if we assume that they are inactive, dead or who do not know that they have shares, let's say, half. So let's say it has 50% free-float. Do you think that if a stock in real life has a free-float of 50%, by buying 3-4%, you go up the stock by 100%? It is impossible. This is not possible. The fact that I, buying almost 4%, increased the share from 0.7 to 1.3, shows more than clearly that that free-float is fictitious. That the shares are seized somewhere. Seized. I mean, this can only be called sequestration. Because if those funds were some real, not all, some sold along the way. I bought and bought and bought, I also bought from the funds. There were some funds that disappeared because they sold to me. But those funds represented 2-3 percent. The rest up to 50% where are they?
During the period when real investors did not have the right to buy more than 5% from the market, this group led by the Drăgoi family, they accumulated 30% from SIF1, SIF4 and SIF5, while there were still a bunch of dormant shares and effectively no shares remained. And these purchased shares are seized shares. They are not canceled and do not pursue benefits. Because, what benefits should follow a share that is bought with the company's money? What benefits? That is, if the company gives a dividend, the dividend goes back to the company. It's nonsense. The only thing that makes sense is that the administrator of that fund receives commission and the administrator of the other fund - that is, SIF, receives VOT. The commission against the vote and the cost of this nonsensical operation from an economic point of view is borne by the shareholders.
Radu Soviani: It is very clear as you explained, but in this context, how can the leadership of any SIF ever be changed?
Ben Madadi: Either they argue among themselves, or, normally, the state, which must be at the service of the citizens, should intervene and clean up.
Radu Soviani: What does cleaning mean? And what does state mean?
Ben Madadi: The state, indeed... we go back to Parliament, which, as I told you, has always been weak, unfortunately. And it seems to me that he is weaker now than ten years ago.
Radu Soviani: I mean, the parliament should not have asked Bogdan Drăgoi what he is doing, but it should have asked ASF.
Ben Madadi: Parliament should have supervised ASF and ASF should have supervised the market, not in the interest of the group, but in the interest of the citizens. That should have happened, it didn't and it probably won't happen anytime soon. But in the longer term, it depends on how long that term is, these things will surely change, because it's too big an anomaly. But as long as it remains like this, the whole country loses.
Radu Soviani: So the option remains to argue with each other, as long as the state is weak?
Ben Madadi: Yes, but that may take 20-30 years. That is, it is possible to argue and it is possible not to argue. It depends on how strong the boss is. Usually in these systems, how can I say, family, not to say totalitarian because we are not talking about a state, in these systems, as long as the top is strong and determined and possibly imposes discipline, things go well. If the tip disappears or starts to wobble, then it is falling apart.
Radu Soviani: I would like to ask you now, is the cumulative value of SIF1, SIF4, SIF5 closer to - around 5 billion euros?
Ben Madadi: No, the three SIFs are, together, I think at 1.5 billion euros, all three at the moment. Over five billion lei.
Normally, if there was a transparent market, someone who would want to control the three SIFs, their shares should be very close to the net asset. And so it would be - as is the case with Fondul Proprietatea, because it is a fairly transparently managed company. And that would mean 1.5 billion. If the dormant shares, let's say, are on average 30% of each SIF, you must have a maximum of half of those that are not dormant. That would mean that you would have about 30% of each SIF, as much as these funds have in SIF1, SIF4, SIF5, so approximately 30% of each. 30% of 1.5 billion euros would mean 500 million euros. That would be in a transparent situation to control the three SIFs, you would need about 500 million euros. How much did it cost them? Nothing, ZERO!
Radu Soviani: How did it end up costing him ZERO?
Ben Madadi: Because there was that law that didn't allow real investors to accumulate more than 5%.
Radu Soviani: While they were accumulating...
Ben Madadi: Yes, while they were accumulating, and the fact that two laws were not applied: law 31 which says that you cannot buy your own shares through intermediaries should have been applied and law 74/2015 which says that the funds are not allowed to have conflicts of interest against the shareholders. If the two laws had been applied or would be applied today, the SIFs can no longer be controlled with the shareholders' money, to the benefit of the administrators and to the detriment of the shareholders.
Radu Soviani: Journalistically speaking, can it be said that it is a gift of 500 million euros to someone?
Ben Madadi: I don't believe to anyone in particular. In the interest of corruption. 500 million euros is money seized for the benefit of a large number of people who do not produce anything, but live from corruption. That's about it.
Radu Soviani: So in a society without corruption, for the Drăgoi family to control the three SIFs, from the position of manager, of course, the shareholders are the ones who control, it would have cost them in a society without corruption 500 millions of euros?
Ben Madadi: Yes, but there is a difference. The Drăgoi family does not benefit from 500 million euros. That they have many partners.
I kept thinking about how strong and big the Romanian capital market could be, that the Romanian economy, no matter how poorly managed it was, grew. And the capital market did not grow. If we compare the liquidity now with the liquidity in 2007, from BVB, it is much lower. If you compare liquidity now in Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland with 2007 or anytime, it is much higher. Corruption is everywhere in Romania. It's also something normal. That is, in the current state of Romania, it is normal for there to be more corruption. It's just that the capital market had more bad luck than in other parts. It's very sad that it happened like this and it doesn't even appear that things will change, I don't really see how. Very hard to change things in the near future. And it's a sad reality.
Radu Soviani: Thank you!
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
