Monte dei Paschi hid derivative losses after overpaying for Antonveneta
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena · Banking (listed)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Third-party confirmation
Would have confirmed full derivative terms with counterparties.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Document authenticity / direct pull
Would have looked for side agreements behind the trades.
Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.
Drawing power vs books
Would have compared capital with real losses.
Can mislead when: CARO is annual, so the signal comes late. It covers only borrowers above the ₹5 crore limit.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C5 Would have looked for side agreements behind the trades.
- C14 Would have compared capital with real losses.
Model check
Offered in India- C14 Would have compared capital with real losses.
IC note
Offered in India- C5 Would have looked for side agreements behind the trades.
Borrower monitor
Offered in India- C14 Would have compared capital with real losses.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.