Austria's RBI swings to loss after write-off for Russia legal dispute
The bank's consolidated loss was 557 million euros in the quarter, compared with a profit of 661 million euros a year earlier.
RBI, the most important Western Bank in Russia, last week said it would "derecognize" 1.2 billion euros in expected proceeds from enforcing claims against Rasperia Trading Limited's Austrian assets.
In June, a Russian court had rejected RBI's bid to lift an injunction banning the sale of its local subsidiary.
The ban is tied to a lawsuit brought by Rasperia, a Russian investment firm, after a collapsed deal in which RBI was ordered last year to pay 2 billion euros in damages.
Excluding Russia, the bank posted a profit of 307 million euros, up from 237 million euros in the year-earlier period.
RBI, which came from the United States as well as European regulators to pare its ties to Russia, continued to reduce its loan portfolio in Russia in the first half of the year and is ahead of the schedule agreed with the ECB, the figures showed.
Deposit volumes also declined further.
($1 = 0.8659 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
IMF lowers bar for Argentina reserves accumulation, next review due after local October elections
NEW YORK, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund lowered the bar for Argentina's reserve accumulation targets through 2026 in its $20 billion program and removed a review that was due before the country's October legislative elections as detailed in a report published Friday. Net international reserves accumulation targets were lowered through 2026, leading to a steeper accumulation curve as the 2027 target was kept in place. "The NIR accumulation target for end-December 2025 has been lowered to mainly reflect the initial shortfalls, which are gradually being addressed through the agreed corrective actions," the report said. The announcement came a day after the IMF board completed the first review of the $20 billion program approved in April. Disbursements of around $14 billion have been made for Argentina so far as part of this new program. "While early efforts to re-access international capital markets are commendable, Argentina's capacity to repay its Fund obligations remains subject to exceptional risks and continues to hinge on strong policy implementation to improve reserve coverage and sustain market access (at more favorable terms) by the time repayments to the Fund come due," said the report from IMF staff.
Reuters
12 hours ago
- Reuters
NFL deals Red Zone, NFL Media assets to ESPN in billion-dollar agreement, the Athletic reports
Aug 1 (Reuters) - The NFL and Disney's (DIS.N), opens new tab ESPN have reached a deal, potentially worth billions, placing many of the league's media holdings with the sports network in exchange for equity in ESPN, the Athletic reported on Friday. ESPN is expected to have access to RedZone, NFL Network, seven more regular-season games and the NFL's fantasy football business, the report said, citing sources briefed on the agreement. There is also a possibility of integrating special features, including betting, and potentially more assets too. The four-year on-and-off discussions have led to what is said to be a complicated agreement, the Athletic report said. An official announcement is expected next week. Disney is set to report results on Wednesday. Both ESPN and the NFL declined to comment on the report when contacted by Reuters. The news of the deal comes as Disney is set to launch its new streaming service, named ESPN, this fall, providing access to ESPN networks, including professional and college football and basketball games. The new service will cost $29.99 per month and is part of the media company's effort to tap sports fans who have never subscribed to traditional television.
