helps to illuminate a recurring problem in the Brazilian State that goes beyond a specific episode in the financial system. This is the persistent difficulty of separating technical decisions, institutional control and political dispute, especially when the interests of powerful actors are at stake.
This was read by the market as a tough decision, but compatible with the monetary authority’s mandate to preserve the stability of the financial system. Entities representing the banking and cooperative sector released a statement reaffirming confidence in the technical performance and independence of the Central Bank, in reaction to the opening of inspection by the TCU (Federal Audit Court), signaling concern about regulatory predictability and clarity of institutional roles.
The noise arises when other institutions begin to publicly question not only the effects of the decision, but also its technical legitimacy. The TCU, through the rapporteur’s initial decision, ordered the inspection of documents and even considered precautionary measures in the liquidation process, alleging insufficient information presented by the Central Bank. The court’s reaction took the issue to the plenary, with the subsequent recognition that. Still, the episode produced mixed signals about who decides what in banking supervision.
When bodies with different mandates begin to issue public judgments on the technical merit of decisions that they are not responsible for executing, the result tends to be less security and more uncertainty. In risk contexts, economic agents respond not only to the fundamentals, but to the predictability of the decision-making process. After all, the question remains: in future episodes with signs of fraud, will the existence of relevant political connections be enough for a company to go through the process without consequences?
This pattern refers to a deeper cultural trait in which the country still operates under a logic in which different instances feel authorized to intervene in the name of caution, confusing government policy, State policy and technical decision. The effect is paradoxical because in an attempt to preserve stability, the overlapping of roles introduces institutional noise and increases the perception of arbitrariness.
As , the TCU itself and the Federal Supreme Court have built, over the years, a clear jurisprudence according to which control bodies should not reassess the merit of discretionary decisions adopted by technical agencies. This is precisely due to a lack of institutional expertise and the risk of adverse systemic effects. By straining this understanding in the case of Banco Master, an institutional rupture was opened that was difficult to justify in light of the regulatory arrangement that, since the Real Plan, allowed the liquidation of problematic financial institutions without contaminating the rest of the system. The cost of this deviation is above all reputational, as it weakens the predictability that supports financial regulation itself.
The Master case, therefore, matters less for the bank itself than for what it tests. When technical decisions are strained by poorly defined political and institutional pressures, the counterbalance can only come from qualified scrutiny. Free press, investigations conducted with autonomy and inspection institutions that respect their own limits are essential to signal that political connections do not suspend the rules. In functioning democracies, the cost of ignoring deviations is not just economic; It is the normalization of the idea that power and proximity are enough to overcome crises and emerge unscathed.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
