From the link...
"When the authorities take action to prevent major banks to collapse by injecting public funds within their capital and by taking the required share of power in their board, we think that it is an efficient emergency solution. But on the contrary, when they buy out distressed assets and/or do not take a share of power in the banks’ board (when public capital is injected), we believe that they are inefficient measures. The distressed assets buyout is only pushing towards the state (and ultimately the taxpayer) the cost of getting out of the mess, without providing any serious stimulus to the economy. It is just rescuing those who made mistakes at the taxpayer’s expense. Not entering the bank's board, so deciding not to have a direct say in the bank’s decision, is only making more probable that in a few months, because they are not delivering the promised loan increase to the economy, the very same banks will have to be fully nationalized. As we explained in another part of this issue of GEAB, we think that major banks are facing full scale nationalization by Spring if they are not able to fulfill their lending roles."
Explains why some things have been going the way they are maybe. I still don't like the arrogant bustids.