Bitcoin price today: gains to $120k, near record high on U.S. regulatory cheer
Bank of America (BofA) commented on the formation of Prime Minister Salam’s new government in Lebanon, highlighting the potential for reform. The cabinet, described as cohesive and technocratic, is seen as a positive development that reflects the prime minister’s understanding of political realities.
Despite the inclusion of independent technocrats with strong credentials in key ministries, BofA noted that allies of Hezbollah appear to retain implicit veto power. However, the market is expected to give the new cabinet the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
BofA’s analysis suggests that the gradualist approach taken in forming the cabinet aims to preserve social cohesion and minimize the risk of civil unrest. It also serves as a gesture to Hezbollah and its allies, indicating their continued involvement in the political process. The role of the Minister of Finance (MoF) is deemed crucial for the country’s outlook, with the ability to countersign bills with financial implications, thus holding a form of implicit veto power.
The new MoF has committed not to block cabinet actions, which is seen as a positive sign. The appointment process for the Banque du Liban (BdL) Governor, scheduled by mid-June 2025, is another focal point. An independent BdL governor could potentially restructure the banking sector without parliamentary approval, utilizing existing laws.
BofA also pointed out the State Council ruling that prohibits the government from eliminating foreign exchange bank deposits at the BdL in any reform program, a decision that could clash with International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditions. The new MoF’s past statements suggest a preference for an unorthodox banking sector restructuring, which might impose significant liabilities on the state, unlike the traditional restructuring proposed by the IMF.
Looking ahead, BofA outlines three possible scenarios for Lebanon: maintaining the status quo until the May 2026 elections, progress towards an unorthodox IMF program with international support, or an orthodox IMF program. The latter could potentially be more favorable for bondholders, as it would likely involve less state liability during the banking sector’s restructuring.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.