ECB published an occasional paper that investigates the potential impact and appropriateness of several features of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) in the steady state. The paper summarizes the rationale, objectives, and challenges related to deposit insurance and illustrates the key features of EDIS, while setting the stage for empirical analysis. It then presents the model for estimation of default probabilities of banks, describes the loss-absorbing mechanism and assumptions, and reports the findings on EDIS exposure. Next, the report discusses the rationale, methodology, and findings of the contributions and cross-subsidization analysis under a full-fledged EDIS. Finally, the paper illustrates the results on contributions and cross-subsidization under a mixed deposit insurance scheme, before setting out conclusions.
The following are the key findings of the investigation:
- A fully funded Deposit Insurance Fund would be sufficient to cover payouts, even in a severe banking crisis.
- Risk-based contributions can, and should internalize, specificities of banks and banking systems. This would tackle the moral hazard and facilitate moving forward with risk-sharing measures toward the completion of the Banking Union in parallel with risk reduction measures; this approach would also be preferable to lowering the target level of the Deposit Insurance Fund to take into account banking system specificities.
- Smaller and larger banks would not excessively contribute to EDIS relative to the amount of covered deposits in their balance sheet.
- There would be no unwarranted systematic cross-subsidization within EDIS in the sense of some banking systems systematically contributing less than they would benefit from the Deposit Insurance Fund. This result holds also when country-specific shocks are simulated.
- Under a mixed deposit insurance scheme that is composed of national deposit insurance funds bearing the first burden and a European deposit insurance fund intervening only afterward, cross-subsidization would increase relative to a fully fledged EDIS.
The key drivers behind these results are a significant risk-reduction in the banking system, increase in loss-absorbing capacity of banks in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a super priority for covered deposits, and an appropriate design of risk-based contributions that are benchmarked at the euro area level, following a "polluter-pays" approach.
Related Link: Occasional Paper (PDF)
Previous ArticleElke König of SRB Publishes Article on the Way Forward with MREL
Next ArticleElke König of SRB on Completing the Banking Union
EBA published a report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies within the prudential framework for banking sector.
BCBS published the eighteenth progress report on implementation of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
BCBS amended the guidelines on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT).
US Agencies (Farm Credit Administration, FDIC, FED, FHFA, and OCC) finalized changes to the swap margin rule to facilitate implementation of prudent risk management strategies at banks and other entities with significant swap activities.
PRA published a letter that builds on the expectations set out in the supervisory statement (SS3/19) on enhancing banks' and insurers' approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change.
EBA finalized the guidelines on treatment of structural foreign-exchange (FX) positions under Article 352(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
FSB published a statement on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global benchmark transition.
IAIS published the list of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs) publicly disclosed by group-wide supervisors.
FED has temporarily revised the reporting form on consolidated financial statements for holding companies (FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128).
EC launched a consultation on the review of the key elements of Solvency II Directive, with the comment period ending on October 21, 2020.