1 / 7

Deposit insurance and financial stability schemes AEG New York, April 2012

This article discusses various schemes introduced by governments to provide financial stability and protect depositors, raising questions about the treatment of stability fees and deposit insurance schemes. It explores different proposals, including the possibility of paid into consolidated funds or hypothecated funds, and addresses key issues such as the treatment of priority claims and asset acquisition by the government. The AEG is asked to consider these proposals and the development of additional guidance for the GFS manual.

jeslyn
Télécharger la présentation

Deposit insurance and financial stability schemes AEG New York, April 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Deposit insurance and financial stability schemesAEGNew York, April 2012 nadim.ahmad@oecd.org

  2. Background • Various schemes introduced by governments in wake of recent financial crisis to provide financial stability and to protect depositors. • Raise a number of questions concerning treatment in the NA

  3. Stability fee and deposit insurance schemes • Compulsory payments levied by government • May or may not be hypothecated to a special fund • Which may or may not be hypothecated only to support the institutions that pay in to the fund.

  4. Proposals • Paid into a consolidated fund (not hypothecated) = tax • Or should there be a caveat in cases where the payments into the fund are broadly equal to expected payouts? • Paid into hypothecated fund, • with sums paid in exceeding expected payouts = tax • with sums paid in broadly equalling expected payouts = (insurance) service? Or should these always be treated as taxes for simplicity?

  5. Deposit protection scheme • Key issue: treatment of priority claims and acquisition of assets by government to redistribute to depositors as part of government’s deposits guarantee

  6. Proposal • Any positive difference between assets acquired by government and redistributed to depositors = service payment • Any additional levy imposed by government to make up for any shortfall = tax.

  7. AEG • Asked to consider proposals • And whether any additional guidance should be developed for GFS manual?

More Related