BEHNKE Thorsten (MARKT)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BEHNKE Thorsten (MARKT)"

Nathaniel Quinn
5 years ago
Views:

1 BEHNKE Thorsten (MARKT) From: MARKT H1 Sent: 05 August :59 To: BEHNKE Thorsten (MARKT); MARKT INFO Subject: FW: Answers to the Consultation Document Review of Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit- Guarantee Schemes (DGS) Sandra, This is indeed for us. Thank you. Adina Thorsten, Another reply for the consultation. Don't know if you have already received it. Adina From: MARKT H Sent: Wednesday, August 05, :05 PM To: MARKT H1 Cc: TERTAK Elemer (MARKT) Subject: FW: Answers to the Consultation Document Review of Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit-Guarantee Schemes (DGS) action: H1 E: for info From: MARKT INFO Sent: Wednesday, August 05, :19 PM To: MARKT H Subject: Answers to the Consultation Document Review of Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit-Guarantee Schemes (DGS) Chers collègues, Voici un que nous avons reçu dans notre boite fonctionnelle MARKT INFO. Il semblerait que ceci vous concerne. Il ne s'agit apparemment pas d'une demande mais de commentaires par rapport au document mentionné (Consultation Document Review of Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit-Guarantee Schemes (DGS) ). Merci de bien vouloir me confirmer si ceci est pour vous. Si c'est le cas, merci de bien vouloir vous occuper de la suite de ce courrier. Sandra Andriola MARKT INFO From: MAILFORM@cec.eu.int [mailto:mailform@cec.eu.int] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, :59 AM To: MARKT INFO Subject: MESSAGE FROM THE I.M. SITE OF EUROPA FROM: octavian.tica@brd.ro DATE: 29/07/ :59 TOPIC = Banks Answers to the 1

2 Consultation Document Review of Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit-Guarantee Schemes (DGS) Q1: The current framework of DGS in the EU requires a certain degree of revision, especially in the harmonization of regulations. Q2: We would prefer to stay at the current level of EUR 50,000. The degree of 80% protection would be sufficient to prevent a bank run if supported by other measures regarding the temporary high balances and the payout delays. Q3: The preferred type of coverage would be the fixed one. Nevertheless, a feasible option could also be the second option - an interval of minimum and maximum (min EUR 50,000 - max. EUR 100,000), easier applicable at this stage. The distortion of the competition will not be big during times of stability. Anyway, higher flexibility in terms of coverage increases the risk actually during the crisis, when depositors would seek for higher (unlimited) coverage. Q4: Certainly this happened. We do not think clients should be actively encouraged to split up deposits. Q5: Aggregation by bank would be a simpler option. Q6: In our opinion it is the prerogative of the authorities to decide this type of coverage Q7. There could be temporary exceptions allowed. Q8: Mutual schemes and voluntary DGS should be integrated into the Directive Q9: Structured deposits should not be covered by DGS, as investment products are not aimed by the Directive and such combinations should be excluded. If needed, the definition should be amended accordingly to avoid interpretations (the list of eligible deposits needs harmonization). Q10: Debt certificates (only certificates of deposits, but not bonds) should be included in the scope of coverage. Q11: Yes, non-eu currency deposits should be covered, due to the globalisation. Q12: The list of exclusions should be harmonized at EU level. 2

3 Q13: As a financial institution, we consider there is some conflict of interest to Q14: As a financial institution, we consider there is some conflict of interest to Q15: As a financial institution, we consider there is some conflict of interest to Q16: As a financial institution, we consider there is some conflict of interest to Q17: As a financial institution, we consider there is some conflict of interest to Q18: A pan-eu DGS could be a feasible option, but on a medium term after a transition period. There are other harmonization processes that must occur prior to the creation of such entity. Q19: We think it is a bit premature to have an opinion on that subject. Q20: We think it is a bit premature to have an opinion on that subject. Q21: DGS should retain the current approach â paying out the depositors. Any further role will add complexity, risks and significant costs. Q22: Information to the depositors could be formalized through an annex to the Directive, in order to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The information being related to general aspects, updating may not be necessary to be done very frequently. Q23: We would prefer that such information should be not be actually required or recommended, it should be the decision of the banks, if they consider so. Q24: Option d) may be considered, maybe as a note/paragraph in the document formalizing the contractual relationship between the client and its bank. Q25: Either retain the current approach (point a) or, if a pan-eu entity is created, that entity must inform. Q26: Option (b) may be a option, as the DGS scope has to be the protection of the depositors if their bank goes into a failure, but the insolvency practice may lead to issues. Option d) may be a solution, if set-off is really needed. 3

4 Q27: Option (b) should be considered as a solid argument in depositor protection (faster payout may increase confidence), but could be also seen as a â œcompensationâ to the limited (fixed) coverage. Paying quickly during tough times is much more helpful for the clients than a higher covered amount paid in 4-6 weeks. Q28: If a delay of 7 days will be implemented, no alternative solution would be necessary. Q29: In our view, it is more a technicality referring to DGS. Q30: In our view, it is more a technicality referring to DGS. Q31: Option (b) could be feasible even if a pan-eu DGS in in place. A requirement to fill in a request would make impossible the plan to reduce the total payout delay, and in a pan-eu DGS environment it may be very hard to implement. Q32: We prefer to keep the current approach for efficiency of the procedures Q33: It is important to have an efficient exchange of information between banks and DGS. Q34: Option (b) may be the appropriate one, in order to minimize risks related to the capacity of payment. Q35: If a Pan-EU DGS is created, topping up arrangements are not needed. Q36: If a Pan-EU DGS is created, there is no cross-border DGS activity Q37: The solution should derive from the nationa existing one. Q38: In principle yes, but it will be very difficult to apply due to the complexity of the method. Q39: In our opinion this is the prerogative of the authorities. Q40: The short payout delay, which is key to strengthen the trust and financial environment after a bank failure, would require some prior steps and processes to be implemented. Another key decision would be the architecture of DGS within EU, mostly the decision related to country DGS vs pan-eu DGS. 4

5 Message submitted by: Name = Tica Octavian = octavian.tica@brd.ro Company = BRD-Groupe Societe Generale Address = (ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY/ORGANISATION) Ion Mihalache NR Bucuresti Romania Reply accepted in English 5

COMMISSION CONSULTATION ON REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 94/19/EC ON DEPOSIT GUARANTEE SCHEMES

European Commission Internal Market and Services DG Financial Institutions markt-dgs-consultation@ec.europa.eu Interest Representative ID 7328496842-09 COMMISSION CONSULTATION ON REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 94/19/EC