EU sprema veliku ofenzivu na štediše

Protect Your Savings - ECB Proposes End To Deposit Protection

It is the 'opinion of the European Central Bank' that the deposit protection scheme is no longer necessary:

'covered deposits and claims under investor compensation schemes should be replaced by limited discretionary exemptions to be granted by the competent authority in order to retain a degree of flexibility.'

To translate the legalese jargon of the ECB bureaucrats this could mean that the current €100,000 (£85,000) deposit level currently protected in the event of a bail-in may soon be no more.

But worry not fellow savers as the ECB is fully aware of the uproar this may cause so they have been kind enough to propose that:

   "...during a transitional period, depositors should have access to an appropriate amount of their covered deposits to cover the cost of living within five working days of a request."

So that's a relief, you'll only need to wait five days for some 'competent authority' to deem what is an 'appropriate amount' of your own money for you to have access to in order eat, pay bills and get to work.

The above has been taken from an ECB paper published on 8 November 2017 entitled 'on revisions to the Union crisis management framework'.

It's 58 pages long, the majority of which are proposed amendments to the Union crisis management framework and the current text of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD).

It's pretty boring reading but there are some key snippets which should be raising a few alarms. It is evidence that once again a central bank can keep manipulating situations well beyond the likes of monetary policy. It is also a lesson for savers to diversify their assets in order to reduce their exposure to counterparty risks.

Bail-ins, who are they for?

According to the May 2016 Financial Stability Review, the EU bail-in tool is 'welcome' as it:

   ...contributes to reducing the burden on taxpayers when resolving large, systemic financial institutions and mitigates some of the moral hazard incentives associated with too-big-to-fail institutions.

As we have discussed in the past, we're confused by the apparent separation between 'taxpayer' and those who have put their hard-earned cash into the bank. After all, are they not taxpayers?

This doesn't matter, believes Matthew C.Klein in the FT who recently argued:

   Bail-ins are theoretically preferable because they preserve market discipline without causing undue harm to innocent people.

Ultimately bail-ins are so central banks can keep their merry game of easy money and irresponsibility going. They have been sanctioned because rather than fix and learn from the mess of the bailouts nearly a decade ago, they have just decided to find an even bigger band-aid to patch up the system.

   'Bailouts, by contrast, are unfair and inefficient. Governments tend to do them, however, out of misplaced concern about “preserving the system”. This stokes (justified) resentment that elites care about protecting their friends more than they care about helping regular people.' Matthew C. Klein

But what about the regular people who have placed their money in the bank, believing they're safe from another financial crisis? Are they not 'innocent' and deserving of protection?

When Klein wrote his latest on bail-ins, it was just over a week before the release of this latest ECB paper. With fairness to Klein at the time of his writing depositors with less than €100,000 in the bank were protected under the terms of the ECB covered deposit rules.

This still seemed absurd to us who thought it questionable that anyone's money in the bank could suddenly be sanctioned for use to prop up an ailing institution. We have regularly pointed out that just because there is currently a protected level at which deposits will not be pilfered, this could change at any minute.

The latest proposed amendments suggest this is about to happen.

Why change the bail-in rules?

The ECB's 58-page amendment proposal is tough going but it is about halfway through when you come across the suggestion that 'covered deposits' no longer need to be protected. This is determined because the ECB is concerned about a run on the failing bank:

   If the failure of a bank appears to be imminent, a substantial number of covered depositors might still withdraw their funds immediately in order to ensure uninterrupted access or because they have no faith in the guarantee scheme.

This could be particularly damning for big banks and cause a further crisis of confidence in the system:

   Such a scenario is particularly likely for large banks, where the sheer amount of covered deposits might erode confidence in the capacity of the deposit guarantee scheme. In such a scenario, if the scope of the moratorium power does not include covered deposits, the moratorium might alert covered depositors of the strong possibility that the institution has a failing or likely to fail assessment.

Therefore, argue the ECB the current moratorium that protects deposits could be 'counterproductive'. (For the banks, obviously, not for the people whose money it really is:

   The moratorium would therefore be counterproductive, causing a bank run instead of preventing it. Such an outcome could be detrimental to the bank’s orderly resolution, which could ultimately cause severe harm to creditors and significantly strain the deposit guarantee scheme. In addition, such an exemption could lead to a worse treatment for depositor funded banks, as the exemption needs to be factored in when determining the seriousness of the liquidity situation of the bank. Finally, any potential technical impediments may require further assessment.

The ECB instead proposes that 'certain safeguards' be put in place to allow restricted access to deposits...for no more than five working days. But let's see how long that lasts for.

   Therefore, an exception for covered depositors from the application of the moratorium would cast serious doubts on the overall usefulness of the tool. Instead of mandating a general exemption, the BRRD should instead include certain safeguards to protect the rights of depositors, such as clear communication on when access will be regained and a restriction of the suspension to a maximum of five working days by avoiding a cumulative use by the competent authority and the resolution authority.

Even after a year of studying and reading bail-ins I am still horrified that something like this is deemed to be preferable and fairer to other solutions, namely fixing the banking system. The bureaucrats running the EU and ECB are still blind to the pain such proposals can cause and have caused.

Look to Italy for damage prevention

At the beginning of the month, we explained how the banking meltdown in Veneto Italy destroyed 200,000 savers and 40,000 businesses.

In that same article, we outlined how exposed Italians were to the banking system. Over €31 billion of sub-retail bonds have been sold to everyday savers, investors, and pensioners. It is these bonds that will be sucked into the sinkhole each time a bank goes under.

A 2015 IMF study found that the majority of Italy’s 15 largest banks a bank rescue would ‘imply bail-in of retail investors of subordinated debt’. Only two-thirds of potential bail-ins would affect senior bond-holders, i.e. those who are most likely to be institutional investors rather than pensioners with limited funds.

Why is this the case? As we have previously explained:

   Bondholders are seen as creditors. The same type of creditor that EU rules state must take responsibility for a bank’s financial failure, rather than the taxpayer. This is a bail-in scenario.

   In a bail-in scenario the type of junior bonds held by the retail investors in the street is the first to take the hit. When the world’s oldest bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena collapsed ordinary people (who also happen to be taxpayers) owned €5 billion ($5.5 billion) of subordinated debt. It vanished.

Despite the biggest bail-in in history occurring within the EU, few people have paid attention and protested against such measures. A bail-in is not unique to Italy, it is possible for all those living and banking within the EU.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-14/preemptive-strike-euro-savings-protect-your-savings-gold-ecb-propose-end-deposit-pro

Shvatila ekipa da treba destimulirati štednju, trebalo im jedno desetljeće  haha

ok.
kamatne stope nemogu ići niže, jer efekta nema više na ekonomiju. dakle sa te strane ne mogu više prcati. inflacija je niska, pa nije niti to neki efekat. pa će pokušati ovo.

kako god bilo, ako postoji ljudska potreba da štede sa strane, radi nekog razloga(skupljaju lovu bilo radi investicije u auto, stan, business, bilo da imaju za stare dane) štedit će.

.. imate primjer RH , gdje se štednja iz povjesnih razloga prebacivala u ulaganje u nekretnine.
... ovo u EU vidim kao odličnu priliku za rast cijena kriptovaluta. Već vidim kako se kupuju bitcoini, i etherumi i stavljaju na USB stick ,a USB stick u sef, kao alternativa štednji u banci.. puno jednostavnije od zlata

Pinochet wrote:ok.
kamatne stope nemogu ići niže, jer efekta nema više na ekonomiju. dakle sa te strane ne mogu više prcati. inflacija je niska, pa nije niti to neki efekat.  pa će pokušati ovo.

kako god bilo, ako postoji ljudska potreba da štede sa strane, radi nekog razloga(skupljaju lovu bilo radi investicije u auto, stan, business, bilo da imaju za stare dane) štedit će.

.. imate primjer RH , gdje se štednja iz povjesnih razloga prebacivala u ulaganje u nekretnine.
... ovo u EU vidim kao odličnu priliku za rast cijena kriptovaluta.  Već vidim kako se kupuju bitcoini, i etherumi i stavljaju na USB stick ,a  USB stick u sef, kao alternativa štednji u banci.. puno jednostavnije od zlata

jebo kriptovalute, zlato je zlato i uho za osluskivanje,
50% u zalto sa ostatkom manevrirat u umnazat, svaki 6 mjeseci 50% u zlato, nemos se zajebat

ja sam stavio oko 3k€ u crypto, prije par mjeseci, i mislim da mi sada vrijede preko 6k € :D niti kopa niti ora :D

Skupo je zlato, treba to jos pasti...funte bi bile dobra investicija.

Kserks_ wrote:Skupo je zlato, treba to jos pasti...funte bi bile dobra investicija.

ti ne razumijes, zlato je trajuce, 50% novca u zlato, trajna zaliha koja se ne dira, a sa ostatkom investiras i zaradjujes dalje
zlatu moze pasti nevrijednost al nikad nece vrijedit nista, a funta, euro il bilo koja valuta mogu zavrsit kao jugoslovenski dinari il talijanska lira, danas imas za kucu a sutra mos kupit cigarete i za kavu ti ne ostane

Leviathan2 wrote:

Kserks_ wrote:Skupo je zlato, treba to jos pasti...funte bi bile dobra investicija.

ti ne razumijes, zlato je trajuce, 50% novca u zlato, trajna zaliha koja se ne dira, a sa ostatkom investiras i zaradjujes dalje
zlatu moze pasti nevrijednost al nikad nece vrijedit nista, a funta, euro il bilo koja valuta mogu zavrsit kao jugoslovenski dinari il talijanska lira, danas imas za kucu a sutra mos kupit cigarete i za kavu ti ne ostane

Nje sad vrijeme za ući u zlato

"...during a transitional period, depositors should have access to an appropriate amount of their covered deposits to cover the cost of living within five working days of a request."

So that's a relief, you'll only need to wait five days for some 'competent authority' to deem what is an 'appropriate amount' of your own money for you to have access to in order eat, pay bills and get to work

posteno 

Pinochet wrote:
kako god bilo, ako postoji ljudska potreba da štede sa strane, radi nekog razloga(skupljaju lovu bilo radi investicije u auto, stan, business, bilo da imaju za stare dane) štedit će

neće zabraniti štednju nego ukidaju državne garancije na štednju građana

pustit će banke da propadnu

npr. ako Agrokor za sobom povuče banke, ode i tvoja štednja, do sad je Centralna banka regulirala to i osiguravala da tvoji depoziti ne odu kao kolaterala banke

dobio si free market nevidljivu ruku

isto kao i kod temeoljnog dohotka, serete o socijalizmu, a ideju guraju neoliberali iz MMFa

ovo je isto neoliberalni potez, da imaš socijalizam država bi deficitom financirala potrebu građana da štede

kod sljedeće krize ima da plačete ako ovo provedu, jer država vas više neće štititi od "slobodnog tržišta"

pustit će da propadnu "loše" banke, i s njima štediše koje su kod njih držale novac

– Italy’s Veneto banking meltdown destroyed 200,000 savers and 40,000 businesses
– EU bail-in rules have wiped out billions for savers and and businesses, with more at risk
– Bail-ins are not unique to Italy, all Western savers are at risk of seeing savings disappear

One of Italy’s twenty regions is calling for more autonomy from the state following a nonbonding referendum. Why? Because a government supported ‘rescue package’ caused the lifesavings of 200,000 savers to be wiped out during the  implosions of Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca.

Bail-in of the first resort

Italians are in very deep financially when it comes to their banking system. The 2015 IMF report states:

   Retail holdings in Italy are relatively large compared to other countries, comprising about one- third of about €600 billion worth of bank bonds and half of about €60 billion worth of subordinated bonds.

That is all money that will just disappear overnight in the case of bank failure. In some cases, it already has.

Is your government or the EU there for you? Don’t bet on it

A bail-in forces creditors of a bank to shoulder losses when the firm fails. The term covers cover every case of creditor loss-sharing when a bank goes belly-up.

This is different to events we saw during the 2008 financial crisis when taxpayers tended to bail-out banks. Since 2016 European Union rules have stated there must be a bail-in before a government bailout is allowed.

Governments would clearly like to prevent savings of hardworking individuals and businesses from being wiped out. However they are fearful of the EU, trying to skirt their bail-in rules would no doubt sour relations with a body that is keen to stick to rules it only recently passed.

There is a conflict of interest it seems between pleasing the EU and doing the right thing by voters.

Given Brexit and now Catalonia the EU is unlikely to be in the mood to bend its rules for another troublesome country. This is despite it costing the EU’s own citizens billions of euros in lost savings and investments.

This is a risk for the EU, especially in Italy where there is already strong anti-EU sentiment. The case of Veneto, where 75% require more power and 15% would like to see total autonomous rule is another Catalonia again. A further sign of increased populism thanks to an overbearing and indifferent EU.


freee makret

Koliko ja znam ovo je vec provedeno potiho..vise država ne jamci za sve depozite, nego jamci samo imovinom DAB-a...inače ako banka propadne štediše nece ostat bez svih novaca nosens...kako ekipa postepeno vraća svoje kredite, tako se pomalo isplaćuje novac i štedišama.

Kserks_ wrote:štediše nece ostat bez svih novaca nosens...kako ekipa postepeno vraća svoje kredite, tako se pomalo isplaćuje novac i štedišama.

You just want to be fucked in the ass


priznaj

Ova veneto banka, njezina sestrinska banka u RH imala je bar deset godina u komadu u nas gubitke, odma se vidimo da se radi o makinacijama par excelance, kako bi rekao Izet..

mamin sin wrote:

Kserks_ wrote:štediše nece ostat bez svih novaca nosens...kako ekipa postepeno vraća svoje kredite, tako se pomalo isplaćuje novac i štedišama.

Zato se portfelj rasporedi(max 10%) na jedno misto, pa kome obojci, kome opanci...

Kserks_ wrote:
Zato se portfelj rasporedi(max 10%) na jedno misto, pa kome obojci, kome opanci...

koliko sam puta pisao da ako želite imati sigurnu štednju, da država mora nužno voditi deficit koji je dovoljno velik da to pokriva

ali ne

vi bi radije primali u šupak

mamin sin wrote:

Pinochet wrote:
kako god bilo, ako postoji ljudska potreba da štede sa strane, radi nekog razloga(skupljaju lovu bilo radi investicije u auto, stan, business, bilo da imaju za stare dane) štedit će

neće zabraniti štednju nego ukidaju državne garancije na štednju građana

pustit će banke da propadnu

npr. ako Agrokor za sobom povuče banke, ode i tvoja štednja, do sad je Centralna banka regulirala to i osiguravala da tvoji depoziti ne odu kao kolaterala banke

dobio si free market nevidljivu ruku

isto kao i kod temeoljnog dohotka, serete o socijalizmu, a ideju guraju neoliberali iz MMFa

ovo je isto neoliberalni potez, da imaš socijalizam država bi deficitom financirala potrebu građana da štede

kod sljedeće krize ima da plačete ako ovo provedu, jer država vas više neće štititi od "slobodnog tržišta"

pustit će da propadnu "loše" banke, i s njima štediše koje su kod njih držale novac

pa ovo je dobar potez, iako se iza ovoga ne krije ljubav EU prema nevidljivoj ruci, nego općenito borba protiv štednje.. em režu kamatne stope, em uvode poreze na dobit od štednje, em pokušavaju na silu progurati inflaciju, sada i ovo.. gle mene se jebe, ja nisam štediša, lovu uglavnom vrtim .. a ono što ne vrtim, gledam u što ću je zavrtit.. itd

Uvik samo bio protiv državne štednje, zastupao sam tezu relocirana sredstava unutar državne potrošnje na stvari koje su sa ekonomskog gledišta profitabilnije...a tvoje seksualne preferencije zadrži sa sebe.hvala.

inače u tijeku je možebitno izdavanje državne obveznice u vrijednosti od 1.5 milijardu eura sa kamatom cca 3%, kako bi se refinanciralo cca 30% duga cestarskih firmi..ovo je ušteda države na kamati od nekih 250 milijuna kuna na godinu, a ta se sredstva oslobađaju da se troše na druge stvari..