Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
From your information and that provided by Migeru, I see that there are two big zones of gray:

  1. whether you are banking with a subsidiary or a branch of a foreign bank - I'd say this is not a distinction that is accessible to retail clients and they should not have to expect to be treated differently;

  2. the fact that with branches, part of the deposit guarantee was provided by one State, and part by another. I must admit I'm not quite clear which amount was paid by whom in the Icesave saga, and which amount is claimed against another State (especially as some governments announced new guaranteed deposit ceilings right in the middle of the crisis).


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 10:53:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Under the 'passport' system referenced by Migeru, Icesave paid into the deposit insurance of the UK and the Netherlands for the amount of deposits they insured above Iceland.

Thus, the UK and the Netherlands paid the amounts above € 20,887 to an amount equal to their domestic deposit insurance, but Icesave also paid insurance for those amounts.

In this particular case, then, the lack of clarity was not that harmful for depositors.

The question is whether something like the 'passport' system can be made mandatory by a national regulator, or if banks will just in general prefer it because having pointed out that your savings are insured to a lower amount than those of other banks is bad advertising.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series