Talk:Deposit insurance

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

FDIC is US only

The line which states that the FDIC insures banks in more than one country needs to be clarified or removed. Puerto Rico is not a country, but a territory of the US. Banks and thrifts there are regulated just as they are regulated in any one of the fifty states, which means that the FDIC is the insurer of federally chartered banks and thrifts as well as state-chartered Federal Reserve members, as required by federal law. Micronesia is not a country, but rather a region made up of various islands, both dependencies as well as independant states. Among them are the Northern Marianna Islands and Guam, both US territories, therefore same rules apply there as they do in the fifty states and Puerto Rico. However, other non-US territory islands' banks would not be insured by the FDIC. As far as the Marshall Islands, it may be possible that its banks may be insured by the FDIC, as the Marshall Islands was a former US territory, though I myself doubt it. That source should be noted if that is in fact the case. If nobody else comments on this, I'm thinking about editing this page after a while. Johnbradleytlh 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)johnbradleytlh[reply]

Moral hazard

The article should include an NPOV discussion on the "moral hazard" argument that deposit insurance encourages depositors to ignore risks, as in the US savings and loan crisis. It's the reason why some countries haven't introduced it. September 17, 2007 --JamesWim 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it should have a detailed argument about deposit insurance as special interest and burden on the government. It is a government policy tool and protectionist.Zeppelin55 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather narrowminded argument that ignores the most important benefit of deposit insurance. Deposit insurance exists to prevent a bank run. Bank investment risks should be managed by regulating their risk exposures, especially in banks that have deposits. With proper oversight, deposit insurance should never be a "burden" on the government, except in sense of a regulatory burden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:A840:7EAC:BA97:5AFF:FECD:B1DF (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Why does the Europe section only cover russia, as far as i know it isn't part of Europe. Shouldn't it get it's own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.34.171 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Russia, including the Moscow and St. Petersburg areas, are considered part of Europe and it seems appropriate to include Russia in that section. It would certainly be useful if anyone could add information for other non-EU European countries such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. Other EU countries are missing too, notably all of Eastern Europe. Robertbyrne (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Has the minimum amount insured not been increased to 100,000 EUR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.209.214 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 31.12.2010, the insured amount should be set at 100.000 euros for all EU-countries (newly introduced Art. 7(1a) of Directive 94/19/EC). Please check whether it has been implemented in your country and update the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.154.141 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

And what about Malta ? Is there the european value of 100000 EUR ?

--AXRL (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland - needs further clarification

I changed the overview in the Switzerland section to better reflect what the Swiss Federal Banking Commission (SFBC) states in English on its FAQ page here. http://www.ebk.admin.ch/e/publik/bulletin/index.html.

The swiss-bankaccounts.com (domain registered by Micheloud & Cie with a Swiss address) also claims 30000 CHF is protected but I am not satisfied with the reliability of its translation. I believe important statements on deposit insurance should be sourced either directly from the SFBC and/or the banks themselves.

Unfortunately the Swiss banks I looked at so far (Credit Suisse and UBS) do not make this information obvious. I have emailed one of them for precise details, but do not expect an answer (from experience making similar queries).

The SFBC do give some information in English (see cite in article) and a lot in German as bulletins here: http://www.ebk.admin.ch/e/publik/bulletin/index.html.

In case anyone with better skills in German bank-jargon than me wishes to invesigate further, Bulletin 48/2006 is the special "Bankenkonkurs und Einlagensicherung" (bank bankruptcy and deposit protection) which details the changes to Swiss law that came into effect on 2005 August 1. It is in German, French and Italian. The German section detailing the changes starts at page 26. It replaces sections 11 to 13 of existing law (Bundesgesetz über die Banken und Sparkassen if I read it right). Page 30, Art. 37a Kleinsteinlagen appears to say sums smaller than 5000 Franks from privileged depositors will be paid quickly. Art 37b confuses me by starting with "Einlagen, die nicht auf den Inhaber lauten," (deposits not in the name of the owner??) but goes on to state the first 30000 Franks will be treated as if from a second-class creditor, and hence privileged. Deposits from companies will not be privileged. Page 32 Art. 37h includes "b. einen Maximalbetrag von 4 Milliarden Franken für die gesamthaft ausstehenden Beitragsverpflichtungen vorsieht;" which looks like the total compensation cannot exceed 4 billion Franks (for the one bankruptcy I suppose). The next condition specifies some liquidity requirement that I cannot understand, and there I abandon my comprehension attempt.-84user (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles Offshore

Events are chaning rapidly in the Crown dependencies; I will include further info as it becomes available.---- Best, MacBiggles

See http://www.dcs.gg/ for "Guernsey Banking Deposit Compensation Scheme" (similar to the Isle of Man's scheme i.e. £50k max per 'qualifying deposit' and £100m total cap) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.254.41 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

This is a great interview with Carter Golembe from 1998:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3614

--Pnm (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Interest Legislation

The following line was removed: "It protects depositors at small banks and thus protects small banks businesses and can be considered special interest legislation." for being non-NPOV. It is commonly referred to when it was created as such; and even mentioned in academic articles. I'm not sure how it is not neutral because the effect is to protect small banks from economies of scale that would make small banks riskier to deposit in. Therefore: it is in the special interests of small banks and not banking. I also cited my sources because I realized it was a contentious point but that doesn't change it's neutrality. It has come to effect larger banks that are poorly run as well however small banks would cease to exist without deposit insurance in the numbers they do. Zeppelin55 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on Criticisms

I relocated existing content about the moral hazard that federal deposit insurance creates that could be better labeled "criticisms" under a "criticisms" heading. I also added a sentence on the advantages of privately provided deposit insurance with a reference to Jeffery Rogers Hummel, an Associate Professor of Economics and the San Jose University. If this is an unacceptable addition feel free to explain why here. I can find a more neutral source given some time, if someone would like to question the neutrality of the source (although I would offer that economics tends to be pretty partisan and so claiming that Dr. Hummel is biased isn't saying much). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.21.216 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Laeven's comment on this article

Dr. Laeven has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article would benefit from reference to a recent, comprehensive database on the topic, which provides detailed information on the design featurers of deposit insurance schemes around the world, and is available from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14118.pdf
The moral hazard issue in the section on "Criticisms of state-sponsored deposit insurance" is covered at length in the book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deposit-insurance-around-world Reference to this book, in addition toe the reference to Schiff, would be warranted.
The challenge with the Bibby plan as written is that most schemes are underfunded and most schemes charge premiums that are well below actuarially fair premiums. In such cases moral hazard will still remain. In fact, moral hazard will always remain. The challenge of deposit insurance is to deisgn a scheme that trades off the costs of moral hazard with the benefits of financial stability.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Laeven has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Kane, Edward & Laeven, Luc, 2014. "Deposit insurance database," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6934, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deposit insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828195345/http://fscs.org.uk/consumer/FAQs/Deposit_claims_FAQs/ to http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/faqs/deposit_claims_faqs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shy's comment on this article

Dr. Shy has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article should discuss deposit insurance limits in the U.S. Also, the limit applies to a single banks, but wealthy individuals can split their wealth into several banks to secure their entire portfolio. Also, the article should mention that the FDIC fund is limited in the sense that it can rescue only small banks. Large banks that fail generally require taxpayer bailout which makes the fractional reserve banking system inefficient.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Shy has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Shy, Oz & Stenbacka, Rune & Yankov, Vladimir, 2014. "Limited Deposit Insurance Coverage and Bank Competition," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2014-53, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Deposit insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]