Demodé
Himbersor
- Desde
- 1 Sep 2019
- Mensajes
- 3.314
- Reputación
- 4.495
"BAIL IN" --ya en camino porque hace años han aprobado las leyes, en Australia según parece-- es "tomar como fianza", lo opuesto de "BAIL out" que sería el famoso rescate, ó bien sacar de la policía a un detenido pagando la fianza.
Australians told 'trust me, your money is safe', but many antiestéticar bank deposits are at risk
cobi19 crisis heightens antiestéticars bank deposits could be wiped out under 'ambiguous' laws
By business reporter Nassim Khadem
Posted 3ddays ago, updated 3ddays ago
A Senate inquiry is being asked to consider whether there is need to tighten up a "loophole" that could give APRA the power to "implement, authorise or direct bail-in to deposit accounts".(Reuters: Daniel Munoz)
Imagine you pogre up one day to find your bank account had been wiped out.
Your entire life savings has evaporated overnight, but not because some anonymous fraudster had stolen it.
It happened because the very banking institution that regulators have repeatedly told you is "unquestionably strong" has faltered.
The bank has taken your deposit and converted it into shares to ensure its own survival.
You now own those shares, but you've taken on more risk than you signed up for, and there's a possibility those shares could end up being worthless.
This is a scenario of a bank moving to 'bail-in' your money.
If you think this totally impossible, think again. It happened in Cyprus not so long ago.
While a bail-in situation in Australia is currently a highly improbable scenario, people are feeling more nervous about their financial future amid the cobi19 crisis and deepest recession since the Depression.
A Senate inquiry is now being asked to consider whether there is need to tighten up a perceived legislative "loophole" that could give the nation's banking regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the power to "implement, authorise or direct bail-in to deposit accounts".
(......)
Firstly, the 2019 IMF Financial System Stability Report calls on authorities to introduce a "statutory bail-in regime, based on best international practice".
Secondly, the G20-backed Financial Stability Board, which is charged with monitoring and assessing vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system, recently released a report evaluating the "too-big-to-fail" banking reforms.
The report suggests "governments must have the powers, the information and the incentives to move from bailout to bail-in".
It explicitly states that this would involve giving authorities (in Australia's case APRA) independent legal power to resolve a banking crisis without the consent of the banks, shareholders and their customers.
While the IMF does not define what 'best international practice' looks like, Mr North and Mr Adams note in their submissions that international examples of 'statutory bail-in' do already exist in New Zealand, the European Union, the United States and Canada.
amowing the 2008 financial crisis, international regulators have consistently argued that governments need to have clear policies on bail-in.(Spencer Platt: Getty Images: AFP)Transparency is key in an uncertain world
In a world where financial risks are heightened, regulators and political leaders need to be transparent.
Just days ago, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, Randal K. Quarles, delivered a speech warning that while too-big-to-fail banking reforms have strengthened the global financial system since the 2008 crisis, regulators should improve how they deal with the possibility of distressed banks.
Don't mention the 'R word'
The Treasurer managed to admit Australia was in recession without ever uttering the word. But there are early signs we're already be emerging from the worst of the downturn.
Read more
He did not specifically mention 'bail-in', but noted in the aftermath of el bichito-19, all FSB members — made up of 24 central banks including the Reserve Bank of Australia — need to consider how to "improve their resolution capabilities so they are fully prepared to respond to a bank failure or a crisis".
This global discussion about bail-in policies coincides with the Federal Government's proposal to introduce laws that would ban cash transactions above $10,000 and make it a criminal offence to use cash for most transactions above that limit.
It also comes at a time when there's been evidence of wealthier Australians pulling large sums of cash out of their bank accounts.
The inquiry is due to report back in early August. It may well find that there is no institutional risk of a bail-in in Australia.
That being the case, the perception that there is legal ambiguity could be further tested if the inquiry holds public hearings that include the views of others, including independent legal experts.
Politically, it is likely the Government will remain reluctant to change the law to more clearly state there will not be bail-ins.
Such a move could send a signal to the wider community that it feels there is a risk and that might spook the public into a bank run, where a large number of people rush to pull out their deposits.
But depositors need to be provided with clear information so that they are aware of the risks they face in the event that a worst-case scenario eventuates.
Only then can they make informed decisions about what they do with their money.
Posted 3ddays ago, updated 3ddays ago
Senate Passes ‘Bail In’ Law – How Safe Is Your Cash Now?
Australia's Scary New Bank Bail-in Laws
Does ‘bail-in’ include bank deposits?
Bail-Ins During Financial Crisis Helps Financial Institutions
How Goverment Bail-Ins Save Institutions
Australians told 'trust me, your money is safe', but many antiestéticar bank deposits are at risk
cobi19 crisis heightens antiestéticars bank deposits could be wiped out under 'ambiguous' laws
By business reporter Nassim Khadem
Posted 3ddays ago, updated 3ddays ago
A Senate inquiry is being asked to consider whether there is need to tighten up a "loophole" that could give APRA the power to "implement, authorise or direct bail-in to deposit accounts".(Reuters: Daniel Munoz)
Imagine you pogre up one day to find your bank account had been wiped out.
Your entire life savings has evaporated overnight, but not because some anonymous fraudster had stolen it.
It happened because the very banking institution that regulators have repeatedly told you is "unquestionably strong" has faltered.
The bank has taken your deposit and converted it into shares to ensure its own survival.
You now own those shares, but you've taken on more risk than you signed up for, and there's a possibility those shares could end up being worthless.
This is a scenario of a bank moving to 'bail-in' your money.
If you think this totally impossible, think again. It happened in Cyprus not so long ago.
While a bail-in situation in Australia is currently a highly improbable scenario, people are feeling more nervous about their financial future amid the cobi19 crisis and deepest recession since the Depression.
A Senate inquiry is now being asked to consider whether there is need to tighten up a perceived legislative "loophole" that could give the nation's banking regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the power to "implement, authorise or direct bail-in to deposit accounts".
(......)
Firstly, the 2019 IMF Financial System Stability Report calls on authorities to introduce a "statutory bail-in regime, based on best international practice".
Secondly, the G20-backed Financial Stability Board, which is charged with monitoring and assessing vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system, recently released a report evaluating the "too-big-to-fail" banking reforms.
The report suggests "governments must have the powers, the information and the incentives to move from bailout to bail-in".
It explicitly states that this would involve giving authorities (in Australia's case APRA) independent legal power to resolve a banking crisis without the consent of the banks, shareholders and their customers.
While the IMF does not define what 'best international practice' looks like, Mr North and Mr Adams note in their submissions that international examples of 'statutory bail-in' do already exist in New Zealand, the European Union, the United States and Canada.
amowing the 2008 financial crisis, international regulators have consistently argued that governments need to have clear policies on bail-in.(Spencer Platt: Getty Images: AFP)Transparency is key in an uncertain world
In a world where financial risks are heightened, regulators and political leaders need to be transparent.
Just days ago, chairman of the Financial Stability Board, Randal K. Quarles, delivered a speech warning that while too-big-to-fail banking reforms have strengthened the global financial system since the 2008 crisis, regulators should improve how they deal with the possibility of distressed banks.
Don't mention the 'R word'
The Treasurer managed to admit Australia was in recession without ever uttering the word. But there are early signs we're already be emerging from the worst of the downturn.
Read more
He did not specifically mention 'bail-in', but noted in the aftermath of el bichito-19, all FSB members — made up of 24 central banks including the Reserve Bank of Australia — need to consider how to "improve their resolution capabilities so they are fully prepared to respond to a bank failure or a crisis".
This global discussion about bail-in policies coincides with the Federal Government's proposal to introduce laws that would ban cash transactions above $10,000 and make it a criminal offence to use cash for most transactions above that limit.
It also comes at a time when there's been evidence of wealthier Australians pulling large sums of cash out of their bank accounts.
The inquiry is due to report back in early August. It may well find that there is no institutional risk of a bail-in in Australia.
That being the case, the perception that there is legal ambiguity could be further tested if the inquiry holds public hearings that include the views of others, including independent legal experts.
Politically, it is likely the Government will remain reluctant to change the law to more clearly state there will not be bail-ins.
Such a move could send a signal to the wider community that it feels there is a risk and that might spook the public into a bank run, where a large number of people rush to pull out their deposits.
But depositors need to be provided with clear information so that they are aware of the risks they face in the event that a worst-case scenario eventuates.
Only then can they make informed decisions about what they do with their money.
Posted 3ddays ago, updated 3ddays ago
Senate Passes ‘Bail In’ Law – How Safe Is Your Cash Now?
Australia's Scary New Bank Bail-in Laws
Does ‘bail-in’ include bank deposits?
Bail-Ins During Financial Crisis Helps Financial Institutions
How Goverment Bail-Ins Save Institutions
Última edición:
