• Contact
  • Feedback
Banking Day
Owen Analytics Logo
Stay Ahead: Professional-Grade Market Intelligence
Subscribe Now
  • News
  • Topics
    • All Topics
    • Briefs
    • Major Banks
    • Authorised deposit-taking institutions
    • Insurance, funds and super
    • Payments, mobile & wallets
    • Consumer lending
    • Mortgages
    • Business lending
    • Finance regulation
    • Debt capital markets
    • Ratings agencies
    • Equity capital markets
    • Professional services
    • Work & career
    • Foreign news
    • Other topics
  • Free Trial
  • Subscribe
  • Resources
    • Industry events
  • About us
    • About Banking Day
    • Advertise
    • Feedback
    • Contact Banking Day
  • Search
  • Login
  • My account
    • Account settings
    • User Admin
    • Logout

Login or request a free trial

Bank collapse fund not necessary, says ACFS

09 June 2011 4:38PM
Building up a fund today to pay victims of future bank collapses is unnecessary, says a new paper published by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies. But, the paper says, there is a case for banks and other authorised deposit-taking institutions to pay a fee for the "aura of government protection" provided by the Government's Financial Claims Scheme.Last month, Treasury published a consultation paper on the future shape of the scheme. The scheme aims to protect depositors from losses in the event that an Australian ADI fails. The scheme was introduced during the global financial crisis It replaced a less formal scheme where regulators undertook to "protect" depositors.The Treasury paper canvassed reducing the "cap", the $1 million maximum amount in a bank deposit covered by the government guarantee on bank deposits. The Treasury paper says the cap should now drop to between $100,000 and $250,000.The ACFS paper, written by ACFS research director Professor Kevin Davis, broadly approves of the scheme and calls most of the new recommendations "relatively straightforward and uncontroversial".It particularly defends the proposal to fund the scheme through an after-the-event levy on remaining institutions. Building up a fund beforehand with risk-based contributions will not reduce moral hazard, he argues. That's because depositors lack the skills to evaluate differences in risk between various banks and ADIs, and because regulators are likely to force takeovers of failing banks and other ADIs rather than allow them to be liquidated.But the paper also argues some form of charge should be imposed on ADIs to reflect the protection they will get from the government's scheme. The scheme will reduce the likelihood of runs on ADIs by depositors, and let them raise funds more cheaply than non-ADI competitors.ADIs must currently conform to various capital and liquidity requirements. Davis argues it is not clear that those requirements offset the benefits provided by the scheme.Davis was the author of a 2003 study for the Australian government on financial guarantees.

I'm a returning subscriber

*
Password reset *
Login

Request a free trial

  • Emailing you the news at 7am.
  • Covering core lending and funding issues, strategy, payments, regulation, risk management, IT, marketing and more.
  • Original news and summaries of major stories from other media – ditch your newspaper subscriptions.
  • Focused on banking and finance, saving you the time spent wading through newspapers and other services.
  • With reporting from former editors and senior writers from the AFR and The Australian.
  • Configured for your phone, laptop and PC.
Free trial Banking Day
ConfidentiallySpeaking.com.au Logo
High-impact negotiation masterclass | July 9 & 16, 2025 | 5:00pm - 8:30pm
This high-impact negotiation masterclass teaches practical strategies to help you succeed in challenging negotiations.
Register Now

Consumer lending

  • Latitude, Harvey Norman liable for interest free GO card con

Copyright © WorkDay Media 2003-2025.

Banking Day is a WorkDay Media publication

WorkDay Media Unit Trust

  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of access and use