Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

(AP Photo/Yves Logghe)

EU faces talks on bank sector reform and who should pay for future bailouts

Finance ministers are also expected to formally approve a 7-year extension on Ireland’s and Portugal’s bailout loans.

EUROZONE FINANCE MINISTERS will meet later amid sharp differences over banking sector reforms, trying to resolve whether taxpayers or creditors pay for future bailouts.

The goal is to get agreement on how to implement the next step towards a “banking union”, the new regulatory framework meant to avoid any repeat of the euro debt crisis which was driven by failing banks.

Initially, the EU said the €500 billion European Stability Mechanism could do the job but there have been disputes over when and how much money it can inject directly into the banks, currently put at between €50 and 70 billion.

The ESM retains its major role of helping member states but in an effort to address the bank problem at source, EU leaders last year approved the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

Stabilise or wind up

The SSM is meant to centralise oversight of the eurozone’s largest lenders under the European Central Bank which will coordinate regulation with non-euro countries such as Britain, home to some of the largest financial groups in the world.

An important first step, the SSM has been held up and now looks as if it will come into operation in the second half of 2014, instead of March. The ESM can only help the banks once the SSM is fully in place.

More important, the SSM is supposed to be backed up by another body to stabilise, or wind up, a failing bank before it brings down the whole system, including indebted governments.

In addition, there is meant to be a third element to guarantee bank deposits, reassuring savers who otherwise might start a run on a bank in trouble, setting of a potentially dangerous contagion effect.

The immediate problem is the second element, known as the Single Resolution Mechanism.

It is still unclear how this SRM would work, especially alongside national authorities jealous of their authority, as well as who would control it, how it would be funded and how much money it would need.

A key issue has been which creditors, and in what order, should be ‘bailed-in’ to pay for a bank’s rescue or winding up since taxpayers have grown resentful of being asked to pick up the tab.

The bail-in issue has been centre stage since a controversial Cyprus rescue in March required larger savers in its two biggest banks to pay for their winding up and restructuring, sparking outrage that deposits were no longer sacrosanct.

Alongside Cyprus, there will be a review of progress in twice bailed-out Greece, where the government’s fiercely contested decision to close the state broadcaster to reduce public servant numbers has muddied the political waters.

Finance ministers are also expected to formally approve a 7-year extension on Ireland’s and Portugal’s bailout loans and endorse the fiscal targets agreed last month as Brussels tries to get all 27 member states on the same economic page.

Related: IMF gives the ok for €1 billion bailout loan for Cyprus>

Author
View 7 comments
Close
7 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute mattoid
    Favourite mattoid
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 7:49 AM

    Never mind “who should pay for future bailouts?” the question is “should there be any bailouts in future?”

    43
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Anthony Durity
    Favourite Anthony Durity
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:10 AM

    It appears that “should” is maybe not the right word. It’s perhaps not about “should” but “will”. And it seems like there will. As long as there are crises there will be bailouts. Crises are hard to predict and there are a lot of actors out there producing forces that do not take into consideration the instabilities and perturbations they introduce into the various local and regional markets and economies. There was an interesting TED talk recently from a French economist, Didier Sornette, called “How we can predict the next financial crisis”[1]. Perhaps if governments started incorporating the science that this guy and his team have developed in their workings we might avert or alleviate some crises.

    As the Euro case is special in that we (Eurozone countries) are locked together in a semi-deadly embrace sharing a single currency with only tepid policy and legal instruments to keep us harmonized. And I don’t know if these policies would even be that effective if adhered to. What we need is a fairer system. One that has some sort of fair fiscal transfer mechanism or banking union – I think the banking union is fiscal transfers under a different name, or at least a doorway to transfers. Until then, more pain for the weaker Eurozone members, regardless of austerity policies, though they certainly don’t help.

    [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/didier_sornette_how_we_can_predict_the_next_financial_crisis.html

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Anthony Durity
    Favourite Anthony Durity
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:12 AM

    Strike that As :)

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kerry Blake
    Favourite Kerry Blake
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 8:16 AM

    Get the Irish to pay. Again,

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Carcu Sidub
    Favourite Carcu Sidub
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 10:23 AM

    Q. Who SHOULD pay for future bailouts?
    A. Bank Shareholders.

    Q. Who WILL pay for future bailouts?
    A. Joe Public.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute B Collins
    Favourite B Collins
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 11:03 AM

    For God’s sake, why is this even up for ‘discussion’?!
    As if you need a debate as to who should take the hit.
    Hello, it’s the unsecured (note, *UNSECURED* these-are-the-risks-you’re-knowingly-taking,) bondholders.
    That the European bigwigs are even talking about it instead of facepalming the skin off themselves for not recognising the obvious in the first place shows how little progress has been made. F*&k it, I give up.

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Harrison Terran
    Favourite Harrison Terran
    Report
    Jun 20th 2013, 3:37 PM

    With fewer jobs and less job security, less and less people can obtain mortgages. Living costs are constantly increasing, and it seems that our politicians haven’t a clue how to deal with the many problems arising from the economic crisis. Maybe they need to turn to professional economic crisis specialists. For example, the Orlando Bisegna Index, specialists in the economic crisis, apart from measuring the intensity of the economic crisis in many countries, have improved the economic situation of lots of citizens, have helped various counties with debt problems, unemployment and business failures.

    5
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds