Regarding official document of November 8, 2017, the European Central Bank has overturned the cards at the table still keeping the news in the most secret to safeguard their interests.For the protection of less wealthy depositors, however, the Union has passed a hand on the heart and has set up the interbank fund to protect deposits guaranteeing all those current accounts containing less than 100,000 euros.
In this case, upon the occurrence of a bail-in, the sums taken from these current accounts would be repaid by the Union, drawing money from the guarantee fund.
ECB update of 8 November 2017, document CON 2017/47 (download official document)
The new, unhealthy idea born of the ECB is to deprive all depository accounts - even those with sums of less than 100,000 euros - of the banking protection they now enjoy.
It is in fact an official opinion of the European Central Bank that the mechanism for protecting bank deposits is no longer necessary.
This protection is superfluous because the "economic recovery" that we are experiencing simply no longer justifies its existence.
Reading carefully in the document, it is clarified that the possibility of a bank run is still a cause of terror from the parties in Brussels.
If bank failure were imminent, a large number of account holders would try to withdraw their funds as soon as possible, either because they want to secure full access to their savings or because they no longer trust the institutions.
It must be said that now more and more lost decide to shift their savings in cryptocurrencies in order to not only protect their capital as they are actually drawn for a computer network calculation purpose, they are not inflatable, so more and more rare and secure from a transaction point of view.
we read in the document.
For this reason, the ECB, in addition to allowing the institution to access fully to the private deposits of which it is the custodian, gives its approval to any operation to rationalize the levies.
... during a transitional period, account holders should have access to an appropriate amount of their deposits in order to meet their daily expenses within five days of the request.
Previous bail-in existence
According to a May 2016 document entitled Revision of Financial Stability, the European bail-in mechanism is welcome as:
... contributes to reducing the burden borne by taxpayers in the event of difficulties of large banking institutions mitigating their systemic risk.
To spread the false belief that the customers of the various banks are divisible into independent groups - the account holders of Unicredit, those of Mediolanum, those of Deutsche Bank and so on - and that the individuals of each group are entities in no way connected to the company in which they live since they were born, is Matthew C. Klein, who reiterates this distorted concept on the pages of the Financial Times.
According to Klein i bail-in
They are efficient and preferable to bail-outs because they promote discipline on the markets and prevent innocents from suffering from the losses of other banks.While the Bail-out ...
They are inefficient and unjust. Governments tend to do them to protect the system and prevent it from collapsing. The disillusionment is that the elites prefer to safeguard their interests and those of their friends instead of helping the poor people.
Unfortunately, Klein, as a well-traveled writer, knows how to attract fish to his network using words with high emotional impact such as "elites", "poor people", "unjust".
Nothing could be more wrong than ever, the elite uses VIP people apparently deemed reliable by the market (and I repeat reliable for the market to protect) to demonize or alter some aspects or people, in fact it is completely wrong if you carefully examine what they are the Bail in and the Bail out.
Bail-outs are as unfair as bail-ins are.
Why should account holders, that is, the bank's customers, rather than the members and the management, have to pay for the institute's mistakes?
It is as if a court forced all the owners of a FIAT car to take out of their own pocket the money necessary to avoid the bankruptcy of this company, in case it fails to pay its debts.
If due to a superficial management, wrong investments and the assumption of excessively high risks were forced to close down, why a bank due to a superficial management, wrong investments and the assumption of too high risks should instead be saved by the Government or, reluctantly, by its customers?
Why are banks not subject to the rules that all the rest of the market must undergo?
They will make us believe that the answer to these questions belongs to the obscure field of high finance, impossible to understand for ordinary mortals, perhaps even inconveniencing the specter of systemic risk.
If we were to choose the lesser of the two evils - that is, the rescue of the banks - they will continue to do what they have always done in the last 40 years: on the one hand to pocket profits and on the other to discharge the losses on others.