アイスランドの破綻した銀行は、その銀行預金を当時は20'000ユーロ(現在は100'000ユーロ)まで保証する義務はない？？イギリス人、オランダ人の預金者が被害に逢う。
Islandia pone a prueba la seguridad de los depósitos bancarios
Una sentencia da la razón a Reikiavik ante su negativa inicial a devolver el dinero que británicos y holandeses tenían en las entidades quebradas
Luis Doncel Bruselas 2 FEB 2013 - 20:36 CET
Iceland is testing the safety of bank deposits
A judgment vindicates Reykjavik before his initial refusal to return the money in British and Dutch had broken institutions
Luis Doncel Brussels 2 FEB 2013 - 20:36 CET
What if your savings were not sure? What if, in the event of a crisis that overflowed into the financial system, States were not required to support the deposits of citizens? This is the question that lies at the heart of the decision announced on Monday by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
The EFTA Court ruled in favor of Iceland, which refused to pay back all the money they lost by British and Dutch Icesave money when the company went bankrupt in 2008, Landsbanki's trademark. UK and the Netherlands, which drew on the public purse to compensate their citizens who saw their savings evaporate, lost the legal battle. The statement argues that the European standard, then guaranteeing deposits up to 20,000 euros and that Iceland was obliged to fulfill despite not belonging to the EU, "did not answer the question of how to act if the deposit insurance fund is unable to meet its obligations for a systemic crisis. "
The Icelandic government takes time repaying funds
It seems that the judgment, not subject to appeal, will have a major economic impact, because the Icelandic state takes time returning the money to London and Amsterdam. And reiterated that thinks it anymore. It is being waged Reykjavik to pay the entire bill and significant interests. But it does have a strong symbolic, and could serve as a precedent for future banking crises. The European Commission was quick to say that the ruling does not alter the current situation, in which the 27 member states are obliged to guarantee savings up to 100,000 euros "even in severe crisis." But the excitement generated by the judgment was evident these days in Brussels.
"It makes no sense that the taxpayers are having to bail out private entities. It would be reasonable if the state created a public bank, "says Eirikur Bergmann, professor of political science and director of the Center for European Studies. The Court denies that discriminate against foreigners Iceland had transferred funds from Landsbanki to another entity, which in fact saved the residents' savings. But some experts disagree with this review. "Not only is discriminatory. Furthermore, it is against the rules of the Deposit Guarantee Fund (which ensures that the deposits of foreign branches guaranteed by the countries of origin) and undermined the principle of unit market, "says Joaquin Maudos, Professor of Analysis Economic.
"It makes no sense that people have to bail out private banks"
The news that Iceland had not broken the law by refusing to impose a debt that would comply hovered around 12,500 per citizen was greeted with joy by the vast majority of its 320,000 inhabitants. The country pages filled the headlines five years ago by the collapse of a bank which until then was a national pride is emerging from the crisis much better than its European neighbors and is moving steadily to join the EU.
The economy has grown in the last two years just under 3%, would want to say something that other countries were also shaken by the crisis. Unemployment, after reaching 10%-something spectacular for a country accustomed to full employment has fallen below 5%. It also returned early loans it received from the International Monetary Fund and the agencies do not consider their debt has a rating of "junk". One of the reasons that gave Fitch a year ago to improve its debt rating was "unorthodox policy" adopted to overcome the crisis. The return of the currency helped the island to recover.
But clichés that describe this as the only country that refused to rescue the financial system, we should remember that the state itself was forced to inject funds into their banks, and that citizens paid a heavy toll for it in the form of tax increases and spending cuts. "We have not come out of the hole at all. But we are much better by not doing everything they told us was that we had to do. That decision was made by the citizens took to the streets and demand our rights, "concludes Hördur Torfason, one of the protest organizers in those turbulent days of 2008 and 2009 ended the country's political pro-establishment.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿