Extraordinary Leadership for North Dakota Banks
menu
menu
Advocacy
Strategic Partners
Education
NDBanks Benefit Trust
Communications
About
Events
Career Network
Sign In
Extraordinary Leadership for North Dakota Banks
About
Events
Career Network
Sign In
Advocacy
Ask Kennedy
Bank Exam Prep Center
Legislative Updates
Legal Publications
Legal Counsel
Legislative Committee
NDBankPAC
Advocacy Resources
Strategic Partners
Endorsed Vendors
Partner Resources
Business Partner Directory
Associate Member Listing
Associate Member Guide
Associate Member Benefits
Associate Member Application
Sponsorship Opportunities
Advertising Opportunities
Education
2023 Tri-State Trust Conference
Conferences
Schools
Peer Groups
Event Registration
IT Certification Programs
Online Training
Web Seminars
Financial Literacy
NDBanks Benefit Trust
NDBBT Board of Directors
Communications
News
COVID-19
NDBA Bulletin
Service Award Application
Advertising Opportunities
Bank Holiday Signs
Advocacy
Strategic Partners
Education
NDBanks Benefit Trust
Communications
Home
»
Communications
»
News
»
FDIC Suggests ‘Targeted’ Coverage Best Option for Deposit Insurance Reform
FDIC Suggests ‘Targeted’ Coverage Best Option for Deposit Insurance Reform
Posted:
May 03 2023
A “targeted” deposit insurance system in which additional coverage would be extended to business payment accounts would be the best option for balancing financial stability and depositor protection relative to its costs, the FDIC said in its long-awaited review of the system. The review, prompted by recent bank failures, considered three options for reforming the Deposit Insurance Fund: The limited coverage option that exists now, an unlimited option that would cover all deposits, and a targeted system with additional coverage for business payment accounts. The FDIC said the latter was the most promising option but acknowledged there are “significant, unresolved practical challenges” to implementing it. Any modification to the coverage level must be approved by Congress.
The FDIC report did not weigh in on a possible special assessment fee to make up for the hit to the DIF resulting from the agency’s systemic risk exemption declaration for Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The agency plans to issue that decision at a later date. Instead, the report offered a history of the fund along with possible changes lawmakers could pursue.
The FDIC’s report presented options that all come with tradeoffs, including potentially increased regulation. An unlimited system in which all deposits are covered would mostly eliminate bank runs, but would also eliminate depositor discipline while generating possible broader market disruptions and increased insurance assessments, FDIC said. The targeted option could achieve financial stability with only a limited decrease in depositor discipline, but it would be challenging to define business accounts and would also require additional DIF funding.
“The extent to which the DIF would need to expand would be a function of both how business payment accounts are defined and the extent to which the demand for business payment accounts results in inflows from other asset markets,” the agency said. “Although assessments would likely need to increase, it is difficult to estimate to what extent.”
To read more, visit:
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/options-deposit-insurance-reforms/report/options-deposit-insurance-reform-full.pdf