The article highlights the need for policy makers in the coming months to focus on “exit strategies”, especially where unlimited guarantees have been extended.
      
    
    
      Most OECD  countries have extended their financial safety nets for banks and financial institutions over recent months. While a helpful step for restoring market confidence, this OECD  article highlights the need for policy makers in the coming months to focus on “exit strategies”, especially where unlimited guarantees have been extended.
 
First, like any guarantee, deposit insurance coverage gives rise to moral hazard, especially if the coverage is unlimited. To keep market discipline operational, it is important to specify when the extra deposit insurance will end, and this timeline needs to be credible. 
 
Second, the co-existence of different levels of protection could give rise to unfair competitive advantages, vis-à-vis other forms of savings or vis-à-vis other deposit-taking institutions that do not enjoy the guarantee. 
 
Third, to make a guarantee credible it is important to specify the manner in which it will be provided. There is the possibility that the capacity of some governments to provide for the guarantee that they have announced or implied in announcements may be questioned. 
 
Looking ahead, a sharper policy focus will have to be placed on “exit strategies”, especially where unlimited guarantees have been extended. In this context, the fundamental question remains whether government guarantees can be a one-off proposition. There may be a general perception that, once extended in one crisis, a government guarantee will always be available during crisis situations.
 
Full article
 
      
      
      
      
        © OECD
     
      
      
      
      
      
      Key
      
 Hover over the blue highlighted
        text to view the acronym meaning
      

Hover
        over these icons for more information
      
      
     
    
    
      
      Comments:
      
      No Comments for this Article