People’s memories probably work better when it comes to their own savings. The waves of expropriation by EU officials during the banking crisis, described as rescue measures for the common good, have gotten stuck in the minds of savers. Confidence in deposit insurance is not very pronounced.
Inhalt / Content
The promise is renewed
People’s confidence in the security system for customers’ savings deposits is not exactly great. Although Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) did not organize his media appearance to calm savers as effectively as Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrück did during the “big banking and financial crisis” after the wobbles at the major Swiss bank Credit Suisse, the tones were very similar . In any case, the completely unfounded assurances that the savings deposits were safe were identical. The former Bavarian Minister of Finance, Erwin Huber, even went one better with his “letter of comfort”. But it didn’t help, because “by their fruits you will recognize them”.
It turns out very differently
The arbitrariness of the “bailouts” organized by those responsible in the EU was impressive. So, without further ado and overnight, the deposit guarantee for up to 100,000 euros in savings, which had always been touted up to then, was simply overturned by making all savers in Cyprus liable for 6.25 percent of their savings.
Rather low trust in deposit insurance
After such expropriation sweepstakes, it is no wonder that people’s trust in such promises is poor. Finally, the executors of the banks justified their rescue measures for the tottering financial institutions and other financial market gamblers with the common good.
A Forsa survey commissioned by “Stern” (German magazine) showed that only half of those surveyed had confidence in deposit insurance. However, 46 percent expressed doubts as to whether the promises were real money.
As different as the German political camps are, their respective supporters see the supposed security for bank deposits as differentiated. 78 percent of AfD supporters doubt the promise of safe deposits. With the SPD supporters it is almost the other way around. 73 percent of SPD voters show confidence in the fuses. 63 percent of the Greens fans have confidence in the deposit guarantee system.
The more money that is available, the greater the confidence expressed in the promoted deposit insurance schemes. With an income of 4,000 euros or more per month, 58 percent are confident in the banking system. With a household income of less than 2,500 euros, only 48 percent share the same confidence.
European Court spoke clearly
The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the case of the dispossessed savers in Cyprus shows how quickly such trust could turn into huge disappointment. People were forced to help save the banks simply by having an amount taken from their savings. Overall, savers were relieved by around 6 billion euros. The ECJ saw this expropriation as legitimate and justified this with the fact that “ownership is not absolute”. However, this was not a legislative verdict, but a reference to the EU Charter. There is therefore no absolute right to property. This already sets a basic direction.
After numerous experiments with the so-called bail-out procedure and the introduction of the “ESM“, the so-called bail-in procedure was simply tested in Cyprus. In the former, the general taxpayer pays for the bailout of the banks. In the second case, it goes directly to the substance of the investors.
Bottom line, it (almost) doesn’t matter. The fictitious money gambled away by the banks must always be replaced by the real work of those who create value.
(*1 Logo EuGH: From unknown – curia.europa.eu, Logo, https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8372003