5

I've come across some scare stories that a "bail-in", being the opposite of a bail-out, is where a bank uses deposits to restructure their capital, and that the average Joe with savings above a certain threshold has their money taken from their account, and in exchange they are issued with some kind of promise or share from the bank.

Apparently this happened in the 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis where "47.5% of all bank deposits above €100,000 were seized."

Despite studying university level economics, I'm a layman, and find official documentation on this subject utterly impenetrable:

What's the straight non-scare-story easy-to-understand version of this?

Can a bank can literally just decide that your money is now theirs? If so, when & how?

8
  • 4
    There's a difference between "average Joe" and "person with more than 100k Euros saved". Which do you care about?
    – Vicky
    Sep 24, 2021 at 10:42
  • 1
    It seems like you answered your own question? "the average Joe with savings above a certain threshold has their money taken from their account, and in exchange they are issued with some kind of promise or share from the bank."
    – user253751
    Sep 24, 2021 at 11:42
  • 1
    @Stewart well, such a thing would only happen if the bank didn't have enough money to pay everyone back. You have $100 in the bank, Billy has $100 in the bank, but the bank only has $150.
    – user253751
    Sep 24, 2021 at 12:49
  • 1
    @Vicky I care about understanding the general policy, for a member of the public. By "Average Joe", I meant not a shareholder, or someone living in Cayman, or someone working at the Bank of England or some such thing. Can the bank can literally just decide that your money is now theirs? If so, when & how?
    – Stewart
    Sep 24, 2021 at 12:50
  • 2
    @Vicky Someone with €100k in savings could still be an average Joe – e.g. parents worked all their lives, modest income, saved up a bit and taken their pension lump sum, hoping to live off it for 30+ years, not the type who understands investments or risk products… I’m with the OP. +1 for the question – would be good to understand the powers UK banks have to do similar, and what they might be left with if it happens. Sep 24, 2021 at 15:28

2 Answers 2

4

One thing that's clear from those documents is that a bank can't just decide by itself to do a bail-in. The regulators do it to the bank.

Imagine a bank is going bankrupt. If that happens, the shares will become worthless. The creditors of the bank will hope for a payout of some of their money from the liquidators, but they won't get all of it back. Those creditors includes any savers whose savings are above the limit of the deposit protection scheme.

Instead, the regulator will grab the shares from the shareholders and hand them to the creditors. But a proportion of the creditors' money will be written off. The creditors be left hoping that the bank recovers, and those shares become worth something again.

The shareholders lose out, as they no longer have the shares. But they were going to lose anyway if the bank went bust.

1

A bail-in makes sense when you consider depositors to be creditors of the bank. Absent a bank insurance program like the US FDIC, if the bank suddenly runs out of money, the depositors lose everything. Better is for the depositors with enough money to accept IOUs for a period of time, to give the bank a chance to clean up their balance sheet, pay off some debt, and hopefully get solvent again, and then the depositors/creditors can avoid losing their money.

1
  • I wonder if the average Joe thinks about it that way. Our whole attitude to banking might change if we really thought a bank could fail.
    – Stewart
    Sep 25, 2021 at 20:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .