The European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) is being constructed as one of three basic pillars of the banking union, designed in 2012 under a crisis situation in the euro zone to increase the financial system stability and to restore the general trust to banks, as well as to prevent contagion effects in a case of a future crisis enhancement. The article is aimed at giving an overview of the evolution of the EDIS idea, characterising the recent state of organization and pointing out some pros and cons of the discussed organisational variants. There is also undertaken an attempt to formulate the possible consequences, if BFG would become the EDIS member as the Polish deposit insurance institution.
PL
Europejski System Gwarantowania Depozytów (EDIS – European Deposit Insurance Scheme) stanowi jeden z filarów unii bankowej – instytucji zaprojektowanej w 2012 r. w obliczu kryzysu strefy euro w celu zwiększenia stabilności systemu finansowego i przywrócenia ogólnego zaufania do banków w krajach strefy euro, oraz zapobieżenia powstawaniu efektów zarażania na wypadek wystąpienia kolejnego nasilenia się zjawisk kryzysowych. Celem artykułu jest analiza zmian koncepcji powołania EDIS, scharakteryzowanie aktualnego stanu organizacji, oraz zwrócenie uwagi na zalety i wady dyskutowanych wariantów systemu. Podjęta została także próba sformułowania konsekwencji akcesu do niego polskiej instytucji gwarantującej depozyty, czyli Bankowego Funduszu Gwarancyjnego.
Credibility and reliability of counter-partners are the most important features required for the efficient functioning of financial markets. Violating these requirements is an important aspect of the operational risk, posed by the human factor – both internal (managers, employees) and external (customers, shareholders, competitors, supervisors). Therefore, having a limited impact on the behaviour of outside persons, the financial institutions formulate high standards towards their own personnel. It concerns formal qualifications and professional experience, as well as specific personality traits and appropriate behaviour in various situations. These standards are specified in numerous recent ethics codes – documents formulating the socalled ‘corporate governance best practices’ in internal and external relations to other people. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the fact that some of these standards generate in praxis a number of dilemmas or even conflict situations, when there appears a question of to what extent the application of a given rule does not breach other rules. Theoretically, corporate governance practices should be internally consistent. However, everyday experience brings such a multitude of real situations, diverse human characters or individual reactions that there appears a need for a sensible compromise between values of equal importance which, in some cases, prove contradicting.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.