Completing the Banking Union: Deposit Insurance. CEPS Policy Brief No. 335, 3 December 2015

It is generally agreed that a Banking Union should have common or ‘single’ institutions responsible for carrying out three basic functions: supervision, resolution and deposit insurance. So far, however, agreement has been reached in the EU on only the first two of these functions. The Commission has now presented its proposal on how to complete the Banking Union with a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). It is an innovative and courageous proposal. It is courageous because it will clearly be very controversial in a number of member states (especially Germany) and it is innovative because it proposes a three-stage process, starting with re-insurance, then switching to co-insurance and finally to full direct insurance of deposits via a ‘single’ Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). This final stage should be reached in 2024, which is also the date at which the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) will become the only source of financing for bank resolution. The Commission’s proposal calls for integrating the decision-making for EDIS into the decision-making entity for the SRF, namely the existing Single Resolution Board (SRB). This makes sense if one views resolution and deposit insurance as two highly interlinked dimensions of dealing with banks in trouble. In this view the two dimensions should be bundled into one institution – and one suspects that over time the two funds (the SRF and the DIF) could be merged into one. This Policy Brief argues that re-insurance should not be considered as a transitory phase, but could also provide a solution for the long run. ‘Experience rating’ could be used to ensure a proper pricing of risk and to protect the interests of the depositors in countries with safer banking systems. Moreover, EDIS should have a decision-making structure separate from and independent of the SRM, since it has mainly a macroeconomic function.

Labour costs in the wholesale and retail trade, banking and insurance in 1974. 1977.1

Demographic and Social Statistics - Statistical Telegram

Hospitalization risk due to respiratory illness associated with genetic variation at IFITM3 in patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection: a case-control study

Recent studies suggest an association between the Interferon Inducible Transmembrane 3 (IFITM3) rs12252 variant and the course of influenza infection. However, it is not clear whether the reported association relates to influenza infection severity. The aim of this study was to estimate the hospitalization risk associated with this variant in Influenza Like Illness (ILI) patients during the H1N1 pandemic influenza. A case-control genetic association study was performed, using nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs collected during the H1N1 pandemic influenza. Laboratory diagnosis of influenza infection was performed by RT-PCR, the IFITM3 rs12252 was genotyped by RFLP and tested for association with hospitalization. Conditional logistic regression was performed to calculate the confounder-adjusted odds ratio of hospitalization associated with IFITM3 rs12252. We selected 312 ILI cases and 624 matched non-hospitalized controls. Within ILI Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 positive patients, no statistical significant association was found between the variant and the hospitalization risk (Adjusted OR: 0.73 (95%CI: 0.33–1.50)). Regarding ILI Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 negative patients, CT/CC genotype carriers had a higher risk of being hospitalized than patients with TT genotype (Adjusted OR: 2.54 (95%CI: 1.54–4.19)). The IFITM3 rs12252 variant was associated with respiratory infection hospitalization but not specifically in patients infected with Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.