Kira-kira apa bedanya dengan LPS. Ini juga patungan antar bank kan? R Munir
-----Original Message----- From: Harya Setyaka <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [referensi] Swedish Bank Fee Sets Example for America FYI, sayang kita gak ada ekonom beken lulusan Swedia.. -K- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/global/22levy.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print January 22, 2010 Swedish Bank Fee Sets Example for America By MATTHEW SALTMARSH When it comes to rescuing banks, the Swedes are earning a reputation as trendsetters. First they set a standard for recovering from disaster; now they want to export their idea for how to pay for it. The country went through its own crippling banking crisis during the early 1990s, after the bursting of a domestic credit bubble. It rebounded relatively smoothly through an aggressive bailout policy built around nationalization and carving the troubled assets of banks off into a so-called bad bank. That blueprint was followed to varying degrees over the last year or so in the United States, Japan, Britain, the Netherlands and other countries. Now, others are looking at Swedens latest idea to protect its lenders, enacted at the end of 2009 a stability fee, or direct tax on banks so that they pay for their own bailouts. The Swedish idea appears to have resonated in Washington. United States Treasury officials phoned their Swedish counterparts in December, requesting details of the fee. Last week, the Obama administration announced plans for a financial crisis responsibility fee, aimed at its biggest banks and intended to complete the recovery of the cost to taxpayers of the American bank bailout program. We can so far be proud, the Swedish minister for financial markets, Mats Odell, said in a telephone interview from Stockholm. Our support so far is in profit; we avoided a crisis like the 1930s and we have a stable system to ensure that taxpayers will be protected in future crises. The American proposal, which is expected to face a fierce fight in Congress, works along similar lines as the Swedish program, but has a different goal. The plan aims to recover for the taxpayer the billions in government funds spent bailing out giant lenders like Citigroup and Bank of America. It would remain in place for at least 10 years and would be applied to all financial institutions with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets at 0.15 percent of covered liabilities. Swedish officials say their program aims to ensure that when another banking crisis occurs, as it surely will, the tools are in place to manage and pay for it. According to Swedish officials, the stability fee has been welcomed by the banks that dominate the financial system. Smaller credit and financing companies complained bitterly, though, arguing that they would never be helped by the government in the event of a failure. In the United States, the reverse is happening. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, representing Wall Street and big banks, is considering a lawsuit against the administration on the grounds that a tax so narrowly focused would penalize a specific group. Sweden did not suffer as much as some other countries during this financial crisis. The government, however, did guarantee that the major Swedish banks would not fail, and participated in a rights issue last year for Nordea Bank, in which it holds a 20 percent stake. It also took over Carnegie, a small investment bank. Two Swedish banks SEB and Swedbank ran into trouble from their aggressive expansion in the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. While the lenders were not bailed out, they benefited from state guarantees, avoiding damaging runs. But Stockholm went further, introducing a permanent stability fee on banks and other credit institutions that some now see as a model for other countries. The levies are allocated to a stability fund, managed by the National Debt Office. The government plans to keep the tax until it hits a total of 2.5 percent of gross domestic product in 15 years. The Swedes estimate that to be the amount that a full-blown banking crisis would normally cost the economy. The fee will be due annually, starting at 0.018 percent of each institutions liabilities, excluding equity capital and some junior debt securities, based on audited balance sheets. The first payments have not been made because the 2009 reports of the banks have not been completed. But the government has already started the fund with 15 billion kronor ($2.1 billion). Sweden has also parked its shares in Nordea, which have increased in value, in the fund; when conditions are right, Mr. Odell said, the government plans to sell its stake. The fund now stands at about 30 billion kronor, or about 1 percent of Swedish gross domestic product. The bank levy will rise to 0.036 percent of liabilities in 2011, when the government is planning to introduce a weighted charge as well. Companies with riskier balance sheets would pay more. The money will initially be used by the agency in its own operations which potentially means the government could use it to pay down its debt. When the money is needed for bank support, the agency would raise money by issuing new debt securities. Sweden has learned from some of the mistakes it made during the crisis of the 1990s. At that time, it introduced a levy on transactions, but trading activity then migrated to London, where taxes were more favorable, the Swedish finance minister, Anders Borg, said Tuesday at a meeting in Brussels. Having established and tested the new policies, Mr. Borg urged his European partners, in a letter released Tuesday, to follow his countrys lead and introduce a similar program. Finance ministers from the Group of 20 world economic powers are scheduled to meet in February and are expected to discuss the issue. At the request of the G-20, the International Monetary Fund is working on proposals for a crisis levy and it plans to deliver a report to G-20 ministers in April. Leaders will examine the issue in June.
