{"title":"Dodd-Frank and Unlimited Deposit Insurance","authors":"Anna‐Leigh Stone","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3905573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the first to examine the unlimited deposit insurance on noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (NIBTAs) provided by Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). During Dodd-Frank, banks had a smaller ratio of NIBTAs compared to later periods without the unlimited insurance but have larger deposit flows in NIBTAs over the $250,000 FDIC limit. The results suggest that depositors took advantage of the unlimited insurance, but that banks were not harmed by drawdowns when the insurance expired. Furthermore, the results suggest that emergency deposit insurance might be a good complement to FDIC insurance during recessionary times.","PeriodicalId":376194,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation & Supervision (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper is the first to examine the unlimited deposit insurance on noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (NIBTAs) provided by Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). During Dodd-Frank, banks had a smaller ratio of NIBTAs compared to later periods without the unlimited insurance but have larger deposit flows in NIBTAs over the $250,000 FDIC limit. The results suggest that depositors took advantage of the unlimited insurance, but that banks were not harmed by drawdowns when the insurance expired. Furthermore, the results suggest that emergency deposit insurance might be a good complement to FDIC insurance during recessionary times.
本文首次考察了《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法》(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)第343条对无息交易账户(NIBTAs)提供的无限制存款保险。在多德-弗兰克法案实施期间,与没有无限保险的后期相比,银行的nibta比例较小,但nibta的存款流量超过了25万美元的FDIC上限。结果表明,存款人利用了无限保险,但当保险到期时,银行并没有受到提款的损害。此外,结果表明,紧急存款保险可能是一个很好的补充FDIC保险在经济衰退时期。