International Association 

of Deposit Insurers (IADI)

IADI Core Principles

For 

Effective Deposit 

Insurance 

Systems

November 2014
2

Contents

Acronyms....................................................................................................4

I. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5

II. Definitions of Key Terms........................................................................................... 8

III. Moral Hazard, Operating Environment and Other Considerations................................... 11

Minimising Moral Hazard ............................................................................................ 11

Operating Environment............................................................................................... 11

1. Macroeconomic conditions ............................................................................ 12

2. Financial system structure ............................................................................. 12

3. Prudential regulation, supervision and resolution........................................... 13

4. The legal and judicial framework.................................................................... 14

5. The accounting and disclosure regime........................................................... 15

IV. Special Issues in Applying the Core Principles ............................................................... 15

Islamic Deposit Insurance Systems ............................................................................ 15

Multiple Deposit Insurance Systems ........................................................................... 16

Financial Inclusion ...................................................................................................... 16

Depositor Preference.................................................................................................. 17

V. Core Principles and Compliance Assessment ................................................................. 18

Principle 1 – PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES ............................................................. 18

Principle 2 – MANDATE AND POWERS .................................................................... 19

Principle 3 – GOVERNANCE...................................................................................... 21

Principle 4 – RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER SAFETY-NET PARTICIPANTS.......... 23

Principle 5 – CROSS-BORDER ISSUES.................................................................... 24

Principle 6 – DEPOSIT INSURER’S ROLE IN CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND 

CRISIS MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 25

Principle 7 – MEMBERSHIP....................................................................................... 26

Principle 8 – COVERAGE........................................................................................... 27

Principle 9 – SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ....................................................... 29

Principle 10 – PUBLIC AWARENESS......................................................................... 32

Principle 11 – LEGAL PROTECTION ......................................................................... 34

Principle 12 – DEALING WITH PARTIES AT FAULT IN A BANK FAILURE ............... 35

Principle 13 – EARLY DETECTION AND TIMELY INTERVENTION........................... 36

Principle 14 – FAILURE RESOLUTION...................................................................... 37
3

Principle 15 – REIMBURSING DEPOSITORS............................................................ 39

Principle 16 – RECOVERIES...................................................................................... 41

Annex I ................................................................................................................................ 42

Compliance Assessment ............................................................................................ 42

Use of the Methodology.............................................................................................. 43

Assessment Report .................................................................................................... 44

Annex II ............................................................................................................................... 49

Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 54
4

Acronyms

BCBS Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

BCP Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision

CBRG Cross-border Bank Resolution Group

DI Deposit insurer

DICP Deposit Insurance Core Principles

DIS Deposit insurance system

EC European Commission

EFDI European Forum of Deposit Insurers

FSAP Financial Sector Assessment Program

FSB Financial Stability Board

FSC Financial Stability Committee

FSN Financial safety-net

IADI International Association of Deposit Insurers

IDIS Islamic deposit insurance system

IMF International Monetary Fund

JWG Joint Working Group

KAs Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes

MDIS Multiple deposit insurance systems

MOF Ministry of Finance

MOU Memorandum of understanding

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ROSC Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes

SRR Special resolution regime
5

Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems 

I. Introduction

The International Association of Deposit Insurers (IADI) and the Basel Committee on 

Banking Supervision (BCBS) issued the Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance 

Systems in June 2009.

1 A Compliance Assessment Methodology for the Core Principles 

was completed in December 2010. The Core Principles and their compliance 

assessment methodology (together: the Core Principles) are used by jurisdictions as a 

benchmark for assessing the quality of their deposit insurance systems and for 

identifying gaps in their deposit insurance practices and measures to address them. The 

Core Principles are also used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World 

Bank, in the context of the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), to assess the 

effectiveness of jurisdictions’ deposit insurance systems and practices. 

The Core Principles are reflective of, and designed to be adaptable to, a broad range of 

jurisdictional circumstances, settings and structures. The Core Principles are intended 

as a framework supporting effective deposit insurance practices. National authorities are 

free to put in place supplementary measures that they deem necessary to achieve 

effective deposit insurance in their jurisdictions. 

An assessment of compliance with the Core Principles can be a useful tool for 

jurisdictions that are implementing, reviewing or actively reforming a deposit insurance 

system. A comprehensive, credible and action-oriented assessment should focus on the 

deposit insurance system and its relationship to the financial safety-net functions which 

support it. The assessment of broader safety-net functions (i.e. operating environment) 

is mostly outside the responsibility of the deposit insurer. But it can have a direct effect 

on the deposit insurer’s ability to fulfil its mandate. The assessment of a deposit 

insurance system should identify strengths and weaknesses in the existing deposit 

insurance system, and form a basis for remedial measures by deposit insurers and 

policymakers (e.g. government authorities or, if it is primarily a private system, its 

member banks), after taking into account the structural, institutional and legal features of 

each national deposit insurance system. 

The global financial crisis of 2007–09 brought to light significant policy lessons for 

deposit insurance systems. The evolution of the crisis showed the importance of 

maintaining depositor confidence in the financial system and the key role that deposit 

 

1 In July 2008, the BCBS and IADI decided to collaborate on developing an internationally agreed set of core 

principles for deposit insurance using the IADI Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems (February 

2008) as a basis. A joint working group, comprising representatives from the BCBS’s Cross-Border Bank Resolution 

Group (CBRG) and IADI’s Guidance Group, was formed to develop a set of core principles to be submitted to the 

BCBS and IADI for review and approval. The consultative document, entitled Core Principles for Effective Deposit 

Insurance Systems, was completed in March 2009 and endorsed by the international community in June 2009. 
6

protection plays in maintaining that confidence. Increases in deposit insurance coverage 

and strengthening of funding arrangements help support financial stability in many 

jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, blanket guarantees were issued by authorities. 

Irrespective of the form of protection, policymakers recognised the importance of 

ensuring depositor confidence. In the aftermath of the crisis, a number of deposit 

insurers saw their mandates expand to include resolution tools in addition to depositor 

reimbursement. Based on a recent IADI survey, the percentage of deposit insurance 

agencies with some kind of role in resolution increased from about half in 2005 to almost 

65 per cent in 2011.

2

These lessons have important implications for the Core Principles, and have provided 

the context and framed the environment within which the Core Principles have been 

revised. A greater awareness and emphasis has been placed on ensuring that the 

deposit insurer has the necessary operational independence to fulfil its mandate. The 

crisis also revealed deposit insurers’ need to have additional tools and an ability to be 

better integrated into the financial safety-net.

As a result of these developments, experiences using the Core Principles, and 

international regulatory enhancements, IADI established an internal Steering Committee 

to review and update the Core Principles and develop a proposed set of revisions in 

February 2013. As part of its review mandate, the Committee took the following into 

account: experience gained in using the Core Principles for jurisdiction self-assessments 

and FSAPs; significant developments in the regulatory landscape such as the 

development of the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Key Attributes of Effective 

Resolution Regimes; enhanced guidance developed by IADI to address 

recommendations arising from the FSB Thematic Review on Deposit Insurance; IADI 

guidance related to Islamic deposit insurance systems; and financial inclusion issues.3

The IADI proposal was presented to a Joint Working Group (JWG)4 – which included 

representatives from the BCBS, the European Forum of Deposit Insurers (EFDI), the 

European Commission (EC), the FSB, the IMF and the World Bank – for use as a 

starting point to collaboratively develop a final revised set of Core Principles as set forth 

in this document. In conducting its review, the JWG has sought to achieve the right 

balance between raising the bar for more effective deposit insurance systems and 

retaining the Core Principles as a flexible, internationally applicable standard. The 

revised Core Principles continue to accommodate a diverse range of deposit insurance 

systems (DIS). 

 

2 See IADI, Annual Survey, 2013 and FSB, Thematic Review on Deposit Insurance, 2012.

3 See: FSB, Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, 2011; IADI’s Enhanced 

Guidance documents on moral hazard, deposit insurance coverage, reimbursement systems and practices, and 

public awareness, 2012/13; FSB, Thematic Review on Deposit Insurance Systems, 2012; and the IADI Discussion 

Paper Deposit Insurance from a Shariah Perspective, 2010 . 

4 See Annex II for a list of members of the Steering Committee and Joint Working Group.
7

The existing Core Principles have served their purpose well in terms of helping 

jurisdictions assess their deposit insurance systems and identify areas for improvement. 

While conscious efforts were made to maintain continuity and comparability as far as 

possible, the Core Principles and the compliance assessment methodology have been 

merged into a single comprehensive document. The revised set of Core Principles has 

also been reorganised to foster implementation through a more logical structure. 

Important enhancements include: 

• improving the clarity and consistency of terminology;

• reducing overlap and duplication among a number of Core Principles;

• strengthening the Core Principles in certain areas (e.g. governance, depositor 

reimbursements, coverage, funding) and improving safeguards for the use of 

deposit insurance funds;

• incorporating IADI enhanced guidance on reimbursements, public awareness, 

coverage, moral hazard, and funding;

• addressing moral hazard concerns within all relevant Core Principles instead of 

restricting moral hazard guidance to a single Core Principle;

• updating the Core Principles related to intervention and failure resolution, in order 

to better reflect the greater role being played by many deposit insurers in resolution 

regimes, and to ensure the consistency of the Core Principles with the FSB Key 

Attributes;

• adding more guidance on deposit insurers’ role in crisis preparedness and

management;

• incorporating considerations related to the operation of Islamic deposit insurance 

systems;

• updating and enhancing Core Principles related to cross-border deposit insurance 

issues;

• adding guidance on the operation of multiple deposit insurance systems in the 

same national jurisdiction; and

• upgrading some additional criteria to essential criteria while adding new 

assessment criteria where warranted.

As a result of this review, the number of Core Principles has decreased from 18 to 16,

encompassing 96 assessment criteria. Six additional criteria from the existing 

assessment methodology have been upgraded to essential criteria. 
8

The revised Core Principles will continue to provide a comprehensive standard for 

establishing or enhancing effective deposit insurance systems. Given the importance of 

consistent and effective standards implementation, IADI stands ready to encourage 

work at the national level to implement the revised Core Principles in conjunction with 

other financial safety-net participants. 

II. Definitions of Key Terms 

“Bank” refers to any entity which accepts deposits or repayable funds from the public 

and is classified under the jurisdiction’s legal framework as a deposit-taking institution. 

“Blanket guarantee” is defined as a declaration by authorities, that in addition to the 

protection provided by limited coverage deposit insurance or other arrangements, 

certain deposits and perhaps other financial instruments will be protected. 

“Bridge bank” refers to an entity that is established to temporarily take over and 

maintain certain assets, liabilities and operations of a failed bank as part of the 

resolution process. 

“Deposit insurance” is defined as a system established to protect depositors against 

the loss of their insured deposits in the event that a bank is unable to meet its 

obligations to the depositors.

“Deposit insurer” refers to the specific legal entity responsible for providing deposit 

insurance, deposit guarantees or similar deposit protection arrangements. 

“Deposit insurance system” refers to the deposit insurer and its relationships with the 

financial safety-net participants that support deposit insurance functions and resolution 

processes. 

“Depositor preference” means granting deposit liabilities a higher claim class than 

other general creditors against the proceeds of liquidation of an insolvent bank’s assets. 

Depositors must be paid in full before remaining creditors can collect on their claims. 

Depositor preference can take a number of different forms. For example:

• national (or domestic) depositor preference gives priority to deposit liabilities 

booked and payable within the domestic jurisdiction and does not extend to

deposits in foreign branches abroad;

• eligible depositor preference gives preference to all deposits meeting the eligibility 

requirements for deposit insurance coverage; 

• insured depositor preference gives preference to insured depositors (and the 

deposit insurer under subrogation); 

• a two-tiered depositor preference concept, in which eligible, but uninsured 

deposits have a higher ranking than claims of ordinary unsecured, non-preferred 
9

creditors, and insured depositors have a higher ranking than eligible depositors; 

and

• general depositor preference, in which all deposits have a higher ranking than 

claims of ordinary unsecured, non-preferred creditors, regardless of their status 

(insured/uninsured or eligible/not eligible). 

“Differential premium system” (or “risk-based premiums”) refers to a premium 

assessment system which seeks to differentiate premiums on the basis of criteria such 

as individual bank risk profiles.

“Ex ante funding” refers to the regular collection of premiums, with the aim of 

accumulating a fund to meet future obligations (e.g. reimbursing depositors) and cover 

the operational and related costs of the deposit insurer. 

“Ex post funding” refers to systems in which funds to cover deposit insurance 

obligations are only collected from surviving banks after a bank failure.

“Financial inclusion” refers to the extent to which individuals and entities have access 

to and utilise formal financial services.

“Financial safety-net" is defined to include the functions of prudential regulation, 

supervision, resolution, lender of last resort and deposit insurance. In many jurisdictions, 

a department of government (generally a Ministry of Finance or Treasury responsible for 

financial sector policy) is included in the financial safety-net.

“Fit and proper” refers to fitness tests that usually seek to assess the competence of 

managers and directors and their capacity to fulfil the responsibilities of their positions,

while propriety tests seek to assess their integrity and suitability. Formal qualifications, 

previous experience and track record are some of the elements focused on by 

authorities when determining competence. To assess integrity and suitability, elements 

considered include: criminal records, financial position, civil actions against individuals to 

pursue personal debts, refusal of admission to, or expulsion from, professional bodies, 

sanctions applied by regulators of other similar industries, and previous questionable 

business practices.

“Liquidation” (or “receivership”) refers to the winding-down (or “winding-up” as used in 

some jurisdictions) of the business affairs and operations of a failed bank through the 

orderly disposition of its assets after its licence has been revoked and it has been placed 

in receivership. In most jurisdictions, it is synonymous with “receivership”. 

“Liquidator” (or “receiver”) refers to the legal entity that undertakes the winding-down of 

the failed bank and the disposition of its assets.

“Mandate” of the deposit insurer refers to the set of official instructions describing its 

roles and responsibilities. There is no single mandate or set of mandates suitable for all 

deposit insurers. When assigning a mandate to a deposit insurer, jurisdiction-specific 

circumstances must be taken into account. Mandates can range from narrow “pay box” 
10

systems to those with extensive responsibilities, such as preventive action and loss or 

risk minimisation/management, with a variety of combinations in between. These can be 

broadly classified into four categories:

a. A “pay box” mandate, where the deposit insurer is only responsible for the 

reimbursement of insured deposits;

b. A “pay box plus” mandate, where the deposit insurer has additional 

responsibilities, such as certain resolution functions (e.g. financial support); 

c. A “loss minimiser” mandate, where the insurer actively engages in a selection 

from a range of least-cost resolution strategies; and

d. A “risk minimiser” mandate, where the insurer has comprehensive risk 

minimisation functions that include risk assessment/management, a full suite of 

early intervention and resolution powers, and in some cases prudential oversight 

responsibilities. 

“Moral hazard” arises when parties have incentives to accept more risk because the 

costs that arise from the risk are borne, in whole or in part, by others.

“Public policy objectives” refer to the goals which the deposit insurance system is 

expected to achieve. 

“Resolution” refers to the disposition plan and process for a non-viable bank.

Resolution may include: liquidation and depositor reimbursement, transfer and/or sale of 

assets and liabilities, the establishment of a temporary bridge institution and the writedown of debt or conversion to equity. Resolution may also include the application of 

procedures under insolvency law to parts of an entity in resolution, in conjunction with 

the exercise of resolution powers. 

“Resolution authority” is defined as a public authority that, either alone or together with 

other authorities, is responsible for the resolution of financial institutions established in 

its jurisdiction (including resolution planning functions).

“Subrogation” is the substitution of one party (e.g. the deposit insurer) for another (e.g. 

the insured depositor) with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that the party 

which substitutes succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and 

its rights and remedies.

“Target fund size” refers to the size of the ex ante deposit insurance fund, typically 

measured as a proportion of the assessment base (e.g. total or insured deposits), 

sufficient to meet the expected future obligations and cover the operational and related 

costs of the deposit insurer. 
11

III. Moral Hazard, Operating Environment and Other Considerations

Minimising Moral Hazard

A well-designed financial safety-net contributes to the stability of the financial system. 

However, if poorly designed, it may increase risks, notably moral hazard. Moral hazard 

arises when parties have incentives to accept more risk because the costs are borne, in 

whole or in part, by others. In the context of deposit insurance, protecting depositors

from the threat of loss (e.g. through explicit limited deposit insurance or the belief that 

banks will not be allowed to fail) insulates them from the consequences of unsafe and 

unsound bank practices, and can lead to greater risk-taking by banks than might 

otherwise be the case.

Deposit insurance, like any insurance system, must be designed to mitigate the impact 

of moral hazard on the behaviour of shareholders, bank management and depositors, 

while recognising that most depositors are typically less able to differentiate between 

safe and unsafe banks. Such mitigation is a function of the overall design of the system. 

Moral hazard is also mitigated by other safety-net participants. 

More specifically:

• Key design features of the deposit insurance system, described in these Core 

Principles, aim at mitigating moral hazard. Examples include, but are not 

restricted to: limited coverage levels and scope; differential premiums; and timely 

intervention and resolution by the deposit insurer or other participants with such 

powers in the safety-net. 

• The financial safety-net creates and supports appropriate incentives to mitigate 

moral hazard through several mechanisms, including: the promotion of good 

corporate governance and sound risk management at individual banks; holding 

parties at fault responsible for losses; effective market discipline; and the 

frameworks for, and enforcement of, strong prudential regulation, supervision, 

resolution, and laws and regulations. 

The assessment of the extent to which moral hazard affects a deposit insurance system 

is based on an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of supervision, the legal 

framework, and the early warning, intervention and resolution regimes. 

Operating Environment 

The effectiveness of a deposit insurance system is influenced not only by its design 

features but also by the environment within which it operates. The operating environment 

includes macroeconomic conditions, the strength of the sovereign, the financial system 

structure, prudential regulation and supervision, the legal and judicial framework, and the 

accounting and disclosure system. The operating environment is largely outside the 

scope of authority of the deposit insurer. However, it influences the deposit insurer’s 

ability to fulfil its mandate and determines, in part, its effectiveness in protecting 

depositors and contributing to a jurisdiction’s financial stability. While the operating 
12

environment is not formally assessed (and there is no corresponding compliance 

determination), it forms the foundation for the assessment of compliance with the Core 

Principles. The conditions outlined in this section must be thoroughly analysed in order to 

make an accurate assessment of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the design 

and operation of the overall system. Identically designed deposit insurance systems may 

have a very different impact on financial stability and depositor protection, reflecting 

differences in the environment within which they operate. 

1. Macroeconomic conditions

Macroeconomic conditions influence the effectiveness of markets, the ability of the 

financial system to intermediate resources, and economic growth. Persistent instability 

hampers the functioning of markets, and such conditions affect the ability of financial 

institutions to absorb and manage their risks. In periods of economic instability, market 

volatility can lead to destabilising creditor runs (including depositor runs). Moreover,

uncertainties about future movements in relative prices, including asset prices and 

exchange rates, can make it difficult to determine the medium-term viability of an 

institution. 

In stable periods, the Core Principles provide guidance on minimum features for an 

effective deposit insurance system. The deposit insurance system supports depositor 

confidence in the face of idiosyncratic bank failures. In the face of persistent 

macroeconomic instability, however, the Core Principles provide guidance on areas that

a deposit insurance system will need to reinforce, in order to provide robust support to 

depositors. The system may require a variety of enhancements, including larger-thanusual reserves, stronger emergency funding options, and close coordination and 

participation with other safety-net participants in reinforcing financial stabilty. Introduction 

of a deposit insurance system under these conditions, however, will have to be carefully 

considered as the new system, if it is not supported by the necessary institutional 

reforms, could be discredited and fail to bolster depositor confidence.

Evaluations of the macroeconomic conditions in a jurisdiction are found in the 

jurisdiction reports of international organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank and 

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These reports 

often include an analysis of recent conditions and projections of the likely path for 

macroeconomic variables. 

2. Financial system structure

The soundness of a financial system influences the appropriate design features of a 

deposit insurance system. Any assessment of a deposit insurance system should 

consider the health and structure of the financial sector, and the range of possible 

demands on the deposit insurer. Elements for consideration include:

1. An assessment of the health of banks based on an evaluation of capital 

adequacy, liquidity and credit quality of the financial system. The resources of 

the deposit insurer, its ability to identify emerging threats, and its relationships 

with other safety-net participants must be strong. Similarly, the location or 
13

currency composition of deposits, and related coverage and reimbursement 

rules, will influence how resources are maintained by the insurer. 

2. The structure of the financial system in terms of the number, type and 

characteristics of banks, and types of deposits and depositors covered. This 

information has implications for the assessment of the strength and 

effectiveness of the deposit insurer. The extent of interconnectedness, 

competition and concentration within the system will all influence the possibilities 

for contagion and systemic shocks. The presence of poorly supervised banks

can lead to unidentified risks to the financial system that materialise 

unexpectedly. The deposit insurance system should be designed to take 

account of these risks.

3. Any pre-existing depositor protection arrangements (e.g. depositor preference

and institutional protection arrangements) and the effect of these arrangements 

on the introduction or reform of a deposit insurance system.

Descriptions of the financial system can come from a variety of sources. The jurisdiction 

itself should have an evaluation and assessment of the strength and safety of the 

system, although institution-specific information may not be public. In addition, 

jurisdiction reports by international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank, FSB or 

OECD will also contain descriptions of the financial system and recommendations to 

address any risks and deficiencies. 

3. Prudential regulation, supervision and resolution

The strength of prudential regulation, supervision and the resolution regime influences 

the functions and effectiveness of a deposit insurance system. Strong prudential 

regulation and supervision ensure that an institution’s weaknesses are promptly 

identified and corrected. Implementation of corrective measures is monitored and, where 

deficient, early intervention and an effective resolution regime help to lower the costs 

associated with bank failures. 

The strength of prudential regulation and supervision is a critical factor in mitigating 

moral hazard. If shareholders and management of an institution feel they can operate 

their institution in an unsafe or unsound manner without effective market discipline,

supervisors become the last defence against poor practices. In the absence of strong 

regulation and supervision, the risks to the deposit insurer cannot be fully understood or 

mitigated. Intervention in weak banks comes late, increasing the cost of resolution and 

the cost to the deposit insurer. The supervisory authority should have an effective 

licensing or chartering regime for new institutions, conduct regular and thorough 

examinations of individual banks, and have an effective early warning system. All banks 

within the safety-net should be subject to an effective resolution regime. Sound 

governance of agencies comprising the safety-net should also be in place, to strengthen 

the financial system’s architecture and contribute directly to financial stability. 

The system of prudential regulation, supervision and resolution should be in compliance 

with international standards, including the BCBS’s Core Principles for Effective Banking 
14

Supervision and the FSB’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes. 

Assessments of such compliance are conducted under the IMF/World Bank FSAP 

review. In the absence of recent external reviews, such as FSAP or FSB reviews, 

jurisdictions may also have useful self-assessments or reports laying out the existing 

structure and gaps compared to international standards.

4. The legal and judicial framework 

Deposit insurance systems cannot be effective if relevant and comprehensive laws do 

not exist or if the legal regime is characterised by significant inconsistencies. The legal 

framework has an impact on the activities of the deposit insurance system. A welldeveloped legal framework should incorporate a system of business laws, including 

corporate, insolvency, contract, creditor rights, consumer protection, anticorruption/fraud and private property laws. These laws guide financial transactions and 

ensure that norms exist and are enforced. The legal system should be supported by a 

well-functioning judiciary. For the deposit insurance system, the legal framework must 

lay out its appropriate powers and enable it to compel member banks to comply with 

their obligations to the deposit insurer. 

Effective bank insolvency laws include a special resolution regime (SRR) for banks that 

is separate from the general corporate insolvency laws.5 Corporate insolvency laws may 

allow for negotiated settlement, in which the weak firm can restructure its finances, 

reorganise its operations, reduce debt obligations and modify payment terms. These 

measures give a corporation time to rebuild profitability. However, the financial position 

of a bank can deteriorate rapidly, causing contagion to other financial institutions and 

undermining financial stability. When these institutions are resolved via general 

corporate insolvency law, there is normally an opportunity for shareholders and/or 

creditors to challenge the action. Many jurisdictions’ general corporate insolvency laws 

allow a number of weeks for shareholders and/or creditors to make such a challenge, 

and additional weeks for a bankruptcy court judge to make a ruling on the challenge. In 

such cases, this introduces a de facto deposit moratorium, increasing the potential for 

contagion and depositor runs at other (and potentially all) institutions.

An SRR, therefore, is needed so that the resolution authorities can act in a timely 

manner, limiting contagion and maintaining financial stability. Such a regime would allow 

the resolution authority to deal with financial contracts, unsettled payment and securities 

transactions, and financial collateral, as well as appoint an administrator and/or 

liquidator. Moreover, a special insolvency law can allow the subrogation of the deposit 

insurance agency to the claims of depositors for the amounts it has paid them. An SRR

can also be important in ensuring consistency between the supervisory and insolvencyrelated functions of the safety-net authorities. Reliance on an SRR places the decisionmaking in the hands of relevant experts, allowing them to move quickly. Shareholders 

and creditors should still have due process and an opportunity for judicial review; 

 

5 This principle is consistent with the FSB’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, 

2011.
15

however, any successful challenge must be limited to monetary compensation, and must 

not involve reversal of the supervisory or resolution authority’s action(s).

The legal system may have a number of weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. For 

example, legal uncertainties can aggravate financial distress and lead to contagion or 

creditor flight. Weakness in the legal framework can undermine the effectiveness of the 

safety-net in general and the deposit insurance system in particular. Weaknesses may 

exist in laws governing property rights, creditor rights, bank insolvency and resolution. 

The impact of such weaknesses includes delays in decision-making, uncertainties about 

the finality of decisions, and informal dispute resolution, all of which can result in less 

than optimum recoveries in asset liquidation, thus increasing losses/costs to the deposit 

insurance system. Thus, a robust and effective legal framework is required to mitigate 

moral hazard.

The effectiveness of a legal system is often highlighted in reports by international 

organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and FSB. Local attorneys also have insight 

about the length of time cases take, the ability or authority of courts to reverse decisions 

by regulators, the credibility of the legal process, and the appropriateness of the legal 

system for modern financial markets. 

5. The accounting and disclosure regime

Sound accounting and disclosure regimes are necessary for the effective evaluation of 

risks by deposit insurance systems. Accurate, reliable and timely information can be 

used by management, depositors, the market and authorities to make decisions 

regarding the risk profile of an institution, and thereby increase market, regulatory and 

supervisory discipline. A sound accounting and disclosure regime includes 

comprehensive and well-defined accounting principles and rules that command wide 

international acceptance. 

A system of independent audits ensures that users of financial statements have 

independent assurance that the accounts provide a true and fair view of the financial 

position of the financial institution. They also ensure that reports are prepared according 

to established accounting principles, with auditors held accountable for their work. The 

lack of strong accounting and disclosure regimes makes risk identification difficult. All 

financial safety-net participants, including the deposit insurer, need to have timely 

access to reliable financial information. 

IV. Special Issues in Applying the Core Principles

Islamic Deposit Insurance Systems

The Islamic financial services industry has been growing at a rapid pace. This growth 

has not only been within Islamic nations, but also across the rest of the world. These 

developments have encouraged the establishment of Islamic deposit insurance systems

(IDIS) in some jurisdictions, for the protection of Islamic deposits in accordance with

Islamic principles and rules.
16

While the concept of IDIS is relatively new compared with conventional banking, there is 

an increasing need to provide deposit insurance coverage for the Islamic banking 

sector, and to establish such systems. Although the Core Principles set out in this 

document are generally applicable to guide the establishment of an effective IDIS, they

do not specifically take into account Islamic requirements and the unique design 

features6 of an IDIS. For this reason, a set of IADI Core Principles for Effective Islamic 

Deposit Insurance Systems will be developed in a separate document by IADI, in 

collaboration with the relevant Islamic standard setting bodies or organisations with 

similar mandates.

Multiple Deposit Insurance Systems 

A number of national jurisdictions have more than one deposit insurance system 

operating within their borders; these are referred to as multiple deposit insurance 

systems (MDIS). In some cases, MDIS have also been established at subnational or 

regional level within a national jurisdiction, and in others an MDIS might allow one type 

of bank to obtain supplemental coverage from more than one organisation within the 

same jurisdiction.7

Differences in objectives, mandates and design features among multiple systems can 

result in organisational complexities that can lead to inefficiencies and potential 

competitive concerns. Therefore, in situations where MDIS exist in the same national 

jurisdiction, appropriate information sharing and coordination arrangements need to be 

in place. This is of particular importance for ensuring effective public awareness about 

the different systems. It is also important to ensure that any differences in coverage 

across institutions operating within that jurisdiction do not adversely affect the overall 

deposit insurance system’s effectiveness and financial stability.

Financial Inclusion 

Although, in most jurisdictions, promoting financial inclusion does not fall explicitly within 

the mandate of the deposit insurer, deposit insurers should make efforts to stay abreast

of financial inclusion initiatives and associated technological innovations occurring in 

their jurisdictions, particularly those affecting unsophisticated small-scale

depositors. The involvement of deposit insurance in the promotion of financial inclusion, 

for example the extension of coverage to deposit-like stored value products, should be 

undertaken with the strong engagement of, and coordination with, supervisory 

authorities and other financial safety-net participants. In addition, public awareness 

 

6 IDIS design features incorporate Shariah-based legal contracts, which specify relationships among the financial 

institutions that offer Islamic financial services, protect depositors/investment account holders and the deposit 

insurer. In addition, these features include permitted investments for IDIS funds and elements of Shariah 

prohibitions on, among other things, interest, uncertainty and gambling.

7 It is not necessary for all deposit-taking institutions to be members of a single deposit insurance system. Different 

types of deposit-taking institutions can belong to different deposit insurance systems.
17

campaigns should adequately address what types of deposits and money transfer 

vehicles are covered by deposit insurance and what types are not, in order to minimise 

potential confusion among small-scale depositors and financial service providers alike. 

Depositor Preference

The treatment of depositors in the creditor hierarchy can have a profound impact on the 

costs incurred by the deposit insurer and the failure resolution regime more generally. 

Depositor preference, particularly insured depositor preference, can reduce the costs of 

liquidation and depositor reimbursement (where subrogation is present for the insurer),

including in cases where the insurer is expected to contribute to a resolution. It may also 

facilitate the implementation of resolution options, such as partial deposit transfers, the 

use of bridge institutions, and the conversion of debt to equity. In addition, the more 

uniform treatment of depositors across jurisdictions could contribute to more effective 

cross-border resolutions. 

On the other hand, depositor preference could give rise to some potential unintended 

consequences. When depositors are given a higher relative priority, it increases the 

potential loss exposure of lower-ranking creditors. In response, non-deposit creditors 

could take action to better protect themselves, such as collateralising their claims or 

shortening terms of maturity. These actions could have profound implications for bank 

funding and could offset any positive benefits of depositor preference. Preference for the 

home jurisdiction’s depositors over the depositors of failing foreign bank branches could 

also lead host authorities to act locally in order to protect their local depositors (i.e. ring

fence assets).

In conclusion, jurisdictions considering introducing depositor preference, or changing 

their existing depositor preference arrangements, should weigh the advantages and 

disadvantages in the context of their legal and judicial framework and financial system 

structure.
18

V. Core Principles and Compliance Assessment

Principle 1 – PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES

The principal public policy objectives for deposit insurance systems are to protect 

depositors and contribute to financial stability. These objectives should be formally 

specified and publicly disclosed. The design of the deposit insurance system should 

reflect the system’s public policy objectives.

Essential criteria 

1. The public policy objectives of the deposit insurance system are clearly and 

formally specified and made public, for example through legislation or 

documents supporting legislation.

2. The design of the deposit insurance system is consistent with the system’s 

public policy objectives.

3. There is a review of the extent to which a deposit insurance system meets its 

public policy objectives.8 This involves both an internal review conducted on a 

regular basis by the governing body and an external review conducted 

periodically by an external body (e.g. the body to which the deposit insurer is

accountable or an independent entity with no conflicts of interest, such as an 

auditor general). Any review must take into consideration the views of key 

stakeholders.

4. If additional public policy objectives are incorporated, they do not conflict with 

the two principal objectives of protecting depositors and contributing to the 

stability of the financial system.

 

8 The timing of regular reviews will depend on jurisdiction-specific factors but should occur at least every five years,

or more frequently as deemed necessary.
19

Principle 2 – MANDATE AND POWERS

The mandate and powers of the deposit insurer should support the public policy 

objectives and be clearly defined and formally specified in legislation. 

Essential criteria

1. The mandate and powers of the deposit insurer are formally and clearly 

specified in legislation, and are consistent with stated public policy objectives.

2. The mandate clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the deposit insurer and is 

aligned with the mandates of other safety-net participants.9

3. The powers of the deposit insurer support its mandate and enable the deposit 

insurer to fulfil its roles and responsibilities.

4. The powers of the deposit insurer include, but are not limited to:

(a) assessing and collecting premiums, levies or other charges;

(b) transferring deposits to another bank;

(c) reimbursing insured depositors;

(d) obtaining directly from banks timely, accurate and comprehensive 

information necessary to fulfil its mandate;

(e) receiving and sharing timely, accurate and comprehensive information 

within the safety-net, and with applicable safety-net participants in other 

jurisdictions;

(f) compelling banks to comply with their legally enforceable obligations to the 

deposit insurer (e.g. provide access to depositor information), or requesting

that another safety-net participant do so on behalf of the deposit insurer;

(g) setting operating budgets, policies, systems and practices; and

 

9 Mandates can range from narrow “pay box” systems to those with extensive responsibilities, such as preventive 

action and loss or risk minimisation/management, with a variety of combinations in between. These can be broadly 

classified into four categories: 

a. A “pay box” mandate, where the deposit insurer is only responsible for the reimbursement of insured 

deposits;

b. A “pay box plus” mandate, where the deposit insurer has additional responsibilities, such as certain 

resolution functions (e.g. financial support);

c. A “loss minimiser” mandate, where the insurer actively engages in a selection from a range of least-cost 

resolution strategies; and

d. A “risk minimiser” mandate, where the insurer has comprehensive risk minimisation functions that include 

risk assessment/management, a full suite of early intervention and resolution powers, and in some cases 

prudential oversight responsibilities.
20

(h) entering into contracts.
21

Principle 3 – GOVERNANCE

The deposit insurer should be operationally independent, well-governed, transparent, 

accountable, and insulated from external interference.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer is operationally independent. It is able to use its powers 

without interference from external parties to fulfil its mandate. There is no 

government, central bank, supervisory or industry interference that compromises 

the operational independence of the deposit insurer.

2. The governing body of the deposit insurer10 is held accountable to a higher 

authority. 

3. The deposit insurer has the capacity and capability (e.g. human resources, 

operating budget, and salary scales sufficient to attract and retain qualified staff) 

to support its operational independence and the fulfilment of its mandate. 

4. The deposit insurer is well-governed and subject to sound governance practices, 

including appropriate accountability, internal controls, transparency and 

disclosure regimes. The institutional structure of the deposit insurer minimises 

the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest.

5. The deposit insurer operates in a transparent and responsible manner. It 

discloses and publishes appropriate information for stakeholders on a regular 

basis.

11

6. The governing statutes or other relevant laws and policies governing the deposit 

insurer specify that: 

(a) the governing body and management are “fit and proper” persons;

(b) members of the governing body and the head(s) of the deposit insurer

(with the exception of ex officio appointees) is/are subject to fixed terms

and the fixed terms are staggered;

12

 

10 This document refers to a governance structure composed of a governing body such as a board of directors.

There are significant differences across jurisdictions in the legislative and regulatory frameworks covering these 

functions. Some jurisdictions use a two-tier board structure, in which the supervisory function of the board is 

performed by a separate entity, known as a supervisory board, which has no executive functions. Other 

jurisdictions, by contrast, use a one-tier board structure in which the board has a broader role. Owing to these 

differences, this document does not advocate a specific governing body structure.

11 Examples of appropriate information include reports on strategic objectives and plans, governance structure and 

practices, and annual reports that contain financial statements and describe activities during the reporting period.
22

(c) there is a transparent process for the appointment and removal of the 

members of the governing body and head(s) of the deposit insurer.

Members of the governing body and head(s) of the deposit insurer can be 

removed from office during their term only for reasons specified or defined 

in law, internal statutes or rules of professional conduct, and not without 

cause; and

(d) members of the governing body and employees are subject to high ethical 

standards and comprehensive codes of conduct to minimise the potential 

for real or perceived conflicts of interest.

13

7. The deposit insurer is regularly assessed on the extent to which it meets its 

mandate, and the deposit insurer is subject to regular internal and external 

audits.

8. The composition of the governing body minimises the potential for real or 

perceived conflicts of interest. In order to maintain operational independence, 

representatives of the other financial safety-net organisations that participate in 

the governing body do not serve as Chair or constitute a majority. 

9. The governing body holds regular meetings to oversee and manage the affairs 

of the deposit insurer (e.g. on a quarterly basis and more frequently as deemed 

necessary).

 

12 An arrangement whereby only a certain number of members of a governing body are appointed/elected in any 

given year. For example, a governing body may have 11 members serving staggered terms, where two new 

members are appointed each year.

13 See also CP11, Essential Criterion 3.
23

Principle 4 – RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER SAFETY-NET PARTICIPANTS 

In order to protect depositors and contribute to financial stability, there should be a 

formal and comprehensive framework in place for the close coordination of activities and 

information sharing, on an ongoing basis, between the deposit insurer and other 

financial safety-net participants.

Essential criteria

1. Ongoing information sharing and the coordination of actions is explicit and 

formalised through legislation, regulation, memoranda of understanding, legal 

agreements or a combination thereof.

2. Rules regarding confidentiality of information apply to all safety-net participants 

and the exchange of information among them. Confidentiality of information is 

protected by law or through agreements so as not to prevent information sharing 

within the safety-net.

3. Safety-net participants exchange information on an ongoing basis, and in 

particular when material supervisory actions are being taken in respect of 

member banks.

4. In situations where there are multiple deposit insurers operating in the same 

national jurisdiction, appropriate information sharing and coordination 

arrangements among those deposit insurers are in place.
24

Principle 5 – CROSS-BORDER ISSUES

Where there is a material presence of foreign banks in a jurisdiction, formal information 

sharing and coordination arrangements should be in place among deposit insurers in 

relevant jurisdictions.

Essential criteria

1. Where there is a material presence of foreign banks (i.e. foreign bank

subsidiaries or branches), formal information sharing and coordination 

arrangements are in place among relevant deposit insurers and relevant safetynet participants, subject to confidentiality provisions.

2. In circumstances where a deposit insurer is responsible for coverage of deposits 

in a foreign jurisdiction, or where more than one deposit insurer is responsible 

for coverage in a jurisdiction, bilateral or multilateral agreements exist to 

determine which deposit insurer(s) is/are responsible for the reimbursement 

process, setting levies and premiums, and public awareness.
25

Principle 6 – DEPOSIT INSURER’S ROLE IN CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND

CRISIS MANAGEMENT

The deposit insurer should have in place effective contingency planning and crisis 

management policies and procedures, to ensure that it is able to effectively respond to 

the risk of, and actual, bank failures and other events. The development of system-wide 

crisis preparedness strategies and management policies should be the joint 

responsibility of all safety-net participants. The deposit insurer should be a member of 

any institutional framework for ongoing communication and coordination involving 

financial safety-net participants related to system-wide crisis preparedness and 

management.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer has its own effective contingency planning and crisis 

management policies and procedures in place, to ensure that it is able to 

effectively respond to the risk of, and actual, bank failures and other events.

2. The deposit insurer develops and regularly tests its own contingency planning 

and crisis management plans.

3. The deposit insurer is a member of any institutional framework for ongoing 

communication and coordination involving safety-net participants related to 

system-wide crisis preparedness and management.

4. The deposit insurer participates in regular contingency planning and simulation 

exercises related to system-wide crisis preparedness and management 

involving all safety-net participants.

5. The deposit insurer participates in the development of pre- and post-crisis 

management communication plans involving all safety-net participants, to 

ensure comprehensive and consistent public awareness and communications.
26

Principle 7 – MEMBERSHIP

Membership in a deposit insurance system should be compulsory for all banks. 

Essential criteria

1. Membership in a deposit insurance system is compulsory for all banks, including 

state-owned banks (with or without explicit guarantees), and all banks are 

subject to sound prudential regulation and supervision.

14

2. If, upon entry to a newly established deposit insurance system, a bank does not 

comply with all the supervisory or membership requirements and is allowed 

entry into the system, it is required to have a credible plan to address any

deficiencies within a prescribed time frame (e.g. one year).

3. The conditions, process and time frame for attaining membership are explicitly 

stated and transparent. 

4. If the deposit insurer is not responsible for granting membership in the deposit 

insurance system, the law or administrative procedures describe a clear and 

reasonable time frame within which the deposit insurer is consulted or informed 

in advance, and is given sufficient information about an application for a new 

licence.

5. When membership is cancelled upon the revocation or surrender of a bank’s

licence, immediate notice is given to depositors to inform them that existing 

deposits will continue to be insured up to a specified deadline.15

6. When membership is terminated by the deposit insurer, arrangements are in 

place to coordinate the immediate withdrawal of the bank’s deposit-taking 

licence by the relevant authority. Upon termination, immediate notice is given to 

depositors to inform them that existing deposits will continue to be covered up to 

a specified deadline.

 

14 The determination of “sound prudential regulation and supervision” is made by ensuring that there is high 

compliance with the BCPs.

15 See also Core Principle 10 “Public Awareness.”
27

Principle 8 – COVERAGE

Policymakers should define clearly the level and scope of deposit coverage. Coverage

should be limited, credible and cover the large majority of depositors but leave a 

substantial amount of deposits exposed to market discipline. Deposit insurance 

coverage should be consistent with the deposit insurance system’s public policy 

objectives and related design features.

Essential criteria

1. Insured deposits are clearly and publicly defined in law or regulation and reflect 

the public policy objectives. This definition includes the level and scope of 

coverage. If certain types of deposits and depositors are ineligible for deposit 

protection, they are clearly specified, easily determined and do not affect the 

speed of reimbursement.16

2. The level and scope of coverage are limited and are designed to be credible, so 

as to minimise the risk of runs on banks and do not undermine market discipline. 

The level and scope of coverage are set so that the large majority of depositors 

across banks are fully protected while leaving a substantial proportion of the 

value of deposits unprotected.

17 In the event that a substantial proportion of the 

value of deposits is protected, moral hazard is mitigated by strong regulation 

and supervision, as well as by the other design features of the deposit insurance 

system.18

3. The deposit insurer applies the level and scope of coverage equally to all its 

member banks.

4. The deposit insurer does not incorporate co-insurance.

5. The level and scope of coverage are reviewed periodically (e.g. at least every 

five years) to ensure that it meets the public policy objectives of the deposit 

insurance system.

6. In the event of, or prior to, a merger or amalgamation of separate banks that are 

members of the same deposit insurance system, depositors of the merged or 

amalgamated banks enjoy separate coverage (up to the maximum coverage 

limit) for each of the banks for a limited but publicly stated period, as defined in 

 

16 In particular, some specific types of deposits may be excluded or considered ineligible for protection. These may 

include: interbank deposits; deposits of government departments and of regional, provincial, and municipal 

governments and other public bodies; deposits of individuals who are regarded as responsible for the deterioration 

of an institution, including deposits belonging to the directors, managers, large shareholders, and auditors of 

banks; and bearer deposits.

17 For additional guidance on setting coverage limits, scope and foreign currency deposits coverage, see: IADI, 

Enhanced Guidance for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Deposit Insurance Coverage, 2013.

18 Strong regulation and supervision is demonstrated by a high level of compliance with the BCPs.
28

law or regulation. Merging banks must be held responsible for notifying the

affected depositors, including informing them of the date on which the separate 

coverage will expire.

7. The residency status or nationality of depositors has no effect on coverage.

8. In situations where there are multiple deposit insurers operating in the same 

national jurisdiction, any differences in coverage across banks operating within 

that jurisdiction do not adversely affect overall deposit insurance system 

effectiveness and financial stability.

9. Foreign currency deposits are insured if they are widely used in a jurisdiction. 

10. In cases where there is a blanket guarantee in place, there is a credible plan to 

transition from the blanket guarantee to a limited coverage deposit insurance 

system. This includes:

(a) an assessment of the economic environment as it affects the financial 

system, which is conducted before a jurisdiction begins the transition from 

a blanket guarantee to limited coverage. 

(b) the pace of the transition to limited coverage is consistent with the state 

of the financial industry, prudential regulation and supervision, the legal 

and judicial framework, and accounting and disclosure regimes.

(c) policymakers have effective communication strategies to mitigate adverse 

public reaction to the transition.

(d) where there is a high level of capital mobility, and/or a regional integration 

policy, the decision to lower coverage limits and/or scope considers the 

effects of different jurisdictions’ protection levels and related policies.
29

Principle 9 – SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS

The deposit insurer should have readily available funds and all funding mechanisms 

necessary to ensure prompt reimbursement of depositors’ claims, including assured

liquidity funding arrangements. Responsibility for paying the cost of deposit insurance 

should be borne by banks.

Essential criteria

1. Funding for the deposit insurance system is provided on an ex ante basis. 

Funding arrangements are clearly defined and established in law or regulation. 

2. Funding the deposit insurance system is the responsibility of the member banks.

3. Initial “start-up” or “seed” funding (e.g. from government or international donor 

organisations) is permitted to help establish a deposit insurer. Any start-up 

funding provided by a government should be fully repaid before the deposit 

insurer reduces any or all bank premiums.

4. Emergency funding arrangements for the deposit insurance system, including 

pre-arranged and assured sources of liquidity funding, are explicitly set out (or 

permitted) in law or regulation. Sources may include a funding agreement with 

the government, the central bank or market borrowing. If market borrowing is 

used it is not the sole source of funding.

19 The arrangement for emergency 

liquidity funding is set up in advance, to ensure effective and timely access when 

required.

5. After establishing an ex ante deposit insurance fund:

(a) the target fund size is determined on the basis of clear, consistent and 

transparent criteria, which are subject to periodic review; and

(b) a reasonable time frame is set to achieve the target fund size.

6. The deposit insurer has responsibility for the sound investment and 

management of its funds. The deposit insurer has a defined investment policy 

for its funds that aims at ensuring:

(a) the preservation of fund capital and maintenance of liquidity; and 

(b) that adequate risk management policies and procedures, internal 

controls, and disclosure and reporting systems are in place.

7. The deposit insurer may hold funds in the central bank. The deposit insurer 

establishes and complies with rules to limit significant investments in banks.

 

19 Where applicable (e.g. in the European Union), deposit insurers may borrow from each other’s funds.
30

8. Where the deposit insurer is not the resolution authority, it has the option, within 

its legal framework, to authorise the use of its funds for resolution of member 

institutions other than liquidation.

20 In such situations the following conditions 

are met:

(a) the deposit insurer is informed and involved in the resolution decisionmaking process;

(b) the use of the deposit insurer’s funds is transparent and documented,

and is clearly and formally specified;

(c) where a bank is resolved through a resolution process other than 

liquidation, the resolution results in a viable, solvent and restructured 

bank, which limits the exposure of the deposit insurer to contribute 

additional funding in respect of the same obligation;

(d) contributions are restricted to the costs the deposit insurer would 

otherwise have incurred in a payout of insured depositors in a liquidation 

net of expected recoveries;

(e) contributions are not used for the recapitalisation of resolved institutions

unless shareholder’s interests are reduced to zero and uninsured,

unsecured creditors are subject to parri passu losses in accordance with 

the legal claim priority;

(f) the use of the deposit insurer’s funds is subject to an independent audit

and the results reported back to the deposit insurer; and

(g) all resolution actions and decisions using the deposit insurer’s funds are 

subject to ex post review.

9. Should deposit insurer income/revenue (e.g. premiums received, recoveries 

from failed banks and interest accrued on investment funds) be taxed by the 

government, it is at a rate which is neither punitive nor disproportionate to other 

corporate taxation, nor unduly hinders the accumulation of the deposit insurance 

fund. Any remittances to the government by the deposit insurer are limited to 

repayment of government-provided start-up funding and government-provided

liquidity funding.

10. If the deposit insurer uses differential premium systems:

21

 

20 Such use may be compulsory under national law.

21 See IADI, General Guidance for Developing Differential Premium Systems, 2011. 
31

(a) the system for calculating premiums is transparent to all participating 

banks; 

(b) the scoring/premium categories are significantly differentiated; and 

(c) the ratings and rankings resulting from the system pertaining to 

individual banks are kept confidential. 
32

Principle 10 – PUBLIC AWARENESS

In order to protect depositors and contribute to financial stability, it is essential that the 

public be informed on an ongoing basis about the benefits and limitations of the deposit 

insurance system.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer is responsible for promoting public awareness of the deposit 

insurance system, using a variety of communication tools on an ongoing basis as 

part of a comprehensive communication programme.

2. In the event of a bank failure, the deposit insurer must notify depositors, as 

appropriate and as described in law, via media such as press releases, print 

advertising, websites and other media outlets, of the following details:

(a) where, how and when insured depositors will be provided with access to 

their funds;

22

(b) the information that an insured depositor must provide in order to obtain 

payment;

(c) if advance or interim payments are being made; and23

(d) whether any depositors will lose funds, and procedures whereby 

uninsured depositors can make claims to the liquidator for their 

uninsured portion.

3. The public awareness programme or activities convey information about the 

following:

(a) the scope (i.e. which types of financial instruments and depositors are 

covered by deposit insurance, and which are not);

(b) a list of which banks are members and how they can be identified; 

(c) deposit insurance coverage level limits; and

(d) other information, such as the mandate of the deposit insurer.

4. The objectives of the public awareness programme (e.g. target awareness 

levels) are clearly defined and consistent with the public policy objectives and 

mandate of the deposit insurance system.

 

22 For example, whether there is an assuming/agent bank to assume deposits and reimburse or otherwise make 

them available, or whether reimbursement is provided through the failed bank’s facilities.

23 For example, in the case of unavoidable prolonged delays, such as a “surprise” bank failure where there has been 

no opportunity for preparation.
33

5. The deposit insurer sets a long-term strategy to meet its public awareness 

objectives, and makes budget allocations to build and maintain a target level of 

public awareness about deposit insurance. 

6. The deposit insurer works closely with banks and other safety-net participants to 

ensure the consistency and accuracy of the information provided to depositors 

and to maximise awareness on an ongoing basis. Law or regulation requires 

banks to provide information about deposit insurance in a format/language 

prescribed by the deposit insurer.

7. The deposit insurer monitors, on an ongoing basis, its public awareness 

activities and arranges, on a periodic basis, independent evaluations of the 

effectiveness of its public awareness programme or activities. 

8. Depositors in jurisdictions affected by cross-border banking arrangements 

conducted through foreign bank branches or subsidiaries are provided with clear 

information on the existence and identification of the deposit insurer legally 

responsible for reimbursement, and the limits and scope of coverage.
34

Principle 11 – LEGAL PROTECTION

The deposit insurer and individuals working both currently and formerly for the deposit 

insurer in the discharge of its mandate must be protected from liability arising from

actions, claims, lawsuits or other proceedings for their decisions, actions or omissions 

taken in good faith in the normal course of their duties. Legal protection should be 

defined in legislation.

Essential criteria

1. Legal protection is specified in legislation and provided to the deposit insurer, its 

current and former directors, officers and employees and any individual24

currently or previously retained or engaged by the deposit insurer, for decisions

made and actions or omissions taken in good faith in the normal course of their 

duties. 

2. Legal protection precludes damages or other awards against such individuals 

and covers costs, including funding defence costs as incurred (and not just 

reimbursement after a successful defence).

3. The operating policies and procedures of the deposit insurer require individuals 

with legal protection to disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest and to 

adhere to relevant codes of conduct, to ensure that they remain accountable.

4. Legal protections do not prevent depositors or other individual claimants or

banks from making legitimate challenges to the acts or omissions of the deposit 

insurer in public or administrative review (e.g. civil action) procedures.

 

24 A contractual indemnity in an individual’s contract of employment or engagement with the deposit insurer and/or 

private insurance is not a substitute for legal protection defined in legislation or recognised in law.
35

Principle 12 – DEALING WITH PARTIES AT FAULT IN A BANK FAILURE

The deposit insurer, or other relevant authority, should be provided with the power to 

seek legal redress against those parties at fault in a bank failure.

Essential criteria

1. The conduct of parties responsible for, or contributing to, the failure of a bank

(e.g. officers, directors, managers, owners), as well as the conduct of related 

parties and professional service providers (e.g. auditors, accountants, lawyers 

and asset appraisers), is subject to investigation. The investigation of the 

conduct of such parties may be carried out by one or more of the following: the 

deposit insurer, supervisor or regulatory authority, criminal or investigative 

authorities, or any other professional or disciplinary body, as applicable.

2. The relevant authority takes the appropriate steps to pursue those parties that 

are identified as culpable for the failure of the bank. The culpable parties are

subject to sanction and/or redress. Sanction or redress may include personal or 

professional disciplinary measures (including fines or penalties), criminal 

prosecution and civil proceedings for damages.

3. The deposit insurer, or other relevant authority, has policies and procedures in 

place to ensure that insiders, related parties and professional service providers 

acting for the failed bank are appropriately investigated for wrongdoing and for 

possible culpability in a bank failure.
36

Principle 13 – EARLY DETECTION AND TIMELY INTERVENTION

The deposit insurer should be part of a framework within the financial safety-net that 

provides for the early detection of, and timely intervention in, troubled banks. The 

framework should provide for intervention before the bank becomes non-viable. Such 

actions should protect depositors and contribute to financial stability. 

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer is part of an effective framework within the financial safetynet that provides for the early detection of, and timely intervention in, banks in 

financial difficulty before the bank becomes non-viable. 25

2. Safety-net participants have the operational independence and power to perform 

their respective roles in the framework for early detection and timely 

intervention. 

3. The framework includes a set of clearly defined qualitative and/or quantitative 

criteria that are used to trigger timely intervention or corrective action. The 

criteria:

(a) are clearly defined in law, regulation or agreements; 

(b) include safety and soundness indicators such as the institution’s capital, 

asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to market 

risk; and

(c) are reviewed periodically, and the procedure for this review is 

formalised.

 

25 The degree of implementation and effectiveness of an early detection and timely intervention framework is 

determined through an assessment of the BCPs and KAs where applicable.
37

Principle 14 – FAILURE RESOLUTION 

An effective failure resolution regime should enable the deposit insurer to provide for 

protection of depositors and contribute to financial stability. The legal framework should 

include a special resolution regime.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer has the operational independence and sufficient resources 

to exercise its resolution26 powers consistent with its mandate.

2. The resolution regime ensures that all banks are resolvable through a broad 

range of powers and options. 

3. Where there are multiple safety-net participants responsible for resolution, the 

legal framework provides for a clear allocation of objectives, mandates, and 

powers of those participants, with no material gaps, overlaps or inconsistencies.

Clear arrangements for coordination are in place. 

4. Resolution and depositor protection procedures are not limited to depositor 

reimbursement. The resolution authority/ies has/have effective resolution tools 

designed to help preserve critical bank functions and to resolve banks. These 

include, but are not limited to, powers to replace and remove senior 

management, terminate contracts, transfer and sell assets and liabilities, write

down or convert debt to equity and/or establish a temporary bridge institution. 

5. One or more of the available resolution methods allows the flexibility for 

resolution at a lesser cost than otherwise expected in a liquidation net of 

expected recoveries.

6. Resolution procedures follow a defined creditor hierarchy in which insured 

deposits are protected from sharing losses and shareholders take first losses.

7. The resolution regime does not discriminate against depositors on the basis of 

their nationality or residence.

8. The resolution regime is insulated against legal action that aims at the reversal 

of decisions related to the resolution of non-viable banks. No court can reverse 

 

26 In this document “resolution” refers to the disposition plan and process for a non-viable bank. Resolution may 

include the liquidation and reimbursement of insured deposits, the transfer and/or sale of assets and liabilities, the 

establishment of temporary bridge institutions, and the write-down and/or conversion of debt to equity of the nonviable institution. Resolution may also include the application of procedures under insolvency law to parts of a firm 

in resolution, in conjunction with the exercise of resolution powers. A jurisdiction’s resolution regime may involve 

multiple resolution authorities. The specific resolution powers assigned to a deposit insurer may vary depending 

on the deposit insurer’s mandate.
38

such decisions. The legal remedy for successful challenges is limited to 

monetary compensation.

9. The resolution regime keeps the period between depositors losing access to 

their funds and implementation of the selected resolution option (e.g. depositor 

reimbursement) as short as possible.
39

Principle 15 – REIMBURSING DEPOSITORS

The deposit insurance system should reimburse depositors’ insured funds promptly, in 

order to contribute to financial stability. There should be a clear and unequivocal trigger 

for insured depositor reimbursement.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer is able to reimburse most

27 insured depositors within seven 

working days. If the deposit insurer cannot currently meet this target, the deposit 

insurer has a credible plan in place to do so. 

2. To be credible, the reimbursement plan:

(a) has a clear time frame for implementation (e.g. within two years);

(b) is supported by relevant laws, regulations, systems and processes (e.g. 

intervention and resolution manuals); and

(c) has clear and measurable deliverables. 

3. In situations where reimbursement is triggered and there may be extended 

delays in reimbursements, the deposit insurer may make advance, interim or 

emergency partial payments. 

4. In order to provide depositors with prompt access to their funds, the deposit 

insurer: 

(a) has access to depositors’ records at all times, which includes the 

authority to require banks to maintain depositor information in a format

prescribed by the deposit insurer in order to expedite insured depositor 

reimbursement;

(b) has the authority to undertake advance or preparatory examinations 

(e.g. on-site and independently or in conjunction with the supervisory 

authority) on the reliability of depositor records, and has tested member 

institution’s IT systems and data to ensure the capability to produce 

such records; and

(c) has a range of reimbursement options.28

5. The deposit insurer has the capacity and capability to promptly carry out the 

reimbursement process, including: 

 

27 The term “most” is used to recognise that there may be some types of deposits which would be operationally 

difficult to reimburse within seven working days, such as trust accounts with multiple beneficiaries.

28 These may include: cheque payments, electronic transfers, payment agents, cash payments, and the transfer of 

deposits through closed-bank P&A transactions. 
40

(a) adequate resources and trained personnel (in-house or contractors) 

dedicated to the reimbursement function and supported with 

reimbursement documentation or manuals; 

(b) information systems to process depositor information in a systematic 

and accurate manner;

(c) pre- and post-closing activities specified in closing documentation or

manuals; and

(d) scenario planning and simulations, including simulations on bank 

closings with supervisory and resolution authorities.

6. A review (e.g. post mortem) following a bank failure is performed to determine 

and analyse elements of the reimbursement process (including the resolution 

procedures where applicable) which were successful or unsuccessful.

7. An independent party conducts a periodic audit of the reimbursement process to 

confirm that appropriate internal controls are in place.

8. If set-off of insured deposits against past due claims (e.g. debt service and 

arrears) or matured loans is applied, such application is timely and does not 

delay prompt reimbursement of insured depositors’ claims or undermine 

financial stability. 

9. Working arrangements and/or agreements are in place with relevant clearing 

and settlement system agencies and liquidators, to ensure that transit items are 

dealt with in an appropriate, consistent and timely manner.29

10. In cases where the deposit insurer does not have the authority to act as a 

liquidator, the liquidator is obliged by law or regulation to cooperate with the 

deposit insurer to facilitate the reimbursement process. 

 

29 For more extensive guidance on ensuring prompt reimbursement, see: IADI, Enhanced Guidance for Effective 

Deposit Insurance Systems: Reimbursement Systems and Practices, 2013.
41

Principle 16 – RECOVERIES 

The deposit insurer should have, by law, the right to recover its claims in accordance 

with the statutory creditor hierarchy.

Essential criteria

1. The deposit insurer’s role in the recovery process is clearly defined in law. The 

deposit insurer is clearly recognised as a creditor of the failed bank by 

subrogation.

2. The deposit insurer has at least the same creditor rights or status as a depositor 

in the treatment in law of the estate of the failed bank. 

3. The deposit insurer, in its capacity as creditor, has the right of access to 

information from the liquidator, so that it can monitor the liquidation process.

4. The management and disposition of the assets of a failed bank in its asset 

management and recovery approaches is guided by commercial and economic 

considerations. 

5. Those working on behalf of the deposit insurer, other financial safety-net 

participants, and third party professional service providers providing resolution 

services are not allowed to purchase assets from the liquidator.
42

Annex I

Assessment of Compliance with the

Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems

This Annex presents guidance and a format for compliance assessment and the 

structure of the assessment reports.30

Compliance Assessment

The primary objective of an assessment should be to evaluate compliance with the Core 

Principles, after taking into account the national structural, legal and institutional features 

of each jurisdiction’s deposit insurance system(s). The assessment should review the 

functions inherent in providing effective deposit insurance systems, as opposed to an 

assessment of just the deposit insurer. In so doing, the assessment will identify the 

strength(s) of the deposit insurance system, and the nature and extent of any 

weaknesses. Importantly, the assessment is a means to an end, not an objective in 

itself. The assessment process should help the deposit insurer and policymakers 

benchmark their deposit insurance system against the Core Principles, to judge how well 

the system is meeting its public policy objectives. The assessment, in turn, can also aid 

the deposit insurer and policymakers in making improvements to the deposit insurance 

system and financial safety-net, as necessary. 

The methodology proposes a set of essential criteria for each Core Principle. The 

essential criteria are the only elements on which to gauge full compliance with a Core 

Principle. Assessments by external parties follow a five-grade scale as follows:31

• Compliant: When the essential criteria are met without any significant 

deficiencies.32

• Largely compliant: When only minor shortcomings are observed and the 

authorities are able to achieve full compliance within a prescribed time frame. 

• Materially non-compliant: Severe shortcomings which cannot be rectified 

easily.

 

30 This format was recommended by the IMF and the World Bank for use by assessors in the context of Financial 

Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) or Offshore Financial Center Program (OFC) missions. In order to maintain 

comparability and consistency, the format was also recommended for standalone assessments or selfassessments by a jurisdiction. See BCBS Core Principles For Effective Banking Supervision, 2012. 

31 This scale is used for external assessments in the Basel Committee’s Core Principles Methodology (Banking 

Supervision), available at www.bis.org/publ/bcbs130.htm.

32 In order to achieve a “Compliant” grade it is not always necessary to achieve compliance on all essential criteria 

for each Core Principle. For example, if a deposit insurance system is compliant with eight out of nine essential 

criteria for a specific Core Principle but is not compliant in a relatively minor area, then the overall compliance 

rating could be “Compliant”. Assessors must exercise judgment in these situations. 
43

• Non-compliant: No substantive implementation of the Core Principle. 

• Not applicable: Not considered given the structural, legal and institutional 

features of the deposit insurance system.

Grading is not an exact science and the Core Principles can be met in different ways. 

The assessment criteria should not be seen as a checklist approach to compliance but 

as a qualitative exercise. The number of criteria in compliance and the commentary that 

should accompany each criterion will be weighed in the scoring process for each Core 

Principle, however, not all criteria will carry equal weight. It is critical for the assessors to 

receive training on consistent application of the methodology. The Core Principles are 

benchmarks for effective deposit insurance practice. In implementing them, deposit 

insurers and policymakers will need to take into account jurisdiction-specific factors. 

Assessors should pay close attention to the adequacy of the operating environment, and 

include their opinion on gaps and weaknesses in the environment and actions that 

policymakers could take to mitigate those weaknesses. The assessment of compliance 

with individual Core Principles could flag those Core Principles which are likely to be 

primarily affected by external conditions considered to be weak, after factoring in specific 

jurisdictional circumstances, mandate and structures of the deposit insurance system. 

However, assessors should not undertake to assess compliance with the operating 

environment themselves. Instead, wherever possible, assessors should rely on the 

results of recent IMF/World Bank FSAP reports and, where relevant, FSB peer reviews. 

If a report has not been conducted recently, assessors should request from the 

authorities that they be provided with updates on any changes since the previous FSAP 

report. If no such reports on preconditions are available, assessors should assign an 

“Insufficient Information” rating to the operating environment review. Recommendations 

with regard to the operating environment should not be part of the action plan 

associated with the Core Principles assessment, but should be included in other general 

recommendations for strengthening the deposit insurance system.

In order to assist assessors in interpreting the methodology and identifying Core 

Principles that may or may not be applicable in all types of arrangements of deposit 

insurance systems, a “Handbook Guide for Assessors” has been developed. This 

document includes supporting guidance to assist assessors in applying the criteria to 

specific jurisdictional settings and structures. The Handbook will be updated over time to 

take into account the experiences and lessons learned in conducting compliance 

assessments. 

Use of the Methodology

The methodology can be used in multiple contexts: (i) self-assessment performed by the 

deposit insurer; (ii) IMF and World Bank assessments of the quality of deposit insurance 

systems, for example in the context of the FSAP or Technical Assistance (TA) projects; 

(iii) peer reviews, for example those conducted within IADI regional committees or 

through the FSB peer review process; and (iv) reviews conducted by private third parties 

such as consulting firms. IADI will be active in interpreting the Core Principles and 
44

providing training; this includes guidance on best practices during the assessment 

process. 

In 2013, IADI established the Self-Assessment Technical Assistance Program (SATAP) 

to enable jurisdictions to request an independent onsite review and validation of their 

self-assessment results by a team of IADI experts. Such objective evaluations will be 

very helpful to jurisdictions in preparing for upcoming FSAP reviews. 

Whether conducted by a deposit insurer (self-assessment) or an outside party, a fully 

objective assessment of compliance with the Core Principles should be performed by 

suitably qualified parties who bring varied perspectives to the process. It is beneficial 

that the parties be made up of suitably qualified persons, including individuals with 

experience of working in a deposit insurance system and dealing with bank failures. A 

fair assessment of the deposit insurance system also requires the genuine cooperation 

of all relevant authorities. The process of assessing each of the 16 Core Principles 

requires a judgmental weighting of numerous elements, which only qualified assessors 

with practical, relevant experience can provide. To the extent that the assessment 

requires legal and accounting expertise in the interpretation of compliance with the Core 

Principles, these legal and accounting interpretations must be made with reference to 

the legislative and accounting structure of the relevant jurisdiction. The assessment 

must be comprehensive and in sufficient depth to allow a judgment on whether criteria 

are fulfilled in practice, not just in theory. Similarly, laws and regulations need to be 

sufficient in scope and depth. There must also be effective enforcement of and 

compliance with those laws and regulations on the part of regulators, supervisors and 

the deposit insurer. Finally, the assessment of compliance with the Core Principles will 

build upon any recent work in similar areas, such as the FSAPs.

Assessment Report

The assessment report should include the following: 

• A general section that provides background information on the assessment 

conducted, including information on the organisation being assessed and the 

context in which the assessment is being conducted. 

• A section on the information and methodology used for the assessment. 

• An overview of the institutional and macroeconomic setting and market 

structure.

• A review of the operating environment for effective deposit insurance systems.

• A compliance table, summarising the assessment results (Table 1). 

• A recommended action plan providing Principle-by-Principle recommendations 

for actions and measures to improve the deposit insurance system and practices 

(Table 2). 
45

• A detailed Principle-by-Principle assessment, providing a description of the 

system with reference to a particular Principle, a grading or “assessment”, and a 

“comments” section (Table 3).

• A section for authorities’ comments.
46

Compliance Assessment and Summary Tables

Table 1

Summary of Compliance with the IADI Core Principles for Effective Deposit 

Insurance Systems 

Detailed Assessments

Core Principle Grade Comments

Reference Core Principle 1 C, LC, 

MNC, 

NC, 

NA33

Repeat for all 16 Core 

Principles

C, LC, 

MNC, 

NC, NA

Table 2

Recommended Action Plan to Improve Compliance with the IADI Core 

Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems 

Reference 

Principle Recommended Action 

Core Principle 1 Description of deficiency

Suggested course of action 

Core Principle 2 Description of deficiency

Suggested course of action 

Repeat for all 

Core Principles

with a 

recommended 

action

Description of deficiency

Suggested course of action

 

33 Compliant (C), Largely Compliant (LC), Materially Non-Compliant (MNC), Non-Compliant (NC), Not Applicable 

(NA).
47

Table 3 

Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems 

Detailed Assessment Table

Core Principle 1: (repeat verbatim text of Core Principle 1)

Description

Assessment C, LC, MNC, NC, NA

Comments

For each Essential Criterion:

Description

Assessment C, LC, MNC, NC, NA34

Comments

Repeat for all 16 

Core Principles

Practical considerations in conducting a compliance assessment

In addition to the format for conducting a compliance assessment, the following practical 

considerations should be taken into account:

1. The assessor should have access to a range of information and interested 

parties. This may include published information, more sensitive information 

(i.e. previously completed self-assessments, information on the health of insured 

institutions such as supervisory examination results), and operational guidelines 

for the deposit insurer. This information should be provided as long as it does 

not violate legal requirements for the deposit insurer to hold such information 

confidential. The assessor should also meet with a range of individuals and 

organisations, including other financial safety-net participants and relevant 

government ministries, commercial bankers and auditors. Special note should 

be made of instances when any required information is not provided, as well as 

of what effect this might have on the accuracy of the assessment. 

 

34 It is recommended that each Essential Criterion be graded by the assessor. However, the assessment grade for 

each Essential Criterion should not be included in the FSAP ROSC final reports provided to authorities.
48

Assessors should set out the range of information required from the authorities 

involved and, at the initial meeting with the individuals involved, should explain 

how the assessment will proceed. This should include the process to be 

followed in the assessment for the review of the operating environment.

2. The assessment of compliance with each Core Principle requires the evaluation 

of a chain of related requirements, such as laws, prudential regulation and 

supervisory guidelines. The assessment must ensure that the requirements are

in practice or can be put into practice. For example, policymakers must ensure 

that the deposit insurer has the necessary operational independence, skills and 

resources to fulfil its public policy objectives. 

3. In addition to identifying deficiencies, the assessment should also highlight 

positive features and key achievements. 

4. Cooperation and information sharing among safety-net participants is necessary 

for the effectiveness of the deposit insurance system. The assessor should be 

able to judge whether such information sharing occurs. Depending on the 

materiality of cross-border banking, it is also important that the assessor is able 

to judge whether information sharing occurs between deposit insurers and other 

safety-net participants in different jurisdictions.
49

Annex II

IADI Steering Committee and Joint Working Group Members

IADI Steering Committee

Chair David Walker

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

Coordinator Vijay Deshpande

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

United States

Argentina Alejandro Lopez

Seguro de Depósitos Sociedad Anónima

Bulgaria Rossen Nikolov

Bulgaria Deposit Insurance Fund

Canada Joshua Lattimore

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

Colombia María Inés Agudelo

Fondo de Garantías de Instituciones Financieras

France Thierry Dissaux

Fonds de Garantie des Dépôts

Germany Dirk Cupei

Association of German Banks

Jan Nolte

Association of German Banks

Hungary András Fekete-Györ

National Deposit Insurance Fund

India Kumudini Hajra

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Fund

Japan Katsuyuki Meguro

Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan

Jordan Jumana Hamed

Jordan Deposit Insurance Corporation 
50

Kazakhstan Bakhyt Mazhenova

Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund

Korea Keehyun Park

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation

Malaysia JP Sabourin

Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Kevin Chew

Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Mexico Raúl Castro

Instituto para la Protección al Ahorro Bancario

Nigeria Ade Afolabi

Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation

Poland Anna Trzecińska

Bank Guarantee Fund

Switzerland Patrick Loeb

esisuisse

United Kingdom Alex Kuczynski

Financial Services Compensation Scheme

United States David Hoelscher

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Zimbabwe John Chikura

Deposit Protection Corporation

Members-At-Large or Observers

Chinese Taipei Yvonne Fan

Central Deposit Insurance Corporation

Indonesia Salusra Satria

Indonesia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Kenya Rose Detho

Deposit Protection Fund Board

Mexico Eugenia Kuri

Instituto para la Protección al Ahorro Bancario

United States Maisha Goss-Johns
51

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Secretariat

Poland Tomasz Ozimek

Bank Guarantee Fund

United States Taryn Jones

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
52

Joint Working Group

I. IADI Representatives

Chair David Walker

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

Coordinator Vijay Deshpande

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

United States

Colombia María Inés Agudelo

Fondo de Garantías de Instituciones Financieras

Jordan Jumana Hamed

Jordan Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Malaysia JP Sabourin

Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Kevin Chew

Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Yee Ming Lee 

Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation

Poland Anna Trzecińska

Bank Guarantee Fund

United Kingdom Alex Kuczynski

Financial Services Compensation Scheme

United States David Hoelscher

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Zimbabwe John Chikura

Deposit Protection Corporation

II. EFDI Representatives

Germany Dirk Cupei

Association of German Banks

Hungary András Fekete-Györ

National Deposit Insurance Fund

Luxembourg Joseph Delhaye

Association pour la Garantie des Dépôts Luxembourg
53

Switzerland Patrick Loeb

esisuisse

III. International Organisations

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Karl Cordewener

Nik Faris Nik Sallahuddin

European Commission Sven Gentner

Financial Stability Board Eva Hüpkes

International Monetary Fund David Parker

Sven Stevenson

World Bank Claire McGuire

David Scott

Jan Nolte
54

Bibliography 

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), Core Principles for Effective Banking 

Supervision, Basel, 2012. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs230.pdf 

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and International Association of 

Deposit Insurers (IADI), Core Principles for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems, Basel, 

2009. http://www.iadi.org/index.html

Financial Stability Board (FSB), Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for 

Financial Institutions, Basel, October 2011. 

http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_111104cc.pdf

———, Consultative Document: Assessment Methodology for the Key Attributes of 

Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, Basel, August 2013. 

http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_130828.pdf 

———, Thematic Review on Deposit Insurance Systems – Peer Review Report, Basel, 

February 2012. http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_120208.pdf

Financial Stability Forum (FSF), Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Enhancing 

Market and Institutional Resilience, Basel, 2008. 

http://www.fsforum.org/publications/r_0804.pdf 

———, Guidance for Developing Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Final Report of 

the Working Group on Deposit Insurance, Basel, 2001. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/FSF_Final_Report.pdf 

International Association of Deposit Insurers (IADI), Draft Discussion Paper on Deposit 

Insurance Coverage, Basel, 2008. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI%20Draft%20Discussion%20Paper%20on%20Deposit%20

Insu rance%20Coverag_Basel_2008a.pdf 

———, Cross Border Deposit Insurance Issues Raised by the Global Financial Crisis, 

Basel, 2011a. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_CBDI_Paper_29_Mar_2011_%28Final_for_publication%2

9.pdf

———, Deposit Insurance from a Shariah Perspective, Basel, 2010. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/DPDI_From_Shariah_Perspective_%28Final%29_Sep2011_to

_IADI.pdf

———, Draft Discussion Paper on Effective Deposit Insurance Mandates, Basel, 2007. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI%20Draft%20Discussion%20Paper%20on%20Effective%2

0De posit%20Insurance%20Mandate_Basel_2007a.pdf 
55

———, Enhanced Guidance for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Deposit 

Insurance Coverage, Basel, 2013a. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_Coverage_Enhanced_Guidance_Paper.pdf

———, Enhanced Guidance for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Mitigating Moral 

Hazard, Basel, 2013b. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_Mitigating_Moral_Hazard_Enhanced_Guidance_2013-

05.pdf

———, Enhanced Guidance for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Public Awareness 

of Deposit Insurance Systems, Basel, 2013c. http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADIPublic_Awareness_Enhanced_Guidance_Paper.pdf

———, Enhanced Guidance for Effective Deposit Insurance Systems: Reimbursement 

Systems and Practices, Basel, 2013d. http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADIReimbursement_Enhanced_Guidance_Paper.pdf

———, Financial Inclusion and Deposit Insurance, Basel, 2013e. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/201306_Financial_Inclusion_and_Deposit_Insurance_publicati

on-clean.pdf

———, General Guidance for Developing Differential Premium Systems (update), Basel, 

2011b. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_Diff_prem_paper_FINAL_updated_Oct_31_2011_clean_v

ersion.pdf 

———, General Guidance for Developing Effective Reimbursement Systems and 

Processes, Basel, 2012. http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_Guidance_paperDeveloping_Effective_Reimbursement_Systems_and_ProcessesFinal_201210_%282012-12_to_IADI%29.pdf

———, General Guidance on Early Detection and Timely Intervention for Deposit 

Insurance Systems, Basel, 2013f. http://www.iadi.org/docs/2013 

06_Early_Detection_Timely_Intervention-publication_final.pdf

———, Guidance on the Establishment of a Legal Protection Scheme for Deposit 

Insurance Systems, Basel, 2010. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_Final_Guidance_Paper_Legal_Protection_26Feb2010.pdf

———, General Guidance for the Resolution of Bank Failures, Basel, 2005b. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/Guidance_Bank_Resol.pdf 

———, Guidance on Public Awareness of Deposit Insurance Systems, Basel, 2009a. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/Public%20Awareness%20Final%20Guidance%20Paper%206_

May_2009.pdf

———, Guidance on the Funding of Deposit Insurance Systems, Basel, 2009b. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/Funding%20Final%20Guidance%20Paper%206_May_2009.pdf
56

———, Guidance on the Governance of Deposit Insurance Systems, Basel, 2009c. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/Governance%20Final%20Guidance%20Paper%206_May_200

9.pdf

———, General Guidance to Promote Effective Interrelationships Among Safety-Net 

Participants, Basel, 2006. http://www.iadi.org/docs/Guidance_Interrelationship.pdf 

———, Key Conclusions of the APEC Policy Dialogue on Deposit Insurance and IADI 

Guidance Points, Basel, 2005c. http://www.iadi.org/docs/IADI_APEC_Guidance.pdf 

———, Transitioning from a Blanket Guarantee or Extended Coverage to a Limited 

Coverage System, Basel, 2012. 

http://www.iadi.org/docs/Transitioning_Paper_29March2012_Final_for_Publication_1.pd

f 

Parker, David C., Closing a Failed Bank: Resolution Practices and Procedures, 

International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., 2010. 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat//longres.cfm?sk=24004.0