Yes, we agree.
Our suggestion for another criterion: the depositor has a minimum number of active products with the institutions from the Group, like brokerage house, investment fund.
No, we don’t agree.
We think that salary inflow is enough (even without regular transactions) OR regular transactions (without the salary requirement).
Such contractual relationship with the institution could be assessed by having (by depositors) ACTIVE current account OR ACTIVE savings account for at least 6 months.
Depositors which have minimum two active products (including products from the Group) can also be classified as that with established relationships.
The thresholds proposed for high and very high value retail deposits seem quite appropriate.
The local (Polish) DGS amount is equal to the “high value” proposed.
In our opinion the minimum amount of “very high value” deposits could be higher, for example minimum amount of “high value” deposits multiplied by 10 (not by 5) because the “very high value” deposits portfolio should be only a supplement of the “high value” deposits portfolio, not the next stability criterion (this portfolio should be comparatively small).
Yes we agree with this criterion, however we also think that rate-driven deposits which have significant withdrawal penalty materially greater than the loss of interest (i.e. even part of notional loss) should be excluded from this criterion.
We think that non-resident deposits which have significant withdrawal penalty materially greater than the loss of interest (i.e. even part of notional loss) should be excluded from this criterion.
Yes we generally agree with analysis provided
At the moment we don’t have such additional information.