These measures may however not be sufficient

For several months, banks derive the alarm on the risks of a centralization of the Livret A rate increase. Yet, then begin the parliamentary hearings on the subject was the feeling that your arguments are not. Why

The subject has been misunderstood. It is not a dispute between the Bank and the Caisse des Dépôts on the level of centralization of the collection of the booklet, but a much more important issue for the country: that of the financing of the economy by regulated savings. If one header to be reckless and forced March rate of centralization, it is the balance of the system that you are going to question. Banks will not be able to continue to lend to companies and individuals while outsourcing much of their deposits at the Caisse des Dépôts. This will be the double penalty. It there will be both less money for the regulated savings and funding of the regional economy. It is mechanical.

For what reason

Must be understood that the crisis has dramatically changed the rules imposed on banks, especially liquidity. To meet them, we have little choice but to increase the level of deposits retained on our balance sheet. In these circumstances, the rate of centralization that apply to the regulated books, less we will be encouraged to collect. However, contrary to what some think, the historical reality of the booklet is a declining savings product. Therefore, a balance that banks continue to promote it. The reform has divided by three banks pay, while the cost of liquidity was multiplied by ten.

What do you propose to break the deadlock

First, could be simply to guarantee the funding needs of the Fund of saving of 125 of loans for social housing. This would eliminate any risk of shortage without having to change the law. To ensure that the device remains relevant in time, could also be "revoyure" regular clauses. On the other hand, could be to vary the rate of centralization or remuneration of the different institutions by the progression of the collection. It would thus end economic nonsense, in which new distributors of the booklet are caught in a vise. While we make a net collection of 20 billion euros, we are asked, while being less paid, centralize more than those who décollectent.

These measures may however not be sufficient. The Caisse des Dépôts believes that a minimum rate of centralization of 70 is necessary to ensure the missions of saving funds, namely the financing of social housing and SMEs...

But this is an assumption. First, the CDC is not the monopoly of the financing of the economy. I would remind you that the regional funds of the Credit Agricole finance 38 of the SMEs and 50 of individuals and professionals in most departments. Further centralize the collection of the booklet and the LDD, is depriving him us of the means to complete these missions, even though only half of the centralized sums are used to finance social housing. In this connection, the banks may well finance also, in parallel with the CDC, a portion of the needs. They are already doing and have in the region of competent and many teams. Finally, on a prudential plan, there is no reason that with a savings of the same nature, the banks could not fund social housing as the CDC. What is possible for each must be for others, without increasing the circuits to excess.