Summary

During the financial crisis, several countries considered it necessary to support private banks with taxpayers’ money to ensure the functioning of the services necessary for society. Temporary or permanent support to persons in private law from public funds at a specific point in time cannot be considered characteristic of only the banking sector. Public funds are also used to support agriculture (e.g. for prevention of swine fever and dealing with the consequences of this disease) or the energy sector. However, the difference lies in the attitude of the public, arising both from the reasons why these sectors fell into difficulties, and the amount of funds used to support the sectors.

After the financial crisis, the developments have been retrograde. When a bank falls into difficulties, the obligation to overcome these difficulties and bear losses mostly lies on the shareholders and creditors of the bank and there should be no requests for state aid. At the same time, legislators are interfering with the everyday economic activities of banks significantly more than before the crisis.

In the article, the author first addresses the avalanche of standards that have fallen on the banking sector following the recent financial crisis, focusing on the potential consequences for the banks and their clients. The article goes on to address the narrower topic of the consequences arising from restricting access to credit and estimating the fair value of credit.