Statute Details
- Title: Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes (Withdrawal from DI Fund in Support of Resolution Measures) Regulations 2022
- Act Code: DIPOPSA2011-S59-2022
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes Act 2011 (DIPOPSA 2011), specifically section 29B
- Commencement: 31 January 2022
- Key Provisions (as extracted): Regulations 1 to 4
- Most Relevant Concepts: Independent valuation; determination of amounts for section 29A(2); valuation principles; submission of valuation report
- Latest Version Noted: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Amendment History (noted in extract): Amended by S 402/2024 with effect from 10 May 2024
What Is This Legislation About?
The Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes (Withdrawal from DI Fund in Support of Resolution Measures) Regulations 2022 (“DI Fund Withdrawal Regulations”) set out the technical and procedural framework for how an independent valuation is carried out when the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) needs to determine certain amounts connected to the Deposit Insurance (“DI”) Fund.
In practical terms, the Regulations support the operation of the Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes Act 2011 (“DIPOPSA 2011”). They do so by prescribing how MAS may appoint an independent valuer and what valuation principles must be applied. The valuation is used to determine the amounts that an agency “would have been repaid” from, or out of, the assets of a DI Scheme member under section 27 of the Act—amounts that become relevant for the operation of section 29A(2) of the Act.
Although the Regulations are narrow in scope, they are legally significant because they constrain the assumptions and exclusions that must be used in valuation. This ensures that the valuation reflects a counterfactual scenario (i.e., what would have happened absent certain resolution measures and government support beyond ordinary course business), thereby protecting the integrity of the DI Fund and supporting fair and consistent resolution-related calculations.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Regulation 1 (Citation and commencement) provides the formal identity of the instrument and confirms that it came into operation on 31 January 2022. For practitioners, this matters when assessing whether a valuation process or report must comply with the Regulations for a given timeline of resolution planning or execution.
Regulation 2 (Determination of amounts for purposes of section 29A(2) of Act) is the gateway provision. It authorises MAS, for the purposes of section 29A(2) of DIPOPSA 2011, to appoint an independent valuer to conduct a valuation in accordance with Regulation 3. The valuation’s purpose is to determine the amounts that the “Agency” would have been repaid from, or out of, the assets of the DI Scheme member under section 27 of the Act.
Two practitioner takeaways follow from Regulation 2. First, the valuation is not merely advisory; it is a statutory mechanism for determining specific amounts required by the Act. Second, the valuation must be conducted under the controlled assumptions in Regulation 3, meaning the independent valuer’s discretion is intentionally limited.
Regulation 3 (Principles for conducting valuation) sets out the core substantive constraints. It requires that the independent valuer conduct the valuation according to the listed principles and any additional principles MAS may specify by written notice. The Regulations therefore combine (i) mandatory baseline rules and (ii) an ability for MAS to refine valuation requirements for particular cases.
The most important principles in the extract are:
(a) Exclusion of government or public support (with an ordinary course carve-out). The valuation must not take into account any financial support or assistance provided to the DI Scheme member by the Government, a public body corporate established for public functions, or a public officer—other than financial support provided in the ordinary course of business. This is designed to prevent the valuation from being inflated by extraordinary public interventions that would not reflect the counterfactual repayment position.
(b) Assumption that the DI Scheme member is not subject to specified resolution measures. The valuation must be made on the assumption that the DI Scheme member is not the subject of resolution measures under specified divisions of Part 8 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (“FSMA 2022”). In the extract, the relevant divisions are Division 2, 4, 5, 6 or 9 of Part 8. This ensures the valuation reflects a scenario where resolution measures are not applied, rather than a scenario where resolution actions may alter asset values, repayment outcomes, or the timing and structure of claims.
(c) Assumption of winding up under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA 2018). The valuation must assume the DI Scheme member is wound up under Parts 8 and 9 of the IRDA 2018 or by a liquidator appointed under section 250 of that Act. This is a further counterfactual anchor: the valuation is not based on resolution pathways but on insolvency/winding-up pathways under IRDA 2018.
Notably, the extract indicates that paragraph (b) was amended by S 402/2024 with effect from 10 May 2024. For legal practice, this highlights that the valuation assumptions may be updated to align with evolving resolution frameworks under FSMA 2022. When advising on compliance, practitioners should always verify the version applicable at the relevant time and ensure the resolution-measure divisions referenced match the current text.
Regulation 4 (Submission of valuation report) governs the deliverables. It requires the independent valuer to submit a valuation report to MAS specifying:
(a) Assessment of amounts that the Agency would have been repaid from or out of the DI Scheme member’s assets under section 27 of the Act.
(b) Explanation of key methodologies and assumptions, including reasons for adopting them and the sensitivity of the assessment to those methodologies and assumptions. This is crucial for auditability and for any subsequent dispute or regulatory review: the report must show not only the number, but why the number is credible and how it changes if assumptions shift.
(c) Sources of uncertainty inherent in the valuation. This requirement is particularly important in insolvency and resolution contexts, where asset values, claim recoveries, and timing can be uncertain. The report must therefore be candid about limitations.
For practitioners, Regulation 4 has a litigation-adjacent function: it creates a structured record of valuation reasoning that can be relied upon by MAS and, potentially, by affected parties in governance, judicial review, or other regulatory processes.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The DI Fund Withdrawal Regulations are structured as a short, four-regulation instrument. It follows a logical sequence:
Regulation 1 addresses citation and commencement. Regulation 2 authorises MAS to appoint an independent valuer and identifies the valuation’s purpose (determining amounts for section 29A(2)). Regulation 3 provides the mandatory valuation principles and the counterfactual assumptions (no extraordinary public support beyond ordinary course; no specified resolution measures; winding up under IRDA 2018). Regulation 4 sets out the required contents of the valuation report submitted to MAS.
There are no Parts or complex schedules in the extract provided; the instrument is designed to be operational and procedural, rather than policy-heavy.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations primarily apply to MAS and to any independent valuer appointed by MAS under Regulation 2. MAS must ensure that the valuation is conducted in accordance with Regulation 3 and that the valuation report includes the information required by Regulation 4.
While the DI Scheme member (the bank or other institution within the deposit insurance framework) is not directly named as a regulated party in the text excerpt, the DI Scheme member’s circumstances are central to the valuation assumptions. The Regulations therefore indirectly affect DI Scheme members by determining how their assets and hypothetical repayment outcomes are valued for resolution-related calculations under DIPOPSA 2011.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the DI Fund Withdrawal Regulations are brief, they play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of Singapore’s deposit insurance and resolution architecture. The Regulations ensure that when MAS needs to determine amounts relevant to withdrawals from the DI Fund in support of resolution measures, the valuation is performed on a disciplined basis using counterfactual assumptions.
From a governance and fairness perspective, the exclusion of extraordinary government or public support (subject to the ordinary course carve-out) prevents circularity. Without this rule, a valuation could reflect the very interventions that the DI Fund withdrawal is intended to support, thereby distorting the “would have been repaid” counterfactual and potentially undermining the DI Fund’s financial discipline.
From an operational and compliance standpoint, the Regulations also reduce uncertainty for practitioners and valuers by specifying what must be assumed: no specified resolution measures and a winding-up scenario under IRDA 2018. This is especially important given the complexity of resolution regimes and the possibility that different resolution tools could materially change asset values, claim priorities, and repayment outcomes.
Finally, Regulation 4’s reporting requirements—methodology, sensitivity, and uncertainty—create a defensible evidentiary record. In practice, this can be crucial where valuation outcomes are scrutinised by regulators, auditors, or stakeholders. The structured report content supports transparency and helps ensure that MAS’s reliance on the valuation is well-founded.
Related Legislation
- Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes Act 2011 (DIPOPSA 2011) — including sections 27, 29A(2), and 29B
- Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FSMA 2022) — specifically Part 8 resolution measures (as referenced in Regulation 3(b))
- Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA 2018) — winding up assumptions under Parts 8 and 9 and section 250
- Dissolution Act 2018 (as listed in the statute metadata)
- Markets Act 2022 (as listed in the statute metadata)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners’ Protection Schemes (Withdrawal from DI Fund in Support of Resolution Measures) Regulations 2022 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.