samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
Essentially there is a risk that the single monetary policy - the single, one-size-fits-all, short-term interest rate - within the euro area, which is a necessary corollary of the single currency, will not in the event prove to be appropriate to the domestic needs of each of the euro-member countries. There is no doubt that such risks exists. They may result from cyclical divergence. They may arise from differences in fiscal positions even though these are to be constrained through the Stability Pact. Or they may result from economic shocks of some sort that have a bigger impact on some countries than on others. The rise in oil prices in the early 1970’s or German reunification are classic examples. So the risk of divergent monetary policy needs within the euro area is real. And the damage it could cause if serious tensions between member countries were to emerge is substantial, because alternative adjustment mechanisms, such as labour migration or fiscal redistribution, that exist within individual countries, and which help to alleviate the similar regional tensions that arise at the national level, are simply not well-developed at the pan-European level.

The significant dimensions of this change include the increased pace of globalisation, the emergence of new technologies and the increasing importance of knowledge as a defining factor in a country's performance. In particular, knowledge accumulation and its application lies at the core of a country's competitive advantage in the global economy. The traditional comparative advantage of abundant natural resources and low-cost labour are now becoming less relevant. It is for this reason that Malaysia has directed significant resources and attention to human capital development, and in particular, to strengthen the intellectual capacity of our nation. As Malaysia transitions into the next stage of development, the vital factor will be having the right skills, knowledge and expertise. If we are to make the quantum leap forward to become a high performance economy, we need to invest in our capabilities. This will become increasingly important as Malaysia ventures into new, cutting edge industries and develops new areas of comparative advantage in this more competitive world economy. To compete effectively in the more challenging global market place that we face today, it will require significant investment in human capital. This is to enable the workforce to deliver superior high value-added products and services and adopt advanced business practices so as to ultimately realise the strategic goals. This trend has become important for all sectors in the economy. Within the financial sector, for example, significant structural enhancements have been made to enable financial institutions and markets to respond to the rapidly changing demands.
Norges Bank sets the interest rate so that future inflation will be equal to the inflation target of 2½ per cent. High demand for goods and services and labour shortages normally point to higher inflation in the future. When interest rates are increased, demand falls and inflation is kept at bay. When demand is low and unemployment rises, inflation will tend to slow. Interest rates will then be reduced. The inflation target is a vehicle for, not an obstacle to, monetary policy’s contribution to stabilising output and employment. This intention is also expressed in the Regulation on Monetary Policy. The inflation target of 2½ per cent is broadly in line with the inflation targets of our trading partners. It is also an anchor for developments in the krone exchange rate. The krone fluctuates. We have open trade with other countries and free capital movements. We do not have the instruments to fine-tune the krone exchange rate. As long as inflation remains low and stable, any substantial deviations in the krone exchange rate over time will have a considerable impact on activity in business and industry. As a result, the krone exchange rate will tend to return towards its long-term mean following any substantial deviations. The best contribution monetary policy can make to stability in the krone exchange rate is to aim at low and stable inflation. Wide cyclical differences and differences in wage formation between Norway and other countries have always had an impact on the krone exchange rate and competitiveness.

We know that employment in some service industries has fallen. This may indicate that many service enterprises have adjusted their workforces. To some extent, higher costs can more easily be passed on to customers through higher prices in this sector. This picture is typical of the final phase of an expansion. A tight labour market and the contest for economic resources lead to a sharp increase in real wages. This results in high growth in household income, consumption and housing investment. The propensity to borrow increases and house prices rise sharply. On the other hand, the business sector faces pressures on profitability, a high cost level and declining investment. Commercial property prices fall. At the same time, corporate restructuring brings growth in employment to a halt. When costs reach a high level, employment starts to fall. The period of expansion has then come to an end. The cost level must be adjusted to restore balance in the labour market. Wage formation in Norway is subject to an institutional and statutory framework and agreements that have been developed over several decades. The result of negotiations is influenced by labour legislation, including regulations relating to job protection, unemployment benefits and the rules that apply to cooperation and settlement of industrial disputes. In important segments of the labour market, there appears to have been a shift in the social partners’ strategic position in negotiations in favour of employees.
As the MPC has signalled, a low for long interest rate environment will likely be with us for some time. The MPC’s new guidance that any adjustments in rates, when they come, will be limited and gradual helps provide confidence to households and businesses that the MPC won’t take risks with the recovery. This in turn helps make the attainment of the inflation target more likely. At the same time, policymakers across the Bank’s statutory committees are fully aware that an environment of relatively low and predictable interest rates could encourage excessive risk taking in financial markets and by households.22 This puts a tremendous burden on both microprudential supervision and macroprudential management. Moreover, the nature of a rapidly evolving global economy reinforces these pressures. Sustained imbalances across countries, intense capital flow volatility and powerful disinflationary forces driven by the integration of the other half of humanity into the global economy will buffet our economy and financial sector for years to come. The Bank can help turn those challenges into opportunities. Through the coordinated use of the Bank’s tools, risks to monetary and financial stability can be mitigated. Through changes to the hard and soft infrastructure of markets fair, open and competitive markets can be re-built. Through ideas and engagement, the global financial system can be reformed to secure an open, resilient system in which all countries have confidence and in which British businesses can thrive.

The model used for monetary policy of decisions being made by a committee made up of both Bank of England executives and independent experts has been expanded to financial stability with the creation of both a Financial Policy Committee and a Board of Prudential Regulation. As I have argued, those policy committees will be more effective if they have access to the broadest range of the Bank’s analysis and information and are as well informed as possible about each other’s reaction function. The now very wide range of the Bank’s responsibilities also creates a need to strengthen the oversight arrangements for the Bank as a whole. For delivery of our statutory objectives, the Bank is accountable to the public, through Parliament’s Treasury Committee. That accountability is being reinforced. Parliament has created an Oversight Committee of 8 non-executives who are in the Bank but not of the Bank. The Government has today announced the appointment of Anthony Habgood to lead the Bank’s Court of Directors and the Oversight Committee. I welcome the appointment of someone of his depth and breadth of corporate experience. Independent oversight by the committee he will chair can strengthen the Bank’s legitimacy and effectiveness. The Oversight Committee has access to internal papers, is able to observe meetings of policy committees, and is responsible for reviewing all aspects of the conduct of the Executive of the Bank, including the delivery of policy, the design of and adherence to rigorous processes and procedures, and the monitoring of our transparency and openness.
Policymakers are, therefore, now engaging with the crucial distinction between those parts of a bank’s capital structure that absorb losses in a going concern – namely, equity – and those that can smoothly absorb losses in resolution or liquidation. The recent G20 Leaders Summit called on the Financial Stability Board to produce plans over the coming year for the level and location of goneconcern loss-absorbing capacity (or GCLAC) in global banks and dealers. In a nutshell, this  1  See Financial Stability Board (2013), ‘Narrative progress report on financial reform’; Tucker (2012), ‘Banking in a market economy - the international agenda’, published in AFME (2012), Investing in Change: A book of essays on financial reform in Europe; and Tucker (2013), ‘Competition, the pressure for returns and stability’, published in Dombret and Luciuis, Stability of the Financial System; Illusion or Feasible Concept. BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  will be a policy for the amount of term bonded debt issued by banks, and where in the group structure it is issued from. I believe that in time the Basel Capital Accord could usefully be recast so that it has distinct components for going-concern and gone-concern requirements.

It is therefore time for us to reflect on these situations and try to be a step ahead. That is what saves financial markets – being a step ahead! I remember in February 2007, our Central Bank introduced an additional 1% provision for all performing loans of banks, because we realized that there was bubble that was forming. But, the public and media reaction to that policy action was somewhat rough. The next day’s newspaper headlines said that Cabraal has delivered a kidney punch to the banks; some claimed that we were killing the industry; others lamented that we are making it difficult for the banks unnecessarily. Today, one year and 2 months later, people realize that our anticipation has saved the day. We don't want everyone to get up and shout and acknowledge it. But perhaps those of you who are directors of finance companies, as persons who are responsible for about 5% of the financial system of this country, would now realize that, there are certain steps that need to be taken early in order to safeguard the entire industry. Sometimes, some people tell us, “our shareholders have been the ones who have made us. Our depositors have been continuously supported us. Therefore, we are responsible to our shareholders and depositors, and nobody else”. Perhaps, there is some truth in that statement. But, think about this a little more deeply. What would happen if one finance company fails?
William C Dudley: Opportunities for economic growth in Puerto Rico Remarks by Mr William C Dudley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to representatives of Puerto Rico's business and academic communities, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 29 November 2016. * * * Jason Bram, Tony Davis, Andrew Haughwout and Joseph Tracy assisted in preparing these remarks. I am very pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to speak with representatives of Puerto Rico’s business and academic communities. In my remarks, I will discuss the lessons learned from municipalities in the United States that have faced crises over the years―such as New York City―and what those outcomes might imply for Puerto Rico as it seeks to restore and sustain economic growth. I will also touch briefly on the Puerto Rico Small Business Survey, a new survey from the New York Fed that focuses on the business performance, financing needs and borrowing experiences of firms across the Island. As always, what I have to say reflects my own views and not those of the Federal Open Market Committee or the Federal Reserve System. My meeting with you today is part of the New York Fed’s continuing efforts to understand what is going on at the grassroots level within our Federal Reserve district. We plan these trips so we can interact with a diverse group of stakeholders.

The focus on the Internet as a distribution channel is eroding boundaries between financial service providers and technology firms. Banks are increasingly providing technology services to customers, such as providing account reconciliation software. Likewise, technology firms are making inroads into services once thought the domain of banks and brokerage firms, such as financial planning or paying  BIS Review 32/2000  2  bills. Banks and brokerage firms are also partnering with Internet “portals” such as Yahoo! and America Online to offer services to Internet users. It is still far too early to determine just how, or to what extent, the Internet will change the financial services sector. For instance, it is important to note that, with few exceptions, most banks view the Internet as an important supplementary distribution channel and not as a replacement for branches that give you a physical presence in the communities you serve. Moreover, the true value of cross-selling remains uncertain, and the ability to collect and use personal data will have to be balanced against the demand for more protection of consumer privacy. On the commercial side, the largest institutions are actively pursuing the emerging “business-to-business” e-commerce markets, but the experience there is still too fresh to offer much insight into how those markets will evolve.
While, in order to decrease the risk of burdensome and inefficient regulatory overlap, the position held in the European EMIR regulation proposal is to support mutual recognition regimes, registration regimes do remain implemented in other major jurisdictions; in particular, in the US as foreseen in the Dodd Frank Act that applies to activities outside the US that have a “direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.” In practice this may mean that non-US entities would become subject to the requirement of the DFA, unless an exemption is granted. In my view, the US regulation and the subsequent registration to US authorities should not lead European entities to be subject to a redundant or a double regulation. The issue of access to the information stored in trade repositories is also particularly sensitive. One can easily understand that if the national supervisory bodies keep both full access to the locally registered TR and full control of the access granted to foreign supervisors, we will rapidly conclude that we need one TR per asset class and per country, which will clearly be sub-optimal from a supervisory point of view, since we need a consolidation of the risks, and from an industrial point of view with an increased cost for everybody.

The CLMV countries have reduced tariffs on 98.86% of their tariff lines to the 0–5% tariff range in 2010, and are expected to eliminate tariffs on these goods by 2015, with flexibility for a few tariff lines until 2018. BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  •  On services, ASEAN Member States have recently completed the eighth package of commitments under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services. What this means is that we can expect the reduction of services barriers, such as foreign equity limits in the ASEAN countries. •  On investment, the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement entered into force in March last year. This agreement has established stronger, pro-business rules, with enhanced investment protection for both ASEAN-owned investments and also foreign-owned investments based in ASEAN2. Singapore’s multilateral agreements However, to enable businesses to access major markets more easily, Singapore has also broadened our engagement with Asia Pacific beyond ASEAN. By doing so, we aim to reduce trading costs. To this end, Singapore actively participates in negotiations of several multilateral trade agreements. One example of such a multilateral trade agreement is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, which is a partnership between ASEAN and six other countries, namely Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, India and South Korea. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Renminbi (RMB) Internationalisation This agreement builds upon the existing ASEAN+1 free trade agreements (FTAs) FTAs by bringing together ASEAN’s existing FTAs with its key partners into a single comprehensive agreement.
6 An alternative interpretation is that the true expectation of market participants is for Bank Rate to increase more quickly than that, but that they are particularly worried about downside risks and are happy to accept a lower expected return in exchange for insurance against bad outcomes. 7 This would be consistent with the risks to the world economy that have come to the fore over the past year as emerging economies grapple with the twin challenges of transitioning to slower potential output growth and lower commodity prices. Although the direct trade links between emerging economies and the UK are relatively small, the indirect effects of a more dramatic emerging market slowdown through confidence and financial channels could be significant. I suspect this latter interpretation is closer to the reality. Personally speaking, should the downside risks from the world economy fail to materialise, and absent further shocks, once wage growth has returned to a level consistent with inflation returning to target I would expect the economy to warrant a path for Bank Rate that increases more quickly than implied by the market yield curve used to condition the November Inflation Report. I think it is interesting to note that surveys of economic forecasters – a more direct measure of the expected future path of interest rates – show expectations for a faster pace of increases in Bank Rate. Having said that, I think all agents, and all members of the MPC, expect the future path to be gradual and limited. 3.

Dominant academic paradigm may restrict those who radically incorporate lessons of these days into their studies. And of course, central banks, as always, will be criticized for spoiling the party at its hottest moment by taking away the punch bowl. We should be aware that keeping the old habits will only give us a new and may be more severe crisis in the near future. Thanks to the global efforts, lessons derived from the crisis have already started to initiate dramatic changes in the global financial governance. There have been encouraging developments in recent months to design a new global financial system to prevent future crises. In the recent meeting of G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors, member  BIS Review 120/2009  1  countries confirmed their commitments to the principles of strengthening transparency and accountability, enhancing sound regulation, promoting integrity in financial markets, and reinforcing international cooperation. I believe the establishment of Financial Stability Board with increased participation of emerging countries is a critical step in achieving these objectives. In recent years, as a byproduct of market-oriented structural reforms and prudent macroeconomic policies, the share of emerging countries in world output and their role in global financial markets has significantly increased. Now, we are faced with a more diversified group of countries with different objectives and interests. Since the rise of emerging economies has dispersed economic power, decision-making process and international cooperation has become more complicated.
We’re listening to the reasons for that reaction, will continue to engage and look forward to responses to the  Page 10  consultation, in order to make sure we fully understand the concerns being raised. It is important that whatever decisions are taken on this topic are taken based on the latest data and I would urge insurers to participate constructively in our evidence gathering. We understand the pressures on firms and are being as flexible as possible to enable firms to respond to our request. More broadly, we would welcome any ideas and suggestions for how the issues we have identified can be tackled. We have laid out one model, but it may well be the case that this could be improved upon or that there are other ways of achieving our objectives. We think it’s essential that we tackle the problems we have identified with the current regime, but we have an open mind as to how this is done as long as it is done credibly. I am also hearing some insurers say that they would prefer simply to stick with the EU’s version of Solvency II as it evolves. To be honest I think this is a red herring. The government has been clear that the point of leaving the EU, at least insofar as financial regulation goes, is to enable us to tailor our regime to make it work better for the UK.

But it is equally important that we take steps to dampen the incentives the regime currently creates simply to seek out those assets which have a high return relative to the expected losses set out in the rules. This is particularly important because the competitive nature of the market for moving corporate pension schemes over to insurers means that even if firms have the best intentions to invest in productive UK assets, they will still be compelled to invest in the most MA-producing assets they can find or risk losing the business to other competitors. In order to make progress on these issues we have published a full Discussion Paper and Technical Annex, alongside the Treasury’s wider consultation paper, in which we set out the evidence as we see it and propose one way forward. [14] The data collection exercise we ran with the industry earlier in the review indicated to us that the different structures for the MA included in that exercise should not be pursued because their impact could be too large and in particular they would make insurers’ balance sheets too volatile. [15] The industry made these points very strongly, and provided data which supported their case. Hence our team went back to the drawing board and has brought forward revised proposals, which on our assessment are around 70% less volatile than the structures included in the earlier data collection exercise. So far the industry reaction to these revised proposals has been strongly negative.