samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
We are placing an increased focus on lending to small businesses, and simplifying regulatory requirements for banks as regards SME lending. They include the scope for securitisation, reduced risk ratios for ‘good’ loans to small businesses, and banks’ possibilities to assess small business customers based on a wide range of data, relieving them of the necessity of preparing complex document packages. We also introduced insurance of small businesses’ accounts with banks, and I thank the deputies for adopting this law. This is another factor of small business development. Last year, we launched proportionate regulation in the banking sector. Currently, 142 banks hold 2/7  BIS central bankers' speeches  basic licences. The priority of these banks is lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. We discuss challenges faced by these banks on both bank associations’ platforms and the Bank of Russia’s platform, and we are ready to fine-tune our regulation to create the best environment for SME operations. Moving on to mortgage lending. This is the most socially important type of lending. Last year, mortgage lending expanded at a high pace with interest rates falling throughout most of the year. Currently, banks are resuming rate cuts after a short period of their upward revision – we registered growth to 10.4% after an all-time low of 9.4%. Mortgages are long-term loans, and interest rates depend on inflation and inflation expectations. Our monetary policy is therefore aimed at keeping inflation sustainably low in the long run.

Therefore, we ask you to authorise the Central Bank to promptly block websites advertising illegal financial operations, among other things. We have already forwarded the respective bill to the State Duma and look forward to your support. In order to reduce the chances of the public getting trapped by illegal lenders, since last year, we have been working together with Yandex on a joint project aimed at labelling websites of legal trustworthy microfinance organisations registered with the Central Bank with special symbols. We are discussing similar projects with other search engines. Development of the Mir card Currently, as many as 59 million cards have been issued; the share of the Mir card has been growing both in issue volumes and cashless operations. Countrywide, people use cards on a daily basis; in more than half of Russian regions, transport cards, and in some regions, also 4/7  BIS central bankers' speeches  social cards are attached to the Mir card. We hope this trend will continue. Mir cards are accepted in member states of the Eurasian Economic Union and Turkey (last year we told you we were conducting negotiations). In the near future, we are planning to ensure that these cards are accepted in non-CIS countries popular with Russian tourists, and to expand their acceptance in CIS countries. The development of cashless payments is not restricted to the use of Mir cards. Last year, we completed the development of the Bank of Russia’s special project, Faster Payments System (FPS), which we launched early this year.
We now follow a “fixed rate full allotment” tender procedure and have significantly expanded the maturity of our operations. Banks have been granted access to essentially unlimited liquidity at our policy interest rate at maturities of, initially, up to six months. This is an exceptional mode of operation. In normal times we auction a given amount of central bank credit and let competition between the bidders determine the interest rate. This unusual mode of operation implies that we currently act as a surrogate for the market in terms of both liquidity allocation and price-setting. •  Our second building block is the long list of assets that we take as collateral. This list was already very long before the crisis, but we have extended it even further and now accept an even wider range of securities as collateral. •  The first two building blocks offer unlimited refinancing against a very wide range of collateral. But they can only reach the financial system if they are coupled with the third building block, namely the very large number of counterparties that have always been able to take part in our refinancing operations. Even before the financial crisis, this number was higher than for the other major central banks. Following the changes to our operational framework in October last year, this number rose further. All these non-standard measures have now been supplemented by further exceptional steps that the ECB’s Governing Council decided to take at its last meeting on 7 May.

At the end of this month, it is planned to approve the restructuring plans of the banks in Group 1 (those controlled by the FROB), and those of Group 2 (the other banks which will require State aid) will foreseeably be approved before year-end. The restructuring plans envisage the transfer of assets to the asset management company, which will become operational in December, and the recapitalisation of banks which need it. Each bank will  4  BIS central bankers’ speeches  have a schedule for implementing the measures that it must adopt, and these are expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2013. Conclusions The State Budget for 2013 represents a substantial effort in terms of austerity. The intended fiscal adjustment is certainly very ambitious, given the ongoing recessionary setting for public finances next year. Central government efforts would be insufficient if not accompanied too by the adjustment to which regional and local government have committed. From the macroeconomic standpoint, some data show progress is being made in rebalancing the Spanish economy. The bulk of the correction has already been made by the current account and it is close to balance in 2012 which, foreseeably, will enable it to run a surplus in 2013. Similarly, we can see improvements in the competitiveness of the Spanish economy both with regard to labour cost indicators and productivity. We forecast that in 2014, and measured by unit labour costs, Spain will have recovered practically all of the competitiveness lost between 1998 and 2008.
We commend the extensive IMF exercise, using data from millions of European companies and agree with its main conclusions. Job retention schemes, moratoriums on payment obligations, grants and credit guarantees can be effective in improving companies’ liquidity needs, even more so in advanced than in emerging economies. However, moving forward, the increase in indebtedness does raise concerns for solvency risks and investment prospects. It is true that, from the central banks’ perspective, all chapters of the report are extremely relevant. Personally, I always look towards the IMF’s research findings for confirmations of our own scenarios, different perspectives on certain topics, or even red flags. More broadly, the 2020 Regional Economic Outlook (REO) for Europe provides a much-needed analysis, from the IMF’s point of view of the opportunities and challenges that our region can expect following a very difficult year of restrictions, as well as social and economic difficulties. For 2020, the IMF forecasted a contraction of real GDP in Europe of 7 percent, the biggest contraction after World War II. Thanks to the extraordinary policy response, even more dramatic consequences have been avoided. I understand that the full extent of the pandemic’s impact on companies in 2020 is yet to be revealed as time passes and more data becomes available. I agree that long-lasting changes in the structure of the economy will occur, even though they are hard to predict at this moment.

A common basis of information and analysis may facilitate assessment and comparison of climate risk in individual institutions, and lead to a more correct pricing of risk. International cooperation could be fruitful in this work, including in the NGFS context. Responsible investment at Norges Bank In its role as the GPFG’s owner, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance specifies the investment universe, benchmark index, risk limits, and requirements. Norges Bank shall make investment 1/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  decisions and exercise ownership rights independently of the Ministry. Within this framework, Norges Bank works on climate risk across the GPFG’s three asset classes – listed equities, listed bonds, and unlisted real estate – within a general framework of objectives. By end-June 2019, the total market value of the fund was close to USD 1.1 trillion, corresponding to more than three times mainland GDP of Norway. The United States is by far the greatest receiver of funds, amounting to 41 percent of the total. To spread risks and capture global growth, the assets were invested in over 9,000 companies in more than 70 countries. We benefit from free and open markets that enable an efficient global allocation of resources. The objective is to achieve the highest possible return with acceptable risk. Responsible investment supports this in two ways. First, it seeks to improve the long-term economic performance of the investments. Second, it seeks to reduce the financial risks associated with Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices of companies in the portfolio.
Moreover, the techniques normally used, such as a stay on payments, are ill adapted to banks. To supplement financial supervision and the deposit guarantee with a special insolvency regime, would not be adding an additional safety net to the benefit of depositors. It is quite simply a way of ensuring that the safety net protects those it was intended to protect but no others, and at a reasonable cost to the deposit guarantee system and society as a whole. But it should also be recognised that in situations where there is a threat to the financial system in its entirety, it may be needed to take partly different measures than in an ordinary bank failure. In these situations, the key focus must be on maintaining the vital functions in the interest of society as a whole. Perhaps the idea to have a partly different framework in these situations seems odd to you? After all, we normally expect the same legislative acts to apply regardless of the state of the economy or the situation in the financial system. But the situation is not unique. A similar situation exists in the health sector, where society has set up a framework to deal with our usual flus, broken bones and heart attacks. There  BIS Review 62/2008  5  are doctors and hospitals to deal with our problems. And there may be guidelines on how long sick leaves will be needed for a certain diagnosis.

Indeed, this gap in the regulatory framework has been demonstrated in the recent period of financial turbulence, where a number of countries have found it necessary to take extraordinary measures with regard to banks and other financial institutions in order to maintain financial stability. Today, I will try to sketch the broad features of such a resolution framework. In brief, it is a question of finding a system that makes it possible to close banks quickly and efficiently at a low cost to the deposit guarantee system, while making shareholders and uninsured creditors bear the responsibility for their investment decisions. But it must also allow for special measures to be taken in the exceptional situation where the failure of a bank risks destabilising the financial system as a whole. Also in such situations the government needs to have a strong negotiating position against the shareholders. But, first, how did I arrive at this conclusion? Well, from an analysis of the role of the banks in the economy and the safety net which has been built up around the sector. And from some  BIS Review 62/2008  1  experience from dealing with real crises. To get the right perspective, I think it is useful to start at this end. What is so special about bank failures? Bank failures have always been a problematic issue for governments.
CEPS Forum: Reconstructing the Union EMU governance: a reality check Address by Dr Mario Vella Governor of the Central Bank of Malta Brussels, 23 February 2017  The Five Presidents’ Report on Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union argues that economic and political convergence underpinning EMU needs to go deeper if it is to ensure prosperity for all its members and fairer outcome for its citizens. In the first phase, which was meant to be completed in June, the report envisages a number of steps including: −  a new boost to convergence, employment and growth, through the creation of a euro area system of competitiveness authorities and stronger implementation of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure;  −  the completion of the banking union and the launch of the capital markets union;  −  the establishment of a new advisory European Fiscal Board;  −  a reorganisation of the European Semester, with greater parliamentary control and accountability. The Commission should soon be publishing a related White Paper on the future of Europe. Before moving forward, let’s see what’s been achieved so far. In the twenty-five years since the Maastricht Treaty was signed, the euro has been established a successful currency. It is widely accepted as a medium of exchange and store of value, not only within the euro area itself, but also beyond it. It enjoys popular acceptance and support.

Another aspect of EMU governance is strengthening the economic part of EMU. This requires structural reforms aimed at enhancing potential growth, reducing structural unemployment and increasing national economies’ resistance to shocks. While many euro area countries undertook a wave of reforms during the crisis, today, across much of the area reforms have stalled. This is not a uniform picture. Malta is enjoying robust economic growth despite regional headwinds, largely as a result of reforms implemented in recent years that stimulated the development of new areas of economic activity and increased labour participation. Malta has also taken full advantage of its membership of the EU and its adoption of the single currency. Resilience to shocks can also be built up through deeper economic integration. Indeed, as the Five Presidents’ report argues, financial integration helps to share risk across EMU member countries. The completion of a Banking Union, which will strengthen the European banking sector, is a key objective in this regard. In this area, success so far has been partial. The Single Supervisory Mechanism involving the ECB via the Supervisory Board and the national supervisory authorities is up and running, following a comprehensive health check of the euro area banks. The Single Resolution Mechanism is also operational and is being funded according to plan. As regards the third pillar of Banking Union, the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS), negotiations are still under way. We believe that EDIS is will increase confidence in banks across the euro area.
The participation of representatives of the two most relevant institutions in the country for this issue and the participation of the distinguished domestic experts and experts of the relevant international institutions, Eurostat and BIS, ensure that today we will enjoy an exciting intellectual debate on the topic we selected, i.e. which inflation indices are the most persuasive, which structure and which compilation methods could give us the best picture of the basic components and  BIS Review 54/2007  1  their contribution to the movement of the inflation; how much is the so-called core inflation relevant for us and in what is the best way to determine it, is the inflation index appropriate with respect to the scope and the structure, does it represent the consumer basket realistically, does it change along with the changes in the consumption, does it overestimate, underestimate or realistically show the actual inflation. Furthermore, do we move along with the international experience, here I refer to the best practices, where do we lag behind, what and how long does it take to narrow or eliminate the lag. The responses and measures for better solutions are not given to us indefinitely. The current lags affect our current decisions. Now, they affect the quality of comparability of our conditions with those of the countries we seek to integrate with.

The regulatory community and the industry must act to ensure that supervisory practices and internal controls within the financial institution remain vigilant and install the necessary safeguards against cyber security threats. There is a need to intensify our efforts in this regard and to place cyber security issues as a priority in our effort to make the financial system safe and sound. Driving the cyber security agenda forward in the industry In many countries, supervisors place significant emphasis on the oversight role of the boards of financial institutions as a primary line of defence. However, in reality, the focus on technology risk remains superficial in most board discussions. In 2012, a survey by Carnegie Mellon among senior executives and directors from among the world’s largest firms across various sectors indicated that, 57% of respondents viewed that boards are not reviewing the existing policies for cyber-related risks sufficiently. Faced with a multitude of issues, board members are likely to prioritise headline issues that are more pressing or more directly related to the core business of the financial institution. More often than not, the cyber security agenda gets side-lined. Supervisors have an important role in encouraging boards to strengthen their oversight over cyber security risks. In fact, because of its importance, a mandatory requirement ought to be the norm. In the digital era, cyber security demands a more strategic and specific focus and should be properly understood at all levels within the financial institution.
What should drive this debate is what a bank itself would want to know before making an investment or credit decision, rather than the concerns that some have about what had formerly been considered secret. The Committee believes it has struck an appropriate balance between meaningful disclosure and protection of proprietary and confidential information. Principles versus Rules A second concern that arose in consultations was the Committee’s decision to adopt specific rules for disclosure, rather than articulate broad principles for transparency. But on this point, many institutions seem caught up in a contradiction. On the one hand, banks suggest that we avoid overly detailed guidance on public reporting that might create burdensome and inflexible rules. On the other, nearly all banks have urged the Committee to provide clarity to ensure the consistent application of the New Accord across jurisdictions. Understandably, some banks are concerned that, in the absence of specific rules, competitors in other countries might be subject to less scrutiny than they are. We recognise that a principles-based approach offers benefits, especially in terms of simplicity and flexibility. But our main intention is to offer markets a clearer picture of a bank’s risk profile, regardless of what jurisdiction that bank may call home. To promote both greater insight into a bank’s true risks and a more level playing field for all banks, we advocate disclosure rules based on principles rather  4  BIS Review 47/2003  than looser principles that might be subject to local interpretation.

I think it is helpful to recall why so many central banks, regulatory agencies, and commercial banks have devoted their best resources to ensuring the success of the New Accord. The existing Accord, as you know, was already considered a milestone in banking regulation. It offered the first internationally accepted “yardstick” for capital adequacy and a simple measure of risk. It had received praise for reversing a downward trend in bank capital levels and for serving as a benchmark measure of a bank’s financial health around the world. But the 1988 Accord was a blunt instrument that quickly fell behind the times. Advances in technology, in banking products, and in risk management changed the way that leading banks measure and manage their risks. By the mid-1990’s, bankers and supervisors agreed that the original Accord no longer offered the largest and most sophisticated organisations a meaningful measure of risk. Under the leadership of William McDonough, former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and my predecessor as chairman of the Basel Committee, the Committee seized the opportunity to achieve more than a simple update of the capital requirements. Bill brought tireless energy to the project and convinced industry leaders, bank supervisors, and central bankers that we should pursue a far greater objective that would incorporate market discipline and also encourage advances in risk management across the industry.
As major players in credit provision, Banks have an urgent challenge to provide products that are suitable to SMEs and within their reach. Honourable Minister, at current levels, interest rates are too high for the SMEs to access credit. We urge banks and other financial institutions to continue reviewing the cost of borrowing as part of the process to improve SMEs access to the much needed finances to expand their operations, employ more people, and thereby provide impetus to significantly reduce poverty rates in the country. Honourable Minister, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in view of the financing gap for the SMEs, the microfinance sector in Zambia has taken a leading role to fill this vacuum. However, the services provided by the microfinance institutions fall short of meeting the demands of SMEs. The sector can be said to be relatively young with the pioneers being established in the early 1990’s. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to note that the conference will also focus on the very important aspect of corporate governance. Corporate governance is vital to building a solid, efficient and sustainable financial system and growth of businesses. Without these sound foundations, the institutions capable of reaching out to the poorest in society will never be encouraged. It is generally agreed that there is a strong link between corporate governance and access to finance.

For instance, in the mining sector, the supply of goods and services has been taken up by private companies including those that can be classified as SMEs. Similarly, the transport sector, which was dominated by Government through the United Bus Company of Zambia (UBZ), Zambia Railways and Zambia Airways, etc, is now largely run by the private sector, consisting mostly of small and medium entrepreneurs. One can go on to mention the tourism, manufacturing, real estate, construction and others. This development is of great benefit to the economy in general and individual entrepreneurs in particular. Therefore, small- and medium-scale enterprises have the potential to make a significant contribution to the growth of the economy, thereby improving the economic welfare of the population. As you may know, SMEs in Zambia often have a direct impact on community development. Since they are usually based in places where the owners live, they draw upon the community for their workforce and rely on it to do business. They provide employment, particularly for low-skilled workers, as well as women and the youth, who usually make up the greatest proportion of the unemployed. However, this sector has faced difficulties in accessing credit for working capital and expansion of their investments. Mr Chairman, even if more SMEs wished to modernise their plant and equipment, they would find it hard to do so because of the difficulty of obtaining financing. Many banks choose not to provide credit to SMEs as they are perceived to be more risky and yet less profitable.