samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
And, more fundamentally, should there be a Glass-Steagall type of provision to prevent retail deposits from being used to fund investment banking activities? There are good arguments in favour – to separate the utility functions of a retail bank taking household deposits and running the payments system from the casino trading of an investment bank, and good arguments against – the difficulty of maintaining a credible boundary between those institutions that are eligible to receive government support and those that are not. We need a public and informed debate on the merits of the arguments. We also should reflect on the fact that the belief that the authorities will step in when risks materialise encourages risk taking and means that risk-adjusted returns to financial activity are too high. The experience of unsustainably high returns in normal times interspersed by regular crises has been repeated across countries and over time. So if banks are to bear the true cost of the risks they take, changes need to be made to the environment in which banks operate. All these are important issues. While committing at international level to broad principles on regulatory reform, such as extending the net to all highly leveraged institutions and making capital requirements counter-cyclical, there is time to think through carefully the best way to implement them, and it is important that we take it. Many of these questions about the future of the regulatory structure will be discussed in the Turner review to be launched tomorrow. The Bank awaits the Review with interest.

Any shock could lead banks to fail through a domino effect. The superstructure of complex transactions within the financial sector (in derivatives for example) greatly increased this interconnectedness. The time-series aspect is the pro-cyclical behaviour of risk-taking in the financial system that I described earlier. Optimism feeds on itself until the occasional setback changes the mood to one of pessimism. And individuals are reluctant to accept that success may not be the  BIS Review 32/2009  3  result of superior wisdom, which should naturally be reflected in compensation, but the shortrun outcome of a risky strategy. To deal with the “cross-section” problems we need to reduce the exposure of the system to domino effects. For some, especially over-the-counter, markets this could be achieved by increasing the role of central counterparty clearing houses. Much good work on this is going on, led by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But a clearing house should not be an excuse for allowing flawed financial instruments, such as many of the mortgage-backed securities, to be treated as high quality assets. We also need to improve the regulation of the liquidity of banks. After the crisis began, the most striking feature of the regulatory system, as embodied in the Basel arrangements and implemented in the UK, was the absence of any effective regulation of liquidity. The FSA is acting to remedy the situation, and the Bank is in active discussion with FSA about how such regulation should best be implemented.
(b) Finalise the adoption of a European resolution framework for CCPs and insurers The resolution of CCPs is the last major topic on the FSB’s work programme. By reinforcing the central role of CCPs in the markets, the new framework risks creating entities that are “too big to fail”: it is important therefore that we have tools to handle CCP crises efficiently, without resorting to a state bail-out that would ultimately leave taxpayers bearing the cost of default. As a result, after having set out strong expectations in 2017, the FSB is currently refining an international CCP resolution framework, which will be enshrined in a new European regulation. In insurance, France is one of the first EU Member States to have put in place a recovery and resolution regime for insurers with the Sapin 2 Law of 9 December 2016. The Order of 27 November 2017 also gave the ACPR’s Resolution College the power to start resolution proceedings for failing insurers and take steps to maintain their critical functions or safeguard financial stability. The framework comprises a preventive arm, under which the largest insurers are obliged to draw up preventive recovery plans. At the European level, there is currently no shared approach to the resolution of insurers. However, there is clearly a need for such a framework to facilitate the resolution of insurers, in particular cross-border groups, and help strengthen the European insurance market for the benefit of policyholders (c) Finally, and most of all in my view, it is also “time for macroprudential policy”.

Stress tests have thus contributed to an increased resilience of the financial system: (i) Stress tests shore up banks’ capital positions by serving as a basis for calculating additional capital requirements (“Pillar 2 Guidance” or P2G); (ii) the publication of individual stress test results, which is accompanied by the disclosure of individual bank data, ensures transparency and enhances market discipline; (iii) regular stress test exercises under the aegis of the supervisory authority encourage banks to develop their internal risk management processes and information tools. 3/7  BIS central bankers' speeches  The comparison over time of the aggregate results of the stress tests conducted by the EBA and the ECB testifies to the increased soundness of European banks. In the event of an adverse scenario, the 2018 stress test showed that the banks’ solvency ratio would be 9.9%, i.e. 100 basis points higher than the level obtained by the stress test conducted in 2016. However, we must be careful not to become complacent: risks are increasing and, while some recent events have confirmed the relevance of the instruments deployed (see in particular the H2O incident), the fact that they ultimately proved benign does not mean that in a stressed market environment the outcome would not be less favourable. It is therefore vital to continue to shore up the resilience of the financial system  2. We should not take it for granted that the financial system has been sufficiently reinforced 2.1 VULNERABILITIES ARE EVOLVING AN INCREASING  Global macroeconomic risks have increased markedly.
£ character selection and Future Forum launch Remarks given by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England  Science Museum, London Friday 2 November 2018  I am grateful to Clare Macallan and Jennifer Nemeth for their assistance in drafting these remarks and to Lizzie Levett, Emma Sinclair and Toby Davies for providing background information. 1  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  It is always a pleasure to visit the Science Museum. Its galleries and exhibitions showcase the rich history of human ingenuity in the sciences, technology, and medicine. You might think that the Bank of England has little in common with such lofty endeavours, but science spans all aspects of life, extending even to central banking. Within this Mathematics Gallery alone, there are multiple examples of where the worlds of central banking and science converge. Take the Moniac machine, which illustrates the circular flow of income around the economy using an assortment of pipes and coloured water. Or Babbage’s Analytical Engine, developed in collaboration with mathematician Ada Lovelace. This precursor to modern computers helped estimate mortality rates, techniques that are still central to underwriting life insurance policies today. The same life insurers that we regulate at the Bank of England. Among those who are supervising, modelling and policymaking, are the Bank’s very own scientists. Almost 10% of colleagues across the Bank have a science or maths degree and 1 in 10 of our graduates starting this year studied chemistry, biology or physics at university.

*********************** We look to history when we chose a new character, but money has a future not just a past. The selection of the new £ note character is not my only announcement today… because as I alluded to earlier, money is evolving. Today, it is much more than polymer. While cash remains invaluable to many, it is now the second most frequent transaction method after debit card payments.1 And innovation is expected to make other electronic forms of payment easier to make and faster to settle. The technological revolution in finance will bring more tailored products, keener pricing, and more diverse sources of credit for households and SMEs. The Bank is embracing fintech and ensuring that it develops in ways that maximise the opportunities and minimise the risks for society. We aim to enable, empower and ensure. 1  Cash transactions made up 37% of all transactions in 2017. 4  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  4  Enable new technology by developing the right environment for fintech to thrive, such as by upgrading the Bank’s hard infrastructure on which finance relies – such as our large value payments system, RTGS. The Bank is one of the first to allow non-bank payment service providers to directly access its system, something that is lowering the costs of payments across borders. Enabling also means having the right soft infrastructure, such as rules and regulations, to help fintech thrive.
4  E. Gerald Corrigan, Are Banks Special?, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Annual Report, January 1983. Cf. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Law of Bailments § 464 (1832). (“The soundness of the public policy of subjecting particular classes of persons to extraordinary responsibility, in cases where an extraordinary confidence is necessarily reposed in them, and there is an extraordinary temptation to fraud, or danger of plunder, can hardly admit of question; and has been recognized in the jurisprudence of many countries.”). BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  Industry responsibility Two years ago, I noted that recent scandals in banking evidenced “deep-seated cultural and ethical failures.” 5 Many of the industry’s leaders now agree. According to the Federal Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve System, a group composed of senior representatives from the industry, “as often as not [...] the challenges faced in recent years have been behavioral and cultural; post-crisis episodes such as LIBOR and foreign exchange manipulation provide hard evidence that there remains work to be done.” 6 Last year I argued that “the solution [to cultural problems] needs to originate from within the firms, from their leaders.” 7 I view today’s workshop as a progress report on the industry’s efforts. This is an opportunity for us to discuss collectively what is working, what is not, and the next steps that are needed. We should take care, though, not to confuse cause and effect. The banking scandals that followed the financial crisis are evidence that something fundamental is wrong.

One question on the minds of many in the official sector is, “what is the most effective way to promote reform?” Sharing ideas on leading practices, challenges and the opportunities for industry collaboration is a start – but it is not the end. Financial firms need to act on this information, and the official sector should hold institutions accountable for demonstrating sustained, observable progress. Overview of agenda Let me now give a brief overview of today’s agenda. The first panel will present the Group of Thirty’s recent report on banking conduct and culture, which calls for fundamental and  5  William C. Dudley, Ending Too Big to Fail, Remarks at the Global Economic Policy Forum, November 7, 2013. 6  Federal Advisory Council and Board of Governors, Record of Meeting, May 8, 2015. 7  William C. Dudley, Enhancing Financial Stability by Improving Culture in the Financial Services Industry, Remarks at the Workshop on Reforming Culture and Behavior in the Financial Services Industry, October 20, 2014. 8  See, e.g., Mirea Raaijmakers, ed., Supervision of Behavior and Culture: Foundations, Practice & Future Developments, De Nederlandsche Bank (2015). 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  sustained change. As you all know, the Group of Thirty is a forum consisting of senior public officials and private sector bankers. Its purpose is to facilitate non-partisan discussion of issues that threaten global economic stability and economic progress.
8  ‘Payment systems in eleven developed countries’ Feb 1980, BIS UK Payments statistics, published by the Payments Council 10 Under specified conditions: the Bank of England set these out publically in July 2017: ‘Access to UK Payment Schemes for Non-Bank Payment Service Provider’ 9  7  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/speeches  7  The actual amount of cash in circulation is not going down. Indeed, over the last few years, demand for cash if anything has gone up slightly growing from about £ at the end of 2014 to over £ at end 2017. 11  Some of this demand can probably be attributed to the use of cash as a store of value – ‘money under the mattress’ and to the reduced cost of holding it in a low inflation, low interest rate environment. But while demand for cash has increased, there has been some fall in recent years in the value of cash payments. This stayed pretty constant for roughly the first decade of the century, but has fallen by around 10% since then. 12  And there have been even more significant changes in the volume of cash payments. In the latest data, the 13  total number of cash payments fell 16% over two years. It looks likely that last year, for the first time, the  number of card payments overtook cash payments.

1, No. 1, pp. 26–57. Galí, J. and M. Gertler (1999), “Macroeconomic Modelling for Monetary Policy Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 25–45. Hall, P. (2011), “Is There Evidence of a Greenspan Put?,” Swiss National Bank Working Paper, 2011-6. Kim, C.-J. and C. Nelson (1999), “Has the U.S. Economy Become More Stable? A Bayesian Approach Based on a Markov Switching Model of the Business Cycle,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 81, N° 4, pp. 608–616. Miller, M., P. Weller and L. Zhang (2001), “Moral Hazard and the US Stock Market: Analyzing the Greenspan Put,” CSGR Working Paper 83/01, The University of Warwick. Stock, J. and M. Watson (2003), “Has the Business Cycle Changed and Why?,” Macroeconomics Annual 2002, MIT Press. Svensson, L.E.O. (1997), “Inflation Forecast Targeting: Implementing and Monitoring Inflation Targets,” European Economic Review, Vol. 41, pp. 1111–1146. Taylor, John B. (1998), “Monetary Policy and the Long Boom: The Homer Jones Lecture,” Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, November/December, pp. 3–11. BIS central bankers’ speeches  7
As we are aware, the world’s focus and attention has been to usher in an economic order that ensures high economic growth and an advanced level of development. In this endeavour, the widely discussed topics include liberalization, globalization, IT revolution, poverty alleviation, trade co-operation, political inclusion, regionalization, and many other buzz topics. Amongst these topics, “inequality and poverty” has maintained an important position, and it has therefore been discussed for years. Let us then ask ourselves the question: What do we really mean by inequality and poverty? Inequality means the lack of or fair treatment in the sharing of wealth or opportunities between different groups in society; and Poverty is the condition of being extremely poor. What do those who are stricken by poverty and inequality feel? Simply, they suffer the lack of material well being and lack of opportunities to succeed. Such feelings are often the root causes of political, economic and social upheaval, tension and revolution. Mr. Chairman, poverty and inequality are very closely linked. There is also ample empirical evidence to suggest that inequality and poverty seriously affect development. Inequality often leads to poverty while poverty hinders development and prosperity. Addressing inequality issues would undoubtedly have a positive impact on poverty alleviation. We would also probably unanimously agree that alleviating poverty is vital, considering its many economic, social, cultural and even more importantly, the human costs.

The Association of Banks in Singapore, or ABS, is therefore developing a Central Addressing Scheme (or CAS). •  CAS will allow payments to be made through FAST using only a recipient’s mobile number, or NRIC number, or Unique Entity Number. •  The industry is also working to provide a seamless and common user interface for making FAST transfers regardless of the customer’s bank. •  If all goes well, by this time next year, we will no longer need to remember bank account numbers for a majority of our electronic fund transfers. A second key barrier to using FAST is cost. •  SMEs have told us that some banks can charge up to $ for fund transfers using FAST. But they offer free cheque payments every month! •  This is surprising. Our own studies indicate that the marginal cost of e-payments, including FAST funds transfers, should be far lower than that of cheques. •  Cheque processing is a resource intensive operation that is far from costless. •  Banks should not be reluctant to accurately reflect the true marginal cost of their various payment instruments. Acceptance of card payments – unified point-of-sale terminals (UPOS) Debit and credit cards are widely used by Singaporeans but the experience at the acceptance points in our retail outlets and restaurants needs to be enhanced. •  Not all cards can be used everywhere, and we often have to ask merchants if our card of choice is accepted.
In December 1999 fixed rate loans accounted for 34% of term lending compared with just 28% in December 1996. Fixed rate loans provide SMEs with greater certainty of expenditure streams, assisting business planning and enabling businesses to operate in a more certain financial environment. UK small businesses have also increased their use of non-bank forms of finance, such as factoring, leasing and, more recently, equity finance. A recent survey showed that a higher proportion of SMEs used asset based finance in the UK than in any other EU country except Ireland. This trend, to move away from the reliance on short-term overdraft financing that prevailed in the early 1990s, towards a wider variety of types and sources of finance, is to be especially welcomed. It is widely acknowledged, however, that rapidly growing businesses require equity as well as debt finance. The formal venture capital industry often finds it difficult to help at the very small end. That makes it all the more important to develop the informal venture capital market, including the considerable potential contribution of business angels. In addition to their ability to inject smaller amounts than are viable for formal venture capital firms, business angels are also able to provide considerable technical expertise and general management advice. Estimates from Mason and Harrison suggest that business angels already invest £ million per year: true, it’s a long way below the US but it’s a significant contribution and one that should be encouraged.

I have mentioned that finance for small firms should be available and appropriate, but it also needs to be accessible. UK banks and other finance providers have recognised this and have attempted to make themselves more user-friendly to their small business customers. Banks have devoted substantial resources to increasing the awareness and skills of lending managers at the branch level. As a result, many small firms now believe, and perception is important, that banks understand their business better. In recent years, the NatWest/SBRT Quarterly Survey of Small Business in Britain has consistently found that access to finance is not a significant problem for UK small businesses, with just 2% of respondents currently rating it as a key problem facing their business. The Cruickshank Review found no evidence that small firms currently have difficulty obtaining bank finance. The Review, however, did highlight some barriers to the raising of equity, including - again - problems of asymmetric information, the risk level associated with financing new firms with no established track record and the costs for the investor in structuring finance. It also raised issues about conditions in the banking market for SMEs; these have been referred to the Competition Commission. Technology-based small firms Perhaps I could conclude with some words about technology-based small firms. Technology-based firms are vital to the UK economy in maintaining competitive advantage in global markets. Technology-based firms are often themselves entrepreneurial. But just as they have a unique role in the economy; they also have unique financing needs.
Before I turn to our most recent assessment of the stability of the Norwegian financial system, let me give a brief outline of the structure of the financial system. The Norwegian financial system is dominated by banks, with a market share of more than 56 per cent, calculated as the banks’ share of total assets in financial institutions and mutual funds. The banking system is relatively concentrated. The largest bank had a market share of 37 per cent in terms of total assets in the banking sector at the end of 2005, while the largest five had a market share of 61 per cent. Savings banks account for a substantial part of the banking sector. However, most of the savings banks are quite small. To partly compensate for that, some cooperate on a range of products which provides economies of scale while maintaining their independence. During the past decade, activities of foreign-owned banks in Norway have expanded considerably both through take-overs and organic growth. At the end of 2005, they had a market share of over 30 per cent, in terms of total assets. Their lending growth has been higher than for Norwegian-owned banks for several years. The development towards larger cross-border banks makes supervision and crisis management more complicated. In the event of a crisis, central banks, supervisory authorities, political authorities as well as deposit guarantee funds in several countries will have to be involved.

A specific target for monetary policy was thus a necessary supplement to the fiscal rule to ensure reasonable macroeconomic stability. The operational target states that monetary policy in Norway is oriented towards low and stable inflation, with annual consumer price inflation of approximately 2.5 per cent over time. In its conduct of monetary policy, Norges Bank operates a flexible inflation targeting regime, so that weight is given to both variability in inflation and variability in output and employment. 2  BIS Review 106/2006  Current economic situation Since the summer of 2003, there has been a clear upturn in the Norwegian economy. Low domestic interest rates, increased petroleum investment, favourable prices in important export markets, and a strong upturn in the world economy have contributed to solid growth in the Norwegian economy. So far in the upturn, the mainland economy has grown by an average of close to 4 per cent annually. Current information on economic developments indicates that the upswing is continuing. Corporate sector profitability is good. There is strong growth in employment, unemployment has fallen markedly, and household demand continues to rise. Unemployment is now at a historically low level. Seasonally adjusted, registered unemployment stood at 2.3 per cent of the labour force in October. Nevertheless, wage moderation has generally prevailed so far. The opportunities provided by an international labour market may have prompted participants in local and centralised wage negotiations to place greater emphasis on the considerably higher wage level in Norway relative to our trading partners, and potential job vulnerability.