Finanstilsynet (the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway), for example, sets limits on the size of a single loan in relation to the collateral provided. Another possible measure is to set minimum requirements for the risk weights banks can use in their internal model-based approach to calculating capital adequacy. 46  As an extraordinary measure, in connection with the establishment of the swap facility, 2- and 3-year fixedrate loans specially designed for small banks were allotted. This was extensively explained in the Storting documents. 47  See also Peter Stella: “Minimizing Monetary Policy”. Paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Bank for International Settlements in June 2009. http://www.bis.org/events/conf100624/stellapaper.pdf  48  The mechanism in known in economic theory, see the Modigliani-Miller theorem. BIS Review 154/2010  15  In other countries the procedures are now being revised to allow central banks to participate when such discretionary measures are implemented. In Norway, Finanstilsynet is highly competent in the oversight of individual institutions. However, Norges Bank has more competence in macroeconomic matters, given its tasks. The central bank also has an informational advantage as we are the bankers’ bank and operate in foreign and domestic markets. The division of responsibility should be based on the advantages specific to each organisation. The Ministry of Finance should define the objective of macroprudential supervision and delegate its use. The Ministry must also assess whether the objective has been achieved. One alternative is to delegate responsibility for implementing discretionary measures against systemic risk to Norges Bank.

19  Hermod Skånland writes about the need to hold someone accountable for the hardships of the 1920s: “The government is usually a good target for criticism, but there is little appeal in firing shots at a government that is no longer in office, and through the 1920s there had been so many governments that no single government stood out as more responsible than others. On the other hand, there had been one central bank governor, who had also been a prominent figure. Nicolai Rygg became the obvious scapegoat, open to attack from both the masses and from historians, without any economists springing to his defence. Thus, the myth became established that the economic difficulties of the 1920s were due to parity policy, and that Nicolai Rygg was responsible for them. From there, it was only a short step to a general scepticism towards monetary policy combined with a more specific distrust of central banks and central bank governors.” Hermod Skånland (1998): “Mytedannelsen om paripolitikken” (Myth-making about parity policy), Aftenposten 30 May. BIS Review 154/2010  5  virtually solely responsible – for a policy that became a crucial deterrent to central bank independence for generations of economists and politicians – myself included.” 20 The postwar period of coordination and regulatory optimism Views on economic policy changed considerably from the end of the 1930s. The Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates against the US dollar was established, with the US dollar pegged to gold.