samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
The Governing Council does not react mechanistically to a single variable - whether this be a forecast, the exchange rate, unit labour costs or fiscal indicators - but rather takes into account the complete picture offered by all available and meaningful leading indicators of future inflation. In this context, the Governing Council analyses the economic reasons behind the projected risks to price stability. The appropriate monetary policy response to a threat to price stability will depend on the nature of the threat. The Governing Council can only understand the nature of the risk if it is presented with a full set of data. From these, it can attempt to identify the nature of the disturbance to price stability. Having identified the threat, an appropriate policy response can be selected and implemented. Internal forecasts of economic activity and inflation in the euro area can also contribute to the success of an appropriately forward-looking monetary policy. However, the Eurosystem should not be judged on, or held accountable for, the accuracy of its internal forecasts. Thus, publication of the forecasts cannot contribute to accountability. Rather, its performance in maintaining price stability in the medium term should be used by the public to judge the success of the Eurosystem. Allow me to say a few words on certain proposals made in the recent public debate, which may be deemed to suggest that the focus of monetary policy should be shifted towards objectives other than price stability.

At the same time, it gives due consideration to the unique situation which will prevail in the early years of Monetary Union. BIS Review 9/1999  –3–  The stability-oriented monetary policy strategy rests on two “pillars”. The first pillar is a prominent role for money. This is deemed to be important on account of the essentially monetary origins of inflation over the longer term. The second pillar of the monetary policy strategy is a broadly based assessment of the outlook for price developments and the risks to price stability in the euro area as a whole. The Governing Council recognises that it is important, in parallel with the assessment of monetary growth, to look at a wide range of financial and other economic indicators, including economic forecasts. This systematic analysis of all other relevant information about economic and financial conditions will ensure that the Governing Council is as well-informed as possible when taking monetary policy decisions. Monetary developments can reveal useful information about future price developments and thereby offer an important compass for the conduct of monetary policy. Therefore, it is absolutely essential for any central bank entrusted with the task of keeping prices stable to analyse and monitor the developments of monetary aggregates closely. Consequently, the Governing Council of the ECB has announced a quantitative reference value for broad monetary growth as measured by M3, which should, under normal circumstances, give some indication of future inflationary pressure.
The reform measures in the Payment Card Reform Framework (PCRF) implemented since 2015 have enhanced transparency and competition, bringing about a continued decline in the average merchant discount rates (or MDR). Merchants have benefited from lower cost of accepting card payments, with an estimated cost savings of about RM422.4 million from 2015 to September this year. Consequently, the annual growth of POS terminals has more than doubled from about 6.8% for the period between 2011 and 2014, to 17% for the period between 2015 and 2017. Key trends shaping our payment landscape today Since the Payment Forum in 2015, many developments have taken place in the payment landscape both domestically and internationally. Firstly, society has become increasingly digital and connected, driven by the Internet and mobile revolution. For a population of 32.1 million in Malaysia, there are 42.8 million mobile phone subscriptions while smartphone penetration stands at 70% and is increasing. Secondly, payment technology has become more advanced, scalable and increasingly low-cost. For instance, innovations in the area of merchant acceptance has lowered the cost for merchants to embrace electronic payments through the use of Quick Response (QR) codes. Likewise, the advancements in biometric and tokenisation technologies and the shift towards greater publication of Application Programming Interfaces have enhanced the ability of payment service providers to develop new use cases and deliver superior customer experience. Thirdly, the market players in our payment landscape have become more abundant, diverse and increasingly non-traditional.

To drive the migration to e-payments during the transition period, the Instant Transfer fee of 50 sen would be waived for transactions up to RM5,000 per transaction made by individuals and SMEs effective 1 July 2018. The e-Payment Incentive Fund (ePIF) will be enlarged with an additional contribution of RM198 million from financial institutions. The funds will be used to assist account holders to migrate efficiently to e-payments. Individuals and businesses are advised to take advantage of these incentives and engage their respective financial institutions. In line with this year’s theme of ‘Mobile Payment: The Next Wave’, we have invited a total of 18 exhibitors comprising both banks and non-banks to showcase their new and innovative payment solutions. Do take the opportunity to visit the booths to gain further insights on how the solutions would benefit your business and cater to your payment needs. With this, I wish you a productive forum ahead. Thank you. 4/4  BIS central bankers' speeches
Durmuş Yılmaz: Global crises and economic governance Speech by Mr Durmuş Yılmaz, Governor of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, at the conference on “Global crises and economic governance”, İnönü University, Malatya, 15 April 2010. *  *  *  Distinguished Rector, Distinguished Academicians and Esteemed Guests, First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the organization of this conference, primarily Prof. Cemil Çelik, the Rector of İnönü University and distinguished faculty members of the university. I take great pleasure in participating in such an event with you. I would like to start my speech with a brief evaluation of the global financial crisis. Later on, I will share with you my observations related to developments in the global economy and the Turkish economy. After presenting a brief overview of the monetary policy implemented and the measures taken by the Central Bank during the crisis, I would like to close my speech with the monetary policy exit strategy, which we announced to the public yesterday. As you know, problems that emerged in the US subprime mortgage market in the second half of 2007 spread the whole world to reach threatening levels for both financial and economic stability. We can say that the reaction of market players and the public has gone through four subsequent stages since the eruption of the crisis. These stages can be summarized as those of Denial, Disappointment, Panic and Hope.

With regard to money market conditions, the ECB will remain particularly attentive to developments which may have implications for the stance of monetary policy and is ready to consider all available instruments. Further reducing fragmentation of euro area credit markets and improving confidence in the euro area banking sector are essential to ensure an adequate transmission of monetary policy to the financing conditions in the euro area countries and to further repair the credit channel. Financial stability risks have diminished in the euro area. Measures taken by European and national authorities have helped to ease the severe market stress that earlier weighed on sovereigns and banks. The euro area banking sector has made progress in balance sheet repair by improving its regulatory capital ratios, by reducing its leverage since  BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  the outbreak of the financial crisis and by shifting its funding structure towards more stable funding sources. Net inflows of capital from abroad as well as a reduction in excess liquidity conditions continue to be observed, reflecting an improvement in financial market confidence. Repayments of funds taken up in the context of the ECB’s three-year longerterm refinancing operations conducted in December 2011 and February 2012 have resulted in a decline in the size of the Eurosystem’s balance sheet since end-August 2012. We will remain attentive to all developments that influence an adequate transmission of monetary policy to the financing conditions in euro area countries.
The BoE’s Asset Purchase Facility, through which its Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) purchased £ billion of longer-term assets between 2009 and 2012, was quite comparable in purpose and design to the Fed’s LSAP programs. Moreover, since March 2013, the BoE has reinvested the cash flows associated with maturing gilts in the facility in order to maintain the stock of securities at a steady level. In its February 2014 Inflation Report, the MPC provided guidance on its expected normalization framework, laying out an approach in which its Bank Rate – the deposit rate for central bank reserves in the U.K. – is the active marginal instrument for monetary policy while portfolio-related tools, including reinvestments and asset sales, receive less emphasis. Specifically, the MPC suggested that it intends to maintain its stock of purchased assets, including reinvesting the cash flows associated with maturing securities, at least until it raises its target short-term interest rate from its current level. Meanwhile, the BoJ is still purchasing assets under QQE, which it launched in April 2013. With a goal of increasing its Japanese government bond (JGB) holdings by ¥ trillion per year, it has not yet initiated a discussion of eventual normalization. When that time comes, however, the BoJ will be holding a large portfolio of longer-term JGBs. The BoJ’s balance sheet will therefore look markedly different than it did when the QEP ended in 2006, at which time the BoJ just allowed short-term funds-supplying operations to roll off.

3 The Black-white unemployment gap, which had reached historical lows in 2019, widened considerably during the spring and summer, undoing much of the progress of the past decade. While the gap has narrowed some since, closing this gap further will be an important part of a full recovery. Black-owned businesses have also suffered disproportionately.4 A report released by the New York Fed in August found that Black-owned businesses have been almost twice as likely to shutter during COVID-19 as white-owned firms.5 A key area of our focus is to better understand what contributes to economic inequities and to finding solutions.6 Through our economic research and outreach efforts, we are working to understand how racial disparities play out in the labor market, and what can be done to change these outcomes. Now I’ll turn to inflation, the other half of our dual mandate. Although we have seen swings in some prices from the effects of COVID, overall the inflation rate has been running below our 2 percent goal. With our economy and the global economy still far below full strength, I expect underlying inflationary pressures to remain subdued for some time. An encouraging sign is that measures of longer-run inflation expectations have retraced earlier declines as the economic outlook has brightened and are now at levels seen a few years ago. As the economy fully heals and reaches maximum employment over the next few years, I expect inflation will sustainably move to levels consistent with our 2 percent longer-run goal.
These longer-term money market rates are important to U.S. domestic activity to be sure, but they are also of significance abroad, especially in countries with highly trade-oriented economies. In this regard, we have seen continued growth in recent years in the stock of loans linked to U.S.-dollar LIBOR made to non-U.S. firms. As shown in Figure 14, the Desk estimates that U.S.-dollar cross-border bank loans to non-U.S. residents that could be directly or indirectly impacted by U.S.-dollar LIBOR—the sum of the three columns in the panel—total about $ trillion, a significant portion of which is in developing economies. This reflects both the deep,  10  liquid, and global nature of U.S. financial markets, as well as the dollar’s role as a reserve currency and the primary currency used for international trade. My assessment is that the increased supply of Treasury bills and shorter-term Treasury coupon securities has played an important role in putting upward pressure on these rates at times. I think there is also evidence that other policy drivers have played an important role. For example, the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provides for “deemed repatriation” of corporate profits that had not yet been subjected to taxation in the United States. It appears that some corporations that previously had significant untaxed earnings—and that previously held large stocks of cash on their balance sheets—have begun to alter their capital structures, either by distributing cash held on balance sheet as dividends or by investing it in other assets.

Øystein Olsen: Management of the Government Pension Fund Global Introductory statement by Mr Øystein Olsen, Governor of Norges Bank (Central Bank of Norway), at the hearing before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of the Storting, Oslo, 3 May 2021. * * * Please note that the text below may differ from the actual address. I would like to thank the Committee for the invitation to speak on the Bank’s management of the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). Norges Bank manages the GPFG with the objective of achieving the highest possible return over time within the limits of the investment mandate defined by the Ministry of Finance. The GPFG is to be managed within an adequate control and risk management framework and in a responsible and efficient manner with a high degree of transparency. The GPFG is managed to track the benchmark index fairly closely, ie the return largely tracks the return on the benchmark index. The benchmark index is defined by the Ministry of Finance and endorsed by the Storting. However, even though Norges Bank closely tracks the GPFG’s benchmark index, many large and small choices have to be made every day. These choices are based on a clear mandate from the authorities and a well thought-out investment strategy. The year 2020 was a special year for us all, including the GPFG. As for many others, working conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic have been demanding.
Research done by the Basel Committee shows that banks that failed or required government capital injections during the crisis had significantly lower levels of common equity than those banks that did not. MAS will enhance the quality of regulatory capital in our banks in the following ways: (i)  There will be an explicit Common Equity Tier 1 capital adequacy requirement, to be set at 6.5%. This will be fully phased in by 1 Jan 2015. (ii)  The Tier 1 capital adequacy requirement will be increased from 6% to 8%, to be phased in over the same period. The Total capital adequacy requirement will remain unchanged at 10%. (iii)  In addition to these minimum requirements, there will be a capital conservation buffer3, set at 2.5%, to be met with Common Equity Tier 1. This will be phased in between 1 Jan 2016 and 1 Jan 2019. (iv)  The new eligibility criteria for regulatory capital will also be phased in between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2018. With these changes, locally-incorporated banks will be required to meet capital requirements that are higher than the minimum levels in Basel III. The requirements will apply at both the bank-group and bank-solo levels. Taking into account the capital conservation buffer, locally-  3  The capital conservation buffer is a Basel III requirement for banks to maintain a capital buffer that can be used to absorb losses during periods of stress.

  Second, resolution frameworks have to be established, to ensure that all banks, however complex or large, can be resolved in an efficient and safe manner. Such frameworks may involve the simplification of firm structures and the design of “bailin” mechanisms, where creditors are forced to absorb losses when a bank is close to failure2.   Third, G-SIFIs will face more intensive supervisory oversight, guided by an enhanced set of core principles for effective banking supervision. Singapore’s regulatory approach Many jurisdictions are now considering their responses to the FSB and Basel Committee recommendations. MAS’ regulatory approach is guided by three principles: (i)  First, we must maintain the high standards of financial regulation which have become associated with Singapore. Maintaining high regulatory standards is completely compatible with fostering a vibrant financial sector. Being a wellregulated, trusted and stable financial centre is a source of advantage for Singapore. It provides confidence for banks to operate in Singapore and for customers to transact with banks here. 2  “Bail-in” is the process where bank debt in failing firms is forcibly converted into equity. This is intended to make it possible to rapidly recapitalise a bank such that it can continue in business without an equity injection from taxpayers. 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  (ii)  Second, our rules must be risk-appropriate. International standards must sometimes be enhanced to be appropriate for Singapore’s context. They must be targeted to address well-defined risks or concerns that could have systemic implications.
That said, the trend going forward is less favourable, calling for mobilisation  2.1  Three factors are currently raising concerns  Despite the quality of this snapshot for 2018, the outlook – the medium/long-term trend – calls for vigilance and mobilisation. Three factors are effectively weighing on the profitability of both French and European banks. The first two mainly concern retail banking: continuing low interest rates and digitalisation. The maintenance of a low interest rate environment is completely justified and necessary in light of the economic situation in the euro area. However, it is also squeezing net interest margins for retail banks, which finance themselves with deposits and not at variable rates in the market, as well as reducing returns on insurers’ investments. In the case of banks in particular, the issue should certainly not be ignored, but we also need to avoid blowing it out of proportion by claiming it is the only factor weighing on euro area bank profits. On April 10 the Governing Council explicitly said: “In the context of our regular assessment, we will also consider whether the preservation of the favourable implications of negative interest rates for the economy requires the mitigation of their possible side effects, if any, on bank intermediation.”ii Let’s allow time for this work to be done and for the necessary decision to be taken.

The market capitalization of digital assets reached $ trillion in November 2021.1 The rapid growth of digital assets presents opportunities to both reinforce the role of central banks and regulatory bodies in stewardship of the global financial system and be positioned at the technological frontier. However, this growth is not without risks: in May, the crash of Terra, an unbacked algorithmic stablecoin, and the subsequent wave of insolvencies, wiped out over $ billion of investor and consumer funds.2,3 Currently, the total cryptoasset market capitalization rests around $ trillion, a 66 percent decline from its November 2021 peak. When I consider the ways in which digital assets impact the mission of the Federal Reserve, I see several channels – including monetary policy and the provision of an elastic currency, the preservation of financial stability, and the smooth operation of the payments system. Regarding monetary policy and currency, in January, the Federal Reserve released a discussion paper that considers a future where digital assets may play a large role in our financial system, and in particular, establishes some broad principles and outlines some of the pros and cons of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC.4 While at present the Federal Reserve has neither issued a CBDC nor plans to do so imminently, ongoing research improves our understanding of the risks and opportunities inherent to a CBDC. Central bank money – a liability of the Federal Reserve – is the bedrock of the U.S. financial system.
7  Recent research indicates that a discount rate of 4 per cent may be somewhat high for investments with a very long horizon, see Kåre P. Hagen and Karl R. Pedersen’s newspaper article “Lønnsom infrastruktur (Profitable infrastructure)” in Dagens Næringsliv, 3 June 2010. 4  BIS Review 78/2010  Let me conclude. The adventures of Askeladden are often tales of success. Askeladden embraces every challenge and always comes out ahead. It is too early to draw conclusions as to how successful Norway has been in managing its oil wealth. In ten years or so, when petroleum production falls markedly and the oil fund is no longer increasing in size, the cost level in Norway will have to be reduced relative to other countries. This process may be painful, even though Norway has its own currency and a floating exchange rate. Our welfare state may also have become too large and the adjustment required here may also prove to be very demanding. Nonetheless, there are aspects of our oil wealth management that have served us well. Thank you for your attention. BIS Review 78/2010  5  6  BIS Review 78/2010  BIS Review 78/2010  7

In periods of high or rapidly rising unemployment, the use of petroleum revenue can be increased, and, inversely, fiscal retrenchment is needed during periods of high economic activity and resource scarcity. 2 It now appears that capacity utilisation in the Norwegian economy may return to a normal level in one and a half to two years – and with a somewhat lower unemployment rate than today. A different path can be met with an interest rate response. Our understanding of the fiscal rule is that the government budget for 2012 or at the latest for 2013 should aim at bringing down petroleum revenue spending to 4 per cent of the capital in the Pension Fund. The scale of petroleum revenue spending – growth in public expenditure – is important for developments in competitiveness, also referred to as the real krone exchange rate, in the long term. But, in the short term, the krone exchange rate can vary widely, and it depreciated in autumn 2008 when capital sought safe havens. This helped Norwegian manufacturing in the first phase of the downturn. Since then, the krone has appreciated considerably. In 2009 and 2010, government petroleum revenue spending shows a substantial increase and foreign investment via the Pension Fund a decrease. This leads to higher commercial demand for the Norwegian krone which directly contributes to its appreciation.