For example, if national central counterparty is not a viable and efficient model for a small economy, then the cost of hedging would increase with higher risk weight under Basel III. Meanwhile, if derivatives are cleared overseas, through regional or global central counterparties, we need to consider implication for cross-border supervisory coordination, financial stability, and development of local financial market and competition. On a related issue of Dodd-Frank Act, restriction on proprietary trading of US bank could impact the liquidity of US dollar markets abroad, as well as liquidity of foreign government bond markets which are the back-bone of their monetary policy operation. Another key issue going forward is the balance of authority between Home and Host regulators. There are concerns about the proposal of Financial Stability Board on cross-border resolution of Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions, or G-SIFIs. The concern is that some Host regulators may not be included by the Home regulator in the Crisis Management Group or resolution planning, even if the institution is systemically important in their jurisdictions. We are glad to see the FSB taking initiatives to identify potential problems. Now it is the time to work together on solutions in an inclusive manner. This is because the inclusiveness of the process assures acceptability and commitment, and reduces the uncertainty from unilateral action of individual countries. These international regulatory standards have no direct international enforcement power. Before the global crisis, the governance is based on discipline which came from the market discipline, but now market discipline has diminished.

It includes intensified efforts by financial regulators particularly – at the national level but also working collectively through the new Financial Stability Forum, the Basle Committee and IOSCO for example – to improve prudential standards of financial behaviour. And it includes the provision of official financial support to countries that are pursuing sound policies – in parallel with continuing private finance, on which the risks would have been reduced both through the parallel official finance itself and through official international endorsement of the borrowing country’ s policies. In this context I think we in  5  BIS Review 54/1999  the official sector may have placed too much emphasis in international discussions on “bailing in” the private sector – which can sound ominous, even threatening – where what we really need is recognition of our mutual interest in public-private sector partnership. It is a heavy and complex agenda which is being very actively pursued in many different international groupings, involving both the industrial and emerging countries, across a broad front. We are I believe steadily moving towards consensus or many of the issues and this is “leading the way towards sustainable economic growth” into the next millennium. In the meantime we are collectively having to manage the consequences of the recent global financial disturbances and their economic after-effects. Happily we have recently been making progress on that too, particularly in many of the emerging countries here in Asia. BIS Review 54/1999  6