It has also affected banks’ income and cost structures, as they have been able to make profits as a result of advances in technology. That is, banks have been able to specialise in the provision of information and the monitoring of credit exposures, for example in the context of loan securitisation, thus raising the share of non-interest income. On the other hand, banks’ profits have come under pressure in some areas, such as lending to large firms. This resulted from the fact that technological progress has opened these areas to competition from inside the domestic banking sector, from international banks and also from other financial intermediaries such as institutional investors. In point of fact, the development of institutional investors has been facilitated by technological changes reducing the costs of collecting savings, gathering and disseminating public information, and assessing risks. Technological development has also facilitated the rapid development of new financial products. While a large proportion of innovations would not have been possible without the breakthroughs achieved in financial theory, it has been predominantly technological progress that has made the widespread use of these innovations possible. The second factor underlying the structural changes in the financial system and banking sector is the process of financial liberalisation which has been ongoing for some time already. It has allowed an increase in the overall level of competition in financial systems. In the EU, financial liberalisation gained momentum with the Single Market programme.

Such a scenario could prove attractive both for capital exporters (through better returns on excess savings) and capital importers, which may not have the option of isolating themselves from international capital markets anyway. Experience shows, however, that an open international financial system is not inherently stable and, therefore, very dependent on a strong infrastructures and conditions. The move towards a financially open world would, at the very least, have to be supported by robust arrangements on international liquidity provision. Pending ambitious reforms, a lot can still be done to provide investors with stable stores of value. One very promising avenue would be, for countries which have surplus savings, to develop their own internal stores of value by expanding the range of safe and liquid financial assets available to domestic and international investors. By doing so, they would achieve several goals at the same time. They would bring more efficiency in the financing of their own domestic needs. They would provide their own investors with a broader range of choices. They would also eliminate some of the currently existing incentives to export capital in order to protect its value. They would contribute to reduce the “asset shortage” with all its negative consequences, including international imbalances and the financing of asset bubbles. Financial development in many countries would address both the causes of international imbalances and some of the roots of the financial crisis. References: Adrian, T. and H. S. Shin (2008), “Liquidity and Leverage”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report No 328.