samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
One can argue that exchange rate certainty is not an essential complement to the European single market - any more than exchange rate fixity is essential to achieving benefits from free trade more generally. But there is no doubt that intra-European exchange rate certainty would - through the increased competition resulting from greater transparency of prices and lower transactions costs, through broader and deeper capital markets, and through the associated improvement in economic resource allocation - enhance the benefits derived from the single market. Whether or not it is essential, therefore, most people would, I think, agree that, other things equal, exchange rate certainty would be very desirable in this context. The potential disadvantage of monetary union can equally be simply stated, though it is perhaps more difficult to assess. Essentially there is a risk that the single monetary policy - the single, one-size-fits-all, short-term interest rate - within the euro area, which is a necessary corollary of the single currency, will not in the event prove to be appropriate to the domestic needs of each of the euro-member countries. There is no doubt that such risk exists. It may result from cyclical divergence where for example would we be in the UK now, confronted as we are with relatively strong domestic demand growth, if we were obliged to have German- level interest rates? Or where would Germany and France be as they struggle to sustain domestic demand if they were constrained to have interest rates at the UK level?

Clearly regulation of financial market participants is not the only means of ensuring such stability: a stable macroeconomic environment, which is what our monetary policy objective is about, is a major factor in avoiding financial system dislocations, while the robustness of the market infrastructure, such as payment and settlement systems, is also crucial. The design of the regulatory framework also has implications for the third objective, the effectiveness of UK financial services. There is a widespread view that greater stability can only be bought at the cost of reduced competition, meaning that these two objectives have to be weighed up against each other and trade-offs made. I would suggest an alternative point of view, which is that these two objectives are often fundamentally aligned. An effective financial system is one in which funds flow to  1  BIS Review 132/1999  the most productive projects, productivity being measured on the basis of long-term rewards and after an appropriate discount for risk. But this is also a stable financial system. Put another way, short-term stability of a sort can be bought through over-regulation or protectionism. But in the longer term, the likely result is an unprofitable industry focused on regulatory arbitrage rather than its prime business, with little instinct or incentive for assessing risks and rewards. It is noteworthy that there are numerous examples of financial systems in emerging markets which have exhibited both fragility and inefficiency.
It was conducted by FinMark Trust of South Africa. BIS Review 99/2008  3  been undertaken, namely, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa at 5%, 1% and 8%, respectively. An important point to note for policymakers is the fact that the majority of those who had no access to financial services are the rural poor, with women more disadvantaged than men. Importantly, these are the very areas and categories of people for whom support has been prioritized in the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) and under the Citizens Empowerment Act (2006). The Government, working with the private sector and other key stakeholders, thus already has platform from which to address these challenges. During the first half of 2007, the Supply Side Study was undertaken as a follow up to the FinScope™2005 demand side survey. The Study revealed opportunities as well as challenges in addressing access to financial services and financial sector development in general. First, macroeconomic policy and financial sector regulation were no longer viewed as a problem, following the downward trend in inflation to single digits in 2006, the consolidation of the Government’s fiscal position, strong economic growth. Second, the enabling environment to facilitate the expansion in access to credit, i.e. developments in the payment system and the greater sharing of information in the financial markets through credit bureaux is also not yet a binding constraint.

With increased funding, particularly through foreign direct investment, institutions which are involved in medium- to long-term financing, are expected to access relatively cheaper credit and increased access to finance. With an increase in access particularly to rural areas, the number of excluded people is likely to decline from the levels of 66% recorded in 2005. 6.0  Conclusion  Recent developments in the financial sector offer some encouragement that working together, the Government, the BoZ, and the financial service providers can extend the range and reach of financial services that are available to both corporate and individual clients. Still a lot remains to be done to extend financial services to the majority of our people and foster ongoing sustainability of our financial institutions. In this regard, there are a number of challenges that lie ahead including the following: i. Developments in the external sector are a constant threat to macroeconomic stability in general and implementation of effective monetary policy, in particular. In this regard, maintaining single digit inflation, given the rising fuel and food prices will be quite challenging and therefore requires concerted efforts of all key stakeholders. ii. Strengthening and staying the course with regard to the recently achieved fiscal prudence as well as forging relatively stronger coordination between fiscal and monetary policies is an equally challenging task in the period ahead. iii.
Stefan Ingves, Governor of Sveriges Riksbank, in his capacity as Chairman of the ESRB Advisory Technical Committee First ESRB Annual Conference 22-23 September 2016 Keynote Address “It takes all sorts…” - macroprudential oversight in the EU “It takes all sorts to make a world” is a common expression when confronted with something odd, but at the same time recognizing that diversity is essential. I think it also “takes all sorts”, or at least plenty of different sorts, to make a functional macroprudential body. Especially one at an international level like our host – the European Systemic Risk Board, the ESRB. The ESRB’s macroprudential mandate is mirrored by its broad composition, bringing together central bankers and financial supervisors; national and EU-wide perspectives; sectoral experts and academics. Certainly we may look at various issues differently. We may indeed find each other’s perspectives odd at times. But that is also the point. With the right set-up, differences in perspectives and expertise enrich our assessments and become a strength. And the ESRB uses that strength to handle its rather daunting task of overseeing the EU financial system as a whole. So let me elaborate a little on what the ESRB has achieved so far and why I think the EU needs a strong ESRB with a broad membership as we move forward. Designed for oversight of a diverse, interconnected financial system It is quite an impressive journey that the ESRB has undertaken since its launch in 2011.

Mojmír Hampl: Central banks, digital currencies and monetary policy in times of elastic money Speech by Mr Mojmír Hampl, Vice Governor of the Czech National Bank, at the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) Roundtable, London, 11 July 2017. * * * Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon. Before I start in earnest, let me thank the OMFIF for the kind invitation to this event, which allows me to speak in front of such a distinguished audience. It is an utmost pleasure for me to be here. The topics of today’s session are threefold: cryptocurrencies, central bank digital currencies and monetary policy with elastic money. I’ll try to touch upon all of these topics and bind them together, yet I realise the task is challenging. Let me begin with a story from Prague. In our capital city we have a strong community of supporters and users of cryptocurrencies. Among libertarians, some of them my ex-colleagues or friends from the University of Economics in Prague, bitcoin is seen as a real, fully fledged alternative to the current monetary order. Indeed, I could show you a place in Prague where one can only pay in bitcoin. By the way, I appreciate the name chosen for the most popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin. In the era when the foundations of the monetary system were based on precious metals, people sometimes “bit the coins” to check whether or not they were counterfeit.
The GPFG is nearing the peak The decline in oil revenues ahead gives rise to new challenges for the Norwegian economy. But we must not forget that we have a good starting point. During a period of high oil prices, we have transformed oil in the ground into financial wealth. We have avoided making public sector budgets dependent on volatile income. The GPFG and the fiscal rule have been the main elements of the policy pursued. Let me recall the background for the fiscal rule. The fiscal rule emerged from the economic discussion around the turn of the millennium. During the time before the rule was established in 2001, inflows into the GPFG increased sharply thanks to high oil prices and there were expectations of considerable future  BIS central bankers’ speeches  7  revenues. It was demanding to restrain spending, while it was clear that future pension obligations would be substantial. The fiscal rule provided us with a long-term strategy for spending petroleum revenues. Even though most of the income was to be saved, the rule provided for increased spending of petroleum wealth. The phasing-in of petroleum revenues was to be adapted to the economic cycle and be in line with the expected real return over time. The capital was to be preserved so that it would also benefit future generations. Fiscal policy was not set on autopilot. The rule was simple, but flexible. This has been one of its strong points.

Increased public spending may push up the cost of labour and stem the flow of labour to other exposed industries. When the economy turns down, with a pronounced rise in unemployment, fiscal policy can help support economic activity. But the Norwegian economy is still far from being in a crisis situation. Unemployment remains low. The international economic picture is mixed Six years have now passed since the global economy was severely hit by the financial crisis. The Norwegian economy quickly rebounded, supported by robust public finances and strong growth in the petroleum sector. Other advanced economies have experienced a more difficult time (see Chart 9). Excessive debt, in both the private and public sector, has led to weak activity and high unemployment in many of those countries. Global growth can be expected to pick up gradually over the coming years. The fall in oil prices is a positive factor for the world economy. But the picture is mixed. In the US, the recovery is on a firm footing. An expansionary monetary policy appears to be having the intended effect and both consumption and investment have turned up again. Unemployment has come down. The federal budget deficit has been substantially reduced partly thanks to higher economic activity. Developments in the UK and Sweden, two of Norway’s major export markets, have also been positive, although inflation remains a challenge. The situation in the euro area appears to be more problematic. A large portion of the workforce is idle alongside production equipment. Inflation is worryingly low.
Ravi Menon: Budget carefully, borrow responsibly, invest wisely Remarks by Mr Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the Launch of the Tamil Financial Literacy Guide, Singapore, 16 November 2014. *  *  *  Mr Kumaran Barathan, CEO of SINDA Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Value of patience and prudence In the 1960s and 1970s, a psychology professor at Stanford University in the US conducted a study on children’s behaviour.   He offered each child a choice: get a marshmallow immediately or, if they waited a little longer, get two marshmallows.   Some children did not want to wait, or perhaps they had doubts about the professor keeping his word. So, they chose to have their sweet there and then.   Others were more patient and received two marshmallows, as promised. Fast forward 20 years. Follow-up studies were done on the same group of children.   Those children who had chosen to delay getting their marshmallow generally performed better in their lives.   They achieved better test results in school, for example.   And yes, they kept themselves in better shape too! The results have intrigued psychologists, social scientists, and educators ever since. Many more studies are being conducted and more elaborate theories are being proposed to explain them. But maybe our forefathers knew the answer all along: the value of patience and prudence; in other words, delay rewards today so that we can reap greater rewards tomorrow.

This builds on the foundations of a new responsible global financial system that are being put in place. The combination of robust international standards and greater trust as a consequence of transparent implementation and intensive supervisory cooperation can create a system of enhanced equivalence and mutual deference. Such an approach would allow capital to move more freely, efficiently and sustainably between jurisdictions. With robust standards consistently applied, wholesale financial services could be brought more fully into trade agreements, keeping the global financial system open and resilient, and supporting greater trade, investment and innovation. This high road leads to more jobs, higher sustainable growth, and better risk management across the G20. Working Together to Take Full Advantage The high road can be followed if my third priority – taking full advantage of the progress made – is pursued. In this regard, it is important not just to recognise progress made but how it has been made. The FSB has succeeded by emphasising collaboration, consensus and openness. Its strength lies in its members who bring authority, expertise and shared objectives. The FSB is not a treaty-based organisation, so its standards do not have direct force in any member jurisdiction. Decisions are ultimately matters for national authorities who – acting out of enlightened selfinterest and in recognition of the benefits of a resilient and open global financial system – guide and discipline the reform process.
A secure, fast, and reliable payment and settlement system is a key element in a modern economy. Through its Payment System Development Committee, the Federal Reserve seeks to address emerging payments-related issues. The basic aim of this committee is to work with the private sector to advance the use of electronic payments throughout the US economy. In taking the step to T+1, the US securities industry will be assuming an important leadership role in the evolution of securities settlement systems around the world. I should also note that implementation of a shorter settlement cycle is consistent with the position taken by the International Securities Services Association (ISSA), the securities industry’s own review body. In a set of recommendations this association released earlier this year and discussed at a session of the Sibos conference last month, ISSA explicitly calls for adoption of a T+1 settlement cycle in its member countries. I would like to make clear that the Federal Reserve supports the SIA’s effort to adopt the T+1 settlement cycle. Faster, more reliable, and more cost-efficient processing of securities transactions is desirable for several reasons. First, high or excessive transaction fees may serve to distort or hinder financial activity. Inefficient trading and settlement arrangements used by the secondary market for securities could discourage the use of securities relative to other financial instruments. The choice of instrument should be based on the needs of borrowers and investors. Second, inefficient settlement arrangements may interfere with active risk management.

Jamie B Stewart, Jr: Developments in the US payment and settlement system and the Federal Reserve’s interest in the securities settlement system  Remarks by Jamie B. Stewart, Jr, First Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, before the Securities Industry Association T+1 Foundation Conference held in New York on 24 October 2000. *  *  *  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to join you at the SIA’s T+1 Foundation Conference. This conference provides an excellent opportunity to review plans that have been announced for converting to a T+1 settlement cycle for securities transactions. Implementation of T+1 would represent a significant change in the payment and settlement environment. Before commenting on this arrangement, however, I would like to stand back for a few moments and focus on some of the plans under way to improve the functioning of the payment and settlement system in the United States. In addition, I would also like to discuss briefly the Federal Reserve’s interest in the securities settlement system. There can be no doubt that a sound and effective payment and settlement system is critical to ongoing confidence in the US financial markets and to the continued health and competitiveness of the US financial sector. In an environment of rapid technological change and rising trading volumes such as we face today, it is essential to make certain that the integrity of the payment and settlement system remains intact.
Openness and integration – the new finance and new economy in a global context Speech given by Dave Ramsden, Deputy Governor for Markets & Banking  Bund Summit, Shanghai 27 October 2019  With thanks to Cormac Sullivan for his assistance in preparing these remarks and to Ashley Collins, Tom Mutton, Niamh Reynolds and Tom Smith for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/speeches  Intro  It is my great privilege to address you today. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the China Finance 40 Forum, Huangpu District Government and the Shanghai Finance Institute for the opportunity to address this esteemed summit. I am here speaking on behalf of the Bank of England, the UK’s central bank, where I am the Deputy Governor with responsibility for our financial markets and banking policy and operations, a key element of which is fintech. China and the UK are both leading global centres of financial innovation. We share economies where commerce is rapidly becoming digital and financial systems are evolving in response. We share populations that are increasingly open to new finance providers and new financial products. We also share a common goal of ensuring regulators manage and regulate appropriately, to ensure the financial system remains sound, both domestically and globally. The UK financial sector is a national asset and a global public good. Our strong partnership with our Chinese colleagues is at the heart of that.

I am delighted to be here with colleagues from leading British investment banks and the London Stock Exchange: examples of UK financial institutions supporting the needs of global clients and delivering the type of open financial flows the global economy needs. Internationally the UK books more international banking business than anywhere else and over 40% of global foreign exchange and interest rate derivative business. We are also home to the second largest global asset management and fourth largest insurance centre. At the Bank of England, we want to support the financial sector to realise the full promise of new technology, so it is deployed safely and for the benefit of our people. We see our role as providing robust but dynamic regulation that is appropriate for emerging innovations. In June, we published a series of commitments setting out how the Bank could support the economy and the financial system of the future.1 We know that all of these action areas will benefit from collaboration with international partners and learning from international best practice. Today, I want to use this opportunity to explain what steps the Bank of England has taken in its approach to Fintech, and share a few lessons that we have learnt along the way. These lessons touch on the themes of openness and integration we have been discussing.
These calculations indicate that the bond purchases and other unconventional monetary policy in recent years have reduced the government’s borrowing costs quite considerably, compared to a monetary policy that had not kept interest rates down and avoided excessively low inflation in the same way. But the calculations should be taken with a large pinch of salt as they take a very narrow perspective on government finances. They ignore, for example, the fact that the government has other assets and liabilities, as well as other commitments, that are also affected by the development of nominal and real interest rates. The calculations also ignore the fact that bond purchases also stimulate GDP growth and employment in the short term and that by strengthening confidence in the inflation target, also contribute to healthy, long -term growth. This benefits Swedish households and strengthens public finances by boosting tax revenues and reducing expenditure. The Riksbank’s finances are strong but sensitive to interest rate changes, and dividends will be lower Concern has sometimes been expressed over the fact that bond purchases are expensive and lead to losses for the Riksbank. 19 This concern is hardly unwarranted, even though it is not certain that the purchases actually do lead to losses. The Riksbank’s balance sheet, profit and equity are now being affected more by interest rate adjustments than before purchases began. Dividends will therefore fluctuate considerably more year on year in the future than they have done in recent decades.

SPEECH DATE:  9 November 2016  SPEAKER:  Martin Flodén  VENUE:  West Sweden Chamber of Commerce, Göteborg  SVER IG ES R IK SB AN K SE-103 37 Stockholm (Brunkebergst org 11) Tel +46 8 787 00 00 Fax +46 8 21 05 31 registratorn @ riks ban k.se www.riksb ank.s e  The Riksbank’s bond purchases affect government finances Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, the Riksbank could make profits without taking any actual risks. The assets on our balance sheet mainly consisted of foreign debt securities while the main liability items were outstanding banknotes and coins and our equity. The assets generated a reliable return, although their value fluctuated with foreign exchange rates, while the liabilities were interest-free. The Riksbank could therefore easily fund the bank’s operations as well as distribute a surplus to the government. But the current picture of the Riksbank’s financial position and risks is entirely different, something that, in part, can be illustrated by how the balance sheet has grown and changed in nature (see Chart 1). One important change is that the decline in the use of cash and the low interest rates have impaired our earning capacity, something which my colleague Kerstin af Jochnick has previously highlighted. 1 Another important change is that the Riksbank has purchased large volumes of Swedish government bonds since the beginning of 2015. These purchases have increased the risks on our balance sheet and made our profits and dividends more sensitive to interest rate changes.