The main basis for these examinations is the appendix to the Inflation Report that I mentioned earlier. One might think that it would be even better if more, and independent, agents took an active part in serious assessment. From time to time, assessments or assessment reports are commissioned. For instance, the National Institute of Economic Research 1 was given the task of producing background and facts prior to the Committee on Finance’s assessment in 2002. Last year the Committee on Finance decided to commission an independent, in-depth assessment of Swedish monetary policy during the period 19952005, that is, the ten-year period during which the inflation target has acted as official anchor for Swedish monetary policy. This assessment is being made by two international experts in this field, and it will, for instance, illustrate whether the inflation target is correctly designed to ensure price stability, to what degree the monetary policy conducted has led to attaining the inflation target during this period and the background and forms for the monetary policy decisions. This is something that I and my colleagues in the Executive Board welcome and I look forward to the analyses and debates this assessment will lead to. Of course, one can regard the general debate as an examination of our activities and as an indicator of how well we explain our monetary policy. However, it is rare that particularly thorough comparisons of, for instance, the forecasts published by the Riksbank and others are made in the debate. The debate thus cannot replace systematic assessments.

The yield curve of federal government bonds, which is used by banks as a benchmark for the interest rates they set for their clients, has significantly increased for maturities of up to three years, while staying almost unchanged in the long end. The rise in short-term yields reflects both our recent decisions and market expectations regarding the future key rate path. Shifts in long-term yields are minor. Among other things, this is an evidence of market participants’ confidence that monetary policy will finally bring inflation back to the target. I would like to reiterate that these are long-term interest rates, rather than our key rate as such (as is often stated), that determine the affordability of credit for companies’ investment purposes and of mortgage loans. As compared to yields on federal government bonds, interest rates on loans and deposits have responded more slowly and rose less significantly. Our today’s decision is aimed at accelerating this process. An increase in interest rates will help restore households’ propensity to save. Growth in retail and corporate lending is close to its highest rates recorded in recent years. Many borrowers seek to take out loans as soon as possible at lower interest rates. We have raised our lending growth forecast for this year. Mortgage lending will continue to expand fast, while slightly decelerating after the amendments to the subsidised mortgage lending programme become effective. Speaking of unsecured consumer lending, we can already observe the first signs of overheating. This lending segment has been growing faster than we forecast in April.