samchain/econo-pairs-v1 huggingface dataset:
Another method would be to lower the loan-to-value ratio of each property. Both of these possibilities will be open to the banks themselves when they consider that there exists due cause. But they are also measures that Finansinspektionen can prescribe if it is deemed that developments are beginning to be cause for concern. In its recently-published risk report, Finansinspektionen discussed these possibilities. We at the Riksbank will make an announcement when we feel that a serious imbalance risks accumulating. As regards the housing market, I do not believe that the greatest risk is a matter of either monetary policy or financial stability. The greatest risk is that more and more households forget that interest rates will be back at normal levels quite soon, which will entail mortgage interest expenditure of possibly three to four times current levels for those with variable interest rates. And most households in Sweden have variable interest rates. We occasionally hear from analysts or the press that the Riksbank is not making it sufficiently clear that interest rates will eventually rise. So let me repeat this once again in clear language, just to be on the safe side. When the economic upswing gathers speed – and the recovery has already started – interest rates and, accordingly, households’ loan costs will rise very rapidly. This should be considered very carefully by those borrowing, just as it should be considered very carefully by bank staff handling lending to households.

To achieve this, the priority is to boost business investment – in France it is currently forecast at +3.4% for 2016. This depends on economic levers, to be strengthened through structural reforms. But it also depends on financial levers – the core challenge being equity financing, which is key for innovation. In this respect, Europe is lagging far behind the US: the equity share of corporate financing in the euro area is 52% of GDP compared with 121% in the US. BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  France and Europe do have substantial strengths to meet this investment challenge. Let me focus on two of them today: –  First, savings are abundant. In France, the household saving rate is high: 14.1% of gross disposable income in 2015, second only to Germany (17.4%) among the main European economies. In the euro area, the current account surplus is substantial: more than 3% of GDP in April 2016 – meaning that savings exceed investment by nearly EUR 330 billion. This gap needs to be closed by fostering investment rather than by reducing savings. –  Second, our financial system is solid. The regulatory and supervisory frameworks have been considerably strengthened since the crisis, both at the international and European levels. Today, the French banking system is one of the soundest in Europe and in advanced economies: between 2008 and 2015, the CET1 solvency ratio of France’s major banking groups more than doubled, from 5.8% to 12.6%, which is EUR +143 billion of core capital.
Implications of Basel II for supervision  When we last met as the community of bank supervisors in Cape Town under a brilliant South African sun, you may recall that the chairman of the Basel Committee at that time, Bill McDonough, described the revision of the capital framework as a “tremendous journey” for all of us. He was quite right. Our journey has lasted five years. Supervisors, central bankers, and representatives of the industry have spent countless hours researching and debating the paths to follow. The public and transparent nature of our consultations subjected our proposals to intense scrutiny. This made our journey a difficult one, but by testing our ideas, we found ways to improve the capital framework. Today, two years and an ocean away from our mid-point meeting in Cape Town, I am privileged to announce that our journey to “Basel II” concludes a key stage here in Spain. For that, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to you, the members of the supervisory community, for your collaboration, your contributions, and your commitment to the new framework. Basel II emerged from the remarkable spirit of goodwill, cooperation, and dedication to financial stability shared by bank supervisors and central banks worldwide. By providing your perspectives and experience, you helped to ensure the relevance of the “three pillars” to many kinds of banks in many different economies. BIS Review 52/2004  1  Because of your assistance, the question before us today is not whether Basel II is applicable to a particular market.

Given our interest as well in promoting a more level playing field, ensuring the effectiveness of market discipline, and seeking the efficient allocation of capital across borders, we support the objective towards convergence in accounting guidelines. During tomorrow’s discussions, Dr. Arnold Schilder, Executive Director of the Bank of the Netherlands and Chairman of the Committee’s Accounting Task Force, will share some of the Committee’s thinking and most recent work on emerging issues related to accounting, Basel II and supervision. After his remarks, we will have an opportunity to meet in smaller groups to discuss issues and the work ahead for supervisors to help promote sound practices with regard to loan accounting, regulatory capital, and fair value accounting, as well as to incorporate the role of external auditors and accountants effectively in the supervisory process. But these discussions mark only the beginning. Our focus on accounting from the supervisory perspective, and our dialogue with the accounting profession, must continue to grow in the years to come. 5. Conclusion  In my remarks today, I have tried to make clear that, in our new journey, challenging work remains ahead to ready our banks, to build our skills as supervisors, and to promote greater transparency in our markets. As we consider the preparations we must make, we might recall the words of the Spanish author, Miguel de Cervantes. In his world-renowned novel Don Quixote de la Mancha, he wrote nearly 400 years ago that, “To be prepared is half the victory.” The other half, I think, will be cooperation.
Svein Gjedrem: Economic perspectives Annual address by Mr Svein Gjedrem, Governor of Norges Bank (Central Bank of Norway), at the meeting of the Supervisory Council of Norges Bank, Oslo, 19 February 2004. *  *  *  Introduction There is now growth in the Norwegian economy. Oil prices are high. Capacity utilisation in the mainland economy is at the level prevailing in the mid-1990s. Wage growth is slowing. White-collar workers have lowered their wage demands, and there are prospects of a moderate main settlement this spring - the first in eight years. The value of the krone is on a par with the mid-1990 level. The interest rate level is in line with the level among our trading partners. In that respect, there is equilibrium in the Norwegian economy at present. But it is fragile. The international division of labour is shifting, and when faced with major changes it is a disadvantage for Norwegian business and industry that costs are high. Inflation is very low. Short-term interest rates abroad have been unusually low over the past 2½ years, and there are no prospects of a considerable increase in the near term even if the world economy is expanding. Last year, interest rates abroad acted as a magnet on Norwegian interest rates. We now have the lowest nominal interest rate level recorded in decades. Norwegian households are optimistic and are borrowing and investing in housing and property. This stands in contrast to corporate behaviour.

Prasarn Trairatvorakul: Living with capital flows – an emerging market perspective Speech by Dr Prasarn Trairatvorakul, Governor of the Bank of Thailand, at the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University and School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, USA, 13–14 April 2015. *  *  *  Ladies and gentlemen, Being amongst and having the opportunity to interact with young scholars such as you is refreshing. These days I spend much of my time in meetings with senior policymakers discussing problems and challenges facing Thailand and the world economy. Many of these challenges are structural, having been accumulated over a long time. They are legacies of past steps and missteps of the generation before us. So it is fitting to be able to speak to you today, as some of you will certainly inherit and have to deal with problems that are being created now, largely inadvertently. I am reminded here of a marketing line by the Swiss watchmaker, Patek Phillipe, which goes something like “You never really own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation.” Let me then take this opportunity on behalf of policymakers the world over to tell you that we mean well and sorry for any troubles that we may pass onto you. The fact is that real-time policymaking is hard. Apart from serious data limitations, the world keeps changing rapidly and our knowledge often does not keep up. Today I will talk about an area where these challenges apply forcefully.
Second, the Monetary Policy Council has set monetary policy against the background of potential growth for the French economy of around 2.5% per year. We consider the average growth of our economy in the medium-term, and it could be exceeded given that we have a potential to catch up in the medium term. We reckoned with a maximum price increase of 2% and potential real growth of between 2.5% and 3% in the medium term to arrive at a figure of 5% for the medium-term growth trend of the money supply. * *  BIS Review 2/1997  *  -5-  It is very important to bear in mind the essence of the policy implemented by the Monetary Policy Council. Parliament confers on the Banque de France an objective, namely the objective of price stability. Maintaining the value of the currency preserves the purchasing power of the currency, and therefore that of French citizens. In addition, Parliament has sought to create the conditions for growth and for job creation, via the stability of the currency. This is also the goal of the Monetary Policy Council. To achieve this goal, we use two means. First, by preserving the value of the currency, we enhance its credibility in France, in Europe and in the world and allow our economy to benefit from financing at favourable market interest rates.

M. Trichet presents the monetary policy guidelines of the Bank of France for 1997 BANK OF FRANCE, PRESS RELEASE, 17/12/96. 1. The ultimate goal of monetary policy is to ensure price stability, as required by legislation. The objective of the Monetary Policy Council is that the increase in prices, as measured by the consumer price index, should not exceed 2% in 1997, as in the medium term. 2. To meet this ultimate goal, the Banque de France uses two intermediate objectives, one of which is external and the other internal: -  The objective of a stable external value of the currency: as it has been for ten years, the stability of the franc will be maintained against the group of the most credible currencies in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. -  An intermediate internal growth target for the money supply as assessed by the development of the narrow and broad monetary aggregates: in 1997, the money supply should be able to show a medium-term growth trend of 5%. This figure is consistent with price inflation of no more than 2% and non-inflationary real GDP growth of about 2.5%, which could be exceeded, in view of the potential for growth to catch up in the medium term. The Monetary Policy Council has decided to simultaneously monitor the main narrow and broad money aggregates in order to obtain a concise estimate of all monetary developments. 3. Total domestic debt is an important indicator.
Reflecting these gains, a number of emerging market countries have been strong supporters of open trade, a sign of how much the world has changed in recent years. A few examples can help to illustrate some of the benefits of globalization. India’s green revolution—which helped to greatly increase its agricultural productivity and food security—was facilitated by U.S. technology and scientists working with their Indian counterparts. Similarly, as is well known, Indian engineers and entrepreneurs have played a key role in the technology sector’s tremendous achievements in recent decades and now lead some of America’s largest companies, including Google and Microsoft. This success, in turn, has had important benefits for India as well, including increased foreign investment flows and employment opportunities that have helped develop a vibrant information technology ecosystem. But, increased openness to trade is not a panacea in and of itself. Actual benefits depend on a range of other critical factors, including macroeconomic policy, the business and regulatory environment, the legal regime, the quality of infrastructure, and the quality of public services, including education. While the gains from a liberalized trade regime are not guaranteed, the alternative of trying to achieve a high standard of living by following a policy of economic isolationism will fail. Trade has played a key role in nearly all of the high-growth success stories since the middle of the last century.

Passporting rights have been well availed of in this sector, too, and the total number of Notifications for European Insurance Undertakings to carry on business in Malta under the Freedom to Provide Services directive now stands at 204. The other reflection I would like to share with you is inspired by an interview given recently by the CEO of Mediterranean Bank to a local economic magazine, in which Malta was referred to as ‘a secure EU jurisdiction’. In this same context it was stated that ‘Malta’s stability is an important part of its appeal as a banking location’. While such accolades are indeed welcome, they do not come entirely as a surprise. For when Malta’s financial legislation was overhauled in 1994, and when EU legislation was later transposed in anticipation of EU membership, an intended by-product was indeed the incorporation of the highest international standards and best practices into Maltese financial laws and regulations. This was accompanied by a strengthening of the institutional framework for the regulation and oversight of the financial system. In 2002 the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) became the single regulator for financial services when it took over the responsibility for the banking sector from  BIS Review 92/2006  1  the Central Bank of Malta (CBM). The Bank then assumed responsibility for ensuring the stability of the entire financial system. A year later Malta volunteered to undergo a Financial Sector Assessment Programme (FSAP) by the IMF and the World Bank.
In response to this challenge, some countries are shifting towards the defined contribution (DC) schemes . However, while a DC scheme could address the issue of sustainability, it would not adequately cater the need to provide a stream of benefit payment throughout the lives of retirees, especially for those who outlived their retirement savings. In Malaysia , for example, most of those employed are mandated to contribute to a defined contribution (DC) scheme known as the Employees Provident Fund (EPF for short). A recent survey conducted revealed that a bout 72% of EPF contributors spend their entire EPF savings within 3 years of retirement, i.e., by the age of 58, an average retiree would have all his retirement savings depleted. In the case of a man, he has to be financially self-supporting for the next 17 years of his life, assuming he lives till 75. Presumably, his retirement needs will be met by family members. However, with diminishing “extended family” values, it is uncertain if this will eventually happen. Another significant challenge is to modify the structure of mandatory pension schemes itself, of which many are based on a full-time employment model. Most countries in this region do not have extensive pension schemes to cover both the formal and informal sectors. I understand that in Thailand and China , for example, only about 4% and 60% of the labour force is respectively covered.

The full-time employment model does not adequately address the profound changes in employment patterns, which economies are now experiencing, such as the increasing number of women in the workforce. Then again, most pension schemes are also designed for workers with full and uninterrupted careers. This does not reflect the experience of women, as we see more and more today, who may leave their jobs to become full time housewives or homemaker. Breakdown of marriage institutions, which is now not uncommon, and the fact that women typically outlive their husbands, place women at greater risk of being in poverty in old age unless pension schemes are adapted to meet their needs. Pension schemes must also take into account the changing work patterns in economies, which in the recent decade had seen an increase in part-time workers, the self-employed and temporary workers. 2  BIS Review 137/2007  The third challenge is in instilling public awareness on planning for retirement, particularly on having an appropriate level of retirement income to support retirees' healthcare and longterm care. A recent survey conducted in Malaysia revealed that more than 80% of Malaysians are either indifferent or not worried whether or not they have enough money for retirement. Only 34% are consciously saving regularly for retirement and an alarming 60% do not know exactly how much they need during retirement.
M R Pridiyathorn Devakula: FSAP from the Thai banking perspective Statement by Mr M R Pridiyathorn Devakula, Governor of the Bank of Thailand, at the United Nations Conference Center, Bangkok, 15 October 2004. *  *  *  Distinguished guests and participants, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good morning. It is a great pleasure for me to open this important workshop and give a keynote speech. The objective of today’s event is to introduce the joint IMF-World Bank initiative called the Financial Sector Assessment Programme, otherwise known as FSAP, so that at the end of today we will all have a common and thorough understanding of what FSAP is about, how much work it would require of whom, and what benefits there would be for Thailand to participate in. This is a tall order to be achieved in one short day, but I am sure we can do it because we are fortunate enough to have with us two senior and highly experienced staff from the IMF: Mr Stefan Ingves and Mr. Udaibir Saran Das. On behalf of the Bank of Thailand and all the participants, I would like to thank both of you very much for making the time to be here despite your busy schedule. We are indeed grateful for your assistance. By way of introduction, let me very briefly give you an overview of the FSAP and how it might complement and enhance our ongoing efforts to improve corporate governance and promote safety and soundness of the financial system in Thailand.

Some differences in our practice as compared to international standards may not warrant any further action at all, for they reflect our conscious intention to adopt rules that best suit our own unique situation as well as rules that should be phased in gradually to comply with international standards only at an appropriate time. We welcome the opportunity to discuss and share this understanding with the FSAP assessors, who are drawn not only from IMF and World Bank staff but also from other countries’ central bankers, regulators, and international experts. Before I let you get on with the workshop, I would like to conclude by saying that, with or without the FSAP, the Bank of Thailand will continue to strive for a safe and sound financial system, both through efforts to restructure financial institutions under the Financial Sector Master Plan, and through continued strengthening of prudential standards and supervisory practice. Risk-based supervision approach has been adopted. Loan classification and provisioning requirements have been and will be tightened further. Good corporate governance has been enforced, including appropriate composition of the Board of Directors and, most recently, fit and proper criteria for the top management of commercial banks. We have come a long way since the 1997 crisis and we do not intend to look back. Yet, many formidable challenges lie ahead. On the international front, a lot of preparations and adjustments are needed in response to the introduction of IAS39 and the new Basel Capital Accord.
As the pace of activity intensifies, we are seeing a sharp increase in interest from both lenders and borrowers in taking advantage of such opportunities. Those who don’t, risk getting caught napping. How the Bank is adapting its own operations to the use of SONIA  Before concluding, I want to spend a moment setting out some of what the Bank of England, as a financial institution with a sizeable balance sheet in its own right, is doing to ensure that it is also ready for LIBOR transition. One of our key messages to firms has been to stop writing new LIBOR-related business that fixes or matures past 2021. The main area in which the Bank undertakes such activity is in the swap programme used to hedge the government’s foreign exchange reserves, which we manage as agent for HM Treasury. Last year, we set up a separate project team to advise the Treasury on its options – scaling the issue, assessing the available trading methods and liquidity in alternative markets, and evaluating the implications for risk and return. In light of that advice, the Treasury decided some months ago to instruct the Bank to cease writing new LIBOR business with fixings falling after 2021, and transact only in SONIA-linked contracts. Our experience of SONIA market liquidity so far has been positive: at least as good, if not rather better, than expected. Another way in which LIBOR potentially touches the Bank’s operations lies in the collateral that we accept in our sterling liquidity facilities.

Join the revolution! Why it makes business sense to move on from LIBOR  Speech given by Andrew Hauser, Executive Director, Markets  At Risk Live, London 27 June 2019  I am grateful to Wayne Leslie for his help in preparing this speech, and to Peter Balint, Rohan Churm, Tom Horn, Al Hughes, Antoine Lallour, Adeshini Naidoo, Will Parry, Edwin Schooling Latter, Jugvinder Singh, Tim Taylor and Francesca Zwolinksy for their advice and comments. 1  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/speeches  Introduction  There seem to be two rather distinct themes to your conference today:  The first is all about opportunity, the future, things you might want to do: fintech, AI, new tools and ways of working. All symbolised by a rather inspiring yellow lightbulb icon on your agenda:  The second is all about the grim stuff: black swans, operational risks, or whatever else might lurk in your ‘hall of horrors’ sessions later – and the things you have to do in response. I’m not 100% sure which camp this speech has been put in. But I think there’s a clue in the icon you’ve put next to my name in the programme – which is a revolutionary clenched fist… In one sense I understand why I’ve been given a pugnacious icon. The programme to move the market from LIBOR to risk-free rates is a huge undertaking. Its goal is vital, and simply stated: to eliminate the profound system-wide vulnerabilities posed by LIBOR. And the deadline is clear: end-2021.