Welcome remarks at the Bundesbank Spring Conference "Monetary, financial and fiscal stability"
2 Monetary and financial policy
Ladies and gentlemen
In the years before the financial crisis, we had almost forgotten that generations of economists had grappled with one central question: how to achieve macroeconomic stability.
For many people, the success of the so-called "Great Moderation" provided the answer to this question. Inflation had apparently been conquered, and large swings in economic output seemed a thing of the past as well. By keeping prices stable, central banks also appeared to be able to moderate the business cycle, thereby providing for overall macroeconomic stability.
In hindsight, it looks as if, for a while, confidence had turned into complacency. But the financial crisis has reconnected everybody with the reality that the success of monetary policy depends on conditions it cannot create on its own. In particular, it is dependent on a stable financial system. And as the sovereign debt crisis has reminded us, sound fiscal policies remain as important as ever for monetary policy to be able to deliver price stability.
In recent years, however, academic progress has been made on all counts: with regard to the effects of unconventional monetary policy instruments, the principles of a stable financial system and of sound fiscal policies. And one additional insight is that, while the instruments for these three policy areas are different, the areas are nonetheless interdependent.
True to the adage that central bankers are concerned more with what they cannot control than what they can, in my remarks I will touch upon a few selected issues regarding monetary, financial and fiscal policy. These are: the interdependency between the monetary transmission process and financial market conditions, the minimum standards for bail-inable capital, the distortions stemming from the privileged regulatory treatment of sovereign debt, and the possible use of GDP-linked bonds as a tool through which private investors would bear fiscal risks.
The financial crisis has shown in no uncertain terms that the transmission of monetary policy depends heavily on financial market conditions. When the financial markets were disrupted in autumn 2008 after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the traditional interest rate pass-through of our conventional monetary policy measures was obviously hampered.
But even today, the effectiveness of our monetary policy depends on financial market conditions. This can be illustrated, for example, by the role asset managers play in how non-standard monetary policy measures impact on longer-term interest rates.
Recent research by Morris and Shin[1] suggests that, in trying to avoid ranking last in short-term performance tables, asset managers’ portfolio choices could lead to large jumps in risk premiums in anticipation of small future changes in central bank policy rates. Due to their own payment arrangements, asset managers cannot usually afford to be the last to notice a switch in monetary policy, because the financial loss in the funds under management increases if many others try to sell their securities before them.
Consequently, they might become increasingly nervous the longer monetary policymakers try to maintain the low-interest-rate policy. This, in turn, could raise the probability of a sudden hike in risk premiums, the longer forward guidance is in place and the more aggressively quantitative easing is pursued. Monetary policymakers have to take this into account in order to avoid unintended consequences.
But it is not only the behaviour of asset managers that is relevant to monetary policy. The crisis has reminded us that financial exuberance, too, is potentially a harbinger of unstable consumer prices. But this does not mean that monetary policy is the way to go in terms of pre-empting financial instability as well.
Tinbergen's timeless insight continues to apply: to reach each policy goal reliably, at least one separate instrument is needed for each policy area. The crisis has therefore spawned a whole new set of instruments – macroprudential policies – designed to target specific sectors of the financial system. Rather than focusing on individual financial institutions, macroprudential policies that seek to prevent exuberance in entire financial sectors can take systemic interdependencies into account.
What is a treasure trove for researchers – the host of questions surrounding the functioning of the new set of instruments – is tricky terrain for policymakers, and for central bankers in particular. Shedding light on the use and effectiveness of different macroprudential instruments therefore remains an eminent task of economic research, and I am positive this conference will provide a valuable contribution.
Does this mean that monetary policymakers can ignore the financial stability implications of their actions? I don’t think so. While I am not in favour of a dual monetary policy mandate, I am convinced that monetary policy cannot stand on the sidelines when financial imbalances build up.
First, we cannot be sure that macroprudential policies will eliminate financial imbalances. The experience with macroprudential instruments is still limited, and the toolkit is still incomplete.
Second, the crisis has vividly demonstrated how financial instability affects inflation developments and the capacity of the central bank to safeguard price stability. Therefore, monetary policy would be wise to take the implications of financial imbalances for price stability into account.
As a first line of defence, however, it is financial regulation that has to bear the brunt of the financial stability burden. With regard to traditional microprudential regulation, the direction for reform seems clear: realigning risk and reward in a way that sets incentives for sustainable action. Privatising gains and socialising losses is not only socially corrosive: it also produces bad economic results, as financial actors are encouraged to take on excessive risks.
A cornerstone of the international efforts to ensure the resolvability of systemic banks is the standard for bail-in debt, the so called Total Loss Absorbing Capacity (TLAC). It requires those banks to hold a minimum of debt that can absorb losses in the case of a bank resolution. This shields the taxpayer from footing the bill.
Europe already has a bail-in standard of its own, the so called minimum requirements on eligible liabilities (MREL). For efficiency and financial stability purposes, one could argue that TLAC and MREL should be as similar as justifiable.
Systemically relevant banks pose a special challenge when it comes to resolving them without creating substantial repercussions for the wider financial system. For that reason, the Single Resolution Fund exists. When resolving a systemic bank, the Single Resolution Board, which is the relevant European authority, can draw on the resources of this fund – but only after at least 8 % of the banks’ liabilities have been bailed in. It seems therefore sensible that MREL for systemically important banks is guided by this threshold.
When it comes to bailing in creditors, the fear of contagion is probably the most important reason for refraining from doing so. Naturally, contagion risk is high when the creditors who are to be bailed in are banks themselves. Currently, the MREL standards do not discourage banks from holding another institution’s bail-in debt. In the interests of financial stability, this has to change.
page source http://www.bundesbank.de/
