(Wiley Finance Series) Thammarak Moenjak - Central Banking - Theory and Practice in Sustaining Monetary and Financial Stability (2014, Wiley)
(Wiley Finance Series) Thammarak Moenjak - Central Banking - Theory and Practice in Sustaining Monetary and Financial Stability (2014, Wiley)
(Wiley Finance Series) Thammarak Moenjak - Central Banking - Theory and Practice in Sustaining Monetary and Financial Stability (2014, Wiley)
Central Banking
Theory and Practice in
Sustaining Monetary
and Financial Stability
THAMMARAK MOENJAK
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: © iStock.com/sebastian-julian
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as
expressly permitted by law, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization
through payment of the appropriate photocopy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center. Requests for
permission should be addressed to the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd., 1 Fusionopolis
Walk, #07-01, Solaris South Tower, Singapore 138628, tel: 65–6643–8000, fax: 65–6643–8008, e-mail:
enquiry@wiley.com.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts
in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy
or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales
representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable
for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor
the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.
Prefaceix
Acknowledgmentsxi
PART ONE
An Introduction to Central Banking
CHAPTER 1
A Brief Look at Central Banking History 3
CHAPTER 2
A Brief Overview of the International Monetary System 17
CHAPTER 3
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions: What Exactly Is a Central Bank? 37
CHAPTER 4
A Brief Review of Modern Central Banking Mandates: What Are the Goals
That Modern Central Banks Try to Achieve? 59
PART TWO
Monetary Stability
CHAPTER 5
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 77
CHAPTER 6
Monetary Policy Regimes: What Monetary Policy Rules a Central Bank
Can Use to Achieve Monetary Stability 93
CHAPTER 7
Monetary Policy Implementation: Financial Market Operations 117
vii
viii CONTENTS
CHAPTER 8
The Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism: How Changes in Interest
Rates Affect Households, Firms, Financial Institutions, Economic Activity,
and Inflation 143
CHAPTER 9
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 161
PART THREE
Financial Stability
CHAPTER 10
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 189
CHAPTER 11
Financial Stability: Monitoring and Identifying Risks 209
CHAPTER 12
Financial Stability: Intervention Tools 229
PART FOUR
Sustaining Monetary and Financial Stability for the Next Era
CHAPTER 13
Future Challenges for Central Banking 255
CHAPTER 14
Future Central Banking Strategy and Its Execution 275
Notes287
Index307
Preface
T his book aims to provide readers with an understanding of and insights into the
roles and functions of central banks, the theories behind their thinking, and actual
operational practices. In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007–2010 there
has been a renewed interest in central banking on the part of academics, practition
ers, and the general public. Many believe that central banks had a leading role in
contributing to the crisis, while others disagree. Most, however, agree that in the
future, central banks need to play a leading role in maintaining both monetary and
financial stability.
Although central banking is currently in the limelight, there are not many com
prehensive books on the subject aimed at students or a general audience. Courses
specifically devoted to central banking at the university level are still relatively rare.
Students, investors, market and policy analysts, and even central banks’ new recruits
often have to search among different sources to piece together what central banks
actually do and what the reasons are behind their actions. The picture they arrive at,
however, can be very fragmented.
The few current books on central banking that touch on the various aspects of
the subject are mainly for expert audiences, that is, interested academics and sea
soned central bankers. These books often assume readers have a strong background
in monetary economics, banking regulation, or other central banking operation and
thus delve deeply into subtopics such as central bank independence, monetary policy
transparency, or the Basel rules. This approach makes it difficult for nonexperts and
novices to follow the material and put it in a proper context.
While textbooks on monetary economics can offer a very rigorous theoretical
background on monetary policy, they often do not provide detailed descriptions of
actual operations. In many cases, descriptions of monetary policy operations can be
quite out of date. On the other hand, popular books about central banking intended
for a general audience often do not offer enough theoretical background in a sys
tematic manner for the interested reader to make sense of why central banks might
choose to adopt or abandon a particular practice.
This book aims to fill in the gaps by providing an introductory overview of
central banking in a manner that is systematic, up-to-date, and accessible to a gen
eral audience and students who have minimal background in macroeconomics.
Theoretical reviews and examples of how theories are applied in practice are done
in an easy-to-understand manner. With the background provided by the book, it is
hoped that readers will be able to investigate further the topics that interest them,
with the ultimate goal of helping them make informed judgments about a central
bank’s actions, and, hopefully, have the ability to even anticipate them in advance.
Part I provides a quick background on central banking. Chapter 1 briefly reviews
the evolution of central banking and how different functions of central banks came
about. Chapter 2 provides background on the international monetary system in
ix
x PREFACE
order to provide the context in which central banks operate. Chapter 3 reviews func
tions of modern central banks. Although specifics do differ among modern central
banks, there are commonalities as well as diversity among their functions. Chapter 4
reviews three of the most prominent mandates for modern central banks: monetary
stability, financial stability, and (more controversially) full employment.
Part II focuses on monetary stability, the dominant central banking mandate
for the past 30 years. Chapter 5 reviews the theoretical foundations of monetary
policy, the policy that a central bank uses to regulate monetary conditions in the
economy in order to achieve monetary stability. Chapter 6 looks at different mon
etary policy regimes (i.e., rules) that central banks might adopt in the pursuit of
monetary stability. Chapter 7 looks at the implementation of monetary policy, which
in practice is often done through operations in financial markets. Chapter 8 looks at
how monetary policy can transmit across the economy and affect monetary stabil
ity as well as output and employment. Chapter 9 is devoted to the exchange rate,
another key variable that central banks have to keep an eye on, as it is the price of
money in terms of another currency and could also affect monetary stability as well
as financial stability.
Part III focuses on financial stability, another key central banking mandate that
started to receive attention in the 1980s and has received even more since the global
financial crisis of 2007–2010. Chapter 10 reviews various definitions of financial
stability, an analytical framework that could be practical for central banks’ purposes,
and prominent theories related to financial stability. Chapter 11 examines various
tools that central banks might use to identify and monitor risks to financial stability.
The review of these tools uses the analytical framework proposed in Chapter 10: the
macroeconomy, financial institutions, and financial markets. Chapter 12 examines
the various tools that the central bank can use against risks to financial stability.
Part IV looks at the future challenges of central banking and how central banks
might prepare themselves to meet those challenges. Chapter 13 reviews the three
major forces that might shape the economic and financial landscape that central
banks will be operating in: the intensification of the globalization process, the con
tinued evolution of financial activities, and unfinished business from the global
financial crisis. Chapter 14 analyzes how central banks might prepare themselves to
meet future challenges and deliver value to society. This analysis uses a public policy
analysis framework that involves improving the analytical capacity, the operational
capacity, and the political capacity of the central bank.
Ancillary materials for students and instructors can be found at wiley.com.
Acknowledgments
In writing this book I am indebted to many people and institutions, whether directly
or indirectly.
At Wiley, I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who helped
make the book possible, and in particular to Nick Wallwork, Jules Yap, Emilie
Herman, Lia Ottaviano, Jeremy Chia, Gladys Ganaden, Chris Gage, and Tami Trask
for their constant encouragement, kind help, and earnest support throughout the
process.
At the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore,
I am grateful to the wonderful faculty, staff and fellow students, particularly my
friends from the master in public management program, whose friendships are very
much treasured.
I am deeply indebted to the Bank of Thailand for giving me a chance to work in
many interesting jobs, tap into its vast institutional knowledge pool, and learn from
my many extremely dedicated and capable friends, supervisors, and colleagues.
I am very much grateful to Charles Adams, Robert J. Dixon, Charles Goodhart,
Kishore Mahbubani, Paul A. Volcker, and Christopher Worswick for kindly giving
their invaluable time to review the manuscript. Any error that might appear in the
book is, of course, mine.
I would like to also thank my parents, Thamrongsak and Lugsana Moenjak,
whose love, support, and dedication throughout the years made this book possible.
xi
About the Author
Thammarak Moenjak has been deeply involved with various aspects of central
banking since he started working at the Bank of Thailand (BOT) in 2000.
His work experience includes modeling and forecasting, monetary policy strat-
egy, reserves management, financial stability assessment, and corporate strategy.
Aside from being the assistant chief representative of the Bank of Thailand at its
New York Representative Office in 2008–2009, Thammarak was sent by the Bank of
Thailand, and contracted as an IMF expert, to help the Reserve Bank of Fiji develop
its own macroeconometric model for use in the conduct of monetary policy.
Thammarak recently completed a master degree in public management at the
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, the National University of Singapore, where
he was on the Dean’s List for Meritorious Performance, and was a Lee Kuan Yew
Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He has
a bachelor degree in economics from the London School of Economics and a PhD
in Economics from the University of Melbourne. Thammarak could be reached at
thammarm@bot.or.th.
xiii
PART
One
An Introduction
to Central Banking
1
CHAPTER 1
A Brief Look at Central Banking History
Learning Objectives
. Describe historical roles and functions of central banks.
1
2. Explain how various central banking roles and functions came
about.
3. Define money and its relation to central banking.
4. Describe key commonalities and differences of modern central
banks.
Prior to the creation of central banks, societies often used precious metals such as
gold or silver as the means of transaction for goods and services. In economic terms,
precious metals were deemed suitable for being money, as they possessed three inher-
ent characteristics. First, these metals were widely accepted as a medium of exchange.
People were willing to trade their goods and services for precious metals, since they
believed that they could use the metals to trade for other goods and services that
they wanted to consume. Second, these metals were a good store of value. People
who received these metals could keep them for future trading for what they might
3
4 CENTRAL BANKING
want to consume. Unlike grains or livestock, precious metals were not perishable,
nor would they easily lose their luster. Third, they could be used as units of account,
for they could be divided into uniform pieces according to the assigned value.
When a society developed to a certain degree, the use of precious metals as money
became more formalized and standardized. The metals were made into coins, which
made them easier to transport. They were also stamped with seals or signs certifying
their weight and value, which made it easier to recognize and classify them.
In Europe, by the seventeenth century, the use of coins in commerce became
more cumbersome and required more effort for merchants. Different sovereigns
introduced different makes of coins that were of different values and different metal
content but circulated quite freely across borders. Different vintages of coins of the
same nominal value from the same sovereign could also have different metal content,
as sovereigns sometimes sought extra revenue by introducing coins of the same value
with lighter and lighter metal content—that is, coin debasement.1
Furthermore, there were also risks that the coins might be worn out because of
usage, such that the precious metal content became diminished, or they might be
intentionally clipped, as people chipped out metal content from the coins.2
To ease the problems related to coin usage, in 1609 merchants and the city of
Amsterdam, a premier global trading hub of that time, decided to set up the Bank
of Amsterdam to do the tasks of sorting, classifying, and storing the coins. The suc-
cess of the Bank of Amsterdam prompted other European cities and sovereigns to set
up banks along the lines of the Bank of Amsterdam.3
In 1656, the Bank of Stockholm was established in Sweden, in the fashion of the
Bank of Amsterdam. At first, the bank simply took in copper coins and lent out
against tangible assets such as real estate.4 Five years later, however, as the Swedish
parliament decided to reduce the amount of copper in newly minted coins, older
coins of the same nominal face value became more valuable owing to their greater
copper content. The public rushed to get their hands on the older coins, and the bank
run threatened the Bank of Stockholm’s survival.
The solution by the Bank of Stockholm to prevent the threat that it might run
out of coins was to issue notes of credit (called kreditivsedlar) to those depositors
who wanted to withdraw their copper coins. With their features of having fixed face
values in round denominations, no paid interest, and being freely transferable from
one holder to another, these kreditivsedlar were considered the first banknotes in the
modern sense.5 This solution was a success for about two years until the Bank of
Stockholm could not redeem the notes at their face values and the government had
to intervene.
In 1668, the Swedish parliament approved a new bank to replace the Bank
of Stockholm. Ultimately, that new bank became the present-day Swedish central
bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, currently the world’s oldest central bank. (The Bank of
A Brief Look at Central Banking History 5
Amsterdam collapsed in 1819, suffering losses from their investments in the Dutch
East India Company, which financed wars with England.6)
Despite the demise of the Bank of Stockholm, the use of banknotes as a medium
of exchange survived and gradually became embedded in our modern economies. As
merchants who had coins deposited at the bank traded goods and services among
themselves, it was clearly easier for them to transfer their coin ownerships at the
bank without withdrawing those coins to settle their trades. Therefore, it was also
easier for the bank to just issue notes for those who owned coins held at the bank
so that they could use the notes to trade with those without accounts at the bank. In
the few centuries after the pioneer banknote issuance by the Bank of Stockholm,
banknote issuance became popular in many countries, but was not confined only
to banks established by governments or sovereigns. In many countries, privately
owned banks were also granted the right to issue their own banknotes.
The Swedish Riksbank was chartered to not only act as a clearinghouse for mer-
chants but also to lend funds to the government. Later on, many other central banks
were also created to help finance government spending, particularly to finance wars.
These included (1) the Bank of England, which was founded in 1694 as a joint stock
company to finance the war with France and was later also given the privilege of
handling the government’s accounts;7 (2) the Bank of France, which was created
in 1800 both to help with government finances and to issue banknotes in Paris
(for which it was given a monopoly), partly to help stabilize the economy after
the French Revolution brought hyperinflation of paper money;8 and (3) the Bank
of Spain, which could trace its roots to 1782 when its predecessor was founded to
finance the country’s participation in the American War of Independence, although
it was not until 1856 that the predecessor bank was merged with another bank to
form the Bank of Spain.9
By helping to finance government spending and manage government finances,
these early central banks enjoyed close relationships with their governments, along
with good profits. As lenders to their governments, notes issued by these early cen-
tral banks gained wide acceptance, since they were implicitly backed by the promise
of repayment by their sovereigns. In the case of the early Bank of England, it could
simply issue notes to match the sum lent to the government. In such a case, the
notes (dissimilar to modern banknotes, since their face values were variable, as
the amounts were handwritten by the cashier) were not backed by precious metals,
but by the implicit promise of the government to pay.10
By the nineteenth century, central banks’ close ties to their governments and the wide
acceptance of their banknotes (or in many cases, their monopoly on note issuance)
helped induce commercial banks to also open accounts and place their deposits
with the central banks, effectively becoming their clients. Consequently, the central
banks became banker to the commercial banks, in addition to being banker to the
6 CENTRAL BANKING
government. The banker-to-banks role became more and more pronounced as the
foundations of modern banking started taking shape.
In the case of nineteenth-century England, small banks proliferated in small
towns doing business such as discounting merchants’ bills. These small-town banks
often sought out larger London commercial banks as their correspondent banks, to
deposit and invest their funds and conduct other transactions. The London com-
mercial banks, in turn, often found it easier to settle claims among themselves using
Bank of England notes, as the Bank of England had a monopoly on note issuance
within a 65-mile radius of London.11
Even more conveniently, the commercial banks could open deposit accounts at
the Bank of England and use these accounts to settle claims among themselves or to
keep reserves. By being the key repository and clearinghouse for commercial banks
whose own networks of correspondent banks could be far-reaching, the Bank of
England’s function as a banker to banks became notable and helped in defining the
bank as a central bank. The Bank of England’s banker-to-banks role would become
a model for many central banks to later emulate.
Early banking systems were very prone to panics and bank failures. By nature, banks
and other financial institutions borrowed funds from depositors for short maturity, and
lent out those funds as loans for longer maturity. Diverse events such as bad harvests,
defaults, and wars could cause bank depositors to panic and rush to withdraw their
funds, putting debilitating pressures on the banks, since they might not be able to call
in loans fast enough to repay the depositors.
By the early nineteenth century, it was well recognized that financial panics and
resulting bank failures could be very disruptive and costly to commerce and the soci-
ety at large, and not just financially ruinous to those directly involved. Successfully
calming panics and rescuing banks, however, required many factors, including deep
pools of financial resources, extensive networks in the financial system, operations
know-how, and public confidence. This put central banks in a unique position to
assume the role of protector to the financial system, owing to their close ties to their
governments, large reserves, extensive networks with correspondent banks, and (in
many cases) monopoly over note issuance.12
At first the central banks were very reluctant to lend to distressed correspon-
dent banks, preferring to devote their efforts to the protection of their own gold
reserves. Central banks still regarded themselves primarily as banks, not public
institutions. Any rescue of distressed banks could thus be regarded as a rescue of
competitors.13
With major financial panics proving detrimental to everyone, however, in the
latter half of the nineteenth century the Bank of England responded to growing criti-
cism by taking on the responsibility of lender of last resort to distressed banks. To
protect itself from losses, and to prevent abuses by commercial banks, however, the
bank would lend to troubled banks only if sound collateral was posted and would
charge interest above market rates for such lending.14
A Brief Look at Central Banking History 7
Notably, it was also this need to have a central bank to respond to financial pan-
ics that led a revival of central banking in the United States. Prior to 1913, the United
States had two central banks, which were modeled after the Bank of England—that
is, the Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and the Second Bank of the United
States (1816–1836)—but their charters were not renewed owing to the public’s dis-
trust of concentrated financial power. During the 80 years that the United States
did not have a central bank, bank panics and bank failures were frequent. A severe
banking crisis in 1907 highlighted the need for a central bank in the United States
and led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.15
CASE STUDY: The Debate on the Function of the Central Bank as a Bank Supervisor
By the late 1990s a number of central banks, including the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, and
the Reserve Bank of Australia, started to relinquish their bank supervisory role to outside agencies.
Key reasons for the separation between the central bank and the role of bank supervisor included
(1) changes in the financial system, partly through the liberalization process that had begun in the
late 1970s, which were blurring the lines between banks and other nonbank financial institutions, and
(2) the fear that the bank supervisory function would be in conflict with the central banks’ other grow-
ing function, that is, that of a conductor of monetary policy.18
First, changes in the financial system that blurred the lines between different types of financial
services—for example, banking, insurance, and fund management—suggested that bank supervision
should probably be organized by the purpose of supervision—that is, systemic stability (prudential super-
vision) and consumer protection—rather than by types of market services. Therefore, bank supervision
should be housed in a separate regulator that also supervised other nonbank financial institutions.19
Second, as a conductor of monetary policy, the central banks would have to adjust money condi-
tions in the economy to ensure stability of the economy. With the bank supervisory function remaining
at the central banks, however, it was feared that the central banks might be reluctant to adjust money
conditions as required if the adjustments had the potential to jeopardize profitability and balance sheets
of commercial banks under their supervision.20
In contrast, reasons for keeping the banking supervisory function within the central bank included
(1) information sharing for the conduct of monetary policy, where microlevel information from bank
supervisors could help the conductor of monetary policy understand the state of the economy better,
thus making for better monetary policy decisions, and (2) information sharing with regard to payment
systems and market activities, since a separate bank supervisor might find it difficult to access real-
time information on the banks’ payment traffic, positions with the central bank, and their standing in
financial markets.21
The 2007–2010 global financial crisis, however, added another twist to the debate on whether
the central banks should take on a bank supervisory role. In the United Kingdom, coordination failure
among the three key regulators (the central bank, the financial supervisory agency, and the govern-
ment) was cited as one reason contributing to the emergence of bank runs in the United Kingdom,
as well as ineffectiveness in management of the runs. By 2011, the U.K. government decided to put
supervisory function (prudential regulation) of various types of financial institutions back into the
Bank of England, and create a new, separate entity responsible for consumer protection and the promo-
tion of healthy competition among financial institutions.
Given that the early central banks already had a stronger financial status than other
banks, their banknotes were very much trusted by the public. To sustain such trust,
many of them embarked on the gold standard, whereby they would fix the value
of their money to gold, and only issue an extra amount of money if they had gold
reserves to match that extra amount of money. Afterward, however, disruptions—
such as wars and the fact that the global gold supply was (and is) limited—helped
force central banks off gold as a standard. By the mid-twentieth century, central
banks had started to gradually learn that, in the short run, monetary policy could be
used actively to affect output, inflation, and employment.
A Brief Look at Central Banking History 9
*Although at its start in 1913 the U.S. Federal Reserve had been given the mandate of provid-
ing a “uniform and elastic currency” (i.e., currency that could expand or contract in volume
according to the demands of business)—which meant that the Fed could increase the money
supply when there was an extra need for money, such as during banking panics, and reduce
the money supply when conditions warranted—the Fed, for various reasons, did not seriously
attempt to influence economic conditions using the money supply until at least the 1950s
(Bordo 2007).
10 CENTRAL BANKING
activist monetary policy, together with rising fiscal spending by the U.S. government,
however, also led to accelerating inflation in the United States. Investors as well as
governments of countries that pegged the value of their currency to the U.S. dollar
became concerned that inflation was fast eating away the purchasing power of the
U.S. dollar in terms of goods and services.
The tie between the U.S. dollar and gold also came to be questioned as the
United States kept issuing more and more money, despite its fixed supply of gold.
At that time, international trade and capital flow were starting to resume, as many
countries completed their rebuilding efforts after World War II and started liberal-
izing their economies. Greater international capital movements put pressure on the
currency of those countries that persistently imported more than they exported and
led to speculative attacks on many of those currencies.
It should also be noted that at this current time in history, coin sorting has
largely been dissociated from modern central banking, owing to either impracticality
or principles that later emerged. In most countries coins are now issued by the mint,
which is a part of the treasury or the finance ministry, not the central bank. Banknote
issuance monopoly, on the other hand, has become deeply ingrained in the psyche of
the public and central banks, such that it has started to blend into the background
of central banking.
modern central banks. Prior to the 2007–2010 global financial crisis, the Federal
Reserve tended to tone down in its communications with regard to its role in ensur-
ing full employment, possibly for fear that it might confuse the public, since in the
short run there is a tradeoff between employment and inflation. To push unemploy-
ment down, the central bank might need to allow inflation to go up in the short
run. However, if the central bank allows inflation to go up, it might appear that the
central bank is willing to compromise on monetary stability.
To avoid such confusion, many central banks prefer to frame full employment
as being a part of long-term sustainable economic growth, which can be provided
by monetary stability. In the wake of 2007–2010 global financial crisis, however,
as the U.S. unemployment rate went up and the economy faced the threat of defla-
tion rather than inflation, the Federal Reserve again emphasized its full-employment
mandate when it needed to employ an unconventional monetary policy by injecting
massive amounts of money into the economy through quantitative-easing measures.
SUMMARY
Central banking has evolved considerably since its start about 400 years ago. Starting
with coin sorting and storing, and in certain cases war financing, central banks have
taken on the functions of banknote issuers, banker to the government, banker to
banks, protector of the financial system, bank supervisor, as well as conductor of
monetary policy.
Currently, there are commonalities as well as diversity in modern central bank-
ing. Commonalities include (1) the focus on monetary stability, (2) the focus on
financial stability, and (3) the prohibition on direct lending to the government.
Differences include (1) operational differences in the pursuit of monetary stability,
(2) the institutional setup with regard to the maintenance of financial stability, and
(3) the explicit role of central bank in ensuring full employment.
KEY TERMS
activist monetary policy inflation targeting
bank supervisor lender of last resort
banker to banks medium of exchange
banker to the government monetary stability
banknote issuance money supply growth targeting
financial stability operational independence
full employment passive monetary policy
gold exchange standard store of value
gold standard units of account
QUESTIONS
1. What are the key characteristics of money?
2. What were the problems with the use of coins as a means of payment in
seventeenth-century Amsterdam?
3. How did banknote issuance first come about as a central banking role,
particularly in the case of the Bank of Stockholm?
4. What are key characteristics of banknotes, as compared to other IOUs?
5. What might be key advantages for early central banks in acting as bankers to
their governments?
6. Why might central banks be in a unique position to become protectors of the
financial system?
7. Why might a central bank emerge as a banker to commercial banks?
8. Why should a central bank supervise commercial banks?
9. Why should a central bank not supervise commercial banks?
10. Why might we perceive central banks in the gold standard era as pursuing
passive monetary policy?
11. What might activist monetary policy try to achieve?
12. What could be the reasons preventing modern central banks from directly
financing government debt?
16 CENTRAL BANKING
13. Why might we want central banks to be operationally independent from the
government?
14. What are key characteristics of inflation-targeting central banks?
15. What are some commonalities of modern central banks?
16. What are some of the key differences among modern central banks?
17. Why might we not consider livestock as money, even if it could be used to trade
for goods and services in agrarian economies?
18. The government is seeking to directly borrow money from the central bank
in order to invest in a large infrastructure project that could help improve the
livelihood of its citizens. Should the central bank agree to lend to the government?
Why or why not?
CHAPTER 2
A Brief Overview of the International
Monetary System
Learning Objectives
1. Describe key features and explain limitations of the gold standard.
2. Describe key features and explain limitations of the gold exchange
standard.
3. Describe key features and explain limitations of the Bretton Woods
system.
4. Describe key features of the international monetary system after
the collapse of the Bretton Woods system.
5. Explain plausible causes of the global financial crisis of 2007–2010.
17
18 CENTRAL BANKING
The third section covers the period after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods
system. Here the highlights will be (1) the global inflation problem in the 1970s
which led to a rethinking of the ultimate goal in monetary policy and the role of
central banks in managing the economy; (2) the speculative attacks on emerging-
market currencies in the 1990s, which led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rate
regimes in many countries; (3) the introduction of the euro in 2000, which became
another popular currency for international trade and finance; and (4) the global
financial crisis of 2007–2010 that still has ongoing effects.
From the eighteenth century to the onset of World War I in 1914 the international
monetary system was based largely on the gold standard. World War I prompted
many countries to abandon the gold standard so that they could effectively finance
their wartime expenditures. After World War I the attempts to return to the gold
standard had never really succeeded.
that the smaller economies would hold currencies of the major economies as reserves,
while the major economies would hold gold against their issued currencies. The sys-
tem under which smaller countries held currencies of the major economies partially as
reserves became known as the gold exchange standard.3
After World War II, the international community agreed to embark on a new inter-
national monetary system, that is, the Bretton Woods system, which was named after
the place where the agreement initially took place. Under this system, the United
States would hold gold as reserves and fix the value of the dollar at $35 per 1 ounce
of gold. As the U.S. government started incurring heavy deficits, partly to finance the
Vietnam War, the pressures on the system mounted and the Bretton Woods system
was abandoned by the early 1970s.
so that the IMF could lend to member countries facing balance of payment prob-
lems. Second, although exchange rates of the member countries were pegged to U.S.
dollars at certain levels, if necessary the IMF might consent to adjustments in the
exchange rates. The IMF’s consent to exchange rate adjustments, however, would
be given only when exchange rates were deemed inconsistent with long-term funda-
mentals. For example, consent might be given when the global demand for a coun-
try’s goods and services was deemed to be permanently reduced and the country was
facing persistent serious unemployment and balance of payment deficit problems.10
Under the IMF agreement, when countries were ready they would also start to
let their currencies be freely converted to other currencies. After World War II, how-
ever, most countries were still worried about the prospects of capital outflows, and
thus restrictions were often imposed on the convertibility of their currencies. In 1945
only the United States and Canada allowed their currencies to be fully convertible.
The early free convertibility of the U.S. dollar, along with the U.S. dollar’s unique
characteristics in the Bretton Woods system, helped the popularity of the U.S. dollar
as a medium of exchange in international trade and finance.11
Freer Flows of International Capital and Balance of Payment Crises As countries reduced
their restrictions on international capital flows and moved toward free convertibil-
ity of their currencies, balance of payment crises became more acute and frequent.
Under the Bretton Woods system global exchange rates were fixed, so the currency
of a country with persistent current account deficits could be deemed as being out of
line with long-term fundamentals, and the exchange rate might be overvalued.13
To protect their purchasing power from being reduced by a possible currency
devaluation, investors often rushed to convert their assets from the currency of a
country that had persistent current account deficits. Speculators might also choose
to join in by borrowing in that currency and converting the borrowed money into
another currency, waiting for the borrowed currency to be devalued so they could
pocket the difference.
Under the Bretton Woods system, the central bank of the troubled country was
obliged to pay the investors and speculators wishing to convert out of the currency
by using the central bank’s international reserves, in order to keep the exchange rate
fixed at the announced level. A severe rundown in the central bank’s international
reserves, however, could threaten the country’s ability to pay for imports and foreign
debt obligations, causing a balance of payment crisis.
By the early 1960s balance of payment crises became acute and frequent, espe-
cially among Europeans who had allowed freer flows of capital and moved toward
22 CENTRAL BANKING
The U.S. Macroeconomic Policy Package of 1965–1968 It has been argued that the U.S.
macroeconomic policy package of 1965–1968 introduced considerable pressures
that led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. In 1965 the U.S. government
ramped up its military purchases as the Vietnam War widened, while it also increased
spending on social programs without raising taxes. Initially the Federal Reserve
tightened monetary policy as output expanded, but it had to reverse course in 1967
and 1968 as the resulting high interest rates hurt the construction industry. Given the
rising budget deficit and expansionary monetary policy, inflation in the United States
had risen to almost 6 percent a year by the end of the decade.15
With a rising budget deficit and inflation in the United States, there were con-
cerns that the real value of the U.S. dollar in terms of gold was below the announced
official rate of 35 U.S. dollars per ounce of gold. As U.S. inflation rose, the U.S. dollar
lost its purchasing power for goods and services, which meant that the U.S. dollar had
also lost its value relative to other currencies as well as to gold.
Countries that pegged their exchange rates to the U.S. dollar that wanted to
retain their exchange rates at the announced pegged levels had to buy U.S. dollars
to prop up the value of the U.S. dollar. The purchase of the U.S. dollars, however,
raised their domestic money supplies, as they needed to use their own domestic cur-
rencies to buy up U.S. dollars. In such a situation, the rise in these countries’ domestic
money supply resulted in increased inflationary pressures in their domestic economies.
Sensing that the U.S. dollar needed to be devalued, speculators started to buy
up gold in the late 1967 and early 1968, which prompted massive gold sales by the
Federal Reserve and European central banks, draining official gold reserves in these
countries. The central banks then decided to create a two-tier market for gold, with
one tier being private and another tier being official. The price of gold in the private
tier would be determined by market forces, but in the official tier central banks
would trade gold among themselves at $35 per ounce.
The Availability of Gold to Back the Value of the U.S. Dollar: The Triffin Dilemma By the late
1960s, as the U.S. dollar became increasingly overvalued owing to rising inflation, the
U.S. current account position increasingly worsened. As U.S. balance of payment deficits
started to grow, there was also concern whether the U.S. would have enough gold to back
the value of the U.S. dollar. Apart from speculative attacks on currencies, the Bretton
Woods system also faced pressure from factors relating to the U.S. dollar’s unique status
as the world’s reserve currency. While other countries pegged their currencies to the U.S.
dollar, the U.S. pegged the value of its dollar to gold, at 35 U.S. dollars per ounce of gold.
In theory, the amount of U.S. gold holdings should have prevented the U.S. from
running excessive balance of payment deficits, since other countries could choose to
sell their U.S. dollar assets for gold from U.S. gold holdings. In practice, however,
despite growing U.S. deficits, other governments were willing to hold their wealth in
their international reserves in the form of U.S. dollar assets.
A Brief Overview of the International Monetary System 23
Since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, the global financial
system has evolved remarkably. Since that time, there have been at least four major
developments or turning points worth mentioning. First is the global inflation prob-
lem in the 1970s, which, beginning in the early 1980s, led to the growing acceptance
24 CENTRAL BANKING
of price stability as the key goal of monetary policy and the acknowledgment that
central banks needed to follow a rule in their conduct of monetary policy. Second
are the waves of speculative attacks on the currencies of emerging-market econo-
mies in the 1990s that prompted many emerging-market economies to float their
currencies. Third is the attempt of European countries to create a monetary union,
which ultimately led to the introduction of the euro, and the European Central
Bank. And fourth is the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, which was the most
severe since the Great Depression, and that is likely to change the global financial
landscape ahead.
of stagflation the central bank may subsequently need to sharply contract its mon-
etary policy, putting even more severe stress on the economy.
After the experiences of the late 1970s to early 1980s, central banks often
became more cautious in using an accommodative policy stance to deal with a sup-
ply shock. Indeed, central banks increasingly started to ponder the use of a monetary
policy rule as a tool to keep inflation low and stable. In the United States, along with
the tightening of monetary conditions, the Federal Reserve, under Paul Volcker, also
showed a commitment to low and stable inflation through its emphasis on the adop-
tion of money supply growth targeting as its monetary policy rule. Theoretically,
by keeping money supply growth at a rate consistent with economic growth, there
would be no excess money that could lead to inflationary pressures in the long run
(see Chapter 6 for more details).
By the late 1980s, however, the use of monetary supply growth targeting had
practically been abandoned in both the United States and the United Kingdom. As
it happened, the relationship between money growth and economic growth became
unstable, such that the money supply growth target often was inconsistent with the
growth in economic activity.22
countries, which forced the United Kingdom and Italy out of the EMS in 1992, and
forced the EMS to widen its exchange rate bands to +/− 15 percent in 1993 from
+/− 2.25 percent for certain member countries and +/− 15 for other member coun-
tries. Speculative attacks during the same period also forced a devaluation of Finnish
and Swedish currencies against the European Currency Unit (ECU), the precursor to
the euro.25,26 (See Concept: Speculative Attacks: Underlying Causes, Anatomy, and
Defense for more details on how speculative attacks are done.)
in 1997 and 1998, which prompted many of the attacked countries to abandon
their fixed exchange rate regime. Later a combination of factors, including contagion
effects from the Asian financial crisis, also led to financial crises in Russia in 1998,
Brazil in 1999, and Argentina in 2002. (The Asian financial crisis is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 9.)
Underlying Causes
With a fixed exchange rate regime, the central bank of a country is effectively
promising to convert the domestic currency to a foreign currency at a specified
exchange rate using its foreign reserves. Consequently, the country is prone to a
speculative attack if (1) it is in a markedly different economic cycle from that of the
country it fixes its exchange rate to (e.g., EMS countries that fixed their exchange
rates with Germany in the early 1990s), or (2) it runs a persistently large current
account deficit (e.g., emerging-market economies in the mid- and late 1990s).
If a country is in a different cycle from the country that it fixes its exchange
rate to, then that country would face a choice between using monetary policy
to address its domestic conditions or using its monetary policy to keep the
exchange rate fixed at the announced target. For example, if the country is in
a recession, the central bank might want to lower interest rates to help stimu-
late its domestic economy. If the central bank decides to lower interest rates,
however, investors might move funds abroad to receive higher interest rates
elsewhere. When investors move funds out of the country, they effectively sell
the domestic currency, which puts depreciation pressure on the exchange rate.
If enough investors sell the domestic currency, the central bank might indeed
have to devalue the exchange rate.
A large and persistent current account deficit, on the other hand, suggests
that the country has already been routinely paying out its foreign reserves
to pay for imports of goods and services from abroad. Since the amount of
a central bank’s foreign reserves is finite, such a persistent drain means that the
central bank might not be able to allow conversion of the domestic currency
into a foreign currency at the promised rate. More likely, the central bank
might need to devalue the domestic currency—that is, the public would need a
greater amount of the domestic currency in order to convert the domestic cur-
rency into a given amount of foreign currency.
If a currency devaluation occurs, those with domestic currency would lose
while those with foreign currency would gain. Therefore, investors would try to
(Continued)
28 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
convert their holdings of domestic currency into foreign currency if they think
that a devaluation of the domestic currency is imminent. Speculators, meanwhile,
might force the central bank to devalue its currency through speculative attacks.
*Following the European sovereign debt crisis of in the early 2010s, however, it was deemed
important that the ECB should also take on banking supervision for the member countries.
Starting in 2014 the ECB is to also assume banking supervisory functions over large credit
institutions within the euro area.
30 CENTRAL BANKING
twenty-first century, the euro had rapidly become another popular currency of
international trade and finance. This owed partly to the fact that (1) the euro area
includes many large, advanced economies such as Germany, France, Italy, and Spain,
as well as a number of other medium-sized advanced economies, which has made
the euro area a large and important block of countries, and (2) many smaller Eastern
European economies were expected to join the euro area once they passed the tough
admissions criteria, which would strengthen the euro area even further. In the pro-
cess, the ECB became another powerful central bank whose monetary policy could
significantly affect the international monetary system.32
The U.S. Subprime Crisis: The Run-Up By many accounts, the U.S. subprime crisis was
caused by a combination of factors, including (1) the low interest rates that had been
kept at low levels for too long and resulted in a housing price bubble, (2) the dete-
rioration in lending standards that resulted in loans being made to borrowers with
poor credit quality, and (3) amplified risks due to the opacity surrounding the use of
new financial innovations and products.33
Low Interest Rates Although the United States suffered a recession in the early
1990s, by the late 1990s the U.S. economy had sustained an almost decade-long
boom that came partly because of the productivity gains from the Internet revolution,
as well as a stable macroeconomic environment. Inflation had stayed low since the
mid-1980s, while the growing budget deficit that had been a problem in the 1980s
and early 1990s had reversed into a surplus by the end of the decade. The growth
in productivity and the stable macroeconomic environment helped contribute to a
boom in stock prices, particularly those of Internet-related (dot-com) companies.
The spectacular rise in the stock market in the late 1990s became known as the dot-
com bubble.
By early 2001, however, the dot-com bubble in the U.S. stock market had burst,
wiping out a lot of U.S. household wealth and severely weakening the U.S. corporate
A Brief Overview of the International Monetary System 31
sector. Later that year, terrorist attacks in the U.S. caused worldwide financial panics.
In response to these events, by the end of 2001 the U.S. central bank had lowered its
policy interest rate (the federal funds rate) to 1.75 percent, down from 6.5 percent
a year earlier.
Despite lower interest rates, the weakness in the U.S. economy, together with
other global factors—including the SARS virus scare of 2002 and 2003 and cheap
imports from China that started to flood the global economy after China had joined
WTO in 2001—helped to keep U.S. inflation down. By December 2003, the U.S.
inflation rate had fallen below 1 percent, which prompted fears of deflation.34
The deflationary scare made the Federal Reserve more cautious about subse-
quent hikes in interest rates, and it nudged the fed funds rate upward by only 0.25
percent at a time35 until it reached 5.25 percent in June 2006. The low interest rates
in the first years after 2000 were deemed a key factor that helped contribute to the
boom in the U.S. housing market, which subsequently resulted in the global financial
crisis of 2007–2010.
Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. housing prices rose by more than 80 percent.36
Low interest rates helped contribute to the boom in housing prices in a self-reinforc-
ing way because (1) low interest rates kept borrowing costs down, enabling people
to buy houses more easily; (2) low interest rates pushed people to seek investments
in assets that would yield higher returns than bank deposits, that is, stocks (which
yielded dividends as well as capital gains), housing (which could yield rents as well
as capital gains); and (3) as housing and stock prices started to rise rapidly, they also
raised U.S. household wealth, enabling and inducing households to borrow more in
order to invest in a second or third home.
Opacity Surrounding New Financial Innovations By the middle of the first decade
of the twenty-first century, new financial innovations helped make the U.S. housing
boom a global phenomenon. Securitization allowed banks to package individual
housing loans in a pool and sell securities backed by that pool of housing loans
to investors in the United States as well as abroad. The securities paid interest to
investors based on interest income pooled from individual housing loans. By putting
housing loans from diverse geographical areas into a single pool, the risk from a
default on any individual loan had been somewhat diversified away, since all bor-
rowers were not expected to default at the same time. Consequently, securitization
helped encourage banks to push for more lending, even to those who might have
poor credit history, since it would seem that the risk of such lending could be con-
tained and managed.
Securitized U.S. mortgages (housing loans) became very popular among investors
both in the U.S. and abroad because the pool of housing loans could be further sliced
into different tranches (related securities offered as part of the same transaction) that
bore different levels of risk. If any housing borrower did default, the buyers of the
most junior tranche of the pool of housing loans would be the first to absorb the loss.
In return, to compensate for such losses, the buyers of the most junior tranche would
receive the highest interest rate from that pool of housing loans.
The higher interest rates that could be earned from securitized mortgages were
deemed very attractive by investors when compared to interest rates earned on nor-
mal bank deposits. The opacity surrounding the securitization process of the pooling
and slicing of housing loans made it very difficult for investors to accurately gauge
the risks they were taking in compensation for the higher returns.
With securitization, even securities made from a pool of housing loans made to
borrowers with poor credit quality (i.e., subprime loans) were deemed rather safe
for investors, partly because credit rating agencies that were hired by the bank to
rate these securities would often rate them as being investment grade based on the
historical rise in housing prices. As demand from investors for securitized mortgages
rose, banks were induced to make loans by fees that they could earn from packaging
and selling the loans, and they became less cautious in making those loans.39
The U.S. Subprime Crisis: The Outcome The U.S. housing bubble finally became unten-
able when inflationary pressures started to pick up, partly because of fast-rising oil
prices, and it was deemed that the Federal Reserve would need to raise interest rates
further. By the time the federal fund rate reached 5.25 percent in 2006, the U.S. hous-
ing boom had already turned into a full-blown bubble. There were fears, which later
became justified, that once mortgage interest rates started to rise, subprime borrow-
ers would be unable to repay their loans and would have to default.
By 2007 there were already signs that the global financial system was about to
crack. In June 2007, two hedge funds linked to Bear Stearns (a global securities firm)
appeared in news headlines, as they needed to be rescued following sharp falls in the
value of their investments in securitized loans. In September 2007, Northern Rock (a
British bank that had relied on fees from securitization as a part of funding) found
itself in difficulties as demand for securitized loans dried up. As the news spread,
Northern Rock depositors rushed to demand their money from the bank, resulting
in a bank run.40
A Brief Overview of the International Monetary System 33
By 2008 the crisis had become truly global: as housing bubbles in the United
States and many European countries started to burst, banks that were involved in
lending to the housing and real estate sectors suffered large losses. Uncertainty sur-
rounding the health of financial institutions also made it very difficult for banks to
get funding through borrowing in the financial markets. In March 2008 the Federal
Reserve had to facilitate the purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase, a large
U.S. bank, to prevent Bear Stearns from falling into bankruptcy.
The crisis reached its peak when the U.S. government decided to let Lehman
Brothers, a global securities firm, file for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. The fail-
ure of Lehman Brother caused panic worldwide, since Lehman Brothers was a global
financial firm and counterparty to a worldwide web of global financial institutions.
By September 19, 2008, with the threat that a domino effect of bank failures would
bring a total collapse to the whole financial system, the U.S. government decided to
reverse its stance and helped rescue a number of large banks, financial securities firms,
money market mutual funds, and a large insurance company (AIG). By mid-October
2008, the governments of Ireland, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands,
and Austria also had to step in to rescue their own ailing banking systems.41
The European sovereign debt crisis came on the heels of the global financial crisis. Despite the euro
system’s early success, by the later years of the first decade of the twenty-first century cracks began to
appear as a number of weaker member countries were hard hit by the global financial crisis. In Ireland,
which suffered from the burst of its own property bubble, the government’s decision to bail out the
whole banking system through the guarantee of all banking sector liabilities effectively turned private
debt into public debt.42 The unsustainable public-debt load ultimately pushed the Irish government to
seek outside assistance.
In Greece and Portugal, the fall in GDP growth and government revenue prompted their fiscal
deficits to rise and their already-high ratios of public debt to GDP to look unsustainable, making it dif-
ficult for the governments of these two countries to refinance their debts. Although Spain initially did
not have a high public debt-to-GDP ratio, when the global financial crisis started in 2007 the country
subsequently severely suffered from a burst in its own housing bubble, such that a sharp fall in GDP
combined with government spending to help alleviate a sharp spike in the unemployment rate made
public debt triple to more than 90 percent of GDP by 2013.43
Since euro-area members were required by their euro agreement to keep their fiscal deficits below
3 percent of GDP, the euro governments were required to cut spending, which hurt already-weak eco-
nomic activity even further. Without fiscal spending, these troubled euro countries had no tools to help
stimulate their economies during a downturn, since their conduct of monetary policy had been handed
over to the ECB, which focused primarily on the euro-wide perspective. Furthermore, in having a com-
mon currency troubled euro economies did not have the choice of a currency devaluation, which might
otherwise have helped cheapen their export prices and stimulate external demand for their goods and
services.
With their economies struggling, the risk that the governments of these countries might be unable
to repay their public debts started to rise. To compensate for the risk, investors started asking for
higher interest rates on bonds from these governments. Higher interest rates further weakened the
ability of these governments to repay their debts, and also weakened the European banking sector,
since many European banks held bonds of troubled euro governments as assets on their books. By
2012, the governments of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain all had to seek financial assistance from
the so-called troika—the IMF, the European Union, and the ECB.
34 CENTRAL BANKING
As of 2014, the fallout from the global financial crisis of 2007–2010 was still very
much present in the global monetary system. In response to the crisis, central banks
in major advanced economies—such as the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the Bank of
Japan, and the Bank of England—lowered their interest rates to nearly 0 percent and
engaged in quantitative easing (i.e., the purchase of government securities from the
financial market) in one form or another.
One of the side effects of the low interest rate policy and the quantitative eas-
ing programs in the advanced economies was a large influx of capital flows into
emerging-market economies. Quantitative easing programs were, in effect, injec-
tions of money into the system, as the central banks that engaged in such programs
would be paying money to purchase government securities from private holders of
the securities. The extra injections of money from the quantitative easing programs
and the low interest rates in the advanced economies nudged investors to search for
higher investment returns in countries whose growth had been less affected by the
crisis. The inflow of international capital into emerging economies has caused
the currencies of emerging-market economies to appreciate in value across the board
since 2010.
Another related side effect of the low interest rate policy and quantitative easing
programs was the increasing volatility of international capital flows. Given that the
advanced economies still remained rather weak, the quantitative easing programs
were perceived more or less as a life support system, whose removal could cause a
scare and much volatility and panic in global financial markets. In mid-2013, for
example, when the Federal Reserve announced that it might taper its purchases of
government securities in the near future, stock markets dropped across the globe.
Investors rushed to draw back their capital from emerging-market economies. The
reversal of capital flows caused the exchange rates of many emerging-market econo-
mies to experience a sharp drop. Only when the Federal Reserve reversed its posi-
tion and announced that tapering might not occur until sometime in the future did
the stock markets rise again, and capital outflows from emerging-market economies
slowed or reversed.
Going forward, the international monetary system that central banks will be
operating in would likely be affected by three important forces: (1) intensification
of the globalization process, (2) continued evolution in financial activities, and
(3) unfinished businesses from global financial crisis. How these forces might inter-
act to shape the international monetary system and how central banks might adapt
to meet challenges that these forces might pose will be discussed in more detail in
Part IV of the book.
SUMMARY
International elements have always been present in central banking, ever since the
Bank of Amsterdam started sorting and storing the coins of different sovereigns. In
the centuries that followed, the international monetary system that central banks
operate has also evolved.
When the gold standard was in place, central banks pegged the value of their
currencies to gold. The main aim was to keep the value of money at the announced
A Brief Overview of the International Monetary System 35
peg level. The gold standard broke down during World War I, as countries aban-
doned their pegs so they could print more money to finance the war.
After World War I, countries adopted the gold exchange standard, whereby the
major countries would still peg their currencies to gold and hold gold as reserves.
Smaller countries, however, would hold the currencies of the major countries as
reserves instead, since there was not enough gold for all countries to hold as reserves.
In the 1930s the Great Depression emerged; as economic activities declined, a
large number of banks failed worldwide, and deflation lasted for a decade. The Great
Depression was partly attributable to the focus of central banks on maintaining their
gold pegs, which led to contractionary monetary policies worldwide.
Turmoil in the international financial system also occurred in the 1930s as coun-
tries resorted to competitive devaluation of their currencies as well as trade protec-
tionism to protect employment.
In July 1944, delegates from 44 countries decided to adopt a new interna-
tional monetary system, the Bretton Woods system. Under this system the United
States would fix the value of the U.S. dollar to gold at $35 per ounce, while other
countries would fix the value of their currencies to the U.S. dollar. The IMF was also
created to help countries deal with balance of payment and unemployment problems
without having to resort to competitive devaluation and trade protectionism.
With freer international capital flows, the macroeconomic policy package in the
United States that led to a budget deficit and high inflation, and the limitation of
gold availability to back the U.S. dollar, the pressures on the Bretton Woods system
became untenable. At first the United States stopped automatic convertibility of the
U.S. dollar into gold and devalued the U.S. dollar. With a balance of payments crisis
and speculative attacks raging on currencies, many advanced economies decided to
allow their currencies to float against the U.S. dollar.
In the 1970s, the two oil shocks and accommodative fiscal and monetary poli-
cies led to the Great Inflation problem. As inflation expectations started to spiral
out of control while the economy stagnated, many academics and central bank-
ers started to ponder the use of a monetary policy rule to ensure price stability. In
1979 the Federal Reserve decided to bring down inflation expectations by tightening
monetary policy sharply, and emphasized its commitments to money supply growth
targeting as its monetary policy rule. By the late 1980s, however, money supply tar-
geting had been practically abandoned, since the relationship between money and
output proved unstable.
In the 1990s, liberalization led to large inflows of capital into emerging-market
economies. As inflows started to seep into asset-price speculation, and emerging-
market economies started to run large current account deficits, speculative attacks
forced many of the emerging economies to devalue or float their currencies.
Since the early 1990s, many central banks in both advanced and emerging-
market economies have started to adopt a monetary policy regime known as infla-
tion targeting.
In 2000, a number of European countries decided to adopt a common currency,
the euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) was created to conduct monetary policy
for member countries of the euro area.
Between 2007 and 2010 a global financial crisis occurred, stemming from the
subprime crisis in the United States. As of this writing, the global economy has not
yet fully recovered from the global financial crisis.
36 CENTRAL BANKING
KEY TERMS
balance of payments crisis inflation targeting
Bretton Woods system money supply growth targeting
European sovereign debt crisis speculative attacks
global financial crisis stagflation
gold standard subprime crisis
gold exchange standard Triffin dilemma
the Great Depression wage-price spiral
the Great Inflation
QUESTIONS
1. What were the key features of the gold standard?
2. Why did the gold standard break down?
3. What could be key reasons preventing countries from returning to the gold
standard?
4. What were the key features of the gold exchange standard?
5. Why did the gold exchange standard break down?
6. What were the key features of the Bretton Woods system?
7. Why did the Bretton Woods system break down?
8. Why did stagflation occur in the 1970s?
9. What did the Federal Reserve do to help end stagflation in the United States?
10. Why might emerging-market economies maintain their fixed exchange rates with
major currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, after the breakdown of the Bretton
Woods system?
11. What were the causes of speculative attacks on emerging-market currencies in
the 1990s?
12. Explain intuitively how speculative attacks on currencies could be done.
13. How might low interest rates in the United States have contributed to the
subprime crisis?
14. What were the key factors contributing to the U.S. subprime crisis?
15. In the euro area, what are the main responsibilities of the ECB?
16. In the euro area, what are the main responsibilities of the NCBs?
17. What might be possible causes of the European sovereign debt crisis?
CHAPTER 3
Modern Central Banking Roles
and Functions
What Exactly Is a Central Bank?
Learning Objectives
. Describe various roles and functions of modern central banks.
1
2. Describe the money creation process.
3. Explain the use of monetary policy to regulate monetary condi-
tions in the economy.
4. Explain the role of central banks in payment systems oversight and
provision.
5. Explain the role of central banks as lenders of last resort.
6. Explain the role of central banks as bank supervisors.
37
38 CENTRAL BANKING
Central banking today has evolved noticeably from its origins, owing to changes
in the economic and financial environment that central banks operate in and the
resultant changes in the roles of central banks. After many experiences and lessons
learned along the way (e.g., the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Great Inflation
of the 1970s, and the global financial crisis of 2007–2010 that were discussed
in Chapters 1 and 2), it has become generally accepted that the key role of a modern
central bank is to provide a sound and stable macroeconomic environment such that
long-term sustainable growth of the economy can be achieved.
A modern central bank can deliver a sound and stable economic environment
through (1) monetary stability, or safeguarding the value of the currency, whether
in terms of low domestic inflation or stability of the exchange rate; and (2) financial
stability, or helping the financial system to function smoothly and efficiently in the
allocation of resources in the economy.
With stability in the value of the currency and smooth and effective functioning
of the financial system, it is believed that the private sector (households and firms)
will be able to make optimal consumption and investment decisions, which are fun-
damental to the long-term growth of the economy.
Over time, to suit the modern roles of central banking, a number of the central
bank functions discussed in Chapter 2 have been dropped, and the rest have been
modified. Most notably, most central banks these days are no longer coin sorters, nor
financiers to the government. The conduct of monetary policy to achieve economic
goals has now become a key focus for most central banks. In the wake of the global
financial crisis of 2007–2010, the role of a central bank as a guardian to the financial
system has also again been a key focus.
In general, it could be said that a typical modern central bank has five key func-
tions: (1) issuance of money, (2) conduct of monetary policy, (3) payment systems
facilitation, (4) lender of last resort, and (5) banking supervision. Some of the central
banks might not have all five functions (e.g., some might not have the bank supervi-
sion function), and details of the workings of the functions might differ from one
central bank to another. Still, these five key functions represent what a typical mod-
ern central bank does. Table 3.1 illustrates how these five functions might fit with the
roles of a modern central bank.
In this chapter we briefly review what these functions are, and their underly-
ing mechanics. In Chapter 4 we will examine the goals, or mandates, of modern
central banks, which may include monetary stability, financial stability, and full
employment, and which determine the specific functions performed by modern cen-
tral banks.
TABLE 3.1 Roles and Functions of a Modern Central Bank: How They Fit
Monetary Stability Financial Stability
*A number of modern central banks currently do not have the banking supervision function,
while others do.
countersignatures reflect the fact that the banknotes issued by the central bank has
the backing of the sovereign.*
In this electronic age, not only can the issuance of money be done by the central
bank through banknote issuance, it can also be done through electronic means. The
central bank can choose to issue money by electronically crediting a commercial
bank’s account held at the central bank, possibly as a payment on the central bank’s
purchase of government securities from the commercial bank. In this case, the cen-
tral bank is issuing money in electronic form, and is not printing banknotes to pay
for the government securities that it bought from the commercial bank. That elec-
tronic form of money, however, could always be converted into banknotes from the
central bank if the commercial bank so desires.
Whether the central bank issues money in electronic form or in the form of
banknotes, that money goes through a process called the money creation process
when it circulates in the economy. The money creation process multiplies the initial
amount of money issued by the central bank, which results in a much larger amount.
The final amount of money that comes out of the money creation process constitutes
money supply. (See Concept: The Money Creation Process for more details.)
The Money Creation Process and Its Influences on Economic Activity and Price Levels The
stylized money creation process described in Concept: The Money Creation Process
*In a modern economy coins are often issued by the mint, which is likely to be under the
finance ministry, not the central bank. Since in modern times banknotes account for a much
larger proportion of the money supply than coins, it is reasonable to say that it is the central
bank that is the ultimate creator of money.
40 CENTRAL BANKING
Assets Liabilities
Assets Liabilities
– $100 in
+ $100 + $100 in government bonds
in government banknotes + $100 in
bonds banknotes
Gov’t
bonds
$100
Gov’t
bonds
$100
The central bank prints $100 worth of banknotes to purchase government bonds
from Commercial Bank A. At the end of this stage, the amount of money in the
economy rises by $100, as reflected by banknotes held by Commercial Bank A.
Figure 3.2 illustrates a case in which Commercial Bank A lends out $100
worth of banknotes to a borrower called firm X, who then uses the banknotes
to pay its supplier called Individual I. On the asset side of Commercial Bank
A’s balance sheet, that lending of $100 worth of banknotes will be recorded as
a decrease of $100 worth of banknotes, and matched by an increase of $100
on a loan made to Firm X.
When Individual I receives the $100 worth of banknotes from Firm X, if
he still does not have an urgent use for that money, then he is likely to put that
amount of money back into his bank account, possibly for safety reasons, and
possibly to also earn interest income from that money.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the case where Individual I deposits $100 worth of
banknotes that he received from Firm X into his account at Commercial Bank B.
Here, on Commercial Bank B’s balance sheet, the $100 that Individual I
deposited into his account at Commercial Bank B would be recorded as an
increase in Commercial Bank B’s liabilities. To match the increase in liabilities,
Commercial Bank B would actively seek to lend out those banknotes to earn
interest on them.
In Figure 3.3, as Commercial Bank B lends to Individual II, the loan made
to Individual II would be recorded as an increase in assets on the balance sheet
of Commercial Bank B. At this point, note that while the central bank origi-
nally issued only $100 worth of banknotes, the total amount of money by this
time has already doubled to $200, since $100 in Individual I’s deposit account
at Commercial Bank B would also be counted as money.
This process of money creation is likely to continue, since individuals or
firms will keep cash on hand only up to a certain level. Any extra cash beyond
that level would be invested or deposited to earn interest income. Once the extra
(Continued)
42 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
Individual I
Commercial Bank B
Individual I deposits
Assets Liabilities $100 worth of banknotes
received from Firm X in a
+ $100 loaned + $100 deposit account held at
to deposit Commercial Bank B.
Individual II made by
Individual I
Individual II
Commercial Bank B loans
out $100 worth of
banknotes to Individual II.
At this point, the amount of money in the system has doubled to $200 (the
$100 deposited in the account of Individual I plus the $100 worth of banknotes lent
out to Individual II).
cash is deposited with a commercial bank, the bank would have an incentive
to lend the extra cash out, so it can generate interest income from that lending.
The rise in the liabilities on the bank’s balance sheet in terms of an increase in
deposits would amount to an increase in the amount of money in the economy,
even though the cash is already lent out and is no longer with the bank.
In Figure 3.4, as Individual II used the borrowed money to buy gadgets
from Merchant I, and Merchant I deposited that money into his account at
Commercial Bank C, the total amount of money rises to $300 from the initial
$100 that the central bank first issued. The $300 includes the $100 worth of
banknotes that are still circulating within the economy, the $100 deposit
of Individual I at Commercial Bank B, and the $100 deposit of Merchant I at
Commercial Bank C.
From the stylized process described above, we can see that the central bank
is indeed very powerful with respect to money creation. Even at this stage, the
$100 worth of banknotes initially introduced by the central bank can turn into
$300 worth of money in the system, with the potential of going much further
as long as the process keeps repeating.
Commercial Bank B
Merchant I
Assets Liabilities
+ $100 + $100
Individual II loaned to deposit
Individual II made by
Commercial Bank C Individual I
Assets Liabilities
+ $100 + $100
loaned to deposit
Individual III made by
Merchant I
Individual II
At this point, the amount of money in the system has increased to
$300 (the $100 deposit at Commercial Bank B plus the $100 deposit at
Commercial Bank C plus the $100 worth of banknotes at Individual III).
vaults, or keep some money in their deposit accounts at the central bank, to
meet withdrawal demand from depositors or other urgencies, and (2) the num-
ber of borrowers worth lending to is limited.
The money that banks keep on hand or in the vaults and in their accounts
at the central bank constitutes what is known as bank reserves. In many coun-
tries, the central bank also sets legal reserve requirements, specifying the ratio
of reserves to deposits that the banks are legally required to maintain.
When commercial banks keep a part of deposits on hand or in the accounts
held with the central bank as reserves it is called fractional reserve banking. In
a fractional reserve banking system, if all commercial banks hold, for example,
5 percent of deposits on hand, then the money creation process has the poten-
tial to multiply the initial amount of base money by 1/0.05 = 20 times. If the
initial base money is $100, and commercial banks hold 5 percent of deposits as
reserves, then potentially the maximum amount of the money supply that can
be created from the initial $100 is $100 × 20 = $2,000. Here, 20 is called the
money multiplier. More generically, the money multiplier is 1/(reserve ratio),
where the reserve ratio is the ratio of reserves to deposits.1
suggests that money creation has a vast potential to affect economic activity. Given
that the economy is initially in equilibrium, when new money issued by the central
bank finds its way into a commercial bank’s balance sheet, the commercial bank will
actively seek to lend out that money so that it can earn interest on the loans. Money sit-
ting idle in the vault is costly to banks, whether in terms of storage, interest that must
be paid out to depositors, or foregone interest income that might be earned from lend-
ing the money out. The more money that is introduced into the system, the more banks
will aggressively loan out the money. As more money is introduced into the system,
banks become more willing to lend it out at lower interest and less stringent terms.
44 CENTRAL BANKING
Inflation The lower costs of borrowing and less stringent borrowing terms enable
borrowers to engage in more economic activity. Firms can borrow more money to
buy raw materials, build new factories, hire employees, and generally engage in pro-
duction. Individuals can borrow more money to buy houses, cars, or other gadgets,
which will, in turn, prompt more production and investments by firms. As firms
and individuals use the money to bid up resources and goods and services, prices of
goods and services will start to rise. Indeed, if the central bank keeps on printing and
issuing new money, money will be worth less and less in terms of goods and services
that can be purchased. A situation in which there is a continuous and sustained (as
opposed to a one-time) rise in the general level of prices is called inflation.
Hyperinflation At the extreme, if the central bank keeps issuing a lot of money,
money can very rapidly diminish in value, such that the problem of hyperinflation
ensues. With hyperinflation, the value of money can fall so fast, even minute-by-minute,
that it is not a good store of value. People in a country with hyperinflation would
rather use the money to buy goods and services right away once they get the money.
With hyperinflation, people are not able to make optimal investment decisions since
they can’t reasonably predict investment costs and revenues even in the short term.
Recession In contrast, if too little amount of money is introduced into the system,
economic activity could very well slow down or even fall, tipping the economy into
a recession. With a scarcity of money to lend out, banks will charge higher interest
rates and impose more stringent terms on their loans. Firms will find it hard to bor-
row to buy raw materials, invest in new factories, hire employees, or expand their
production. Individuals will find it hard to borrow money to finance their purchases
of goods and services, which also affects the firms that provide those goods and ser-
vices. Indeed, as money in the system becomes scarcer, and demand for goods and
services falls, firms might have to cut their prices. As firms are unable make profits,
they might have to also cut down on their number of workers, which would further
reduce aggregate demand in the economy.
Deflation At the extreme, if money is really scarce, economic activity could fall
so much so that a large number of firms will fail, resulting in high unemployment.
Surviving firms, meanwhile, might be forced to keep cutting prices to attract customers.
The number of the firms’ customers, meanwhile, could keep dwindling as more peo-
ple lose their jobs. The situation where the general price level continuously falls is
known as deflation.
Since the amount of money that the central bank introduces into an economy
can seriously affect economic conditions, it is very important that the amount of
money the central bank issues into the economy is appropriate for economic con-
ditions. The central bank might also need to regulate the money creation process
and money conditions in the economy through other means, a subject that we will
explore in more detail in the next section.
said that the central bank is responsible for the conduct of monetary policy. As
discussed before, when a lot of money is available in the economy at low cost—
possibly through high money issuance, or from a reduction in reserve requirements,
or from cuts in interest rates—then households and firms are likely to be stimulated
to engage in more consumption and production.
When there is insufficient money in the economy or when the costs of money
are high, on the other hand, households will be less able to borrow to consume,
while firms will be less able to borrow to invest, expand production, or hire workers.
Making sure that there is just the right amount of money available at the right cost
to households and firms is something that the central bank has always aspired to as
the regulator of money.
Money Supply versus Reserve Requirements versus Policy Interest Rate In a modern, com-
plex economy, the way the central bank regulates money has become more sophis-
ticated and indirect. As will be discussed in Part II of this book in more detail, most
modern central banks no longer attempt to set a target for the money supply in the
economy, since the relationship between the level of base money and the total level
of the money supply in the economy could be very unstable. The central bank, unless
it’s operating a tightly controlled system, also often refrains from frequently adjust-
ing reserve requirements (the percentage of deposits that banks can’t loan out), since
it might hamper the smooth functioning of the economy. For example, if the central
bank raises reserve requirements in order to slow down economic activity and the
banking system previously had been in equilibrium in the sense that there was no
existing excess reserves, commercial banks might need to call in loans from borrow-
ers in order to meet the new reserve requirements. Calling in loans can be very costly
to the banks and their borrowers, and very disruptive to economic activity.
Instead of adjusting reserve requirements, modern central banks often attempt
to regulate money conditions in the economy via the use of a policy interest rate and
financial market operations. A policy interest rate is a short-term interest rate that
a central bank chooses to directly influence, which gives a signal to the public as to
what it sees in terms of future economic conditions and future price levels. By raising
the policy interest rate, the central bank signals to the public that it wants to tone
down the acceleration of economic activity and tame the rise in the general price
level. By lowering the policy interest rate, the central bank signals to the public that
it wants economic activity to pick up and that it wants to allow a rise in the general
price level. By keeping the policy interest rate at a particular level, the central bank
signals to the public that money conditions in the economy are appropriate for a
favorable outlook of economic activity and the general price level. Financial market
operations, on the other hand, help ensure that the policy interest rate stays at or
near the level that the central bank wants to keep.
The Use of Policy Interest Rate and Financial Market Operations to Regulate Monetary Conditions
in the Economy In a modern financial system, if the central bank deems that money con-
ditions are too loose (i.e., too much money is available at too low a cost), the central
bank might raise the policy interest rate. By raising the policy interest rate, the oppor-
tunity cost of money will increase, and thus lenders will be more discrete in their lend-
ing. In a modern system where news and information are available on a real-time basis,
once the central bank announces the hike in the policy interest rate it is conceivable
that lenders will adjust their lending behavior right away, raising the cost of their loans.
46 CENTRAL BANKING
However, in the case where there is already too much money in the system, the
central bank might back up the announcement of the policy interest rate hike with
open market operations, whereby the central bank itself takes out money from the
system by selling government bonds in the financial market. By selling government
bonds in the financial market, the central bank is effectively draining money from
the system, since payments for the bonds are made using money. Money that buyers
of bonds pay to the central bank will effectively be out of circulation.
In contrast, when the central bank deems that money conditions are too tight
(i.e., too little money is available at too high a cost), the central bank might lower the
policy interest rate. With a lower policy interest rate, the opportunity cost of money
will be lower and lenders will be more willing to lend. As with the hike in the policy
interest rate, news and information is available on a real-time basis and so the mere
announcement of a cut in the policy interest rate will lead to an adjustment in the
behavior of lenders right away.
Still, if the central bank deems it necessary, it could also back up the announce-
ment of the cut in the policy interest rate with operations in the financial market.
Most likely the central bank will decide to buy government bonds in the financial
market. By buying government bonds in the financial market the central bank will
effectively be injecting money into the system, since the government will have to pay
money to market participants for the bonds that it purchased.
The central bank’s role as a regulator of money (i.e., the conductor of monetary
policy), has become a key feature accorded much attention by the public in the past
four decades. Changes in money conditions potentially affect everyone in the econ-
omy. After many trials and errors, and a number of theoretical and practical break-
throughs, the conduct of monetary policy is now widely viewed as a composition of
both art and science. We will examine the theoretical foundations and the practice of
monetary policy in more detail in Part II of the book.
Payment Systems Oversight As a payment systems regulator, the central bank sets
rules and guidelines regarding payment systems. The central bank’s main aims in
setting rules, arguably, are to (1) reduce the probability of a payment systems failure,
(2) improve efficiency in payment systems, and (3) ensure fairness and equity in the
use of payment systems.4
Payment system failures can cause ripple effects through the financial system
and the economy, as participants might rely on payments to meet their own liquidity
obligations. In extreme cases, liquidity shortages resulting from payment system fail-
ures could cause financial panics and bank runs. Consequently, failures in payment
systems have the potential to disrupt economic activity and cause financial instabil-
ity. It thus is in the central bank’s interest to reduce the probability of such failures,
which could lead to instability in both the financial system and the economy.
Apart from reducing systemic risks, the central bank also regulates the payment
system for efficiency reasons. New technology often brings improved efficiency. In
many cases, however, the private sector might not have the incentive to move to
newer technology, as it often requires major investments. To help prod the private
sector along, the mantle often falls on the public sector, particularly the central bank,
to issue guidelines and regulations to help coordinate players in the private sector to
move to the new technology on an appropriate timeline.5
Efficient payment systems are also integral to efficient monetary policy opera-
tions. Efficient payment systems can help the central bank inject and absorb liquid-
ity more quickly. Likewise, efficient payment systems will allow commercial banks
to efficiently manage their reserves. Commercial banks can borrow and lend more
quickly as needed. Consequently, to ensure maximum efficiency in monetary opera-
tions it is also in the interest of the central bank, as the conductor of monetary policy,
to get involved in designing and regulating payment systems.6
Furthermore, since payment systems are often a public good with positive exter-
nalities, the central bank might want to set rules that ensure equity and fairness in
the economy. The infrastructure of a payment system network often has economies
of scale and requires large investments that can only be made by the public sector or
large players in the private sector. When the private sector is the one making the nec-
essary investments, it might be beneficial that smaller players also be able to access
the network at a price that is affordable to them, yet fair to those large players that
made the investments.
Payment Systems Provision The modern central bank is often the key service provider
for the large-value fund (wholesale) transfer system in the economy. For interbank
fund transfer payments, it is often most efficient for commercial banks to use a
single integrated central system, rather than relying on different, fragmented systems.
Such a single integrated central system, however, is a public good. Without public
intervention, commercial banks that initially invested in such an infrastructure are
unlikely to allow other commercial banks to join in (or free ride) the network. To
get around this problem, most central banks often become key service providers
of wholesale payments themselves. For small-value (retail) fund transfer payments,
however, central banks often get involved as a service provider only with certain
types of instruments, notably check clearing. Central banks would be unlikely to be
involved with credit card clearing, however, since private sector service providers
already provide extensive services in this area.7
48 CENTRAL BANKING
Moral Hazard In a banking context, the moral hazard problem suggests that if banks
know that they can always seek assistance from the central bank, they will be more
reckless in their behavior. Banks might lend to risky projects without adequately pre-
paring for the risks they are taking on and always assume that help will be at hand.
To discipline banks against the moral hazard problem, the central bank often urges
the banks to find other means of assistance before coming to the central bank.10
Often, the central bank will also make clear that it will not rescue any single bank
unless it would jeopardize the whole system (i.e., too-big-to-fail).
In the wake of the recent global financial crisis and the subsequent euro cri-
sis that threatened to destabilize the global economy, however, many central banks
had to again embrace the lender-of-last-resort function in a very significant man-
ner. Major central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and the Bank of
England, all became lenders of last resort to prevent the crises from destabilizing the
financial system and the economy even more severely than it already had.
Forms of Lender-of-Last-Resort Function Theoretically, the central bank can assume the
lender-of-last-resort function in three main forms. First, it can lend liquidity to indi-
vidual banks. Second, it can lend liquidity to the market, rather than to specific
individual financial institutions. Third, it can inject risk capital into troubled banks,
which effectively also implies a takeover of the banks by the government.11
In the first form of the lender-of-last-resort function, the central bank could pro-
vide short-term loans, possibly against collateral such as government securities, directly
to a troubled bank so that it could meet its short-term obligations first. Once the
troubled bank met its short-term obligations, it could return to normal functioning
and would be expected to repay the borrowed funds to the central bank. The fact that
the bank could return to normal functioning after meeting its short-term obligations
suggest that the bank was merely facing a liquidity problem rather than a solvency
problem.* In the second form of the lender-of-last-resort function, the central bank
could lend out liquidity to the market, rather than to specific individual financial
*A liquidity problem suggests that an entity might not be able to liquidate its assets in a timely
manner without incurring losses from the liquidation, and that those losses might hamper the
entity’s ability to meet its short-term obligations in full. If the liquidity problem is addressed in
a timely manner, the losses might not be so severe and could be covered by the entity’s existing
capital. In such a case, if the liquidity problem is addressed in a timely manner the entity is
likely to be able to return to normal functioning. A solvency problem, however, suggests that
the entity might not have enough current assets to meet its current liabilities, and the entity
might need to draw down a substantial portion (or all) of its capital to meet liabilities. With a
solvency problem, the entity thus might not be able to return to normal functioning without
a capital injection.
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions 49
institutions, to reduce liquidity shortages that occur across the financial system in
times of extreme stress. Examples from the global financial crisis of 2007–2010
include the Federal Reserve’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility, which was set up to
ease up liquidity conditions in the repo (repurchase) market,12 as well as the Federal
Reserve’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility, which was created to ease liquidity
conditions in commercial paper market.13 In both cases the Federal Reserve was will-
ing to lend to nonbank financial institutions as well as nonfinancial firms (in many
cases against illiquid collateral) to help alleviate liquidity shortages in these markets.
With extra liquidity from the central bank, financial institutions or firms are able
to meet their short-term obligations better. The lending can also help bring down
the general level of short-term interest rates or prevent them from rising further. If
short-term interest rates are low, financial institutions will be more willing to lend
and borrow both among themselves and with other customers, which will help ease
general tightness in liquidity and allow economic activity to continue.
The third form of the lender-of-last-resort function applies to cases in which the
bank is unlikely to be able to return to normal functioning even after meeting its
short-term obligations (i.e., the bank is facing a solvency problem). In such cases the
central bank might need to inject risk capital into the bank and take over the manage-
ment of that bank. Through injecting capital the central bank would take ownership
of the bank (as opposed to merely lending) and would work to find a suitable resolu-
tion to the problem. In a way, we could view injection of risk capital into banks as
a special resolution for troubled banks, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Bank Supervisor
As discussed in Chapter 2, if the role of lender of last resort is placed upon the cen-
tral bank, it is only fair that the central bank should be able to regularly assess the
health of commercial banks, since if any of the banks get into trouble the central
bank would have to decide if it is worth helping, and if so, pay for such help.14 In
many countries such a role has since evolved into banking supervision, under which
the central bank not only has a formal duty to inspect the soundness of commercial
banks’ operations but also to issue regulations that will ensure such soundness.
In practice, modern central banks have a number of related but diverse tasks as
bank supervisors. These tasks might include (1) licensing of new banks, (2) exami-
nation and monitoring of banks’ operations, (3) setting regulatory requirements for
banks, (4) enforcement of regulations to ensure corrective action, and (5) providing
resolution for troubled financial institutions when necessary.15 The aim of these tasks
is to reduce risk with respect to individual financial institutions as well as to the
system as a whole.
Licensing of New Banks Many central banks undertake the task of new bank licens-
ing to ensure that banks under its supervision will start with a sound framework.*
Organizers of a new commercial bank have to submit an application to the central
*Note that in the United States, the Federal Reserve does not provide banking licenses. Rather,
states grant banking license to state banks and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
grants licenses to national banks. (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2005)
50 CENTRAL BANKING
bank for approval. Normally, the central bank will examine the soundness of the
business plan to see if the new bank will be profitable after a certain period of time.
Individuals proposed for the board of directors and management of the bank will
also be examined to see if they are fit and proper (i.e., they are honest and trust-
worthy, they have never declared bankruptcy, and they have not been directors or
managers of another bank that failed).16
Apart from ensuring the safety and soundness of a new bank through its policy on
new bank licensing, the central bank can also shape the financial landscape under its
jurisdiction in such a way that systemic risks are reduced and innovation and competi-
tion are encouraged. For example, if the central bank deems existing competition among
commercial banks to be already healthy and sufficient, and that more entrants will bring
in excessive competition such that the commercial banks might have to resort to riskier
activities to achieve acceptable returns, then the central bank might decide to delay new
licensing. In contrast, if the central bank deems current competition and innovation to
be insufficient in supporting economic activity, then the central bank can give licenses
to new players or allow banks to provide a wider range of financial products.
On-Site Examination
In a typical on-site examination, bank examiners sent by the central bank will
interview the bank’s management, inspect the bank’s written policies and pro-
cedures, determine the degree to which the policies and procedures are actually
followed, evaluate the adequacy of the bank’s capital, check the accuracy of
accounting records, check the adequacy of internal controls and the audit func-
tion, and check for compliance with laws and regulations. (See Table 3.2.)
Apart from being written up, results of an on-site examination are also
often summarized into a single composite number in what is known as the
CAMELS rating system (or its variants), where C stands for capital adequacy,
A stands for asset quality, M stands for management (which includes internal
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions 51
Off-Site Monitoring
In practice, it is not cost-effective or convenient for central banks (and com-
mercial banks) to have bank examiners on-site in each bank at all times. The
supervisory central bank would thus use off-site monitoring to cover the period
in the supervisory cycle between on-site examinations. During off-site moni-
toring, the supervisory central bank will check for correction of the financial
problems revealed at the last on-site examination; plan ahead to identify areas
of emerging risk to focus on in the next examination; and analyze current con-
ditions and performance of the bank based on regulatory reports, reports of
the examiners, and publicly available information about the bank, such that,
if necessary, changes to the CAMELS rating, a targeted examination, or a full-
scope examination that takes place earlier than scheduled can be made.20
Setting Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Banks The supervisory central bank
has the power to set rules and guidelines for commercial banks to ensure that they
operate in a safe and sound manner. Such regulations might range from the banks’
corporate governance and risk management practices to capital and reserve adequacy
requirements. For a central bank, capital requirements (the minimum capital that
each bank needs to have to buffer against unexpected losses) and reserve require-
ments (the minimum reserves that each bank needs to hold against deposits to meet
52 CENTRAL BANKING
liquidity demand) are among the key regulations it can use to ensure the safety and
soundness of commercial banks’ operations.
Capital requirements and reserve requirements are among key regulations that the central bank can use
to ensure safety and soundness of banks under its supervision.
Capital Requirements
Since 1988, many central banks have adopted the capital requirement guidelines known as Basel I,
which were issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international body based in the
town of Basel, Switzerland. Basel I suggested how much capital banks should hold against different
types of assets to compensate for credit risk (risk that the bank’s debtors might be unable to repay their
debts). A central bank that had adopted Basel I would make sure that the banks under its supervision
would comply with the rules.
In 2004, the Basel Committee introduced a new version of capital guidelines called Basel II.
Basel II took account of liquidity and operation risks, in addition to credit risk, which was the focus
of Basel I. In addition, Basel II also aimed to adjust the practice of bank supervision by giving more
emphasis to off-site supervision, whereby the bank supervisor would focus less on examining the
banks’ transactions and more on the banks’ risk-management practices. Although Basel II had not yet
been widely adopted when the global financial crisis came in 2007, the crisis made its shortcomings
apparent. The Basel Committee went back to work and introduced Basel III at the end of 2010. The
details of Basel I, II, and III are discussed in Chapter 12.
Reserve Requirements
While capital requirements are primarily meant to ensure that banks have enough capital to prevent
unexpected losses in the value of their assets from directly affecting the banks’ depositors, reserve
requirements are meant to ensure that the banks have enough liquidity to meet liquidity demand.21
Reserves are traditionally held in the form of cash, or deposits at the central bank, and thus banks
can easily turn to them to meet liquidity demand. Historically, reserve requirements have also been
used as a tool of monetary policy.22 When reserve requirements are raised, banks have to keep more
reserves as cash or deposits at the central bank rather than lending them out as loans. With fewer loans
being provided in the economy—all other things being equal—economic activity will slow down. When
reserve requirements are lowered, banks are able to provide more loans, as they are required to hold
less cash and deposits at the central bank as reserves.
In modern times, not many central banks use reserve requirements as a tool of monetary policy
since frequent adjustments in reserves can entail substantial costs for both banks and customers. For
example, if the central bank decides to raise reserve requirements, then a commercial bank that already
has its reserves at the previous minimum required levels might need to convert extra assets into cash.
If the bank does not have extra assets that can be easily converted into cash, then it might need to call
in loans from customers that had previously been extended.
A small number of central banks have decided to forego reserve requirements altogether.23
Reserves can be considered extra costs imposed on banks. Cash kept as reserves do not provide
returns, and can incur a cost of safekeeping. Deposits held at the central bank might also not earn inter-
est or earn considerably less than could be gained from lending to customers. Most modern central
banks, however, still deem reserve requirements to be a crucial regulation to ensure commercial banks’
liquidity, and thus keep it as a regulatory tool.
Enforcement of Laws and Regulations to Ensure Compliance To make sure that commercial
banks comply with laws and regulations, the central bank is often endowed with
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions 53
enforcement power over banks. If banks are found not to be in compliance with
laws and regulations, the central bank has the power to ensure compliance from the
banks using various kinds of measures, from mild to drastic, to ensure that the banks
pursue corrective actions.24
Milder measures include moral persuasion, whereby the central bank has discus-
sions with the management of a commercial bank to persuade it to alter its gray area
actions. More drastic measures that the central bank might use to ensure compliance
with laws and regulations can include removal of directors or managers of banks for
negligence or misconduct and installation of a temporary administration, as well as
a recommendation of a forced sale or liquidation of the bank.25
Resolutions for Troubled Financial Institutions Although the central bank may set vari-
ous rules and regulations and examine commercial banks’ operations in minute
detail, there is always a possibility that some banks might still run into trouble.
To ensure that these troubled banks do not fail in a disorderly manner, the central
bank and relevant authorities might need to impose special resolutions on these
troubled banks.
Key types of such resolutions are (1) liquidation, or the closing of banks whereby
the banks’ assets are liquidated in order to repay the banks’ liabilities; (2) conser-
vatorship, or temporary administration of the banks; (3) purchase and assumption,
under which a healthy bank purchases some or all of a failed bank’s assets and
assumes some or all of the failed bank’s liabilities; and (4) nationalization, under
which the government takes over a failed bank and assumes the bank’s assets and
liabilities.26
case of the Bank of England. Without detailed knowledge of the banking sector bal-
ance sheets, the Bank of England was caught largely unaware of financial problems
in the banking sector. When bank failures threatened to become systemic, poor coor-
dination among the FSA, the Treasury, and the Bank of England was cited as a cause.
After all, the FSA, which had details on the banks’ situations, did not have the money
or the authority to help the banks financially. The Bank of England, which had
the means to help the banks, however, did not have the details to help effectively.
As the crisis unfolded, the British government decided to eliminate the FSA and place
the bank supervisory role back with the Bank of England.
From the discussion above, the modern central bank has retained and modified
many of the functions discussed in Chapter 2. In general, it could be said that the
modern central bank issues money, conducts monetary policy, and regulates and
provides payment systems services. When required, the modern central bank also
acts as a lender of last resort, although it often tries to play down this function for
fear of moral hazard. In many countries, the modern central bank also supervises
commercial banks (i.e., it issues new bank licenses, sets regulatory standards for
banks, examines and monitors bank operations, and enforces laws and regulations
to ensure that banks operate in a safe and sound manner).
The functions of the modern central bank discussed above can be grouped into
two broad categories that align with two of the key modern central bank mandates,
that is, monetary stability and financial stability. Those central bank functions relat-
ing to issuance of money and the conduct of monetary policy are done in such a way
that monetary stability is ensured (i.e., keeping inflation low and stable). Those func-
tions relating to payment systems regulation and provision, lender of last resort, and
bank supervision, on the other hand, are all done to ensure financial stability (i.e.,
the smooth functioning of the financial system).
In practice, many modern central banks arrange their internal organizational
structure broadly along the lines of these two mandates, with one wing dealing with
monetary stability and the other dealing with financial stability.* In the wake of the
2007–2010 global financial crisis, however, it has become increasingly recognized
that monetary stability and financial stability are intertwined, and one cannot exist
without the other. Central banks have since put increasingly more emphasis into
effective coordination between these two wings. In the next chapters, we will discuss
why monetary stability and financial stability have become key mandates for the
modern central bank, and how the central bank can act to fulfill these two mandates
in practice.
*Organizationally, the banknote issuance department is often not put under the monetary
stability wing, although determining the number of banknotes to issue is often done in con-
sultation with the monetary policy department. Operationally, the banknote issuance function
involves management of the printing press, distribution centers, and so on, which makes it too
cumbersome to place it under the monetary stability wing.
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions 55
SUMMARY
Modern central banking functions include money issuance, the conduct of monetary
policy, payment systems oversight and provision, lender of last resort, and banking
supervision.
In modern times, the central bank issues money in the form of banknotes, as well
as in an electronic form. Money issued by the central bank goes through the money
creation process, which essentially constitutes a double-entry accounting process as
it circulates through the system. The final amount of money that comes out of the
money creation process is the money supply.
Modern central banks also aim to regulate money conditions, since the money
creation process has the potential to affect economic activity and price levels.
Theoretically the central bank can regulate money conditions through the conduct
of monetary policy, using reserve requirements, changing the policy interest rate, and
carrying out open market operations. In practice, modern central banks often avoid
using reserve requirements as a monetary policy tool, but instead use the policy
interest rate and open market operations to regulate money conditions.
Modern central banks often also perform payment systems oversight and provi-
sion functions. The central bank might want to perform payment systems oversight
to ensure a low probability of payment systems failure, to improve efficiency of the
payment systems, and to ensure equity and fairness in the use of payments systems.
The central bank is also often the provider of the wholesale payment system for the
economy.
The lender-of-last-resort role can take three key forms: (1) liquidity provision to
individual banks, (2) liquidity provision to the market as a whole, and (3) injection
of risk capital into troubled financial institutions.
Banking supervision is not a universal function for all central banks. For those
central banks that have a banking supervision function, the tasks might include
licensing of new banks, bank examination, setting regulatory requirements, enforce-
ment of laws and regulations to ensure compliance, and providing resolutions for
troubled financial institutions.
In the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial crisis, there has increasingly been
a reexamination of the debate about whether a central bank should perform a bank-
ing supervision function.
KEY TERMS
banking supervision money creation process
base money money multiplier
CAMELS money supply
capital requirement off-site monitoring
deflation on-site examination
hyperinflation open market operations
inflation payment systems oversight
lender of last resort payment systems provision
liquidity problem policy interest rate
56 CENTRAL BANKING
recession reserves
reserve ratio solvency problem
reserve requirements
QUESTIONS
1. What are main functions of modern central banks?
2. What are the key roles of modern central banks?
3. What is base money?
4. What is currency?
5. What is a money multiplier?
6. What is a reserve ratio?
7. Why does money issued by the central bank appear on the liability side of the
central bank’s balance sheet?
8. Loans made by a commercial bank would be recorded on which side of the
commercial bank’s balance sheet?
9. If a central bank issues money to a commercial bank, what does it usually take
in return?
10. If a central bank issues $100 worth of new money, and takes in $100 worth of
government securities in return, what will happen to the central bank’s balance
sheet?
11. If a central bank issues $100 of new money to a commercial bank, and the
reserve requirement on banks is 10 percent, what is the maximum change in
the amount of money in the system after the completion of the money creation
process?
12. In Question 11, if the reserve requirement is reduced to 8 percent, what is likely
to happen to the amount of money in the system?
13. What could happen if there is too little money in the system? How could the
central bank help solve this problem?
14. What would happen if there is too much money in the system? How could the
central bank help solve this problem?
15. Why might a central bank not use reserve requirements as a tool of monetary
policy?
16. What do we mean by policy interest rate?
17. How can open market operations be used in conjunction with the policy interest
rate in the conduct of monetary policy?
18. What could be key objectives of the central bank in payment systems
oversight?
19. How did the payment system provision function historically come about for
central banks?
20. Why might a central bank still need to provide payment systems infrastructure
for the banking system?
21. Explain different types of actions that a central bank might perform when
implementing the lender-of-last-resort function.
22. What are the goals of bank licensing?
Modern Central Banking Roles and Functions 57
23. What are the key differences between a liquidity problem and a solvency
problem?
24. What are key differences between capital requirements and reserve requirements?
25. How are on-site examination and off-site monitoring complementary?
26. In a banking examination, the CAMELS system or one of its variants is often
used. What are the key features of the CAMELS system?
27. Under the CAMELS system, which indicator indicates that a commercial bank is
profitable?
28. To ensure compliance of commercial banks to banking laws and regulations,
what kinds of measures can a supervisory central bank use?
CHAPTER 4
A Brief Review of Modern Central
Banking Mandates
What Are the Goals That Modern
Central Banks Try to Achieve?
Learning Objectives
. Identify and distinguish different mandates of modern central banks.
1
2. Describe the monetary stability mandate.
3. Describe the financial stability mandate.
4. Describe the full employment mandate.
5. Explain the interlinkages among monetary, financial stability, and
employment mandates in the short and long run.
In Chapter 3 we reviewed the five key functions of the modern central bank: money
creation, the conduct of monetary policy, payment systems oversight and provision,
lender of last resort, and banking supervision. We examined how these functions fit
into two key roles of modern central banks, that is, the safeguarding of monetary
stability and the safeguarding of financial stability.
In Chapter 4 we will look at the key roles, or mandates, of modern central banks
in more detail. First, we will look at monetary stability and financial stability, the
two key mandates common to many modern central banks. Then, we will also look
at the full employment mandate of the U.S. central bank, which has regained much
attention after the recent global crisis.
Before going into detail on each of the mandates, however, there are two things to
note about them. First, central banks’ roles or mandates do evolve following changes
in the economic, political, and ideological environment. Since these roles evolve over
time, not every central bank, even those in the advanced economies, are on the same
page with regard to each these roles, not the least in terms of explicit legal mandates.
59
60 CENTRAL BANKING
Monetary Stability and Price Stability A better understanding of how a central bank
can use monetary policy to contribute to long-term sustainable economic growth
has led many countries over the past four decades to include monetary stability
or price stability as mandates for their central banks. In this book, the terms mon-
etary stability and price stability are used interchangeably. It is worth noting that the
Bank of England has monetary stability (defined as “stable prices and confidence in
the currency”) as one of its core purposes (stable prices are defined by its inflation
target).1 The U.S. Federal Reserve Act has also set stable prices as an objective for the
Federal Reserve to achieve since the late 1970s, with the term stable prices often
being expressed as the price stability objective.2 The European Central Bank (ECB)
and the Bank of Japan also have price stability as one of their objectives.3
Financial Stability Meanwhile, since most central banks do have traditional functions
such as payment system oversight and lender of last resort, which are broadly aimed
to help safeguard stability of the financial system, it could be said that central banks
also have an inherent financial stability mandate. This inherent financial stability
mandate often holds even if the definition of financial stability varies among central
banks, or if the central bank lacks a bank supervisory function, or even if financial
stability is not explicitly stated as a legislative mandate.
For example, while it is often recognized that the Federal Reserve has had an
explicit dual mandate of price stability and full employment since the 1970s, it is
also often argued that the Federal Reserve has always had an inherent financial sta-
bility mandate as well.4 The Federal Reserve’s financial stability mandate is further
evidenced by its actions as a lender of last resort during the global financial crisis of
2007–2010.5
Maximum or Full Employment In the wake of the recent global financial crisis, how-
ever, it is worth noting that the full employment mandate, particularly that of the
Federal Reserve, has again come into the spotlight. Although the Federal Reserve
A Brief Review of Modern Central Banking Mandates 61
has been given a legal dual mandate of price stability and full employment since the
late 1970s, it seems to have been quite reluctant to mention full employment as a
separate mandate, preferring to state that maximum employment could be achieved
through the achievement of price stability.6 With the global financial crisis pushing
unemployment up to record highs while inflation remained low, however, the Federal
Reserve noted again in 2008 that its goals were “maximum employment and price
stability.”7 (See Table 4.1.)
Short-Run Tradeoffs, Long-Run Synergy With respect to time horizon, in the short run
the monetary stability mandate might be in conflict with the full employment man-
date. Sometimes, to maintain monetary or price stability, the central bank might need
to tighten money conditions, possibly by raising the policy interest rate, which could
temporarily slow down economic growth and have negative impacts on employ-
ment. In the long run, however, the conflict between monetary stability and full
employment might not exist. If anything, to the extent that monetary stability helps
economic agents plan their investment and consumption decisions more optimally,
there might be synergy between the monetary stability and full employment man-
dates. Monetary stability could help bring about full employment in the long run.
Over the long run a violation of one of the mandates can also upset the abil-
ity of the central bank to achieve the other two mandates.8 For example, if the
central bank’s financial stability mandate is compromised, a resultant financial crisis,
if severe enough, could drag the economy into a deflationary spiral in which prices
of goods and services keep falling, resulting in monetary instability. In such a case, a
severe unemployment problem could result.
62 CENTRAL BANKING
*This is the natural rate of employment hypothesis, which is discussed in the Chapter 6.
A Brief Review of Modern Central Banking Mandates 63
the U.S. economy was on the verge of falling into another Great Depression, and
unemployment reached record highs. With expectations that inflation would remain
low after the nadir of the crisis had passed and financial stability had been restored,
the Federal Reserve cited the full employment mandate when embarking on novel
measures of monetary policy, such as massive liquidity injections.13
Still, regardless of whether they have a full employment mandate, in prac-
tice central banks often do have to take the employment situation into consid-
eration when carrying out policy actions, since central bank monetary policy
actions normally have an impact on employment and thus the general welfare of
the public.
The term monetary stability describes a situation in which the value of money does
not fluctuate too much, that is, money doesn’t lose or gain in value too quickly. If
money loses or gains in value too quickly, households and firms are unable to make
optimal consumption and investment decisions. When money loses its purchasing
power, we need more money just to buy the same amount of goods and services: in
other words, the price of goods and services is rising. A situation in which there is a
general rise in prices of goods and services is called inflation.
In contrast, when money gains in purchasing power, it means we need less money
to buy the same amount of goods and services. Prices of goods and services, we could
say, are falling. The general fall in prices of goods and services is called deflation. At
first glance, we as consumers might seem to benefit from such a situation, since we
can buy more goods and services with less money. In the longer run, if the situation
persists, however, we as employees or owners or firms that sell goods and services
would also lose. With falling prices, firms would make less profit, have less money
to pay employees and suppliers, and have less money to repay their debts. Economic
activity could slow down, affecting our income and employment.
Whether money would gain or lose in value depends, at least partly, on the cen-
tral bank’s actions. At the simplest level, if the central bank, the creator and regulator
of money, decides to loosen monetary conditions, making money more immediately
available, then money would lose its value relative to other goods and services.
Goods and services will become more expensive. In other words, prices of goods
and services will rise. In contrast, when the central bank tightens monetary condi-
tions, making money scarcer, then money gains in value relative to other goods and
services. Goods and services will become cheaper, and their prices will fall. If money
gains or loses value very quickly, there would be consequences on the economy, since
people might be unable to adjust their behavior in a timely manner. Consumption
and investment behavior could be severely distorted.
which refers to the stability of the value of money in general, is a broader term.
As mentioned earlier, the Bank of England has monetary stability—defined as
“stable prices and confidence in the currency”—as one of its core purposes,
where stable prices are defined by its inflation target.14 Theoretically, however,
both price instability and monetary instability have the same root cause, and thus
sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. In the long run, if the central bank
introduces too much money into the economy, money would lose value, whether in
terms of domestic or overseas purchasing power. A persistent rise in inflation (the
loss of domestic purchasing power) and a weakening of the exchange rate (the loss
of overseas purchasing power) often come hand in hand when too much money
is introduced.
In practice, the choice of whether to use the term monetary stability or price
stability depends on the surrounding context and what the central bank wants to
communicate to the public. In the past two decades it has become more recognized
that domestic inflation and the exchange rate are two distinct operational objec-
tives of the central bank. For a central bank that wants to emphasize that it focuses
its monetary policy actions purely on stability of domestic purchasing power of
the currency without much regard for the exchange rate, the use of the term price
stability might be appropriate. For a central bank that wants to emphasize the fact
it also cares about the stability of the exchange rate, the use of the term monetary
stability might be more apt. As will be discussed later in more detail, the choice of
a monetary policy regime will also have an impact on the choice of an exchange
rate regime.
Here, as noted earlier, the terms monetary stability and price stability are used
interchangeably to denote a situation of low and stable inflation. A more detailed
discussion of the exchange rate in the context of monetary stability takes place in
Part II of this book.
Why It Is Important
Monetary stability helps enable economic agents to make their investment and con-
sumption decisions more optimally. With inflation low and stable (and with the
exchange rate not overly volatile, for that matter), firms and households are able to
make plans for future investment and consumption more efficiently. The ability
to make efficient future plans is quite critical for long-term economic growth. With
low and stable inflation, firms and households don’t have to worry that the purchas-
ing power of their investment returns will be eaten up by hyperinflation and can
make better economic decisions.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, if the central bank prints more money
or loosens monetary conditions, individuals and firms will be more willing and
able to pursue their consumption and investment needs. Economic activity will be
stimulated. Why shouldn’t the central bank set the goal of having loose monetary
conditions so that the economy would be stimulated all the time, and both con-
sumption and investment grow indefinitely? There are at least two related answers
to this question. First, whether the economy can grow sustainably in the long run
depends on factors other than monetary conditions. These factors, such as natural
and human resources, innovation, and productivity are largely outside the central
bank’s purview. Second, things could really get out of hand if the central bank had
A Brief Review of Modern Central Banking Mandates 65
such a goal as its mandate. The central bank could be overzealous in loosening
monetary conditions, since it is its mandate, after all. If too much money is intro-
duced into the system, or monetary conditions are too loose, then two bad things
could happen. First is inflation. With more money readily available, people would
just keep bidding up prices of goods and services, which are themselves limited by
scarcity of resources. Second, as money becomes more readily and cheaply avail-
able, it could get drawn into speculative activities, as it often does under those
conditions.
In contrast, if the central bank tightens money conditions, then economic activ-
ity would likely to get slower, since money would not be as readily and cheaply avail-
able. Households and firms will be less stimulated to borrow and spend, whether on
consumption or investment. If money conditions get too tight, money becomes very
scarce and people will be much less willing to spend it. Firms might lay off workers
since there is not much prospect of selling goods and services, which means house-
hold income would be reduced, and thus result in a further reduction in demand
for goods and services. In such a case, economic activity could be reduced, and the
economy would contract.
From the arguments above, it is thus quite clear by logic that (1) too tight or
too loose money conditions are not good for the economy, and (2) the central bank
should aim to set money conditions that are just right for the economy. In practice,
however, what we mean by right money conditions could be quite a challenge to
pinpoint. Various tumultuous historical experiences have been studied and analyzed
by central bankers, academia, and other commentators, and it has been determined
that the right money conditions can be reflected best by stability in the prices of
goods and services. The general price of goods and services should not rise or fall too
quickly. In other words, the value of money should be kept relatively stable. How the
central bank can keep the value of money stable, and what stable really means, will
be discussed in detail in the Chapter 5.
*The financial sector is often defined as referring to banks, other financial institutions (broker-
age firms and insurance companies, for example), and financial markets (the money market,
the foreign exchange market, the bond market, and the equity market, for example).
66 CENTRAL BANKING
Liquidity Shortages
Severe liquidity shortages among key players in the financial system suggest that
these players might fail to meet their short-term financial obligations. When news
emerges that a financial institution is facing a severe liquidity shortage and might
have trouble meeting its short-term financial obligations, often other financial insti-
tutions will refuse to continue to lend to that financial institution, which will make
it even more certain that the particular financial institution will fail to meet its
short-term obligations. Depositors of that financial institution are also likely to with-
draw their deposits. The failure of the financial institution in question to meet its
short-term obligations can cause it to fail.
In a highly connected world, however, the failure of one particular institution
can also cause ripple effects that could bring the whole system down. If one finan-
cial institution fails to meet its short-term obligations to other financial institutions,
those other financial institutions would also face losses, and possibly a liquidity
shortage. And if a liquidity shortage occurs across the system, those other financial
institutions might be unable to meet their own obligations. Meanwhile, depositors
might be queuing up to demand their deposits back from these other financial insti-
tutions at the same time, compounding the problem further.
Even before the concept of financial stability rose into prominence in the 1980s, central banks always
had a role in maintaining financial stability. This is reflected by central banks’ bank supervisory and
lender-of-last-resort functions. Before the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, however, the frame-
work that central banks normally adopted to deal with financial stability put more focus on dealing
with financial stability ex post—that is, cleaning up after bubbles that had already burst—rather than
ex ante—that is, preventing bubbles and overindebtedness of economic agents in the first place.19
Before the global financial crisis, one reason for central banks’ hesitance to preempt the buildup of
overindebtedness was the fact that it was very difficult to identify the threshold beyond which over-
indebtedness violated economic fundamentals ex ante. The same applied to asset price increases.20
After the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, however, it was increasingly recognized that in
order to sustain financial stability central banks might need to step in ex ante and preempt overindebt-
edness and asset price bubbles from turning into disruptions that cause financial instability.21
Why It Is Important
Financial stability is important for at least three reasons. First, financial stability is
needed to ensure efficient allocation of funds within the economy. A smooth func-
tioning of the financial system is needed in order to channel excess funds from savers
to borrowers efficiently. Second, in the long run, financial stability is inextricably
intertwined with monetary stability. An economy facing financial instability can slip
into a deflationary spiral, as happened during the Great Depression in the 1930s and
has been true of the Japanese experience from the 1990s through the first decade of
the twenty-first century. Third, traditional central banking functions such as payment
systems oversight and supervision, lender of last resort, and banking supervision
already have financial stability aspects embedded in them.
The attention on the financial stability mandate began to take hold in the
1980s as frequent financial crises in both advanced and emerging market economies
brought large economic costs.22 Since then, two episodes of financial instability in
major advanced economies have reaffirmed the need for central banks to seriously
focus on their financial stability mandate: (1) the bursting of the Japanese real estate
and stock bubbles in the early 1990s that tipped Japan’s economy into deflation for
more than two decades, and (2) the global financial crisis of 2007–2010.
In the case of Japan, when massive real estate and stock market bubbles burst
in the early 1990s, banks took a large hit and the country later fell into a period of
long and painful deflation, during which prices of goods and services fell for many
consecutive years.23 Postmortem analyses suggested that the central bank of Japan
had allowed money conditions to be too loose, allowing massive bubbles to arise.24
At the time, however, the Bank of Japan was willing to run a loose monetary policy
because inflation appeared to be low enough.25 As events turned out, financial insta-
bility later turned into monetary instability and Japan fell into what became known
as the Japanese lost decades, during which the economy struggled unsuccessfully to
climb out of a deflationary spiral for over 20 years.
If anything, the global financial crisis of 2007–2010 also confirmed that letting
asset price bubbles to grow unchecked (in this case housing price bubbles in the United
States and in Europe) can result in financial instability that can be very costly to
society.26 With the Japanese experience and the global financial crisis of 2007–
2010 fresh in mind, central banks are starting to take a more proactive role in the
68 CENTRAL BANKING
Why It Is Important
The other side of the preceding argument is that without the employment man-
date, the central bank will aim only for stable prices and sacrifice other important
economic objectives. Absent acknowledgement of the employment aspect of the
dual mandate, many argue, the Federal Reserve might overlook the importance
of economic stability and employment, which at times might not correspond to
low inflation.32
In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, the importance of the
Federal Reserve’s employment mandate also became clearer. In December 2008,
after previous hesitance until that time, the Federal Reserve explicitly communicated
its maximum employment mandate to the public in its statement of monetary pol-
icy.33 Given the severity of the crisis, it was understandable that the Federal Reserve
wanted to make sure that the public understood that it would not sit on its hands
just because inflation had been very low.
If anything, by emphasizing the maximum employment mandate after the c risis
hit, the Federal Reserve seemed to want to communicate to the public that it was
committed to prevent the economy from falling into a deflationary trap. The Federal
Reserve was, indeed, willing to stimulate and stabilize the economy in the face of
the crisis. That commitment was later evidenced by first introducing quantitative
easing measures, which were introduced while inflation remained very low and
unemployment approached 10 percent (a post–World War II high). Those measures
were followed by a subsequent series of quantitative measures in the next few years
as unemployment remained high.
By December 2012 the full employment mandate had become an explicit
part of U.S. monetary policy along with price stability, with the Federal Reserve
adopting the unemployment rate as one the key forward guidance indicators of its
monetary policy.34 Specifically, the Federal Reserve announced in December 2012
that it would keep the federal funds rate between 0 and 0.25 percent as long as
(1) the unemployment rate remained above 6.5 percent, (2) inflation between one
and two years ahead was projected to be no more than 0.5 percentage points above
the 2 percent longer run goal, and (3) longer-term inflation expectations continued
to be well anchored.35
In practice, modern central banks do not focus on just a single mandate. Rather, they
try to achieve all three mandates even without explicitly saying so. For example,
while the Federal Reserve is officially tasked with a dual mandate of price stability
and full employment, it also plays a key role in sustaining financial stability, as dem-
onstrated by the recent crisis. While other central banks might not have an explicit
full employment mandate, it has often been argued that the pursuit of monetary
stability will allow economic agents to behave optimally, which is essential for full
employment in the long run.
70 CENTRAL BANKING
Stylizing the Central Bank’s Monetary Policy Actions: The Taylor Rule
While central banks often do not explicitly say exactly how they attempt to balance
price stability and employment objectives when making monetary policy, studies
along the line of one from Stanford University’s John B. Taylor in 1993 suggested
that they do, whether intentionally or not. By statistically estimating what the level
of the Federal Reserve’s policy interest rate should be were the Fed to give equal
weight to having both (1) inflation close to the target that reflected long-run price
stability and (2) output of the economy that is consistent with full employment,
Taylor found that, at least during the period of the study, the estimated policy inter-
est rate was reasonably close to the actual policy interest rate.36
In other words, Taylor’s study suggests that we can reasonably approximate
the Federal Reserve’s policy interest rate decision by assuming that the Federal
Reserve wants to achieve both actual inflation rate that is consistent with long-term
price stability and actual output growth rate that is consistent with the economy’s
potential (and thus full employment).
On the one hand, if actual inflation rate is higher than the rate that the Federal
Reserve deems to represent long-term price stability, then the Federal Reserve is
likely to raise the policy interest rate to slow down inflation. On the other hand, if
the actual output growth of the economy, as represented by actual GDP growth rate,
is higher than the rate of output growth that the Federal Reserve deems consistent
with the potential of the economy (and thus full employment), then the Federal
Reserve is also likely to raise the policy interest rate.
On the occasion where inflation and output growth move in opposite directions,
Taylor’s study implies that the Federal Reserve would try to balance between the
price stability and output (or employment) objectives. An example of such a situa-
tion is when an oil shock pushes inflation beyond the rate that the Federal Reserve
deems consistent with long-term price stability, but pushes economic activity down
such that output growth is below potential (and thus employment falls below full
employment). Here, the Federal Reserve is likely to take both price stability and
output (and, implicitly, employment) objectives into consideration when making
monetary policy decisions.
Taylor’s results suggested that the Federal Reserve did indeed take both price sta-
bility and employment objectives into consideration when making monetary policy.
Later studies along this line also found that the so-called Taylor rule, which states
that central banks are supposed to care for both price stability and employment,
could explain monetary policy decisions of many other central banks, whether those
central banks had an explicit employment mandate or not.37 Specifics of the Taylor
rule are discussed in Chapter 6.
however, there seems to be an underlying trend with respect to how central banks
pursue the different mandates, a trend that has evolved with the arrival of the global
financial crisis in 2007–2010.38
Prior to the Global Financial Crisis Even before global financial crisis, it was not
uncommon for a central bank to have one arm pursuing monetary stability (which
is supposed also to result in full employment over the long run, if monetary stabil-
ity is achieved),39 and another arm pursuing financial stability (although how work
related to achieving financial stability is defined could vary noticeably among dif-
ferent central banks).40 The arm dealing with monetary stability was responsible for
the conduct of monetary policy, that is, regulating money conditions in the economy.
The arm dealing with financial stability, meanwhile, dealt with the regulation of
banks, and also the supervision of banks if the central bank was a bank supervisor,
as well as payment systems.41
These two arms of a central bank would normally use different sets of tools to
achieve their goals. Although some of the tools can be used for multiple purposes,
prior to the global financial crisis there was normally a distinction between tools
used to fulfill the monetary stability mandate and the financial stability mandate.
The arm that dealt with monetary stability tried to influence money conditions
through tools such as interest rates, operations in financial markets, exchange rates,
and reserve requirements. The use of these tools of monetary policy affect money
conditions in general, and thus potentially everyone, through changes in the value of
money. Although monetary policy tools can also be used for financial stability pur-
poses ex ante (e.g., tightening money conditions to prevent the private sector from
overborrowing), central banks often were reluctant to do so.42
The arm that dealt with financial stability, on the other hand, normally had rules
and regulations that they could set for banks as its set of policy tools, assuming the
central bank was a bank supervisor. These rules and regulations set for banks were
more bottom-up in nature, meaning the focus was on the safety and soundness of
individual banks, with less focus on how the banking system as a whole might be
affected by developments in the macroeconomy.43
For central banks that were not bank supervisors, while the financial stability
arm might not have direct access to rules and regulations as policy tools, there was
the option of focusing more on monitoring conditions in the financial sector and
coordinating with relevant financial sector regulators as well as with the monetary
stability arm and providing input to the monetary stability arm. Examples of this
model include the Reserve Bank of Australia and, prior to the global financial crisis,
the Bank of England.
After the Global Financial Crisis In the wake of the global financial crisis, there seems
to be a rethinking of how central banks pursue their different mandates in terms of
coordination across the two arms, the use of policy tools for different purposes, as
well as communication with the public.
Specifically, there is increasing agreement that (1) the use of monetary policy
should also take financial stability into account;44 (2) there needs to be a set of
macroprudential tools to help address financial stability using a more top-down
approach, in addition to the microprudential tools that were the primary tools before
the global financial crisis;45 and (3) the communication on the Federal Reserve’s
employment mandate might be warranted.46
72 CENTRAL BANKING
The Use of Monetary Policy to Achieve Monetary and Financial Stability With
respect to the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, a lesson learned is that monetary
instability in one period can lead to financial instability in the next, if the central
bank becomes too complacent. Although inflation may appear low, if money con-
ditions are too loose, then firms and households may overborrow, which can lead
to asset price bubbles and financial instability.47 And if financial instability is seri-
ous enough (possibly because money conditions have been too loose for too long),
then the risk of deflation (i.e., monetary instability) will rise as the bubbles burst.48
Accordingly, it can be argued that financial stability and monetary stability are ulti-
mately linked over the long run and that central banks might need to take a longer
run view in their conduct of monetary policy. Central banks need to ensure that even
when inflation is low, money conditions are not so loose that financial instability
later arises and comes back to affect monetary stability afterward.49
bank has the ability to choose between higher inflation and higher unemployment in
its use of monetary policy. Easy monetary conditions are likely to encourage more
economic activity, lower unemployment, and higher prices in the short run. In the
long run, however, historical experience and theoretical developments would sug-
gest that there is actually no tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. The
central bank that actively pursues lower unemployment over time might end up
with both higher inflation and higher unemployment. (The theoretical foundations
of monetary policy will be discussed in Chapter 5.)
Given the nuances inherent in the relationship between monetary policy and
unemployment, even the Federal Reserve, which has had an employment man-
date since 1977, chose to avoid explicitly communicating its mandate to consider
employment in its monetary policy decisions until December 2008, after the full
extent of the global financial crisis had been felt and the country was threatened with
a deflationary situation.54 In this particular case, the explicit communication of the
full employment mandate and the use of the unemployment number in its forward
guidance at least helped reassure the public that the Federal Reserve intended to use
an exceptionally easy monetary policy only temporarily until unemployment came
down to a more normal level.
SUMMARY
Key mandates for modern central banks include monetary stability, financial stability,
and full employment. While most central banks have monetary stability and financial
stability mandates, the Federal Reserve is rather unique in having full employment
also as another explicit mandate.
These three key mandates are intertwined and might conflict as well as have
synergy, depending on the time horizon and context. In the short run, monetary
stability might appear to be in conflict with full employment, but in the long run
monetary stability might be the foundation for full employment. Also, in the long
run, monetary stability cannot exist without financial stability.
Monetary stability often refers to low and stable inflation and can be used
interchangeably with price stability, although monetary stability might also suggest
“confidence in the currency,” as stated in the Bank of England’s mandate. Monetary
stability is important, since it allows for optimal investment and consumption
decisions by economic agents.
Financial stability refers to conditions in which the financial system can perform
its function of allocating funds within the economy efficiently and smoothly. For
central banks, financial stability is important since (1) it is essential for effective
allocation of funds; (2) it is intertwined with monetary stability; and (3) it is embed-
ded into many of the traditional central banking functions such as payment systems
oversight and provision, lender of last resort, and banking supervision.
The explicit full employment mandate is rather unique to the Federal Reserve,
which has the explicit dual mandate of price stability and full employment. Prior
to the 2007–2010 crisis the Federal Reserve did not emphasize its full employment
mandate, partly because it might have created public confusion, since in the short
run there might be tradeoffs between inflation and unemployment. The emphasis
on the full employment mandate since then, however, provided assurance that the
Federal Reserve did not focus on price stability at the expense of other important
economic goals.
74 CENTRAL BANKING
Since the 2007–2010 crisis there has been a rethinking of how central banks
might pursue the different mandates. First, it has been acknowledged that the con-
duct of monetary policy might need to take account of financial stability in addition
to monetary stability. Second, macroprudential tools might be used to complement
monetary policy in sustaining financial stability. Third, with respect to the Federal
Reserve, communication on the full employment mandate might be warranted.
KEY TERMS
financial stability microprudential
full employment monetary stability
macroprudential price stability
maximum employment transitory unemployment
QUESTIONS
1. What does monetary stability mean? Is it different from price stability?
2. Why is monetary stability an important mandate for central banks?
3. How might we quantitatively measure monetary stability?
4. What could reflect the situation of financial instability?
5. Although there are many definitions of financial stability, describe key elements
that are embedded in these definitions.
6. Why is financial stability an important mandate for central banks?
7. Why might a central bank be considered to have an inherent financial stability
mandate, even though that central bank is not a bank supervisor?
8. What is the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate?
9. How might we quantitatively represent the concept of full employment?
10. Why might have the Federal Reserve underemphasized the full employment
mandate to the public until the global financial crisis of 2007–2010?
11. How might a single focus on fulfilling the monetary stability mandate result in
financial instability in the long run?
12. Why, especially prior to the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, might a central
bank hesitate to prevent the buildup of financial imbalances and asset price bubbles?
13. In the long run, is it possible to sustain monetary stability by neglecting the
financial stability mandate? Why or why not?
14. How might the focus on achieving maximum employment result in monetary
instability in the long run?
15. Why might we say that the Taylor rule was a good approximation of the Federal
Reserve’s dual mandate even in the 1980s and 1990s?
16. According to the Taylor rule, if the rate of economy’s output growth is beyond
the economy’s potential output growth rate, while inflation is above target, what
would the central bank likely do?
17. What is the forward guidance strategy of monetary policy that was used by the
Federal Reserve in the recovery period after the global financial crisis of 2007–2010?
18. What are the key characteristics of a macroprudential framework?
19. Why might central banks be hesitant to tighten monetary conditions to help
sustain financial stability?
20. How can macroprudential tools be used to help sustain financial stability?
PART
TWO
Monetary Stability
P art II examines various aspects of monetary stability, the dominant central bank-
ing mandate for the past 30 years.
Chapter 5 reviews the theoretical foundations of monetary policy, the policy
that a central bank uses in regulating monetary conditions in the economy in order
to achieve monetary stability.
Chapter 6 looks at different monetary policy regimes (i.e., rules) that central
banks might adopt in the pursuit of monetary stability.
Chapter 7 looks at monetary policy implementation, which is often done through
operations in financial markets.
Chapter 8 looks at how monetary policy transmits across the economy and
affects monetary stability as well as output and employment.
Chapter 9 is devoted to the exchange rate, another key variable that central
banks have to watch, given that it is the price of money and that it can affect mon-
etary stability as well as financial stability.
75
CHAPTER 5
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice
of Modern Monetary Policy
Learning Objectives
1. Describe theories that are foundational to the modern practice of
monetary policy.
2. Define and graph the short-run Phillips curve.
3. Describe the natural rate of unemployment.
4. Describe output gap.
5. Distinguish between adaptive and rational expectations.
6. Explain why operational independence of a central bank is important.
T his chapter briefly reviews five theoretical developments that guide the m odern
practice of central banks in their pursuit of the monetary stability mandate.
Specifically, these five theoretical developments, when considered together, suggest
that central banks should conduct monetary policy by following a credible rule that
aims for a low and stable inflation environment. A credible rule for the central bank’s
conduct of monetary policy helps manage public expectations that the central bank
will use monetary policy to achieve only what it does best, that is, ensure long-term
price stability, as opposed to trying to push unemployment below the natural rate.
Five of the most influential theoretical developments that are foundational to the
practice of monetary policy as we know it today are (1) the quantity theory of
money, (2) the Phillips curve, (3) the natural rate of unemployment, (4) the rational
expectations hypothesis, and (5) the time inconsistency problem. These five develop-
ments led to five propositions on the design and conduct of monetary policy. These
five key theoretical developments and their propositions are described next.
1. The Quantity Theory of Money: In the long run, monetary policy can only
influence prices of goods and services in the economy and cannot influence
77
78 CENTRAL BANKING
quantity of output or level of economic activity directly. The effort by the central
bank to stimulate the economy by printing money will only result in rising prices
and inflation in the long run.
2. The Phillips Curve: There is a short-run inverse relationship between inflation
and the unemployment rate. When the inflation rate goes up, the unemployment
rate goes down, and vice versa. The central bank can attempt to use monetary
policy to fine-tune the economy by influencing these two variables.
3. The Natural Rate of Unemployment: In the long run, the inverse relationship
between inflation and unemployment disappears. There exists a rate of
unemployment that corresponds to an economy’s potential, that is, the natural
rate of unemployment. If the central bank tries to push unemployment below
that natural rate, then in the long run, after prices and inflation expectations
have fully adjusted, not only inflation but also unemployment will rise.
4. The Rational Expectations Hypothesis: Public expectations matter in the
effectiveness of economic policies. The public is rational enough to incorporate
their expectations of policy outcomes into their current behavior. Accordingly,
an expansionary monetary policy that leads to a rise in inflation expectations
could lead to an upward spiral in wages and prices. For monetary policy to
be effective in maintaining price stability, the central bank must manage the
inflation expectations of the public.
5. The Time Inconsistency Problem: Letting the central bank use pure discretion in
the conduct of monetary policy, as opposed to following an explicit rule, could
be counterproductive. Policy makers, even with the best of intentions, have an
incentive to backtrack on their policies if they believe they can improve the
welfare of the public. The backtracking, however, will defeat the future credibility
and effectiveness of policies, thereby reducing the welfare of the public instead.
For a central bank, credibility is critical if monetary policy is to work effectively
in keeping inflation low and stable.
These five theoretical developments and propositions together led to the cur-
rent mainstream belief among academics and central bankers that the conduct
of monetary policy should follow a credible rule that aims for a low and stable
inflation environment. A credible rule for the conduct of monetary policy helps
manage public expectations that the central bank will use monetary policy in the
pursuit of monetary stability, rather than trying to push unemployment below
the natural rate.
The quantity theory of money describes the relationship between money, economic
activity, and the general price level in the long run. Basically, what the theory sug-
gests is that in the long run, the total output of an economy will depend on nonmon-
etary factors such as capital (factories, roads, infrastructure, etc.), labor input, and
technology. The attempt to stimulate economic activity through money creation will
be ineffective and only result in rising prices (inflation) in the long run.1
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 79
The quantity theory of money is represented by one of the most famous equa-
tions in macroeconomics, the equation of exchange, proposed by Irving Fisher in
1911.2 The equation can be expressed as
M×V=P×Q
where M stands for the quantity of money in the economy, V is the velocity of circu-
lation of the money, P is the general price level in the economy, and Q is the quantity
of products sold in the economy. In effect, we can think of the right side of the equa-
tion (P × Q) as the economy’s nominal GDP, since P (the general price level in the
economy) is being multiplied by Q (the quantity of products sold in the economy in
a given period).
Taken together, the quantity theory equation states that the amount of money
(M) would have to circulate V times to finance the nominal economy (or the total
volume of transactions within the economy) in a given period.
Under the quantity theory, the velocity of the circulation of money (V) is assumed
to depend on forces outside the equation, such as how advanced payments technology
is. The quantity of products sold is also assumed to be dependent on forces out-
side the equation, namely, the quantity and quality of labor, capital, and technology.
Accordingly, both V and Q are assumed to be constants and not determined by any
other variables in the equation.3
Under this theory an increase in the amount of money (M) leads to an increase
in the general price level (P) in the long run, since in the long run the amount of
money does not determine the quantity and quality of labor, capital, or technol-
ogy.4 Ostensibly money can be printed relatively easily, and the increase in the paper
amount of money will debase the value of money relative to that of other goods and
services in the economy, which is called inflation. The increase and improvement in
labor, capital (e.g., machines and computers), and technology cannot be directly
induced, in the long run, by an increase in paper money, or, for that matter, the
increase in money in bank accounts, or even the increase in precious metals held by
the central bank, such as gold.
The German hyperinflation experience is often cited as strong proof of the quan-
tity theory of money. The quantity theory of money, backed by lessons learned from
hyperinflation experiences worldwide, is one key theoretical foundation against
excessively easy monetary policy and excessive money printing by central banks.6
While the quantity theory of money suggests that monetary policy cannot be used to
directly influence economic activity and output in the long run, the Phillips curve sug-
gests that monetary policy could be used to directly influence economic activity and
output in the short run. By the 1950s, with greater availability of macroeconomic
data, economists were starting to notice an inverse relationship between unemploy-
ment and inflation. When the inflation rate was found to be low, the unemployment
rate was found to be high, and vice versa. This inverse relationship between infla-
tion and unemployment is known as the Phillips curve, named for A. W. Phillips, an
economist who in late 1958 first noticed the relationship in British economic data.7
Figure 5.1 illustrates a stylized Phillips curve.
The presence of a Phillips curve suggests that the central bank can attempt to
lower the unemployment rate by allowing inflation to go up. The central bank could,
for example, ease money conditions to stimulate aggregate demand and economic
activity. When money conditions become easier, households and firms can borrow
more to consume or invest. With greater economic activity, firms are willing to hire
more labor, and thus the unemployment rate will go down. Meanwhile, with greater
demand for goods and services, prices and inflation will start to rise.
The Phillips curve also suggests that the central bank can also attempt to lower
inflation by allowing the unemployment rate to go up. To accomplish this, the central
bank might tighten money conditions, making money scarcer, which would slow
down aggregate demand and economic activity. Households and firms would find it
harder to borrow to consume or invest. With lower economic activity, firms would be
less willing to hire more labor, and indeed, could shed existing workers, making the
unemployment rate higher. Meanwhile, with lower demand for goods and services,
prices and inflation would fall.
Inflation rate
Phillips curve
Unemployment rate
FIGURE 5.1 The Phillips Curve: Short-Run Trade-Off between Inflation and Unemployment
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 81
By the mid-1960s, as more data became available, the inverse relationship between
inflation and unemployment rate seemed to weaken. Examining inflation and
unemployment data in more detail and taking into account the role of expec-
tations, economists—notably, Edmund Phelps in 19679 and Milton Friedman
in 196810—proposed a concept that came to be known as the natural rate of
unemployment. According to this theory, for any economy there is a rate of unem-
ployment corresponding to the fundamentals of that economy in such a way that
when unemployment is at that particular rate, the inflation rate will not change.
That rate of unemployment at which inflation will not change became known as
the natural rate of unemployment.
the 1970s, governments and central banks tried to limit possible negative effects
on the economy and unemployment by using stimulus policies. As time passed, how-
ever, not only did stimulus policies prove unable to bring the unemployment rate
down, but inflation also rose uncontrollably.
Inflation rate
Long-run Phillips curve
d
Short-run Phillips curve 2
b
a
Short-run Phillips curve 1
U* Unemployment rate
The natural rate of unemployment
FIGURE 5.2 Long-Run Phillips Curve: There Is No Trade-Off between Inflation and
Unemployment in the Long Run
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 83
CASE STUDY: How Can Unemployment Go Below the Natural Rate? The Role of Real Wages,
Incomplete Information, and Expectations
From the discussion of the long-run vertical Phillips curve framework, an interesting key question
arises: how can the economy actually run beyond its full capacity? At NAIRU, the economy is supposed
to be already running at its full potential, and labor is already willing to work at maximum hours, given
prevailing real wages. Plausible reasons why the economy might be running beyond its full potential
include incomplete information, expectations, and real wages.12
First, let us assume that if the central bank decided to ease monetary policy further when the
economy was running at its full potential, aggregate demand for goods and services would rise, and
firms would need more labor input to increase their production. To get more labor firms would have
to raise nominal wages. At first, labor would be willing to work longer hours than before. However,
as aggregate demand for goods and services in the economy rose (as a result of the easier monetary
policy), prices of goods and services would also rise. Soon enough, workers would realize that their
real wages had not increased despite the rise in their nominal wages. Once the workers realized that
their real wages did not actually rise, they would not supply labor beyond the level they had found to
be consistent with their earlier choice, that is, at NAIRU.
How could the workers not realize earlier that their real wages had not actually increased?
Information in the economy at any point in time would often be incomplete. It would normally take
time to transmit information across the economy, and it would also take time for receivers of the
information to digest the information and correctly arrive at its implications. When money conditions
became easy and economic activity started to pick up, both employers and workers might mistakenly
translate the increase in demand for their goods and services as being unique to them rather than being
a part of the general trend of an increase in demand for all goods and services for the whole economy.
This would not be too difficult to imagine, given that the firms might actually receive more orders for
their products during periods of rising economic activity.
Once the employers and workers realized that the extra hours they put in had not actually raised
their purchasing power, they would, respectively, raise the prices of their products and their wages
even higher, in anticipation of rising prices of other goods and services in the economy. With everyone
anticipating rising prices, and protecting their purchasing power by preemptively raising the prices of
their own goods and services as well as wages, inflation would start to accelerate, even without any
further increase in production or reduction in unemployment.
Note in the short run, the economy could have been running above capacity for some time. Given
that technology has not changed, factories would be operating for longer hours than would be optimal.
The same goes for labor. This cannot be sustained over the long run. At some point, the economy has
to go back to its capacity, and the unemployment rate will have go back to its natural level, that is, at
NAIRU. By that point, however, inflation would already be stuck at a higher level. Inflation, indeed, has
accelerated.
Shifting NAIRU
The natural rate of unemployment is supposed to be the one that corresponds to
long-run equilibrium in the economy, given existing capital, labor, and technology
input. (See Case Study: The Relationship between Unemployment and Output below
for more details.)
In practice, however, economists have come to believe that the natural rate of
unemployment, or NAIRU, can change as the economy evolves over time. We might
note here that in economics, the term long run simply refers to the horizon of time
in which prices (as well as wages) adjust to clear markets. Over a longer horizon
and in a broader context, however, the economy can evolve, with both quantity and
quality of capital, labor, and technology changing over time.13
84 CENTRAL BANKING
The idea of a shifting NAIRU came into focus in the late 1990s. Following
leaps in information and communication technology and the Internet revolution
in the mid-1990s, which were supposed to bring great improvements in overall
productivity, researchers found that unemployment in the United States could
be pushed down further than in previous decades without triggering spikes in the
inflation rate.14
By the early 2010s, however, follow-on effects from the global financial cri-
sis seemed to have affected the fundamentals of the U.S. economy in such a way
that rising job vacancies were not matched by a similar decline in unemployment.
As such, there have been discussions that NAIRU might have shifted up. Possible
reasons for the mismatch in labor demand and supply include the likelihood that
skills of those that were unemployed for a long time after the crisis hit might have
deteriorated so much that they did not fit the requirements of employers emerging
from the crisis.15
Figure 5.3 illustrates the possible shifts of NAIRU between the 1980s and
the 2010s.
Had NAIRU in the U.S. actually shifted up after the global financial crisis, many
observers deemed it important that the Federal Reserve be very vigilant in withdraw-
ing the quantitative easing programs that it had used in fending off deflationary
threats. As Figure 5.3 suggests, with a higher natural rate of unemployment, once
the economy recovers and unemployment starts to go down along a new short-run
Phillips curve, inflation expectations can start to rise sooner than had NAIRU been
at the previous, precrisis level.
Inflation rate
U*mid 1990s–2007 U*2010s?
U*1980s
Unemployment rate
A jump in information and communications technology helped push the natural rate of
unemployment in the United States down since the mid-1990s, but have structural
changes following the global financial crisis pushed the rate up again?
CASE STUDY: The Relationship between Unemployment and Output: Okun’s Law
and the Output Gap
The concept of an output gap is closely related to the concept of the natural rate of unemployment
and can be used more readily (or as a complement to the natural rate of unemployment concept) in
monetary policy formulation.
The output gap theory can be traced back to Arthur Okun’s seminal work published in early 1962.16
In what became known as Okun’s law, unemployment is shown to have an inverse relationship with
real output.
Specifically, in the first version of Okun’s law—called the difference version—quarterly changes
in the unemployment rate, as expressed in percentage points, are related to quarterly changes in real
output (GDP growth), such that greater output growth is associated with lower unemployment.17
Another version of Okun’s law is called the gap version. Here we can think of an economy as having
a set potential level of production—given its quantity and quality of labor, capital, and technology—
known as its potential output.18 At any one time, actual real output might be above, below, or at potential
output. The difference between actual output and potential output is called the output gap.
If actual GDP is at its potential, that is the output gap is zero, then we are likely to have “full
employment” in the economy. If the calculation of the output gap equation yields a positive number,
then aggregate demand has outpaced potential output, and the unemployment rate is likely to be rela-
tively low. On the contrary, if the calculation yields a negative number, aggregate demand is still below
potential output, and the unemployment rate would likely be relatively high.
In theory, we could use the concept of NAIRU to signify the natural rate of unemployment that
corresponds with potential output. In such a case, if the economy is pushed to produce beyond its
potential (and the unemployment rate is below NAIRU, or the output gap is positive), then aggregate
demand for products is outstripping potential output, such that factories, enterprises, and labor are
running overtime, resulting in accelerating inflation. In such a case the central bank might want to
tighten monetary policy in order to slow down aggregate demand and dampen inflationary pressures.
If the economy is running below its potential (unemployment rate above NAIRU, or the output
gap is negative, or there is a recessionary gap), there would be negative pressures on price levels and
inflation. A recessionary gap is one reason for the central bank to ease money conditions in order to
spur aggregate demand without having to worry too much about inflationary threats.
In practice, however, there are a number of variations of the output gap theory, and thus a number
of ways to measure the output gap.19 One way is to use an economic model to estimate the economy’s
production function, and derive the economy’s potential GDP using data on the economy’s capital stock,
labor input, and technology. This, however, could be a huge task, entailing various uncertainties about the
measures used, including the valuation of capital stock and the time lags that come with data gathering.
Another way is to look at the output gap as the deviation of output from its long-run underlying
trend. From this perspective, the long-run underlying trend of actual GDP growth could be deemed the
rate of GDP growth in the economy that is consistent with the economy’s long-term potential. The esti-
mation of this long-run underlying trend could be done by smoothing out cyclical movements in GDP
data over a long period of time, possibly a few business cycles. The deviation of actual GDP growth
for a particular time period from the potential GDP growth rate would thus represent the output gap.20
Viewed in this way, if the actual GDP growth rate is beyond the potential GDP growth rate, there is likely
to be more inflationary pressure. If the actual GDP growth rate is below the potential GDP growth rate,
however, there is likely to be less inflationary pressure.
The output gap is a variable that the central bank might look at when making monetary policy deci-
sions. Apart from looking at the current period output gap, however, the central bank might need to also
look ahead into the future and project what the output gap might look like in future periods, since it often
takes some time before monetary policy action can fully affect aggregate demand and inflation. However,
it should also be recognized that potential output, similarly to NAIRU, could also shift over time.21
86 CENTRAL BANKING
By the 1970s, as exemplified by what became known as the Lucas critique22 and the
policy ineffectiveness proposition,23 economists had succeeded in formalizing
the theoretical possibility that expectations might play in the effectiveness of eco-
nomic policies. Prior to that, with advances in the collection of macroeconomic
data and econometric techniques, policy makers had started to rely increasingly on
historical relationships among economic variables when making policy decisions.
For example, policy makers might rely on the historical relationship between unem-
ployment and inflation, as reflected by the (short-run) Phillips curve, when deciding
on whether to rein or stimulate aggregate demand. However, the view of many econ-
omists was that policy actions based on historical relationships might be ineffective,
since the public would anticipate the consequences of such policy actions and might
alter their behaviors in ways not anticipated by the policy makers.
Broadly speaking, it could be said that the rational expectations hypothesis
was developed to address the shortcomings in economic theories (or applications
of theories) that were based on adaptive expectations. Under an adaptive expecta-
tions framework, the expectation of the future value of an economic variable is
based on its past values. For example, operating under adaptive expectations, people
would assume that inflation for any one year would be the same as the previous year.
If the economy indeed suffers from constantly rising inflation, then operating under
adaptive expectations, people would constantly underestimate inflation. Assuming a
framework of adaptive expectations is thus quite unrealistic, since rational peo-
ple would soon notice this type of trend and take it into account in forming their
expectations.
The rational expectations hypothesis addresses the shortcomings of adaptive
expectations by assuming that individuals take all available information into account
in forming expectations. By doing so, the hypothesis suggests that an individual’s
expectations are correct on average. Although the future is not fully predictable, by
using all relevant information when forming expectations of the future values of
economic variables, the individual’s or the public’s expectations pertaining to those
variables would not be systematically biased.
One implication of the Lucas critique is that to predict the effect of a mac-
roeconomic policy experiment, it be better to model the parameters that govern
individual behavior at the microeconomic level (as opposed to aggregated macro-
data). Indeed, the latest cutting-edge macroeconomic models—such as the dynamic
stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models—used at modern central banks for
economic forecasts and monetary policy decisions these days are often built with
the Lucas critique in mind. Rather than relying on the historical relationship of
aggregated macrodata, these models attempt to model the behavior of a rational
representative economic agent (a representative consumer, for example) at the
microeconomic level.
A concept related to the Lucas critique, but which is more directly associated
with the use of a monetary policy rule, is Goodhart’s law, which states that “any
observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it
for control purposes.”24 Goodhart’s law is often ascribed as an apt description of
the breakdown of the relationship between the money supply and nominal income
following the failure of money supply targeting in the United States and the United
Kingdom in the early 1980s.
While the NAIRU and rational expectations theories pointed out the shortcomings
of using monetary policy to actively manipulate unemployment beyond the natural
level, they did not exactly prescribe how the central banks should best conduct their
monetary policy. A 1977 work by economists Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott27
on the time consistency problem helped complete the picture by pointing out that
without a binding rule, policy makers, through their best intentions for the public,
would tend to retreat from their announced policies. Such retreats create a credibility
problem for future policies. Once the rational public knows that the authority can
always retreat from a policy, that policy and any subsequent policy change aimed to
improve the public welfare will not be effective, since the public will have altered its
behavior since the first policy was announced.
In terms of monetary policy, if the central bank announces that it will reduce
inflation (and thus probably create unemployment along the way, given that the
economy moves along a short-run Phillips curve), unless the central bank demon-
strates a credible binding commitment to deliver on that announcement, the public
will not trust such an announcement. The public will know that once inflation seems
to have stabilized, the central bank will have many incentives to start easing its
monetary policy and squeezing unemployment even further at the expense of higher
inflation. (One such incentive for the central bank might simply be desire on the
part of central bankers to further boost society’s welfare!) Without a binding com-
mitment against policy retreats, the central bank’s announcement about reducing
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 89
inflation will not be credible from the start. Inflation expectations of the public will
remain high, and the central bank therefore will be unable to reduce inflation, let
alone reduce unemployment.
The quantity theory of money, the Phillips curve, the natural rate of unemploy-
ment, the rational expectations hypothesis, and the time consistency problem are key
theoretical foundations of the modern design and practice of monetary policy and
the pursuit of the monetary stability mandate by central banks, as well as the dual
mandate of the Federal Reserve.
■■ The quantity theory of money explains why the central bank should refrain
from overprinting the money in the long run. Given the economy’s capital, labor,
and technology input, an increase in money supply will in the long run lead to
rising prices, but not output.
■■ The Phillips curve provides a basis for using monetary policy to help fine-tune
the economy, or at least to trade off between inflation and unemployment in the
short run.
■■ In the long run (the period over which prices and wages can fully adjust), the
natural rate of unemployment concept and the rational expectations hypothesis
suggest that monetary policy cannot be used to trade off between inflation and
unemployment. Monetary policy will not be able to bring unemployment down
below the natural rate in the long run. Were the central bank to attempt to bring
unemployment down below the natural rate, in the long run, not only it will fail
to bring unemployment down, but inflation would also rise.
■■ The time inconsistency concept suggests that to help the credibility and effective-
ness of monetary policy, monetary policy should be conducted under an explicit
rule, so that the central bank does not have the discretion to easily retreat from a
monetary policy action. Furthermore, to help shield the central bank from
being subjected to short-term political pressures, which could jeopardize the
credibility of monetary policy, the central bank should be granted operational
independence.
SUMMARY
Theoretical developments that have influenced the modern conduct of monetary
policy include (1) the quantity theory of money, (2) the Phillips curve, (3) the natural
rate of unemployment concept, (4) the rational expectations hypothesis, and (5) the
time inconsistency problem.
The Quantity Theory of Money: The government should refrain from overprint-
ing money. In the long run, monetary policy can only influence prices of goods and
services in the economy, and cannot influence the quantity of output or level of eco-
nomic activity directly. The efforts by the central bank to stimulate the economy by
printing money will only result in rising prices and inflation in the long run.
The Phillips Curve: The government can attempt to fine-tune the economy in
the short run by trading off unemployment and inflation. There is a short-run nega-
tive relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. When the inflation
rate goes up, the unemployment rate goes down, and vice versa.
Theoretical Foundations of the Practice of Modern Monetary Policy 91
The Natural Rate of Unemployment: The central bank should not attempt to
push unemployment below the natural rate of unemployment, since this will lead
to higher inflation expectations in the long run, without lowering unemployment.
In the long run, the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment disap-
pears. There is a rate of unemployment, called the natural rate of unemployment,
that corresponds to the economy’s potential. In practice, the concept of an output
gap can also be used to capture the concept of the natural rate of unemployment.
The Rational Expectations Hypothesis: Public expectations matter in the
effectiveness of economic policies. The public is rational enough to incorporate
their expectations of policy outcomes into their current behavior. As such, an
expansionary monetary policy that leads to a rise in inflation expectations could
lead to an upward spiral in wages and prices. For monetary policy to be effective
in maintaining price stability, the central bank must manage the inflation expecta-
tions of the public.
The rational expectations hypothesis has important implications for the con-
duct of monetary policy because of the Lucas critique and the policy ineffectiveness
proposition.
The Time Inconsistency Problem: To raise the credibility of the central bank
with respect to its commitment to low and stable inflation, and to anchor infla-
tion expectations, the central bank needs to conduct monetary policy by following
an explicit rule rather than using pure discretion. Policy makers, even with the best
of intentions, have an incentive to backtrack on their policies if they believe they can
improve welfare of the public. The backtracking, however, will damage the future
credibility and effectiveness of its policies, thereby reducing the welfare of the public
instead. For a central bank, credibility is critical if monetary policy is to work effec-
tively in keeping inflation low and stable.
KEY TERMS
adaptive expectations output gap
equation of exchange Phillips curve
long-run Phillips curve policy ineffectiveness proposition
Lucas critique quantity theory of money
natural rate of unemployment rational expectations
nonaccelerating inflation rate of time-inconsistency problem
unemployment (NAIRU) velocity of circulation
Okun’s law
QUESTIONS
1. What is the equation representing the quantity theory of money?
2. What are the key assumptions used in the equation representing the quantity
theory of money?
3. According to the quantity theory of money, if the amount of money in the
economy rises, what would happen in the long run?
4. According to the quantity theory of money, why can’t we expect monetary policy
to help directly stimulate output growth in a sustainable manner in the long run?
92 CENTRAL BANKING
Learning Objectives
1. Describe various monetary policy regimes that central banks have
adopted since the end of the Bretton Woods system.
2. Explain the pros and cons of adopting an exchange rate targeting
regime.
3. Explain the pros and cons of adopting a money supply targeting
regime.
4. Explain the pros and cons of adopting an inflation-targeting regime.
5. Explain the pros and cons of unconventional monetary policy in
the case of quantitative easing.
93
94 CENTRAL BANKING
design its operational processes and organizational structure to best help it achieve
the objective of that rule.
Exchange rate targeting is a monetary policy rule under which the central bank
promises to keep the exchange rate within an announced target for a given period.
Under exchange rate targeting the central bank cannot change the money supply at
*
Note here that the gold standard and the gold exchange standard are, by definition, also mon-
etary policy rules. The gold standard, for example, was a monetary policy rule that limited the
central bank to printing money only up to the amount that could be backed by the value of its
gold reserves. The gold standard (as well as the gold exchange standard) as a monetary policy
rule did not allow central banks to actually fine-tune the economy. To be fair, theoretical
understanding at the time of the gold standard did not allow for the possibility of fine-tuning
the economy (Bordo 2007).
Monetary Policy Regimes 95
will, lest the exchange rate move away from the announced target level.3 Generally
speaking, exchange rate targeting as a monetary policy rule can help the central bank
achieve credibility and price stability if the central bank pegs the value of its currency
to that of a large country that has a good record of price stability.4
Historically, following the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and until
the late 1990s, the currency of choice for a central bank to peg its currency to has
often been the U.S. dollar for emerging-market economies and the German mark
for advanced economies in Europe.5 Despite blips during the great inflation period
in the late 1970s, the United States had always had a good record of price stability,
and even to this day, the U.S. dollar remains the dominant currency used in inter-
national trade and finance. Fixing the level of its exchange rate to the U.S. dollar
would enable easy international transactions for the country that chooses to do so.
Germany, meanwhile, after the hyperinflation episode of the 1920s, has always been
very vigilant in keeping its inflation rate low. By the 1970s France and the United
Kingdom had started to peg their exchange rates to the German mark as German
economic prominence grew, a prelude to the creation of the euro.6
Later on, as countries started to diversify their trade and investment, many cen-
tral banks also started to fix the value of their domestic currencies to a basket of
currencies of their main trading partners.7 To do this, the central bank might create
an index representing the weighted value of the basket of currencies of their major
trading partner countries and target the exchange rate at a certain level of the index.8
Also, rather than fixing the exchange rate at a particular level, the central bank
could also choose to allow the exchange rate to fluctuate within a (narrow) target
band, or to adopt a crawling peg—that is a system under which the exchange rate
might be allowed to gradually depreciate against the pegged country, thus allowing
inflation in the country in question to be higher than that in the pegged country.9
Whether the central bank targets the value of its currency to another currency
(such as the U.S. dollar) or to a basket of currencies, or in terms of a particular
exchange rate level, a target band, or a crawling peg, however, the essential mechan-
ics can be illustrated by the following simple stylized model.
Q2 Q1 Quantity of pesos
Initial Equilibrium In Figure 6.1, let us say that the central bank of Country A decides
to peg the value of its currency, the peso, at an exchange rate of 2 pesos per 1 U.S.
dollar (USD). Initially, the foreign exchange market for the peso is in equilibrium at
point a. At point a, demand for pesos is matched by the supply of pesos (Q1 on the
x-axis).
The Case of a Fall in Demand for the Domestic Currency Assume that importers in Country
A later want to convert their pesos into U.S. dollars so that they can use U.S. dollars
to import goods from abroad. In that case, the demand curve for pesos would shift
to the left, with point b potentially as the new equilibrium point.
At point b, however, the peso exchange rate would have dropped to 2.5 pesos
per 1 U.S. dollar, which is less than the announced target level of 2 pesos per 1 U.S.
dollar. To keep the exchange rate at the target level, the central bank of Country A
would have to sell U.S. dollars from its foreign-exchange reserve holdings to import-
ers and buy up pesos from them. By buying up pesos from importers, the central
bank would be drawing out pesos that currently reside in private hands and in the
economy at large. In effect, through its sale of U.S. dollars and purchase of pesos
from importers, the central bank would be reducing the supply of pesos to match
the fall in demand for pesos. The supply curve for pesos would shift to the left (from
supply curve S to supply curve S'). At point c, which is the new equilibrium point,
the exchange rate would be back at 2 pesos per dollar, the central bank’s announced
exchange target level.
The Case of a Rise in Demand for the Domestic Currency In contrast to the importer exam-
ple above, let us say that the initial equilibrium is at point c. When exporters in
Country A want to convert their U.S. dollar earnings into pesos, demand for pesos
rises. The demand curve for pesos would shift to the right (from demand curve D
to demand curve D'), with the new equilibrium at point d, a point at which there
are appreciation pressures on the peso. To prevent the peso from rising above the
announced target level, the central bank would have to buy up U.S. dollars from
exporters and sell pesos to them, thereby raising the supply of pesos in the economy.
The supply curve for pesos would then shift to the right (from supply curve S to sup-
ply curve S'). To keep the exchange rate at the announced 2 pesos per dollar target,
the central bank would have to expand supply of pesos until the supply curve for
pesos intersects with the demand curve for pesos at point a, which would be the new
equilibrium point.
In practice, the central bank with exchange rate targeting has to constantly adjust
the money supply to meet changes in demand for the domestic currency. From the
examples above, we can see that (1) demand for foreign currencies rises (and demand
for domestic currency falls) when importers need foreign currencies to import goods
and services from abroad, and (2) demand for foreign currencies falls (and demand
for domestic currency rises) when exporters need to convert their export earnings
into domestic currency. To keep the exchange rate fixed at the announced target
level, the central bank has to adjust the domestic money supply to meet changes in
demand for the domestic currency.
The Effects of Capital Inflows In a country that is open to international capital flows,
changes in demand for domestic currency would come not only from importers and
Monetary Policy Regimes 97
exporters of goods and services, but also from international investors. If interna-
tional investors deem that the country is a good investment prospect, then capital
would flow into the domestic economy. In order to invest in the country, interna-
tional investors would first have to convert their foreign currencies into the domestic
currency. This would raise demand for the domestic currency. To meet the demand
from international investors, and to keep the exchange rate fixed at the announced
target, the central bank would have to buy up foreign currencies from international
investors and supply them with domestic currency.
The Effects of Capital Outflows In contrast, if international investors deem that the
country is not a good investment prospect and want to divest from the country, then
there would be a flight of capital out of the country. International investors would
want to convert their domestic currency into foreign currencies. Demand for domes-
tic currency would fall. To meet the demand of international investors and to keep
the exchange rate fixed at the announced target, the central bank would have to buy
up domestic currency from international investors and sell its foreign currencies to
them as demanded. Through the purchase of domestic currency, the central bank
would effectively be withdrawing a portion of the domestic money supply from the
economy, thereby reducing the domestic money supply.
Exchange Rate Targeting and Monetary Policy Independence From Figure 6.1 and the pre-
ceding discussion, we can see that the central bank does not truly have the inde-
pendence to conduct monetary policy and fine-tune the economy as it sees fit. If
there is a requirement to keep the exchange rate at the announced target level, the
central bank will have to vary the money supply to match changes in the demand for
domestic currency by importers and exporters, as well as international investors and
speculators, rather than adjusting domestic money conditions to directly influence
domestic aggregate demand.
An extreme form of exchange rate targeting is the use of a currency board,
whereby the exchange rate is fixed at a particular level and the domestic currency is
legally required to be fully backed up by foreign currencies held by the central bank.
98 CENTRAL BANKING
The central bank is legally obliged to exchange domestic currency for a foreign cur-
rency at the specified exchange rate, and thus can only issue additional domestic
currency if it has extra foreign currencies to fully back it up. A central bank in a
currency board system (e.g., the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which fixes the
Hong Kong dollar at the rate of HK$ 7.8 to USD 1) cannot thus independently alter
money supply as it wishes to.10
In general, even for those that are not on the currency board system, it could
be said that the central bank under an exchange rate targeting regime must keep
domestic money conditions aligned with money conditions in the country that it
fixes the value of its domestic currency to. Otherwise, divergences in money condi-
tions between the two countries will not allow the central bank to keep the exchange
rate at the announced target level.
For example, let us say that Country A fixes the value of its currency to the
U.S. dollar. If Country A’s domestic unemployment is very high, the central bank of
Country A cannot simply ease money conditions to stimulate domestic aggregate
demand unless the U.S. central bank also eases U.S. money conditions. Otherwise,
Country A’s domestic inflation could rise much faster than that of the United States
and there will be immense depreciation pressures on the value of Country A’s cur-
rency. In the world of free capital flows, these depreciation pressures could simply
overwhelm the ability of Country A’s central bank to keep the exchange rate fixed
at the target level. As will be discussed in more detail in later chapters, a currency
with a higher inflation rate is likely to depreciate in value—both in terms of domestic
purchasing power and overseas purchasing power—which would put downward
pressure on the exchange rate.
The Impossible Trinity: Exchange Rate Targeting, Free Capital Flows, and Independent Monetary
Policy From the preceding discussion, we can see that the success of using exchange
rate targeting as a monetary policy rule depends on both the degree of capital flows
and the degree of monetary policy independence. The impossibility of having (1) a
fixed exchange rate, (2) free capital flows, and (3) an independent monetary policy
all at the same time is known among economists and central bankers as the impos-
sible trinity. The impossible trinity has been one key reason why numerous central
banks in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have been abandoning exchange rate tar-
geting as their monetary policy rule. In a world of freer international capital flows
and diverging economic cycles, many of these central banks often find it hard to
maintain a fixed exchange rate and fine-tune the domestic economy at the same time.
We discuss issues relating to the exchange rate in more detail in Chapters 8 to 10.
As the name suggests, a money growth targeting rule requires that the central bank
set a target rate for growth of the money supply. According to this rule, if the central
bank keeps money supply growth at a target rate that is consistent with that of real
economic activity, then inflation should be relatively low and stable. In the 1970s,
central banks around the world had to grapple with the effects of the breakdown of
the Bretton Woods system. While many central banks decided to keep their exchange
rates fixed to the U.S. dollar or the German mark,11 by the 1980s a number of
Monetary Policy Regimes 99
advanced economy central banks, including those of the United States and Germany,
had adopted money growth targets as a guide for their monetary policy actions.12
M×V=P×Q (6.1)
where M stands for the quantity of money in the economy, V is the velocity of circu-
lation of the money, P is the general price level in the economy, and Q is the quantity
of products sold in the economy.
Rearrange to get
M ×Q
P= (6.2)
V
Given that V and Q are exogenous to the equation, and thus assumed constant,
then a change in P must be equal to a change in M.
dP dM
= (6.3)
p M
In differentiating with respect to time (t), changes in P over time will be equal to
changes in M over time.
dP / P dM / M
= (6.4)
dt dt
The preceding calculation means that the rate of change in the general price
level of the economy, or the rate of inflation, is equal to the rate of change in money
supply over time.
Given Equation 6.4, if the central bank allows the money supply to grow at a
rate that is markedly faster than the growth rate of economic activity, inflation will
accelerate. In other words, with so much money, money will soon lose its purchasing
power. If the central bank pushes the money supply growth rate below the growth
rate of economic activity, on the other hand, money conditions will be tight and
inflation will decelerate. In extreme cases, if money becomes extremely scarce, prices
of goods and services might fall, and deflation could set in.
The U.S. and U.K. Experiences Monetary growth targeting became popular as a mon-
etary policy rule in the advanced economies including the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland in the 1970s.17 In practice, however,
despite the announced money growth targets, many of these central banks also pur-
sued other objectives, including the stability of exchange rates and the financial mar-
ket. They often also attempted to fine-tune the economy based on the immediate
conditions, that is, moving along the short-run Phillips curve.18 When two major oil
shocks hit the world economy in the mid- and late 1970s, central banks—notably
those of the United States and the United Kingdom—tried to ease monetary condi-
tions, and along the way overshot their money supply growth targets in order to
push unemployment down.19
The unwillingness of U.S. and U.K. central banks to strictly adhere to their
announced money supply growth targets and to actually let the targets be consis-
tently overshot led to sharp increases in inflation.20 As public inflation expectations
rose upward in response to easy monetary policy, however, both unemployment and
inflation accelerated, resulting by the late 1970s in a situation known as stagfla-
tion (stagnation plus inflation). As discussed in Chapter 5 in the context of the time
inconsistency problem, the stagflation experience reflected the cost of using mon-
etary policy in a discretionary manner, as opposed to following a credible monetary
policy rule.
To get inflation back down, in October 1979 the Federal Reserve (under the new
chairmanship of Paul A. Volcker) decided to publicly emphasize its commitments to
money growth targets and allowed interest rates to shoot up to very high levels.21
While the policy resulted in deep economic contractions in the short term, it had the
effect of driving inflation expectations downward in the longer term, since it showed
the willingness of the Federal Reserve to commit to price stability even at steep
short-term costs. In any case, by the early 1980s both the Federal Reserve and the
Bank of England ran into a technical problem in pursuing money supply growth tar-
gets: the relationship between targeted money supply growth and nominal income
growth became very unstable, making it impossible to target money supply growth
Monetary Policy Regimes 101
properly.22 (See Case Study: The Breakdown of the Relationship between Money
Supply Growth, Nominal Income, and Inflation in the United States and the United
Kingdom, and the Role of Goodhart’s Law for more details.)
With inflation expectations already tamped down by a tight monetary policy,
the breakdown in the relationship between the growth in the money supply and
nominal income growth prompted the Federal Reserve to start deemphasizing
money supply growth targets by late 1982.23 By July 1993, the Federal Reserve
had completely phased out monetary targeting as a monetary policy rule, and
had effectively adopted what became known as a just-do-it, or a risk manage-
ment, approach to its monetary framework.24 The United Kingdom, meanwhile,
also dropped money growth targeting in the late 1980s and started pegging the
value of its currency to the deutsche mark in anticipation of joining the European
monetary union.25
The German Experience In contrast to the U.S. and U.K. experiences, however, money
supply growth targeting in Germany was quite successful from the 1970s through
the 1990s.26 Apart from using a money supply growth target as a communication
tool to anchor expectations, the German central bank also announced a numerical
inflation goal and used that inflation goal to calculate the necessary money sup-
ply growth rate from the quantity theory of money equation.27 In this respect the
German central bank was also flexible enough to adjust a numerical inflation goal
over time to make it consistent with long-term price stability.
Furthermore, while the German central bank allowed monetary growth to some-
time overshoot the target in response to shocks, it also reversed those overages later
to get money supply growth back to the target over time.28 The German’s success
with money supply growth targeting as monetary policy rule to maintain price sta-
bility also depended heavily on the manner in which it communicated its monetary
policy strategy to the public. Although the central bank might miss its money supply
growth targets by large margins, the central bank also spent a lot effort in explain-
ing to the public how monetary policy was being directed to achieve its inflation
goal.29 This successful strategy was later adopted by the ECB through the use of the
two-pillar strategy of monetary policy, under which ECB concerned itself with both
money supply growth and inflation rates.
CASE STUDY: The Breakdown of the Relationship between Money Supply Growth, Nominal Income,
and Inflation in the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Role of Goodhart’s Law
By the early 1980s, as the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England had started to show more seri-
ous commitment to the rule of money supply growth targeting, the relationship between money sup-
ply, nominal income, and inflation started to break down in both the United States and the United
Kingdom.30 In terms of the quantity theory of money equation, the variable V in the M × V = P × Q
equation had become unstable, such that the central banks were having a hard time setting a growth of
M variable that would rightly correspond to the growth of P × Q (or growth of nominal GDP).31
The instability of V could have owed to factors that altered the cost of holding money (including
changes in inflation expectations and real interest rates), financial innovations (such as the introduc-
tion of money market accounts), and credit cards.32 With velocity of circulation (V ) being unstable, the
central banks found it increasingly difficult to calibrate their money supply growth targets in a way that
was consistent with nominal GDP.33
102 CENTRAL BANKING
Goodhart’s Law
This breakdown in the relationship between money and nominal income has also often been ascribed
partly to Goodhart’s law, named after the economist Charles Goodhart of the London School of
Economics. The law is a close relative to the Lucas critique discussed in Chapter 5.34 Specifically,
Goodhart’s law states that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is
placed upon it for control purposes.”35 With money supply growth becoming a control target, this
caused greater variation in nominal and real interest rates, as well as inflation, which helped increase
pressure for deregulation and competition.36 Ultimately the pressure for competition and deregula-
tion, coupled with the speed of the evolution in information technology, helped bring about financial
innovations that effectively caused instability in the velocity of circulation and destroyed the observed
relationship between money and nominal income.37
From the mid 1980s until the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007, the Federal
Reserve had adopted a monetary-policy framework that became known as the just-
do-it, or the risk management, approach to monetary policy.38 In this framework,
there were no announced specific targets for money supply growth or the inflation
rate. Instead, the Federal Reserve closely monitored various economic data and acted
in a forward-looking manner, in order to maintain price stability and minimize risks
to employment and economic growth.39
Under the risk management approach, the Federal Reserve used a short-term
interest rate as its policy interest rate and adjusted the policy interest rate to preempt
risks that might lead to inflation and threaten economic stability. A famous example
is when Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, famously tightened
the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy stance in 1996, explicitly to temper down
“irrational exuberance” in the U.S. stock markets.40 Despite adjusting monetary pol-
icy based on factors such as asset prices and the state of the stock market, however,
when economists actually traced out monetary policy actions during the period of
risk management approach, it was found that the Federal Reserve monetary-policy
decisions at the time could be expressed as minimization of risks to both output
growth and price stability.
growth rate, yt* is the GDP growth rate at full potential, and aπ and ay are the rela-
tive weights that the central bank assigns to keeping inflation at the target rate and
getting the actual GDP growth rate to its full potential. In his 1993 paper, Taylor
suggested that aπ = ay = 0.5.
According to Equation 6.5, the Federal Reserve would raise the policy interest
rate when inflation is above the desired rate or when GDP growth rate is beyond its
full potential. When inflation is below the desired rate or when GDP growth rate is
below its full potential, then the Federal Reserve would lower the policy interest rate.
At times when inflation and output goals turn out to be in conflict—for example,
when an oil shock causes inflation to rise beyond the desired rate and at the same
time causes GDP growth to be below potential—the central bank might tilt the rela-
tive weights according to what it sees fit. In this case, if the central bank wants to
drive down inflation expectations it might put more weight toward keeping inflation
at the target rate.
Inflation targeting is a monetary policy regime under which the central bank aims
to keep the inflation rate within a specified target over a specified time frame. An
inflation-targeting central bank often uses a short-term interest rate (known as the
policy interest rate) as the key tool to adjust monetary conditions in the economy
104 CENTRAL BANKING
Consumption
behavior
Export/Import
behavior
t 18 to 24 months
*
Technically it is more precise to say that under inflation targeting the central bank’s forecast
of inflation, rather than current actual inflation, is to be kept within target, because there is
normally a time lag between a monetary policy action and a rise in prices. In the conduct of
monetary policy under inflation targeting, the central bank thus acts today in response to its
forecast of future inflation. In practice, however, the central bank is judged on its ability to
keep actual inflation within target.
Monetary Policy Regimes 105
If the central bank deems that current money conditions are stimulating consumption
and investment demand, as well as economic activity, too much, such that inflation
may rise beyond its target in the future, the central bank might raise the policy interest
rate to help tighten money conditions.
As will be discussed in more detail in later chapters, a rise in the policy inter-
est rate could lead to a rise in other short-term and long-term interest rates and
tightened money conditions, and thus a slowdown in consumption and investment
demand in the economy. The slowdown in consumption and investment demand
means that there would be less competition for goods and services, and thus also a
slowdown in the rise in prices of goods and services in the economy; in other words,
a slowdown in inflation.
It has long been recognized that before monetary policy actions can affect eco-
nomic activity and inflation, however, that there would be time lags that are both
long and variable.49 It could take anywhere from 12 months to more than 24 months
for a change in the policy interest rate to work through aggregate demand and fully
affect inflation.50 An inflation-targeting central bank would thus have to make an
inflation forecast over that time horizon and adjust the policy interest rate to make
sure that the inflation forecast would remain within target.51 This will be a rolling
exercise; that is, an inflation-targeting central bank would normally schedule mon-
etary policy meetings on a regular basis (possibly every six weeks) to assess new
information, make its inflation forecast two years out, and adjust its policy interest
rate accordingly.
As will be discussed in later chapters in more detail, apart from affecting con-
sumption and investment demand, a rise in short-term interest rates could also lead
to appreciation pressures on the exchange rate, and thus net exports, all else being
equal. With an appreciating exchange rate, the economy’s exports would be priced
higher in terms of a foreign currency, and thus demand for exports from the country
would also fall, leading to a slowdown in domestic economic activity and lower
inflationary pressures. On the other hand, with an appreciating currency, imports
of foreign goods and services would be cheaper in terms of domestic currency. As
such, there will be more imports to substitute for locally produced products. On the
whole, a rise in short-term interest rates is likely to lead to lower net exports and
thus a slowdown in economic activity, other things being equal. Along with weak-
ened domestic demand, the fall in net exports would help further weaken inflation-
ary pressures in the economy.
In contrast, if an inflation-targeting central bank deems that monetary condi-
tions are already too tight or economic activity too slow, such that inflation might
fall below its target, the central bank might choose to stimulate economic activity
and demand in the economy by lowering the policy interest rate. In such a case, as
other interest rates in the economy start to fall in line with the lower policy interest
rate, consumption and investment demand will rise. Competing demand for goods
and services will thus lead to higher inflationary pressures.
Also, as interest rates start to fall, all else being equal, the exchange rate will
likely depreciate, making exports cheaper in terms of a foreign currency. Demand for
the country’s exports will rise, leading to more economic activity and more competi-
tion for goods and services. With a depreciating currency, imports will become more
expensive in domestic currency terms and more likely to be substituted for by locally
produced products. Competition for domestic resources to increase production for
106 CENTRAL BANKING
these import substitutions will help spur economic activity, and also inflationary
pressures, going forward.
Despite its popularity and relative success, an inflation-targeting regime is not without challenges.
Indeed, two key major challenges of an inflation-targeting regime have already actually happened:
(1) the possibility that inflation might come from a supply shock (such as an oil shock) rather than
Monetary Policy Regimes 107
a demand shock, and (2) the possibility that asset-price bubbles could occur even in a low inflation
environment.55
Both of these challenges point favorably toward the adoption of what has become known as a
flexible inflation regime, under which long-term price stability remains supreme but the central bank
has the flexibility to deal with different sources of shocks to the economy.56
One of the novel approaches that a central bank with flexible inflation targeting might adopt is the
Bank of Canada’s program that adjusts the time horizon for it to bring inflation within target, so as to
minimize the economic and financial volatility that its actions may cause. The Bank of Canada lengthens
or shortens the typical two-year time horizon that it needs to bring inflation back to the target depend-
ing on the nature and persistence of the risks facing the economy. Specifically, the Bank of Canada is
willing to sacrifice inflation performance over the two-year horizon if by doing so it can achieve greater
economic, financial, and price stability over the longer run.57
Supply Shocks
In an inflation-targeting regime, the central bank is supposed to adjust the policy interest rate to influ-
ence aggregate demand in the economy. When a supply shock (such as an oil shock) occurs, economic
activity can slow down owing to rising costs of production, yet inflation can also accelerate. If the
central bank responds to an oil shock by being too accommodative in its monetary policy stance, then
inflation expectations might rise and inflation could accelerate, as happened during the Great Inflation
of the1970s. If the central bank simply raises the policy interest rate in order to bring down inflation,
however, aggregate demand can weaken, hurting economic activity further.
For the central bank with flexible inflation targeting that is dealing with a supply shock, if the
record of transparency, accountability, and credibility is strong (such that inflation expectations are
low), then rather than quickly raising the policy interest rate and further aggravating the contraction
of output, the central bank might be able to allow for a more gradual convergence of inflation with the
target, given that output stabilization might also be important when facing a supply shock.
More formally, it has been suggested that the central bank with flexible inflation-targeting regime
might try to minimize the social loss function using the equation
where πt is the actual inflation rate in period t, π* is the inflation target, xt is the output gap in period
t, and λ > 0 is the relative weight on output-gap stabilization. Rather than being entirely oblivious to
output fluctuation, and given that λ = 0, inflation-targeting central banks that are not so-called inflation
nutters are likely to want to give some weight (sometimes substantial) to λ.58
Asset-price bubbles
Even before the global financial crisis in 2007, the possibility existed that asset-price bubbles might
occur in the calm environment of low consumer price inflation.59 Usually, inflation-targeting central
banks would use one measure or another of consumer price inflation as their inflation target, since
consumer price inflation seems to best reflect the cost of living and is more readily understandable.
However, the experiences from Japan in the late 1980s and the United States in the middle of the first
decade of the twenty-first century suggest that asset-price bubbles can form when consumer price
inflation is low.60 Indeed, low consumer price inflation might allow asset-price bubbles to emerge,
since the central bank would be more likely to keep interest rates low, making asset-price speculation
easier.61
To deal with the possibility of asset-price bubbles, it has been suggested that an inflation-targeting
central bank might need to look beyond the traditional 18-to-24-month time horizon when making
monetary-policy decisions.62 Asset-price bubbles that form during periods of low inflation might keep
building up beyond the 24-month horizon, only to spectacularly burst later.63 A notable example of a
central bank using a longer horizon is the Reserve Bank of Australia, which—being cognizant of the
108 CENTRAL BANKING
possibility of asset-price bubbles building up and threatening price stability beyond the usual two-year
forecast horizon—adopted an inflation target whose time horizon is “over the [business] cycle.”64
More recently, central banks (whether inflation-targeting or not) have also started to look at
another set of tools called macroprudential measures, to help address specific buildups of asset-price
bubbles. For an inflation-targeting central bank, macroprudential measures are tools that can comple-
ment the use of the policy interest rate, since they can be applied more specifically to different areas
of the economy, unlike the policy interest rate, which normally affects all sectors of the economy.65
Yield
(Percent per year)
4
Yield curve after the central bank buys up
long maturity securities.
0
Overnight 10 years 30 years Maturity
the central bank is also easing shortages of liquidity in the economy by injecting a
quantity of money into the hands of the private sector.
Figure 6.3 illustrates a stylized model of unconventional monetary policy in
which the central bank decides to buy up long-maturity government securities from
the private sector. In Figure 6.3 the horizontal axis shows the maturity of govern-
ment securities (measured in time t), while the vertical axis shows the yield (interest)
paid to those holding government securities (measured in percent per year). When
we plot the yield of government securities at different maturities and draw a line
across the plots, we have what is known as the government yield curve. (Details of
the yield curve will be discussed in Chapter 7.)
Normally the yield curve is upward sloping, that is, yields of short-maturity
securities would be lower than yields of those with a longer maturity. For example,
the yield of a one-year government bond will normally be lower than the yield of a
five-year government bond, the yield of a ten-year government bond will normally
be lower than the yield of a thirty-year government bond, and so on. (Reasons for
this will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.)
In practice, the private sector uses the government yield curve as a benchmark
when calculating interest rates for borrowing and lending. Government securities
are considered risk-free assets, since the government is very unlikely to default on
its own securities. When the private sector lends funds among themselves, they often
compare the interest from such lending with what they could get from investing in
government securities (which is equivalent to lending to the government). Since lend-
ing to the government is risk free, while lending to the private sector involves risks,
the lender would normally charge interest rates on private loans that are higher than
yields of government securities of comparable maturities.
Figure 6.3 shows that when the central bank has already lowered its policy
interest rate (a short-term interest rate, possibly an overnight interest rate) to zero,
or near-zero, then the yield from holding government securities of overnight matu-
rity will also be at or near zero, but the yield of government securities of longer
maturity could still be much higher. For example, in Figure 6.3 the ten-year yield
could still be at 6 percent per year even though the overnight yield is at 0 percent.
110 CENTRAL BANKING
Restoring Liquidity Apart from driving down long-maturity government yields, which
are benchmarks for private sector lending and borrowing, the purchase of govern-
ment securities from the private sector will also put more money in the hands of
the private sector, especially banks. During times of crisis, private agents are often
reluctant to borrow and lend among themselves. Instead, they might hoard risk-free
assets, such as government securities. This leads to shortages of liquidity, which ham-
pers economic activity.
Under quantitative easing, the central bank buys up government securities from
the private sector, which amounts to putting money in the hands of the private sector,
especially banks, which are often large holders of government securities. With more
cash on hand, banks would have a better ability to lend to private agents and spur
economic activity.
Credit Easing plus Quantitative Easing The purchase of private sector securities is
known as credit easing, to distinguish it from the purchase of government securities
(quantitative easing), although both are essentially large-scale asset purchases by
the central bank.70 The purchase of mortgage-backed securities in the United States
was intended to directly address problems relating to the bursting of the U.S. hous-
ing bubble, which threatened to drag the U.S. economy into a deflationary spiral.
Broadly speaking, rising housing prices during the bubble buildup had helped raise
household wealth and consumption spending prior to the crisis. The financial sector
had helped the fast growth of housing prices by providing mortgage financing to
U.S. households, and by packaging those mortgages into tradable securities known
as mortgage-backed securities. When the housing bubble finally burst, the financial
sector experienced great losses on unsold mortgage-backed securities that were still
Monetary Policy Regimes 111
on their books, and had to cut down on lending. The household sector, on the other
hand, faced with falling housing prices and huge mortgage debts, was experiencing
a fast decline in wealth, and had to cut down on spending.
Credit Easing and the Help for the Financial Sector By buying up mortgage-backed securi-
ties, the U.S. central bank took some of the pressure off the financial sector.71 The
purchase of securities helped prevent the price of the securities held by many finan-
cial institutions from further falling and putting the financial sector at even greater
losses. Indeed, by doing its job of financial intermediation by purchasing mortgage-
backed securities, the U.S. central bank provided liquidity for the financial sector and
helped the financial sector to regain its capacity.72
Credit Easing and Help for the Housing Market The purchase of mortgage-backed securi-
ties also helped alleviate pressures on the household sector. The willingness of the
U.S. central bank to buy up mortgage-backed securities indirectly helped slow the
fall in housing prices. The purchase of mortgage-backed securities helped prevent the
price of these securities from spiraling downward. With the price of these securities
stabilized and money being put back into lenders’ hands, lenders were able to finance
new housing purchases and thus help slow the fall in housing demand and prices, as
well as household wealth.
Credit and Quantitative Easing and Help for the Labor Market Although initially the focus
of credit easing and quantitative easing was primarily to ease tension in the financial
sector and the housing market, as financial markets and the housing market stabi-
lized, the Federal Reserve deemed it appropriate to use both credit easing and quan-
titative easing as tools to help alleviate pressures in the labor market. In September
2012, for example, the Federal Reserve announced that it would buy an additional
$40 billion a month in mortgage securities and that it would reinvest principal pay-
ments of the mortgage securities it held to help put downward pressure on long-term
interest rates and foster economic growth in order to help to “generate sustained
improvements in labor market conditions.”73
CASE STUDY: Dealing with the European Sovereign Debt Crisis: Not Yet a QE in 2013
In the euro area, although the ECB also engaged in lending to financial institutions and providing liquid-
ity to key credit markets, it initially did not buy up long-term government securities in response to the
global financial crisis of 2007–2010, in contrast to the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.74 By
the early 2010s, however, as economic activity in the euro area started to slow down in wake of the
global financial crisis, there were fears that governments of a number of smaller, uncompetitive euro
area countries that had high levels of public debt might have troubles repaying that debt.
With the debt repayment ability of these governments in doubt, securities issued by these gov-
ernments started to lose in value. International investors started demanding higher yields for holding
these securities, to compensate for the risk that these governments might default on these supposedly
risk-free securities. The higher yields demanded by the investors placed an additional burden on these
governments to find money to pay for the higher yields demanded. The situation threatened to become
self-fulfilling, since the higher yields demanded by investors would further cripple the ability of govern-
ments to repay their debt and actually push the governments into default.
Since a default by a government of a euro area member country would raise doubt on credibility of
the euro as a currency and the euro area as a monetary union, the ECB announced that it was willing to
112 CENTRAL BANKING
buy up securities issued by governments of the troubled euro area countries. The purchase would help
allay investor fears and also help bring down yields of securities issued by the troubled governments,
enabling the governments in question to sort out their finances in the meantime. Also, in offering to
buy up these securities, the ECB would in effect be letting the banking sector offload their vast holdings
of troubled government securities from their books, limiting the chance that the sovereign debt crisis
would also transform into a banking crisis.
In September 2012 Mario Draghi, the new leader of the ECB, proposed a plan to buy an unlimited
amount of government securities of the member countries as a measure to stem the European sov-
ereign debt crisis.75 The ECB’s purchase of government securities, however, would not be exactly the
quantitative easing of the type conducted by the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England. Specifically,
the ECB would sterilize its purchases of the government securities from the private sector, meaning
that it would also sell its own securities to the markets to drain out the extra money it paid for the bond
purchases.76 Accordingly, government securities of the troubled economies would be replaced by ECB
securities, and there would be no net effect on the quantity of money from the operation.
assets that were falling in value, while other economic sectors were left out, with no
assistance from the authorities.
Despite these criticisms and challenges, however, it can be argued that the
recent global financial crisis was so grave that the use of unconventional monetary
policy by the central banks might have been warranted. In using unconventional
monetary policy, however, central banks need to carefully assure the public that
they are not becoming subordinate to their governments. Furthermore, central
banks will need to be very vigilant about threats of inflation once their economies
have recovered.
SUMMARY
Theoretical foundations of monetary policy conduct discussed in Chapter 5 sug-
gested that, for monetary policy to be credible, a monetary policy rule (also called a
monetary policy regime) should be adopted by the central bank.
The key monetary policy regimes that modern central banks have adopted are
(1) exchange rate targeting, (2) money supply growth targeting, (3) the risk man-
agement approach, (4) inflation targeting, and (5) unconventional monetary policy.
Under an exchange rate targeting regime, the central bank aims to keep the
exchange rate within the announced target. In such a regime, the exchange rate is
often pegged to the currency of a large country that has a good record of monetary
stability.
Under a money supply growth targeting regime, the central bank aims to keep
money supply growth at a target that is consistent with nominal income growth in
the economy.
Under the risk management approach, adopted by the Federal Reserve from the
mid-1980s to the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the central
bank adjusts the policy interest rate to preempt risks that might threaten monetary
and economic stability.
Under an inflation-targeting regime, the central bank adjusts the policy interest
rate to keep inflation within its announced target over a prespecified time horizon.
The central bank is held accountable if inflation misses the target.
Unconventional monetary policy was adopted by various central banks of
advanced economies to deal with the aftermath of the 2007–2010 global financial
crisis, after the policy interest rate had been reduced to or near 0 percent. At the core,
such policy involves large-scale purchases of long-term securities in order to bring
down long-term interest rates and ease money and credit conditions.
KEY TERMS
basket of currencies money supply growth targeting
credit easing quantitative easing
exchange rate targeting risk management approach
flexible inflation targeting the Taylor rule
Goodhart’s law unconventional monetary
inflation targeting policy
114 CENTRAL BANKING
QUESTIONS
1. What is a monetary policy regime, and why is it important?
2. How can a central bank with an exchange rate targeting regime aim to achieve
price stability?
3. What is a currency board?
4. If there are large inflows of capital, what is likely to happen to the country’s
exchange rate? Why?
5. If there are large inflows of capital, conceptually how can the central bank under
an exchange rate targeting regime keep the exchange rate within its announced
target?
6. If a large number of importers need large amounts of foreign currencies to pay
for their import purchases at the same time, what would happen to the exchange
rate?
7. How can the central bank keep the exchange rate at the announced target if a
large number of importers need large amounts of foreign currencies to pay for
their import purchases at the same time?
8. What might be the reason to say that those countries that have an exchange rate
targeting regime do not have monetary policy independence?
9. Why is it impossible for a central bank to achieve an exchange rate target, allow
free flows of capital, and maintain monetary policy independence simultane-
ously in the long run?
10. What is the underlying theoretical underpinning of money supply growth
targeting?
11. What are the pros of adopting money supply growth targeting as the monetary
policy regime?
12. Why did the United States and United Kingdom abandon money supply growth
targeting in the mid-1980s even though money supply growth targeting helped
manage inflation expectations downward in the early 1980s?
13. What does Goodhart’s law state and how does it apply to the practice of mon-
etary policy?
14. In the risk management approach practice of monetary policy in the United
States during Alan Greenspan’s era, what were examples of key variables that
the Federal Reserve took into consideration when making monetary-policy
decisions?
15. What are the pros of the risk management approach to monetary policy?
16. What are the cons of the risk management approach to monetary policy?
17. What are the features of and rationale for inflation targeting?
18. Under inflation targeting, how do transparency, accountability, and credibility of
the central bank come into play?
19. What is the key monetary policy instrument that a central bank with an
inflation-targeting regime normally uses to achieve its inflation target? How can
the central bank use that instrument to maintain monetary stability, if there seems
to be a risk that projected inflation might overshoot its target?
20. Should an inflation-targeting central bank raise its policy interest rate if infla-
tionary pressures come from a supply shock (e.g., an oil shock) as opposed to a
demand shock?
Monetary Policy Regimes 115
21. Given that inflation is likely to remain low, how could an asset-price bubble
be a challenge for the central bank in the conduct of monetary policy under an
inflation-targeting regime?
22. What are the pros of inflation targeting?
23. What are the cons of inflation targeting?
24. How might a central bank deal with the cons of inflation targeting?
25. What are the three key elements of the policy that the Federal Reserve used to
deal with the U.S. subprime crisis?
26. What might be immediate goals of quantitative easing programs?
27. In terms of their influences on the yield curve, how might quantitative easing
differ from conventional monetary policy?
28. How could quantitative easing help the housing market and the labor market in
the United States?
29. What are the pros of quantitative easing programs?
30. What are the cons of quantitative easing programs?
CHAPTER 7
Monetary Policy Implementation
Financial Market Operations
Learning Objectives
. Distinguish between the financial sector and the real sector.
1
2. Define money market.
3. Describe how central banks can influence conditions and interest
rates in the money market.
4. Explain how changes in money market interest rates can affect
long-term interest rates.
M onetary policy implementation refers to ways in which the central bank could
act to influence money conditions in the economy in order to achieve its
mandate, whether the mandate is monetary stability, financial stability, or employ-
ment (the latter applies particularly to the case of the United States). In the previous
chapter, we have discussed monetary policy rules, or monetary policy regimes, which
modern central banks might choose to adopt. The regime that the central bank has
chosen to adopt would dictate how the central bank might implement its monetary
policy decisions in the pursuit of its mandate.
In practice, modern monetary policy is often conducted through operations in
the financial markets.1 Such operations often involve transactions with financial
institutions, which will affect money conditions before affecting real economic activ-
ity such as consumption, investment, and net exports, which are components of
aggregate demand. Generally speaking, changes in aggregate demand will then affect
the output gap and inflation. In practice, however, changes in expectations following
an announcement of the central bank’s monetary policy decision might also have a
prompt impact in financial markets even before the central bank embarks on any
financial market operations, as market players adjust their portfolios in response
to the monetary policy decision. Economic agents, meanwhile, might also adjust
their economic behavior in line with changes in their expectations following the
announcement of the central bank’s monetary policy decisions.2
Figure 7.1 illustrates the link between monetary policy, the financial sector, the
real sector, expectations, and inflation.
117
118 CENTRAL BANKING
Expectations
Consumption
Financial
markets
Monetary Aggregate Output
policy Investment Inflation
demand gap
Financial
institutions
Export/Import
Expectations
In this chapter, we will look at how monetary policy could affect the financial
sector, which primarily is composed of financial markets and financial institutions.
In particular, we will focus on central bank operations in the financial markets by
looking at the nature of financial markets and the tools that the central bank can
use to influence interest rates in those markets. In Chapter 8 we will look at how
the effects of monetary policy on interest rates in the financial markets work their
way through the real economy (the part of the economy concerned with producing
goods and services, also termed the real sector) via various channels of transmission
mechanisms to affect economic activity and inflation.
The first link between the central bank’s monetary policy action and real economic
activity is the financial markets. The definition of the term financial market, how-
ever, is often quite loose. Broadly speaking, a financial market is one in which those
in need of funds and those with excess funds come to transact with each other. The
transaction could be simple borrowing and lending (with or without collateral), or
sales and purchases of securities or currencies. As such, the term financial market
actually encompasses many markets, which are distinguished by the nature of under-
lying transactions.
Table 7.1 lists a number of key financial markets in which central banks often
conduct their monetary policy operations.
Under normal circumstances, central banks conduct their monetary policy
operations through transactions in the money market, the foreign exchange market,
the government securities (bond) market. The preferred market(s) for operations
depends on the monetary policy regime, as well as surrounding circumstances. For
many central banks, the money market, which is the market for short-term (normally
Monetary Policy Implementation 119
TABLE 7.1 Key Financial Markets in Which Central Banks Conduct Their Monetary
Policy Operations
less than one year) funding, is often the preferred venue for the conduct of monetary
policy operations. Another main venue for monetary policy operations, especially
for those central banks that are concerned with the exchange rate, is the foreign
exchange market, which generally refers to the market for foreign exchange funding.
The government bond market, on the other hand, is an important venue for central
banks to occasionally influence longer-term interest rates.3
Additionally, during times of financial crisis, the central bank might extend its
operations and carry out transactions in nontraditional markets such as the credit
market.4 The credit market is a market for debt securities and includes securities
issued by banks, nonbank financial institutions, and corporations outside the finan-
cial industry. As discussed in Chapter 6, in response to the global financial crisis, the
U.S. central bank decided to conduct unconventional monetary policy by buying
up mortgage-backed securities and commercial paper from players in the financial
market. The operations were deemed unconventional since in normal times central
banks would certainly not be directly involved in corporate funding.*
It must be noted that, in a world where financial markets are closely connected,
no matter what particular market the central bank chooses to operate in, the effects
*Another example of crisis operations would be operations of the central bank in the equity
market. In the midst of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, the Hong Kong Monetary
Authority decided to directly purchase vast amounts of shares in the Hong Kong stock mar-
ket in order to fend off foreign speculators who were trying to break its exchange rate target
through short selling on the Hong Kong stock market. Such operations, however, have rarely
been done even during stressful times, since they could be easily misinterpreted as central bank
funding of the corporate sector.
120 CENTRAL BANKING
of its operations are likely to spill out to all other markets. The magnitude of the
effects in other markets, however, could vary, depending on market infrastructure as
well as surrounding circumstances. By tightening conditions in the money market,
for example, commercial banks would face higher short-term funding costs, which
they might pass on to their operations in other markets, such as the foreign exchange
market, that they themselves also operate in.
In practice, even a mere announcement of monetary policy operations in one
market could affect conditions in other markets through the expectations effect.
Players in other markets would anticipate the ultimate effects of such operations, and
accordingly adjust their behavior even before the central bank actually backs up its
announcement with actions. Indeed, in a world of fast information, it can be more
profitable for market players to act in advance of a monetary policy announcement,
such that the anticipation of a future policy announcement itself could drive the play-
ers’ actions and actually move markets before the central bank actually does anything.
Demand for Funds in the Money Market Normally commercial banks want to hold the
minimum amount of cash possible, since cash does not yield any interest, unlike
loans. In practice, however, banks would not lend out all the deposits that they took
Monetary Policy Implementation 121
in, owing to their need to hold reserves to meet (1) reserve requirements, whereby
the central bank requires commercial banks to set aside a certain percentage of the
deposits they took in from depositors as reserves to be held in accounts at the central
bank, and (2) contractual clearing balances, or settlement balances, whereby com-
mercial banks might keep funds in their accounts at the central bank to clear or settle
transactions that are done through the central bank’s payments system.7
Commercial banks would normally want to minimize their holdings in settle-
ment balances and excess reserves (the amount of reserves over and above those
required by reserve requirements or settlement balances), since money deposited at
the central bank might not be paid interest, or be paid at a rate lower than the pre-
vailing market rates.8 If unexpected large settlement needs arise, then banks might
be forced to borrow funds from the central bank at a penalty rate, or go borrow in
the money market. Such a need to borrow funds constitutes a large portion of the
demand for funds in the money market.9
Apart from banks’ need for short-term funds, demand for funds in the money
market could also come from nonbank private players, such as nonbank financial
institutions, large corporations, and the government. These nonbank private play-
ers might have short-term funding needs, possibly for short-term financing of their
investments or as working capital (to pay suppliers, or even employee payrolls). To
fund their short-term financing needs, these players could issue commercial paper to
tap short-term funds. Government, on the other hand, might issue government bills
to tap short-term funds to finance their own short-term obligations.
Supply of Funds in the Money Market If banks find that they have been holding more
reserves than would be needed to meet their reserve requirements and settlement obli-
gations, they would normally want to lend out at least part of their excess funds in
order to earn interest. The desire to lend out funds short-term would constitute the
supply of funds in the money market. In practice, in places where financial markets are
relatively developed, nonbank players (e.g., money market mutual funds) have also
become increasingly important suppliers of funds in the money market.10 Investors
put their money into money market mutual funds, and the funds then seek to invest
the money by putting it into money market securities such as commercial paper or
government bills. The money invested by these mutual funds to fund commercial
paper or government bills also constitute short-term lending in the money market.11
Theoretical Equilibrium in the Money Market In theory, at any given time, some of the
players in the money market would be short of funds and need to borrow, while oth-
ers would have excess funds that they want to lend out. Equilibrium in the money
market would be achieved when the amount players wish to borrow matches the
amount other players wish to lend. Interest rates, which are the prices of funds, help
clear the market. If there is a large demand for funds relative to supply, interest rates
would likely rise. In contrast, if there is a small demand for funds relative to supply, then
interest rates would fall. In a case in which there is an unexpected demand shock such
that there is net shortage of funds in the system, then interest rates could really spike up.
If the money market as a whole is extremely short of funds, however, mar-
ket participants might be unable to lend among themselves and the central bank
might need to step in and provide funding to market participants. In other words,
sometimes movements in interest rates might be unable to clear the money market
122 CENTRAL BANKING
effectively, and the central bank, being the regulator, might need to step in and lead
the market into equilibrium.
Influencing Reserve Balances In practice, as a part of its normal monetary policy imple-
mentation, the central bank routinely uses its special position in the money market to
influence money market conditions, specifically through its ability to meet demand for
reserve balances held at the central bank by commercial banks to meet their reserve
requirements or settlement obligations (as previously discussed).12
In the United States, when the Federal Reserve wants to ease conditions in the
money market it can announce a lower target rate for the federal funds rate, which is
the interest rate commercial banks charge one another when lending reserve balances
(the funds held by commercial banks in accounts at the Federal Reserve). If there is a
net shortage of reserve balances, however, commercial banks might be unwilling or
unable to lend to each other at or near a rate that is consistent with this new (lower)
target rate announced by the Federal Reserve. To make sure that commercial banks
could and would lend at each other at the lower announced federal funds rate target
rate, the Federal Reserve might back up its announcement by providing liquidity to
help reduce the net shortage of reserve balances, thus enabling the banks to lend funds
to each other at or near the announced federal funds target rate.13
Tools for Monetary Implementation In general, we can classify tools that the central
bank can use to influence conditions in the money market into four groups.
First, the central bank can use the level of the policy interest rate as a signal
to indicate the tightness or looseness of money market conditions that it deems to
be appropriate for the general economy. Second, the central bank could use open
market operations, that is, direct transactions with money market participants to
actually influence liquidity conditions in the money market. Third, the central bank
can set up lending and deposit facilities (standing facilities) for money market par-
ticipants to access, in order to help keep money market interest rates consistent
with the policy interest rate without too much reliance on open market operations.
Fourth, the central bank could use reserve requirements to directly regulate commer-
cial banks’ liquidity needs, and thus money market conditions.14
When used together, the first three of the channels listed above (i.e., the pol-
icy interest rate, open market operations, and standing facilities) constitute what
is known as the interest rate corridor, which has become increasingly popular as
a framework for central banks to guide money market conditions, especially in an
environment in which financial markets have become liberalized and interest rates
are allowed to move relatively freely. The fourth channel (reserve requirements)
remains useful for central banks to regulate money market conditions, especially in
cases in which financial markets have yet to be liberalized.15
Monetary Policy Implementation 123
Policy Interest Rate The policy interest rate refers to a short term interest rate that
the central bank uses to indicate its monetary policy stance. By announcing its inten-
tion to keep the policy interest rate at a particular level, the central bank can induce
participants in the money market to borrow and lend among themselves at rates that
are not too far off from the policy interest rate. Normally, market participants are
encouraged to borrow and lend among themselves first before turning to the central
bank. Competition among market participants would normally ensure that they bor-
row and lend among themselves at rates that are not too extreme.16 Yet, if it seems
that shortages or surpluses of funds would not be cleared easily at rates of interest
near the policy interest rate, then the central bank can always step in and inject or
drain out funds from market participants directly, through open market operations.
With the knowledge that the central bank can always step in to ensure that rates do
not go much out of line with the policy interest rate, market participants would nor-
mally borrow and lend near or at the policy rate anyhow. This, of course, is unless
there is a large systemic shortage or surplus of funds that drives market participants
to borrow and lend at rates far removed from the policy rate.17
Open Market Operations When conducting open market operations, central bank
injects or absorbs funds from the money market at the margin, so as to prevent
excessive net shortages or surpluses of funds from driving a large wedge between
prevailing interest rates and the policy rate.18 Open market operations normally
means purchasing and selling of securities (normally government securities and cen-
tral bank bills) to market participants. With a purchase of securities, the central bank
is effectively injecting funds into the system, since the central bank has to pay for
those securities with money. With a sale of securities, in contrast, the central bank
is effectively draining funds out of the system, as market participants who buy the
securities have to pay the central bank with money.19
Outright Transactions
The first type of transaction is the buying or selling of securities whose rights
are permanently transferred to the buyer. In such a case, the securities are said
to be bought or sold outright.20
Figure 7.2a illustrates a case in which the central bank tightens money mar-
ket conditions by draining out liquidity through an outright purchase of securi-
ties from a financial institution, one of its counterparties in the money market.
In contrast, Figure 7.2b illustrates a case in which the central bank eases
money market conditions by injecting liquidity through the sale of securities to
a financial institution, one of its counterparties in the money market.
(Continued)
124 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
Gov’t 1. Central bank sells government Gov’t
bonds securities to Financial Institution A. bonds
Central Financial
bank Institution A
FIGURE 7.2a Liquidity Absorption by the Central Bank: Tightening Money Market
Conditions
Financial
Central
Institution A
bank
FIGURE 7.2b Liquidity Injection by the Central Bank: Easing Money Market
Conditions
(Continued)
126 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
A repo-type transaction is often popular in the money market, since the
same securities could be used many times over. A repo could also be thought
of as a loan of funds, whereby securities are used as collateral. The seller of
securities would get money for her securities, with an agreement that she
would have to buy back those securities in a future date. The price at buy-
back would be higher than the price at which the securities were first sold.
The difference in the buyback price and the price for which the securities
were first sold reflects the interest charged on the lending of funds for the
period of the repo. A repo (as well as a reverse-repo), with its temporary
nature, is more suitable for a central bank wishing to manage temporary fluc-
tuations in the money market. The central bank does not need to keep issuing
bills or finding government securities to sell to market participants every time
it wishes to drain liquidity from the system.
FX Swaps
Another open market operations tool that the central bank can use in influenc-
ing conditions in the money market is foreign exchange swaps, or FX swaps.21
Like a repo, an FX swap can be considered lending, but with foreign currency as
collateral instead of securities. The borrower of local currency funds would sell
its foreign currency holdings to the lender, with an agreement to buy those for-
eign currency holdings back at a future date and at a prespecified price. When
the central bank wants to absorb funds from the money market, it can thus
offer to borrow (local currency) funds from market participants and provide
foreign currency as collateral on those borrowed funds. In a prespecified future
period, the central bank would repay local currency funds back to market par-
ticipants and take back foreign currency that had been placed as collateral.
Normally, if terms are favorable enough, market participants would have
already been willing to lend local currency to the central bank this way. Still,
in many cases, market participants might also have legitimate needs for foreign
exchange funds, whether for their own or their customers’ use. For example,
corporate customers of money market participants might need to pay for
imports or to repay their foreign currency debt. With the central bank willing
to borrow local currency and provide foreign currency as collateral, money
market participants would have another way to access foreign currencies.
Monetary Policy Implementation 127
On the other hand, the central bank could inject local currency funds into
the money market by lending out local currency funds to market participants
and take in foreign currency as collateral. In this case, market participants might
be short of local currency but have a surplus of foreign currencies. This might be
the case, for example, when exporters sell their export receipts to money
market participants for local currency funds.
Financial Financial
Institution B Institution D lends
Financial part of its excess
Institution C liquidity to
Financial
Institution C.
FIGURE 7.4 Use of Central Bank’s Standing Facilities to Help Manage Liquidity in the
Money Market
128 CENTRAL BANKING
The announced
level of policy
interest rate
The actual interest rate
charged among private
players The interest rate that the central bank offers to
pay at its deposit facility (floor of the corridor)
t1 t
other rates not much higher than the policy rate—otherwise, market partici-
pants can always turn to the central bank’s lending facility. The interest rate
charged at the central bank’s lending facility is thus effectively the ceiling for
interest rates charged by money market participants when lending and bor-
rowing among themselves.
In contrast, when money market participants have excess short-term funds
that they cannot lend among themselves, they can deposit those funds at the
central bank’s deposit facility. The interest rate given at the central bank’s
deposit facility will be noticeably lower than the policy interest rate, in order
to encourage market participants to first find borrowers of funds among them-
selves before turning to the central bank’s deposit facility. The interest rate paid
at the central bank’s deposit facility is unlikely to be significantly lower than
the policy interest rate, however (usually the policy rate minus half a percent-
age point). The interest rate paid at the central bank’s deposit facility is thus
effectively a floor on rates in the money market.
The earlier discussion suggested how central banks can influence conditions in the
money market and thus money market interest rates. For changes in money mar-
ket conditions to affect real economic activity and price levels, however, conditions
and interest rates in other segments of the financial market must first also respond
to changes in money market conditions and money market interest rates. For the
central bank’s conduct of monetary policy to affect the real economy, interest rates
charged on corporate loans, personal loans, and mortgages (which are long-term
interest rates, or long rates), as well as deposit rates and expectations of players in
the economy, must first change.
*In contrast, had the yield for overnight government securities been much lower than the pol-
icy interest rate, investors would dump the securities and lend overnight funds in the money
market in order to earn interest very near or at the policy interest rate. The dumping of over-
night securities will have the effect of pushing the price of the securities down (and the yield
up). Again, in a reasonably efficient market, market forces will drive the overnight yield very
close to the policy interest rate, if the policy interest rate is an overnight rate.
Monetary Policy Implementation 131
Yield
(percent per year)
Level of the
policy
interest rate
0
Overnight 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 30 years Maturity
Possible Shapes of the Yield Curve In theory, although the very short end of the yield
curve will be anchored by the policy interest rate, the yield curve can take any
shape. Normally there are three general shapes used to describe yield curves, namely
upward-sloping (normal), flat, and downward-sloping (inverted). Figure 7.7 illus-
trates what a normal, a flat, an inverted, and a humped yield curve might look like.
An upward sloping (normal) yield curve means that the short-term yields are
lower than the longer-term yields. A flat yield curve means that the yields are equal, or
almost equal, at every maturity (debt securities of shorter maturities will have lower
yields than longer-term debt securities). A downward sloping (inverted) yield curve
means that the short-term yields are higher than the longer-term yields (debt securi-
ties of shorter maturities will have higher yields than longer-term debt securities). An
upward-then-downward (humped) yield curve means that yields of medium-term
maturities are higher than those with shorter or longer maturities.
The Government Bond Yield Curve as a Benchmark for Setting Other Interest Rates Banks and
other financial institutions often use the government bond yield curve as a bench-
mark when they set interest rates on loans and deposits. Interest rates on loans and
deposits at short maturities are benchmarked against the yields of government secu-
rities with short maturities (i.e., the short end of the government bond yield curve).
Interest rates on loans and deposits at longer maturities are benchmarked against the
yields of government securities with long maturities (i.e., the long end of the govern-
ment bond yield curve).
The reason the government bond yield curve is normally used as a benchmark
is that yields on government bonds represent risk-free interest rates. Lending to the
government is normally assumed to be risk free, particularly in terms of domestic
currency lending, since the government can always impose taxes to repay its debt.
When setting interest rates to be charged on corporate and household borrowers,
banks and other financial institutions would thus just add a risk premium to risk-free
132 CENTRAL BANKING
Yield Yield
(percent per year) (percent per year)
0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
A normal yield curve A flat yield curve
Yield Yield
(percent per year) (percent per year)
0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
An inverted yield curve A humped yield curve
FIGURE 7.7 Illustration of Normal, Flat, Inverted, and Humped Yield Curves
The Central Bank’s Influence on the Yield Curve In the normal conduct of monetary policy
(as opposed to the unconventional conduct of monetary policy; see Chapter 6) the
central bank usually tries to influence the short end of the yield curve and let market
forces determine longer-term yields and interest rates. Consequently, the reaction of
long-term interest rates to changes in the policy interest rate are not so straightfor-
ward. Although the central bank can use the policy interest rate to tightly anchor
interest rates at the very short end of the yield curve, long-term interest rates are gener-
ally allowed to float in places where financial markets are liberalized (see Figure 7.8).
How changes in short-term interest rates might affect long-term interest rates
involves many forces, and the results are indeed not entirely predictable. A hike in
the policy interest rate, while likely to push up other short-term interest rates, does
not necessarily always translate to a rise in long-term interest rates.
In practice, the effect of changes in short-term rates on long-term rates depends
on the interplay of various factors, including the initial levels of long-term and short-
term rates, expectations about future central bank actions, and liquidity conditions
of players in the financial markets. The complexity of the relationship between short-
term rates and long-term rates is reflected partly by the fact that there are at least
three competing theories of yield curve. All of the theories are consistent with any
shape of the yield curve but propose different reasons for why the yield curve might
take a particular shape. The details of the theories are discussed next in Concept:
Term Structure Theories and the Shape of the Yield Curve.
Monetary Policy Implementation 133
Yield
(percent per year)
Level of
policy
interest
rate
0
Overnight 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 30 years Maturity
FIGURE 7.8 In Normal Times, the Central Bank Operates Primarily at the Short Maturity
End of the Yield Curve
(Continued)
134 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
Yield Yield
(percent per year) (percent per year)
0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
FIGURE 7.9a Pure Expectations Theory: Normal and Flat Yield Curves
Yield Yield
(percent per year) (percent per year)
0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
FIGURE 7.9b Pure Expectations Theory: Inverted and Humped Yield Curves
To illustrate the point, think of the three-month rate being the short rate,
and the three-year rate being the long rate. Within the space of three years,
there is a series of 12 consecutive three-month rates. If the short rate (i.e.,
the three-month rate, is expected to rise within that three-year period, obvi-
ously the rate charged for lending long term for three years starting today
would be higher than the current three-month rate. Thus when we plot the
yield curve, it would be upward sloping, since the three-month rate is lower
Monetary Policy Implementation 135
than the three-year rate.* The humped yield curve, in contrast, would occur
when short rates are expected to rise, then fall.
*The current three-month rate would also be known as the 3-month spot rate, while the
current three-year rate would also be known as three-year spot rate. The three-month
rates for the subsequent periods after the initial three months are known as three-
month forward rates. Note that the average (not the simple average) of the three-month
rates for the three-year period would be equal to the three-year spot rate.
(Continued)
136 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
Yield
(percent per year)
0
Overnight 1 3 5 10 30 Maturity
year years years years years
Yield
(percent per year)
Liquidity premium
0
Overnight 1 3 5 10 30 Maturity
year years years years years
Yield
(percent per year)
Demand
Demand Supply curve
Supply curve curve
Supply Demand curve
curve curve
0 Maturity
Overnight 1 3 5 10 30
year years years years years
economic conditions and inflation, and thus affect the liquidity premium needed for
holding long-term securities (liquidity preference theory). Such changes in expec-
tations could affect expectations of various types of players differently, and thus
demand and supply for different maturity ranges (market segmentation and pre-
ferred habitat theories). In practice, how a change in the policy interest rate will
ultimately affect long-term yields will depend on the interplay of all these factors and
the surrounding circumstances.
A hike in the policy interest rate could, for example, prompt long-term yields to
rise proportionately to the hike such that the yield curve shifts upward in parallel. In
other circumstances, such as when long-term rates are already quite high, or when
long-term rates are low but inflation expectations are quite well anchored, a hike
in the policy interest rate might result in a flattening of the yield curve (long-term
yields do not rise proportionately to the hike in the policy interest rate).
At the extreme, a hike in the policy interest rate might actually prompt long-term
yields to fall and the yield curve to become inverted. This last instance might happen
when the hike in policy interest rate is expected to slow down economic activity and
dampen inflation expectations so much that rates are expected to subsequently fall
in the future. (See Figure 7.13.)
A cut in the policy interest rate, meanwhile, could also lead to different responses
in long-term yields. For example, long-term yields might fall proportionately to the
cut in the policy interest rate, resulting in a parallel downward shift of the yield
curve. In contrast, long-term yields might fall less than proportionately than the cut
in policy interest rate, resulting in a steepened yield curve. At the extreme, long-term
yields might actually rise in response to a cut in the policy interest rate, had the cut
been expected to boost up economic activity so much so that long-term inflation is
expected to accelerate. (See Figure 7.14.)
The yield curve after the hike in the policy interest rate.
The yield curve before the hike in the policy interest rate.
0 0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
A hike in the policy interest A hike in the policy A hike in the policy
rate leads to a parallel interest rate leads to a interest rate leads to an
upward shift in the yield flattening of the yield inverted yield curve.
curve. curve, with long-term
yields hardly moving.
FIGURE 7.13 Examples of How a Hike in the Policy Interest Rate Could Affect Long-Term
Yields in Different Ways
Monetary Policy Implementation 139
The yield curve after the cut in the policy interest rate.
The yield curve before the cut in the policy interest rate.
0 0
Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years Overnight 30 years
A cut in the policy A cut in the policy interest A cut in the policy
interest rate leads to a rate leads to a steepening interest rate leads to a
parallel downward shift of the yield curve, with a steepening of the yield
of the yield curve. relatively slight fall in long- curve, with a slight rise
term yields. in long-term yields.
FIGURE 7.14 Examples of How a Cut in the Policy Interest Rate Could Affect Long-Term
Yields in Different Ways
help push down long-term government yields. Since yields on government securities
are usually used as a benchmark for private sector lending, the pushdown of long-
term yields on government securities could translate into lower long-term lending
(and borrowing) rates among the private sector.
Second, by purchasing other long-term securities, such as mortgage-backed
securities, from market players, such as banks, the central bank would be effec-
tively providing much needed liquidity to those players during the time of crisis.
The liquidity provided will help the players meet short-term obligations, and enable
financial markets to continue functioning in a smooth manner, which is essential
for financial stability.
Third, with large enough purchases of securities, the central bank would in effect
be injecting money into the economy. Players in the financial markets, such as banks,
will have enough excess liquidity to finance economic activity by households and
firms. Since the policy interest rate will normally be at or near 0 percent by the time
unconventional monetary policy is used, the central bank uses the option of easing
monetary conditions further through such purchases of securities.
SUMMARY
Monetary policy implementation refers to the ways in which the central bank can
act to influence money conditions in the economy in order to achieve its mandate.
To influence money conditions, the central bank might operate in various types of
financial markets, including (among others) the money market, the foreign exchange
market, the government securities market, and the credit market. The money market
is the key market in which modern central banks operate to influence money condi-
tions in the economy. The money market is the market in which participants borrow
or lend funds for maturities of less than one year.
The central bank typically influences conditions in the money market by influ-
encing reserve balances held by commercial banks at the central bank, using tools
such as the policy interest rate, open market operations, and standing facilities.
The use of the policy interest rate, open market operations, and standing facilities
together constitutes the interest rate corridor system, which keeps money market
interest rates near the desired policy interest rate.
Transmission of money market interest rates to other interest rates in the econ-
omy can be seen through the movements of the yield curve. The yield curve shows
yields (interest rates) at different maturities; the policy interest rate (which is often
an overnight interest rate) is at the very short-maturity end of the yield curve. The
government yield curve, which shows yields of government securities at different
maturities, is often used by financial market players to benchmark rates for risk-free
lending.
The yield curve is normally upward sloping, but could also be downward slop-
ing (inverted), as well as flat. Theories explaining the shape of the yield curve include
pure expectations, liquidity preference, and the market segmentation or preferred
habitat theories.
Normally, the central bank tries to influence the short end of the yield curve. In the
wake of the 2007–2010 crisis, after major central banks had cut their policy interest
rates to or near 0 percent, many of them decided to also use unconventional monetary
policy (e.g., quantitative easing) to influence the longer end of the yield curve.
Monetary Policy Implementation 141
KEY TERMS
credit market money market
deposit facility open market operations
financial market outright transaction
foreign exchange market policy interest rate
FX swap preferred habitat theory
government securities market pure expectations theory
government securities yield curve repos
interest rate corridor repurchase agreement
inverted yield curve reserve balance
lending facility reverse repurchase agreement
liquidity preference theory reverse-repo
liquidity premium standing facility
market segmentation theory yield curve
QUESTIONS
1. What are the key differences between the financial sector and the real sector?
2. Please give examples of the key financial markets in which central banks conduct
their operations.
3. What is a money market?
4. How can a central bank tighten conditions in the money market?
5. How can a central bank ease conditions in the money market?
6. In open market operations, what is an outright transaction?
7. In open market operations, what is a repo transaction?
8. Does the central bank always need to conduct open market operations to
influence money market interest rates? Why or why not?
9. How does an interest rate corridor system work?
10. How might reserve requirements be used to influence conditions in the money
market?
11. Why might the central bank not want to use reserve requirements to influence
money market conditions?
12. What is a yield curve?
13. When the central bank adjusts the policy interest rate, it is trying to directly
influence which end of the yield curve?
14. According to expectations theory, why might a yield curve be upward sloping?
15. According to expectations theory, why might a yield curve be downward sloping?
16. According to expectations theory, what does a humped yield curve imply?
17. According to liquidity preference theory, why might a yield curve be upward
sloping?
18. According to liquidity preference theory, could an expectation of a falling short-
term interest rate be consistent with an upward sloping yield curve?
19. According to market segmentation theory, why might the yield curve be upward
sloping?
142 CENTRAL BANKING
20. What is the likely implication of a downward sloping yield curve on the state of
the economy going forward?
21. If the central bank raises its policy interest rate, which is an overnight rate,
by 0.25 percent, what is likely to happen to the 10-year yield of government
securities?
22. Theoretically, is it possible that the yield curve could become inverted after a
hike in the policy interest rate?
23. What is the difference between the normal conduct of monetary policy and
quantitative easing in terms of the intention to influence the yield curve?
CHAPTER 8
The Monetary Policy
Transmission Mechanism
How Changes in Interest Rates Affect
Households, Firms, Financial Institutions,
Economic Activity, and Inflation
Learning Objectives
1. Describe how changes in interest rates can affect unemployment
and inflation through households’ behavior.
2. Describe how changes in interest rates can affect unemployment
and inflation through firms’ behavior.
3. Describe how changes in interest rates can affect unemployment
and inflation through behavior of financial institutions.
4. Explain why might there be uncertainty and time lags in the mon-
etary policy transmission mechanism.
C hapter 7 discussed how the central bank’s conduct of monetary policy opera-
tions could affect interest rates in the financial markets. This section will discuss
how changes in interest rates might affect the behavior of households, businesses,
and financial institutions, and thus aggregate demand and general price levels in the
economy. The transmission of effects to economic activity and inflation from
the implementation of monetary policy is often known as the monetary policy trans-
mission mechanism (see Figure 8.1).
Through its conduct of monetary policy, the central bank uses the policy inter-
est rate to signal its monetary policy stance and to try to influence interest rates
and money conditions within the economy, and ultimately GDP, employment, and
monetary stability. Changes in monetary conditions and interest rates will then affect
lending behavior of financial institutions, as well as the spending, saving, and invest-
ment behaviors of households and businesses, which, in turn, will affect aggregate
demand and inflation.
143
144 CENTRAL BANKING
Expectations effect
Consumption
Households
Investment
Firms
Money market
interest rates Net exports
Second-round effects
Expectations effect
FIGURE 8.1 Transmission of Monetary Policy through Households, Firms, and Financial
Institutions
This chapter will examine the monetary policy transmission mechanism by looking
at how behaviors of households, firms, and financial institutions are likely to react to
changes in money conditions, which can be typified by changes in prevailing borrowing
and lending rates within the economy. It must be noted, however, that although it’s called
a mechanism, monetary policy does not necessarily transmit in a mechanistic way, and
the transmission itself can be viewed from different perspectives.1 If anything, monetary
policy transmission has inherent uncertainty, whether in terms of timing or the relative
importance of the different channels through which monetary policy is transmitted.2
r = i − πe
where r is the real interest rate, i is the nominal interest rate, and πe are inflation
expectations.
When economic agents decide to save or invest an amount of money,
intuitively they compare the nominal interest rate with what they expect infla-
tion will be over the time horizon being considered. If the nominal interest
rate is below what they think inflation would be over that period (i.e., the real
interest rate is negative), then they might be better off spending their money
now, since they are not expecting interest earned on the money to keep up
with inflation.
For our discussions on monetary transmission mechanism that follow, we
are referring to real interest rates, although the term real is sometimes omitted
for conciseness. Indeed, if inflation expectations are stable in the short run, we
can safely say that a rise in nominal interest rates implies a rise in real short-
term interest rates.
Inflation Expectations
In practice, there are three main ways that a central bank can gauge the infla-
tion expectations of the public. First is through surveys. A typical question
asked of the public in a survey might ask respondents what they think the
inflation rate will be over the next year, the next 5 years, and the next 10 years.
Inflation expectations for each time horizon would then be calculated from the
mean value of the surveys’ answers.
Second would be looking at breakeven inflation, which is the difference
between the yield of a nominal government security and the yield of an inflation-
protected government security. Unlike most government securities, which are
nominal securities, inflation-protected government securities have their princi-
pal adjusted by the inflation rate.3
For example, if a five-year nominal government security has a yield of
5 percent, while a five-year inflation-protected government security has a
yield of 2 percent, then the breakeven yield would be 3 percent. In this case,
we could say that inflation expectations of the public over the five-year hori-
zon are also 5 percent minus 2 percent = 3 percent. In other words, given the
yield difference of 3 percent, the public would be indifferent between hold-
ing the five-year nominal government security and the five-year inflation-
protected security.
Third, the central bank could use economic models to estimate inflation
expectations.4
146 CENTRAL BANKING
Generally speaking, changes in interest rates can affect households’ spending and
saving decisions via six main effects, namely (1) the intertemporal substitution effect,
(2) the income effect, (3) the wealth effect, (4) the exchange rate effect, (5) the expec-
tations effect, and (6) second-round effects.
In this section, we will discuss the first four effects, namely the intertempo-
ral substitution effect, the income effect, the wealth effect, and the exchange rate
effect (see Figure 8.2). The final two effects, that is, the expectations effect and
second-round effects, will be discussed later in the chapter in the context of both
households’ and firms’ behavior.
Intertemporal
substitution effect
Income
effect
Output gap
Monetary Interest Households’ Aggregate and
policy rates consumption demand Inflation
Wealth
effect
Exchange
rate effect
Second-
round effects
Expectations
effect
Accordingly, with higher interest rates households are likely to substitute future
consumption for current consumption. In contrast, lower interest rates imply lower
opportunity costs for current consumption, which would encourage households to
raise their current consumption relative to future consumption.
and vice versa. Rising interest rates, however, could add to or subtract from house-
hold disposable income, depending on whether the household is a net borrower, or
a net lender.
For a household that is a net borrower with an initial level of debt (which could
be composed of anything from mortgages to personal loans to credit card debt), a
rise in interest rates is likely to raise the household’s interest burden and reduce its
disposable income. There will be less flow of funds available for these households to
spend on goods and services.
To maintain the old level of consumption spending, these households would
either need to borrow more (and incur even more debt) or cut their spending. In
contrast, for a household that is a net saver, rising interest rates will result in higher
interest income, which will augment household disposable income, encouraging the
household to consume more.8
Despite the opposing effects that higher interest rates might have on disposable
income of net borrowers and net savers, in general the view is often that higher inter-
est rates are more likely to reduce aggregate consumption. One underlying reason
is that higher interest rates essentially have the effect of redistributing income from
net borrowers toward net savers. In most countries, income distribution is such that
there are fewer net savers than net borrowers.9
Furthermore, compared to net borrowers, net savers tend to have a lower mar-
ginal propensity to consume; that is, for every dollar increase in disposable income,
a net saver tends to spend less on consumption than a net borrower. Redistributing
income from net borrowers to net savers would thus suggest a fall in aggregate con-
sumption spending.10
Households often also hold a significant portion of their wealth in the form of
housing. Rising interest rates, however, tend to slow down the rise in house prices or
even push prices down. With higher interest rates, the financing of a house purchase
becomes more difficult, dampening demand and housing prices. As house prices fall,
households may perceive themselves as being poorer and thus restrict their con-
sumption. In the worse cases (especially after the burst of a housing bubble), since
home purchases are often financed by mortgage loans, if the value of a house falls
so much that it is below the value of the mortgage owed, household wealth in the
form of housing could be negative, and household consumption could be seriously
affected.13
Firms are entities created to combine labor and other inputs in a production process,
such that they can sell resulting products for profit, which can then be distributed
to the firms’ shareholders or retained within the firms. Monetary policy could affect
firms’ spending, saving, and investment behavior through five key effects, namely
(1) the funding costs effect, (2) the asset price effect, (3) the exchange rate effect,
(4) the expectations effect, and (5) second-round effects.
This section will focus on how changes in money conditions and interest rates
could affect firms’ behavior through the first three effects, that is, the funding costs
150 CENTRAL BANKING
Funding
costs
Output gap
Monetary Interest Asset Corporate Aggregate
and
policy rates prices investment demand
Inflation
Exchange
rate
Second-
round effects
Expectations
effect
effect, the asset price effect, and the exchange rate effect. (See Figure 8.3.) The final
two effects (the expectations effect and second-round effects) will be the focus of
the next section, where we will look at expectations and second-round effects in the
context of both households’ and firms’ behaviors.
simplest terms, the value of an asset can be approximated by the net present value
formula
N
Rt
NPV = ∑
t =0 (1+ i)t
where NPV is net present value of the asset, t is the time period, N is the number of
periods, Rt is the difference between cash inflow and cash outflow generated by the
asset at time t, and i is the discount factor. Generally, the discount factor i is corre-
lated with the expected prevailing interest rates at time t. Accordingly, higher interest
rates are likely to result in a higher discount factor, which will lower the net present
value, and thus the current price, of the asset.
Lower asset prices make firms’ applications for bank credit more difficult, since bank
loans are often secured by assets that are posted as collateral. Also, with lower assets
values, and thus lower net worth, publicly listed firms will find it more difficult to issue
new shares to finance new investments. Furthermore, since the valuation of a new invest-
ment project is often done using a NPV-based formula, rising interest rates are likely to
decrease net present value of the project, both because of the projected reduced income
stream and the higher discount factor, and there is thus likely to be fewer new investment
projects approved. Consequently, given the asset price effect, higher interest rates are thus
also likely to reduce firms’ spending on expansion and new investment projects.19
In this section we will discuss how changes in interest rates could affect households’
and firms’ behavior through the expectations effect and second-round effects. (See
Figure 8.4.)
According to the expectations effect, rational and forward-looking households
and firms are likely to adjust their behaviors immediately after—or even before—a
change in monetary policy stance is announced, in anticipation of things to come.
The expectations effect could thus affect economic activity even before a monetary
policy action actually starts to affect interest rates for deposits and loans.21
Second-round effects, on the other hand, suggest that changes in households’ and
firms’ spending behaviors are likely to affect aggregate demand, which, in turn, will
introduce feedback loops back to household and firm spending behaviors. Second-
round effects are thus likely to further amplify the initial impact of a monetary
policy action on household and firm behaviors.22
Second-round effects
Expectations effects
Household
consumption
Monetary Interest Aggregate Output gap
policy rates demand and inflation
Corporate
investment
Expectations effect
Second-round effects
FIGURE 8.4 Expectations and Second-Round Effects on Household and Firm Behavior
The Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism 153
Second-Round Effects
Previously we discussed how changes in monetary policy stance could affect the
behavior of households and firms, not the least through direct changes in house-
holds’ disposable income, firms’ cash flows, asset prices, the exchange rate, and
expectations, and so on. In practice, however, the so-called second-round effects also
play a significant role in monetary policy transmission.
Second-round effects can be thought of as a feedback loop between induced
changes in aggregate demand and further changes in the spending behavior of house-
holds and firms. With greater aggregate demand, firms are more likely to expand their
production. The firms’ suppliers along the supply chain will also benefit. Demand for
labor in the economy will rise and households’ disposable income is likely to rise along
with it. This would lead back to a further rise in demand for all goods and services in
general. In a downturn, a fall in aggregate demand would lead to cuts in labor demand,
a fall in households’ disposable income, and a further fall in aggregate spending.24
The feedback loop of second-round effects, indeed, mimics the nature of busi-
ness cycles. Once a change in monetary policy stance starts to affect households’
and firms’ behavior, the feedback loop kicks in. With the presence of second round-
effects, indeed, a change in monetary policy stance is likely to also transmit widely
throughout all sectors of the economy and affect everyone.
Aggregate
Monetary Financial Financial demand
policy markets institutions
Corporate
With higher interest investment
rates, firms will be able
Short-term funding to obtain less credit.
costs of financial
institutions in the
financial market
FIGURE 8.5 Credit Channel: Higher Interest Rates Make Financial Institutions More Wary
in Lending to Households and Firms
using retained earnings or savings)25 and (2) the balance sheet channel, whereby mon-
etary policy affects households’ and firms’ balance sheets, net worth, and liquid assets,
and thus the willingness of financial intermediaries to lend to them.26 These two
channels often work in tandem, and are indeed quite intertwined in certain aspects.27
Income prospects
Consumption
Credit is granted
Households
based partly on households’
wealth and income
prospects. Valuation of households’ wealth
Aggregate
Monetary Financial Financial Interest rates demand
policy markets institutions
FIGURE 8.6 Balance Sheet Channel: Higher Interest Rates Lower the Collateral Value
of Assets
From the discussions above, it can be seen that changes in monetary policy
stance take some time to have their full effects play out. There are at least five iden-
tifiable steps before a change in monetary policy fully affects price levels in the
economy: (1) the transmission from the implementation of monetary policy oper-
ations to money market interest rates; (2) the pass-through from money market
interest rates to borrowing and lending rates for households and firms; (3) the
adjustments in households’ and firms’ spending behavior; (4) second-round effects,
which comprise feedback loops between households’ and firms’ spending behavior
and aggregate demand; and (5) the expectations effect, which can be a wild card that
hastens or slows the transmission of monetary policy. (See Figure 8.7.)
First, the change in monetary policy stance affects money market interest rates.
This stage is likely to be very short, since money market rates are likely to adjust
immediately in response to changes in liquidity conditions. Indeed, financial asset
prices could change even before there is an actual shift in the monetary policy stance
if that shift is anticipated by market participants. Such changes might be reflected in
changes to the shape of the yield curve.
Second, changes in money market interest rates would be translated into changes
in borrowing and lending rates charged to households and firms. Changes in money
market rates will likely affect financial institutions’ short-term funding costs imme-
diately, but it could take time before financial institutions adjust their retail deposit
and lending rates since they will have to consider many other factors, including the
shape of the government yield curve (which would partly dictate the level of longer-
term interest rates), peer competition, and profit margins. Adjustments in retail inter-
est rates are likely to be gradual and could take months. Furthermore, adjustments in
156 CENTRAL BANKING
Households Consumption
Investment
Firms
Money market
interest rates Net exports
lending and deposit rates might not be perfectly synchronized depending on various
factors, including the initial levels of the rates, the stage of business cycles, etc.
Third, households and firms are also likely to take time to adjust their spending
behavior in response to changes in retail borrowing and lending rates. Of course, as
discussed earlier, changes in expectations could make households and firms promptly
adjust their behaviors. The full effects, however, are unlikely to come from changes
in expectations alone. Certain spending habits will need time to adjust. The full
response of firms to changes in household spending will also take time, whether in
terms of volume of production or alterations in spending for previously planned
investment projects.30
Fourth, it will take time for feedback loops, or second-round effects, to take
place. There will be chain reactions through firms’ suppliers. These changes by firms
will affect employment and income of the labor force, which would feed back into
household consumption spending, all affecting aggregate output of the economy.
Meanwhile, pricing of firms’ goods and services will also likely change in response to
changes in household demand, and the feedback loop will also lead to wage negotia-
tions and adjustments.
Fifth, expectations of households and firms could hasten the transmission
of monetary policy to changes in output and inflation, but in a nonlinear way. If
households and firms expect that the central bank is fully committed to monetary
stability, even a small hike in the policy interest rate might prompt them to adjust
their behavior quickly. Otherwise, the central bank might need to hike the policy
interest rate many times before the public adjusts their behavior.
From the outline above, we can see that changes in monetary policy stance take
time to fully affect the economy’s output and prices. Such time lags can be quite
long, and the exact timing can vary, depending on many outside factors including
expectations, confidence, the stage of business cycles, etc. Empirically, studies have
The Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism 157
shown that it could take up to a year for a change in monetary policy to reach its
peak effect on demand and output, and another year for the effect on inflation to be
fully realized, although estimates vary.31
SUMMARY
Changes in real interest rates can affect saving and investment decisions of house-
holds and firms, and thus economic activity, inflation, and employment.
Monetary policy can affect household spending and saving decisions via six
main effects, namely (1) the intertemporal substitution effect, (2) the income effect,
158 CENTRAL BANKING
(3) the wealth effect, (4) the exchange rate effect, (5) the expectations effect, and
(6) second-round effects.
Monetary policy can affect firms’ spending, saving, and investment behavior
through five key effects, namely (1) the funding costs effect, (2) the asset price effect,
(3) the exchange rate effect, (4) the expectations effect, and (5) second-round effects.
The effects of monetary policy on households’ and firms’ consumption and
investment decisions can transmit through the credit channel and the balance sheet
channel, which themselves work through financial institutions.
Since there are many steps through which monetary policy transmits through
the economy, the ultimate effects on output, inflation, and employment will have
long and variable time lags.
KEY TERMS
asset price effect of monetary policy income effect of monetary policy
transmission transmission
balance sheet channel inflation-protected security
breakeven yield intertemporal substitution
credit channel macroeconometric model
dynamic stochastic general equilibrium nominal interest rate
model (DSGE) real interest rate
exchange rate effect of monetary policy second-round effects of monetary policy
transmission transmission
expectations effect of monetary policy time lags of monetary policy transmission
transmission uncertainty of monetary policy
feedback loop transmission
funding costs effect of monetary policy wealth effect of monetary policy
transmission transmission
QUESTIONS
1. Households’ and firms’ investment and savings decisions are influenced by real
or nominal interest rates?
2. If the expectation is that inflation will be 2 percent per year and the nominal
interest rate is 5 percent per year, what is the real interest rate?
3. If the yield on a five-year nominal government security is 5 percent and the yield
on a five-year inflation-protected government security is 3 percent, what are
breakeven inflation expectations and the breakeven yield?
4. How does an increase in interest rates affect aggregate household spending
through the intertemporal substitution effect?
5. How might the effects of an increase in interest rates be different for wealthier
households and less wealthy households?
6. Since a rise in interest rates can raise income for savers, why might we think that
in the aggregate a rise in interest rates is likely to cause a fall in consumption?
7. How is an increase in interest rates likely to affect consumption of durable goods
compared to nondurable goods?
The Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism 159
Learning Objectives
1. Explain how movements in the exchange rate can affect monetary
stability, financial stability, and unemployment.
2. Distinguish between a rigid peg, a free-float, and a managed float
exchange rate regimes.
3. Explain key theories that attempt to explain exchange rate
determination.
4. Identify key factors that can affect the exchange rate.
5. Describe the way in which the central bank can influence the
exchange rate.
A t its core, the exchange rate is the price of money expressed in terms of another
currency. Accordingly, the exchange rate is an important variable that the central
bank must watch, even if the regime of that central bank does not involve exchange
targeting. In Chapter 9 we will examine issues relating to the exchange rate in
relation to central banking in more detail.
This chapter starts with a brief review of how the exchange rate might affect
price stability, financial stability, and the real economy in theory and in practice. The
chapter will then review the alternative exchange rate regimes, or frameworks, that
a modern central bank can adopt. The exchange rate regimes that will be reviewed
include the rigid peg regime, the free-float regime, and the managed float regime. Later
on the chapter will review exchange rate theories so that the reader can see the funda-
mental forces that would influence the exchange rate in the absence of direct central
bank intervention. The chapter will then review how the central bank can deal with the
exchange rate using various instruments. Lastly, the chapter will discuss the manage-
ment of official foreign reserves, which are a key tool in exchange rate management.
The exchange rate is an important variable that the central bank has to watch, regard-
less of whether the central bank uses an exchange rate targeting regime. Apart from
161
162 CENTRAL BANKING
being the price of money in terms of another currency, movements in the exchange
rate can affect monetary stability as well as financial stability.
In Theory
Theoretically, movements in the exchange rate can have implications for the central
bank’s pursuit of monetary stability as well as financial stability. In terms of mon-
etary stability, if a country depends heavily on energy imports, for example, a fast
depreciating exchange rate implies a fast rise in energy prices in terms of the domes-
tic currency, which could translate into a fast rise in consumer price inflation and
affect inflation expectations. In such a case, if inflation expectations have not been
well managed, then monetary stability could be compromised, as witnessed during
the great inflation period of the 1970s, when oil shocks helped contribute to a sharp
and sustained rise in inflation.
In terms of financial stability, if a country has a high proportion of public or
private debt denominated in foreign currencies, a sharp depreciation in the exchange
rate could prove troublesome. With a sharp depreciation in the value of domestic
currency, debt denominated in foreign currency could balloon when measured in
terms of domestic currency. If the country does not have a reliable source of foreign
income, this will affect the country’s ability to repay its debt, which could lead to
a financial crisis, as occurred among emerging-market economies in Asia and Latin
America in the 1990s.
For many emerging-market economies, an excessively volatile exchange rate
could also have direct implications not only on monetary stability and financial
stability, but on the real economy, as reflected by output and employment. For those
emerging-market economies that rely heavily on exports, for example, a fast appreci-
ating exchange rate implies a fast rise in the price of the country’s exports in terms of
foreign currencies. This could lead to a fast fall in demand for the country’s exports
and the country’s domestically produced products, which could lead to a sharp fall
in production and a jump in unemployment.
In Practice
In practice, how the exchange rate affects monetary stability, financial stability,
and macroeconomic stability would depend on the context and could be quite
complicated.
A review of research from different central banks by the Bank for International
Settlements, for example, found that the pass-through effect on inflation by exchange
rates over the 1990s was small and had declined over the period studied.1 The
decline owed partly to the greater availability of hedging instruments to deal with
short-term exchange rate risks, and partly to the trend toward the adoption of more
flexible exchange rate regimes, which familiarized importers with exchange rate vol-
atility and thus prompted them to change prices less frequently.2 Furthermore, the
pass-through effects of the exchange rate on inflation also varied among different
sectors of the economy, as well as among exporters and importers.3
These studies further showed that the effect of exchange rate movements on cur-
rent account balances (as with their effects on the real economy) was also declining.
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 163
A depreciating currency, for example, was not found to always lead to an expansion
in output.4 In other cases, while the exchange rate was found to historically play a
crucial role in the adjustment of current account balances, changes in the economic
environment meant that this might not necessarily be the case in the future.5
Despite the complicated picture with regard to the effects of the exchange rate
on monetary stability, financial stability, and the real economy, however, the central
bank often does keep a close watch on it by the virtue of the fact that the exchange
rate is the price of money in terms of another currency and that it is a key economic
variable in a globalized economy. Whether the central bank does anything to influ-
ence the exchange rate, however, depends on the context and the exchange rate
regime it has adopted for its currency.
An exchange rate regime refers to the operational rule and related institutional mech-
anisms that the central bank adopts for the management of the exchange rate of its
currency. In modern times, exchange rate regimes could range from rigid exchange
rate pegs to completely free-floating exchange rates.
A Common Currency A common currency constitutes the most extreme form of a rigid
peg system.11 Under this system, as is the case in the euro area, member countries
abandon their own currencies and adopted a common one (e.g., the euro). The euro
area member countries do not have monetary policy independence; instead mon-
etary policy is conducted by the ECB, which aims to sustain monetary stability for
the euro area as a whole rather than for any individual member country.
In practice, however, as a currency the euro is classified as a free-floating cur-
rency by the IMF, since the ECB allows the value of the euro to be largely determined
by market forces.12
A Currency Board A currency board is another extreme form of a rigid peg system,
whereby each unit of the local currency issued by the central bank is required by
law to be fully backed by foreign currency reserves. Under a currency board, local
currency notes and coins are fully convertible into a specified foreign currency at a
specified exchange rate. Accordingly, the central bank does not have the indepen-
dence to just issue whatever amount of money it sees fit for the country’s prevailing
economic conditions. If the central bank wants to issue an extra unit of local cur-
rency, it is legally required to have enough foreign currency to back that extra unit
of local currency.
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 165
The Rationale for a Rigid Peg A country may adopt a common currency for both politi-
cal and economic reasons. A common currency such as the euro is part of the larger
goal of political and economic union. Having a common currency helps to eliminate
exchange rate risk and encourage cross-border investment and trade among member
countries.
Meanwhile, one reason a country might choose to adopt a currency board sys-
tem is that it helps enhance the credibility of the local currency. Holders of local
notes and coins are assured that the central bank has enough of the foreign currency
to allow them to convert their local notes and coins into it at prevailing exchange
rates. This guarantee of currency conversion at the prevailing exchange rates under
a currency board system is particularly useful to boost confidence in the local econ-
omy, since otherwise the holders of local currency might be tempted to rush out of it
at the first sign of trouble, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Furthermore, as with the case of a common currency, a currency board could
also be quite helpful in facilitating international trade and investment for a small
open economy (or an international trading hub such as Hong Kong) since it elimi-
nates exchange rate risk for traders and investors.
Rationale for a Free Float One key reason why the central bank might adopt a free-
float regime is that monetary policy could then be freely used to address domestic
concerns. Accordingly, we can say that a central bank that chooses to adopt a free-
float regime does not see a particular need to manage the value of its currency with
the exchange rate to order to achieve monetary stability.
In contrast to a rigid peg regime, under a free-float regime the central bank has
the independence to freely use monetary policy to achieve a monetary stability man-
date in a way that is in accord with particular conditions in the economy, without
having to be too concerned about the implications for the exchange rate. For exam-
ple, if the domestic economy is in a severe recession the central bank could choose
to lower interest rates and ease money conditions to help decrease funding costs and
166 CENTRAL BANKING
boost domestic demand, even though lower interest rates and easy money conditions
might put downward pressures on the exchange rate (all other things being equal).
Furthermore, in a world of greater capital flows it could be difficult for the
central bank to keep the exchange rate fixed at any particular level for a sustained
period of time. For the central bank to successfully resist depreciation pressures on
the exchange rate, for example, it might need to have large amounts of foreign cur-
rencies on hand and use those foreign currencies to buy up domestic currency to
shore up the value of the exchange rate (see the section on exchange rate targeting
regimes in Chapter 6).
In any case, in a world in which economies are continually evolving, an equi
librium exchange rate that suits the country’s economic fundamentals could be quite
elusive, as will be discussed later in the chapter.14 Consequently, the central bank
might want to let the exchange rate be moved by market forces rather than attempt-
ing to keep it fixed at a particular level.
Also, for many economies, the development of financial markets is so advanced
that economic agents can hedge against exchange rate volatility rather readily and
cheaply. In these cases the central bank does not need to bear exchange rate risks for
private agents, as private agents can already efficiently protect themselves.
In 2013 the following countries were among those classified by the IMF as
having a free-floating exchange rate regime: euro area member countries, Australia,
Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden,
Israel, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.15
Traditional Fixed Exchange Rate A fixed exchange rate regime traditionally refers to
those that are similar to the Bretton Woods system, whereby the central bank might
allow the exchange rate to fluctuate within 1 percent on either side of the announced
target.16
Fixed Exchange Rate with a Horizontal Band Under a fixed exchange rate system with a
horizontal band, the exchange rate is allowed to fluctuate within a horizontal band
around the announced exchange rate target. The width of the band could range from
2.5 to 15 percent, such as was the case under the European Monetary System that
was a precursor to the euro.17
Crawling Peg Under a crawling peg regime, the central bank allows the level of the
exchange rate to gradually appreciate or depreciate along a controlled path that it
deems consistent with the economic fundamentals of the economy. In 2013, the IMF
classified China’s exchange rate regime as being a crawl-like arrangement.18
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 167
Managed Float Under a managed float exchange rate regime, the central bank allows
market forces to largely determine the exchange rate, but intervenes to smooth out
fluctuations and excessive volatility in the exchange rate.19
Rationale for the Middle Options The reasons why a central bank might want to adopt
an exchange rate regime that is neither a rigid peg nor a free float could depend
on the circumstances that it finds itself in. For a central bank that leans more toward
the fixed exchange rate regime, a key reason to adopt such a system could be that it
needs to anchor the value of its currency to that of another low-inflation country in
order to achieve credibility and low inflation for its own economy.
On the other hand, a central bank that chooses to adopt a crawling peg regime
(or, as with China, some variation of it) may be one whose country depends heav-
ily on international trade and investment with a financial market that is in an early
stage of liberalization, meaning that private agents would not have much access to or
experience with hedging instruments. In this instance, the central bank would partly
bear the exchange rate risk for private agents (such as exporters) while the agents are
adapting to the new economic environment.
Finally, in a country that depends a lot on exports with a financial market that
has been very much liberalized with international capital flowing in and out rela-
tively freely, a central bank might choose to adopt a managed float regime, whereby
it would intervene only to smooth out excessive fluctuations in the exchange rate,
rather than trying to keep the exchange rate at a particular level or on a particular
path. In this case the central bank might also encourage the development of hedging
instruments that private agents can readily use to hedge against exchange rate risk.
Singapore’s exchange rate management framework is an interesting case. While embracing free flows
of capital, the country has used an exchange rate targeting regime since the 1980s and has success-
fully maintained long-term monetary stability despite its heavy dependence on the external sector.
In using the exchange rate as an instrument to sustain monetary stability, rather than adopting
a rigid peg or allowing a free float, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore’s central
bank, has adopted a framework for exchange rate management known as basket, band, crawl, or BBC.
According to the 2011 MAS publication Sustaining Stability, Serving Singapore, the basket feature
of the MAS framework refers to the fact that the MAS pegs the value of the Singapore dollar to a bas-
ket of currencies belonging to Singapore’s major trading partners and competitors, thereby creating
a trade-weighted index for the Singapore dollar. (Currencies of countries with a higher value of trade
with Singapore would be given higher weights in the index.) The band feature refers to the fact that
the MAS allows the trade-weighted Singapore dollar to float within a policy band, the width of which
is undisclosed. The crawl feature of the framework refers to the fact that the MAS regularly reviews
the exchange rate band, and adjusts the band over time to ensure that it is aligned with the underlying
fundamentals of the economy. The trade-weighted Singapore dollar would thus crawl along the path of
the exchange rate band over time.
Given the nature of the BBC regime, MAS sees itself as having three levers to adjust its monetary
policy: the slope, the width, and the level of the band. The slope can be adjusted to allow the currency
to appreciate faster or slower in response to changes in the economic situation that are expected to
persist for some time. The width of the band can be widened to accommodate market-driven move-
ments that result in the strengthening or weakening of the currency that are expected to be temporary,
and narrowed after markets have stabilized. The level of the entire band can also be adjusted upward or
downward in response to more significant, sharp, sustained shocks, such as a financial crisis.
168 CENTRAL BANKING
At the same time, MAS sees three key reasons why the exchange rate should be used as its mon-
etary policy tool to maintain monetary stability. First, Singapore was (and is) a small, open economy
whose domestic prices are largely determined by world prices, and whose domestic prices of factor
inputs (such as labor) are influenced largely by external demand. This is reflected partly in the fact that
the value of both imports and exports each almost doubled Singapore’s GDP.28 Second, unlike larger
economies in which investment would be sensitive to changes in interest rates, Singapore relies mainly
on direct foreign investment, which is not very sensitive to Singapore’s own interest rates. Third, to
promote Singapore as an international financial center, MAS has allowed free flows of capital and has
willingly ceded control over domestic interest rates and the money supply.
Given Singapore’s heavy reliance on the external sector and the potentially huge implications of
free capital flows on domestic prices, using the exchange rate to achieve monetary stability is not an
easy task. According to MAS, Singapore’s success in maintaining price stability using the BBC frame-
work rests on two key unique conditions.
The first condition involves the automatic drain on Singapore’s liquidity in the form of persistent
fiscal surpluses and the mandatory contributions of firms and households to Central Provident Fund
savings accounts, both of which continuously take Singapore dollars out of the system. Consequently,
MAS has to keep making up for the drain on liquidity by injecting Singapore dollars into the economy,
in the process buying up U.S. dollars. This has resulted in the accumulation of international reserves at
MAS, which augments its ability to manage the exchange rate over time.
The second condition involves the high credibility of MAS in maintaining the regime, which has
lessened the prospect of speculative attacks on the currency. This credibility itself rests on the huge
reserves available to defend the system; the persistent fiscal surpluses that keep on draining Singapore
dollar liquidity; and a flexible labor market, which implies that the labor market can clear relatively eas-
ily, meaning monetary policy can be used to maintain long-term price stability without undue strain on
employment and the economy.20
In the previous section we saw that unless the central bank puts the exchange rate on
a rigid peg, the level of the exchange rate will be determined at least partly by market
forces. Even with a rigid peg exchange rate regime, however, the central bank will
still need to counter market forces if it wants the exchange rate to remain pegged at
the announced level. This section reviews theories that attempt to explain the forces
behind exchange rate movements, so the reader can understand the context in which
the central bank deals with issues relating to the exchange rate.
It should be noted, however, that at the moment there is no one single
theory that can satisfactorily explain exchange rate behavior in a unified manner.
One exchange rate theory that might seem to readily fit exchange rate behavior
in one context might be completely irrelevant in another. To understand why the
exchange rate might move in a certain manner in any given context, it is extremely
useful to have at least some grasp of all key variations of exchange rate theory.
Broadly speaking, exchange rate theories can be classified into four main categories,
namely (1) purchasing power parity (PPP), (2) monetary approach, (3) portfolio bal-
ance models, and (4) exchange rate market microstructure.
markets are perfectly efficient and goods can be transported freely at no costs, then
the price of identical goods should be the same everywhere in the world, after adjust-
ing for exchange rates.
An Illustrative Example of PPP The following is a simple but effective example that can
help in the understanding of PPP. Assume that a particular make of pen is the only
product in the world. If such a pen costs, say, 1.5 U.S. dollars in the United States and
1 euro in Germany, then according to PPP the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar
and the euro should be 1.5 U.S. dollar per 1 euro.
If the exchange rate was not at 1.5 U.S. dollar per 1 euro, and was instead at
2 U.S. dollars per euro, then a German trader could bring 1 euro to the U.S. and
exchange it for 2 U.S. dollars. He could then buy the pen at the cost of 1.5 U.S. dol-
lars and bring the pen back to Germany in order to sell it for 1 euro. That German
trader, or indeed any investor who embarks on such a scheme, would then pocket a
risk-free profit of 0.5 U.S. dollars, or 0.25 euros.
In the preceding example, as long as that profit opportunity exists, profit seekers
will keep exchanging euros for U.S. dollars to exploit the opportunity. As demand
for the U.S. dollar rises, however, the value of the U.S. dollar cannot stay at 2 U.S.
dollars per euro sustainably. The U.S. dollar exchange rate will keep strengthening
against the euro until it reaches 1.5 U.S. dollars per euro, consistent with the price of
the pen. In that case, there is no more riskless profit opportunity and the exchange
rate reaches its equilibrium.
Absolute PPP: The Law of One Price There are two forms of the PPP concept, namely
absolute PPP and relative PPP. The pen example above corresponds to absolute
PPP, which corresponds directly to the law of one price. Absolute PPP suggests
that a basket of identical goods will have the same price in any two countries after
adjusting for the exchange rate. If the price is not the same, then the exchange
rate is not in equilibrium and international investors could arbitrage in a scheme
similar to the pen example above, which would then pressure the exchange rate to
move to its equilibrium. In real life, given that transportation costs and obstacles in
trade between countries do exist, as do differences in customs and tax rates,
in the short-run, and the fact that investors cannot arbitrage between the price of
certain location-specific services (e.g., the price of getting a haircut) in two coun-
tries, the exchange rate could remain quite different from the equilibrium suggested
by absolute PPP.
Relative PPP: A Change in the Exchange Rate Reflects Inflation Differential Whereas the
absolute PPP concept focuses on the level of the equilibrium exchange rate, the rela-
tive PPP concept focuses on the changes in the exchange rate. Given a basket of
identical goods in two countries, if the price of the basket in country A rises faster
than the price in country B, the exchange rate of country A should depreciate relative
to the exchange rate of country B. Specifically, according to relative PPP, a change in
the exchange rate between the currencies of two countries should equal the differ-
ence in the countries’ domestic inflation rates.
To use our earlier pen example, if over the year the price of the pen in the
United States has risen by 10 percent to 1.65 U.S. dollars while the price of the pen
in Germany has remained flat at 1 euro, then the exchange rate at the end of that
170 CENTRAL BANKING
one year period would be 1.65 U.S. dollars per euro. Indeed, the 10 percent drop in
the U.S. dollar against the euro over that one-year period would be a result of the
difference between U.S. inflation (10 percent) and German inflation (0 percent) over
that same period.
The Big Mac Index A well-known attempt to gauge exchange rate equilibrium as sug-
gested by absolute PPP is the Big Mac index published annually by the Economist
magazine. This index compares the price of a Big Mac being sold in McDonald’s
restaurants worldwide. A key advantage of the Big Mac index is that Big Macs are
being sold globally in the same manner with largely the same ingredients, and yet
are locally produced, so there is no international transportation costs involved. With
such characteristics, according to absolute PPP, the price of a Big Mac should be the
same anywhere, after adjusting for the exchange rate. In practice, however, this is
often not the case. The reason for this could be that the cost of producing a Big Mac
might not really be identical worldwide (wages and rent could be different across
countries), or that the exchange rate is over- or undervalued, or both.
For this example, at equilibrium the differential between U.S. and German inter-
est rates would have to be matched by the expected percentage of depreciation of the
U.S. dollar against the euro. This could be expressed as the equation
rus − reur = es
where rus is the interest rate on the U.S. government bond, reur is the interest rate
on the German government bond, and es is the expected percentage of depreciation
of the U.S. dollar per euro.
According to UIP, as long as the expected percentage of depreciation of the U.S.
dollar relative to the euro differs from the interest differential on the otherwise identical
U.S. and German government bonds, investors would expect the returns from invest-
ment from these two bonds to be different. Investors would seek to invest in the bond
that is expected to provide higher total returns and shift away from investing in the
bond that is expected to give lower total returns. As investors switch toward the more
lucrative investment, the expected total returns of these two bonds would be equated.
To further illustrate this point, let’s say that the annual yield on the U.S. govern-
ment bond is at 10 percent and the annual yield on the German government bond is
at 5 percent. If, however, the expected depreciation of the U.S. dollar per euro were
only 2 percent per year, the expected return from an investment in the U.S. bond
would be greater than that from the German bond. Investors would continuously
switch their investments from the German bond to the U.S. bond, thereby reducing
yield on the U.S. bond. Investors would stop switching between these two bonds
only when the expected returns from these two bonds are equal, that is, when the
interest rate differential between the U.S. and German bonds declined to 2 percent,
equivalent to the expected percent of depreciation of the U.S. dollar against the euro.
Usefulness of the UIP From the illustration above we can see that UIP pins down the
expected change in exchange rates, but not the level. In practice, however, while UIP
provides a very important conceptual framework, accounting for the UIP relationship
might be complicated by many factors.22 The assumption of perfect substitutability
between assets used in UIP, for example, might not necessarily always hold. Even
bonds with the same credit rating might differ in terms of liquidity. Consequently,
investors might not rush to switch between them as UIP would predict.
Also, investors might not be as rational as the theory assumes. Investors could
have a bias toward investments in their home country and be less willing to switch
to foreign bonds, for example. Furthermore, the long-run equilibrium exchange rate
itself can change, thus affecting expected exchange rate depreciation. Despite these
real-life limitations, however, UIP remains a key building block in our understanding
of the exchange rate since it offers a theoretical baseline that could later be adjusted
to different situations.
Implications of Riskiness and Diversification of Bond Holdings on the Exchange Rate In contrast
to UIP, which assumes domestic and foreign assets are perfect substitutes, portfolio
balance theories recognize that domestic and foreign assets are not perfect substi-
tutes since there are often differences in their riskiness.24 In practice, differences in
the riskiness of bonds could come from many sources. For example, a country that
issues a larger supply of bonds is more at risk of being unable to repay bondholders
when the bonds mature, other things being equal. A country with lower productivity
is also more likely to default on it bonds.25
Under portfolio balance theories, since domestic and foreign bonds are not
perfect substitutes, investors would hold both domestic and foreign bonds to
diversify their risks and maximize their investment returns.26 Unlike the world
of UIP, according to portfolio balance theories, investors will not rush to entirely
switch from domestic to foreign bonds whenever the interest rate differential
on the bonds does not match the expected depreciation of the exchange rate, or
vice versa. Instead, investors would want to diversify their portfolios by holding
both domestic and foreign bonds at the same time (but more likely in different
proportions).
To compensate for holding a riskier bond, however, investors will also likely
demand that the riskier bond pays a higher interest rate. In other words, a risk pre-
mium would have to be paid for investors to hold the riskier bond. According to
portfolio balance theories, the interest differential on domestic and foreign bonds
thus reflects not only the expected exchange rate depreciation as prescribed by UIP,
but also the risk premium paid to compensate investors for holding the riskier bond.
Persistent or large deviations from UIP (i.e., cases in which the interest rate differen-
tial is not matched by the expected depreciation of the exchange rate), could thus be
at least partly explained by the existence of risk premiums.
Role of the Current Account Aside from differences in the riskiness of investments, port-
folio balance theories also put emphasis on the role of a country’s current account as
a factor determining the country’s exchange rate.27 A country’s current account sur-
plus suggests that the country exports more than it imports. Accumulation of export
proceeds over import payments implies a rise in a country’s foreign assets. However,
since foreign and domestic assets are not perfect substitutes, and portfolio balance
theories suggest that investors often want to hold both foreign and domestic assets
in their portfolios, parts of the country’s net export proceeds would be repatri-
ated back to invest in domestic assets. The repatriation of those export proceeds
would drive up the value of domestic currency relative to that of foreign curren-
cies. Therefore, the country’s current account could play a role in determination
of the exchange rate. Over time, however, the strengthening of domestic currency
could reduce the country’s current account surplus since it would make the country’s
exports more expensive than before.
From the preceding discussion we can conclude that large and persistent devia-
tions from UIP are thus also possible for the country’s current account position. If
we examine this further, then we see that since current account dynamics and the
country’s growth prospects are intertwined, portfolio balance theories would seem
to also suggest that factors affecting the country’s growth prospects would also play
a role in the determination of the exchange rate. The final result, however, could
be rather complex since it depends on wide-ranging factors, including the nature
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 173
of factors affecting the country’s growth prospects and the corresponding current
account dynamics.
For example, if the country is experiencing higher productivity growth (possibly,
say, from a burst of new innovations), then the higher income growth that comes
with higher productivity could encourage the country to start to consume more
and run current account deficits. On the other hand, the rise in productivity might
enable the country to produce and export more, and run current account surpluses.
Whichever path the country follows, however, the exchange rate would likely be
affected. Furthermore, higher productivity and higher potential growth would likely
lead to higher expected returns from investment in that country’s domestic assets,
which would then alter its exchange rate dynamics.
*For most countries, inflation data are updated monthly while current account data and
economic growth projections are updated only quarterly.
174 CENTRAL BANKING
First, from PPP we know that if the central bank allows inflation to rise persis-
tently, then ultimately the exchange rate is likely to be weakened, other things being
constant. Indeed, according to the concept of relative PPP, for any pair of countries, if
inflation in one country rises persistently beyond that of the other, then its exchange
rate would likely depreciate vis-à-vis that of the other country. If the central bank of
a country runs an easy monetary policy stance, then, other things being equal, the
currency of that country is likely to depreciate in the long run.
Second, from UIP we know that if a country’s interest rate is higher than that
of another country, then its exchange rate will have to depreciate over time such
that total returns from investments in these two countries would be equal. If a
country unexpectedly raises its interest rates, then its exchange rate will have to
instantaneously appreciate in response so that over time the exchange rate can then
depreciate, other things being equal.
Third, from the portfolio balance theory we know that assets of different coun-
tries differ in riskiness and thus are not perfectly substitutable, as UIP assumes. An
interest rate differential between any pair of countries might thus not necessarily
lead to pressure on the exchange rate. Furthermore, if a country’s economy grows
then the country might be perceived as getting stronger, and thus the perception of
risk associated with investing in that country might fall. Accordingly, if monetary
policy is conducted in a way that is conducive to increasing economic growth, then
the exchange rate might also strengthen, other things being equal.
Fourth, from the exchange rate microstructure theory we know that the exchange
rate can fluctuate on an almost continuous basis, owing to changes in expectations
of players in the financial markets. Therefore, the central bank will have to take
into account that their actions and nonactions relating to monetary policy could
drive the expectations of players in the foreign exchange market, induce them to
adjust their exchange rate positions, and thus affect the exchange rate.
In practice, the central bank has to deal with the exchange rate at both the macro
level and at the operational level. At the macro level, the central bank would have to
be aware of how its policy on the exchange rate fit with its overall monetary policy
framework. The exchange rate, interest rates, and the inflation rate are inextricably
intertwined in the long run, as they all represent various aspects of the cost of money.
At the operational level, the central bank would have to figure out how, if
it wants to do so, to best influence the exchange rate. The central bank might want
to intervene in the foreign exchange market, or to regulate flows of capital. These
actions, however, do have costs that the central bank will need to consider.
FIGURE 9.2 The Exchange Rate, Inflation, and Interest Rates Are All Intertwined
The Relationship between the Exchange Rate, Inflation, and Interest Rates As is implicit in
the various exchange rate theories discussed above, inflation, interest rates, and the
exchange rate are related. The central bank’s action to influence any one of the vari-
ables is likely to affect the other two, at least over the long run (see Figure 9.2).
For example, other things being equal, a loosened monetary policy stance could
raise inflation, according to the monetary theories discussed in Chapter 5. With higher
inflation, according to relative PPP, the exchange rate of the country with respect to
an anchor country would over time depreciate proportionately in relation to the infla-
tion differential between the two countries. On the other hand, according to UIP, the
loosening of monetary policy that resulted in lower interest rates would also result in
an exchange rate depreciation, other things being equal.
Congruence in the Central Bank’s Actions toward the Three Variables As the exchange rate,
inflation, and interest rates are all intrinsically intertwined, any policy action to affect
one of these three variables will affect not only the variable in question but will also
indirectly affect the other two. Any attempt to move any two pairs of variables in
opposing directions will be likely to prove unsustainable in the long run.
For example, say a central bank wants to hike interest rates to keep inflation
down, but at the same time wants to keep exchange rates weak in order to stimulate
exports. Specifically, let’s also say that the central bank wants to fix the exchange
rate at a level it deems favorable to the country’s exports. In such a case, by raising
interest rates to tame inflation but keeping the exchange rates fixed, the central bank
is essentially creating a profit opportunity for investors to bring in foreign capital to
invest in that country (in order to gain from interest differentials), since if the fixing
of the exchange rate holds, the expected depreciation of the currency will be zero.
In other words, in this particular case, the central bank is violating UIP. Such
a scheme would be self-defeating for the central bank, since the higher interest
rates will attract more foreign capital, driving up the demand for domestic cur-
rency. However, since the central bank wants to fix the exchange rate, the central
bank will have to intervene in the foreign exchange market by injecting money into
the economy to satisfy the greater demand for domestic currency. The injection of
money will, of course, defeat the initial purpose of the hike in interest rates, that is,
the taming of inflation.
176 CENTRAL BANKING
At the extreme, if the public realizes at the start that the central bank has both
low inflation and fixed exchange rate objectives, the public might be skeptical about
the effect that the hike in the policy interest rate might have on inflation. Monetary
policy and the central bank itself might lose their credibility. Even without the fixed
exchange rate objective, any large scale foreign exchange intervention without
“sterilization” (the central bank’s absorption of liquidity from the system through its
selling of securities to financial market players) could jeopardize the central bank’s
price stability objective credibility.
In theory, the central bank has many options to deal with the exchange rate.
At one extreme, it could focus solely in keeping the exchange rate at a predetermined
fixed level through exchange rate targeting. At another extreme, it could choose to
let the exchange rate float freely so that it is completely determined by market forces
(although this is very unlikely in practice). In between these two extremes, the central
bank would choose the degree of exchange flexibility that it deems most suitable to
economic conditions or the central bank’s objectives, or both.
CASE STUDY: Exchange Rate Policy and the Asian Financial Crisis
As discussed above, since interest rates, exchange rates, and inflation are all interrelated, any attempt
to influence interest rates and inflation rates in an inconsistent way will be self-defeating. The situation
can be seen most clearly in a currency crisis when a country is forced to massively devalue its currency
or abruptly abandon a fixed exchange rate regime.
economies, in other words, owing to both the risk premium demanded by foreign lenders and the
demand for funds by Asian borrowers.
Also, with their fixed exchange rate regimes, Asian central banks were essentially protecting
investors and borrowers from exchange rate risk in such cross-border lending and borrowing transac-
tions. Consequently, foreign commercial banks were willing to lend to Asian commercial banks and the
corporate sector to take advantage of the interest rate differentials that came with an implicit central
bank guarantee against exchange rate risk.
The Outcome
Ultimately, as Asian exports slowed in line with their advanced economy export markets, the current
account deficits of many Asian economies grew larger, creating a dilemma. On the one hand, interest
rate cuts by central banks could help stimulate domestic demand in these Asian economies and a deval-
uation of their currencies could help stimulate exports and reduce current account deficits. On the other
hand, interest rate cuts by central banks would put pressure on the exchange rates and a devaluation
of the currencies could bring financial instability, since domestic Asian banks and the corporate sector
had borrowed heavily from overseas without hedging the exchange rate risk, and at the same time a
huge chunk of the money had already either seeped into projects that could not be liquidated quickly or
seeped into asset price speculation.
As discussed in Chapter 2, when such dilemma became apparent, international investors and
speculators have incentives to engage in speculative attacks against central banks with fixed exchange
rate regimes. In this case, a series of massive speculative attacks forced the Bank of Thailand to float
the Thai baht on July 2, 1997, which started the Asian financial crisis since other Asian currencies
(including the Korean won and the Indonesian rupiah) were also forced to float. As a result, countries
around the region suffered massive economic instability. It should be noted that prior to the crisis
the fixed exchange rate regime had helped push inflation expectations down and had also helped
facilitate international trade and investment for many Asian countries. As the economies of these
countries became liberalized and foreign capital started to pour in, however, the countries entered
into an impossible trinity situation, since they could not independently use monetary policy to man-
age domestic demand in their economies and at the same time kept their exchange rates fixed.
Equilibrium Exchange Rates When a central bank intervenes to keep exchange rates at
a certain level, it is often legitimate to ask if the central bank thinks such a level is
an equilibrium exchange rate for the economy. (Otherwise, why would the central
bank do so?) In a world where information is incomplete and prices are inflexible,
however, determining an equilibrium exchange rate is rather elusive.29
In practice, there have been many definitions of an equilibrium exchange rate.
Some of them are (1) the exchange rate that balances the current account, (2) the
fundamental equilibrium exchange rate, (3) the exchange rate that is consistent with
PPP, (4) the exchange rate that equates one’s export prices with those of the trading
partners, and (5) the exchange rate that equates domestic costs to foreign costs.30
As we shall see, these definitions are not exactly congruent among themselves.
A level of exchange rate that seems to suggest equilibrium in one sense does not
necessarily suggest equilibrium in another. Table 9.1 summarizes the pros and cons
of these different definitions of equilibrium exchange rate.
Exchange Rate That Balances the Current Account In theory, a sustained bal-
anced current account should imply that the economy has achieved equilibrium with
respect to external trade. An exchange rate that balances the current account could
thus be deemed an equilibrium exchange rate.
178 CENTRAL BANKING
TABLE 9.1 Different Concepts of Equilibrium Rate: Examples and Their Pros and Cons
In practice, however, there are at least two reasons that the exchange rate that
ensures a balanced current account might not represent an equilibrium exchange
rate. First, the feedback loop between the exchange rate and the current account is
often uncertain and is subject to time lags. The balanced current account that we see
today does not necessarily correspond to the exchange rate that we see today.
Second, countries in different stages of development and investment opportu-
nities might need a current account that is not balanced, which would result in
accompanying structural capital inflows or outflows. For example, a country that
needs foreign investment might be better off having a current account deficit, which
would be financed by capital inflows. On the other hand, a country that does not
have enough local productive investment opportunities might be better off having a
current account surplus and invest its surplus (capital) abroad.31
Exchange Rate That Is Consistent with PPP The exchange rate that equates overall
domestic price levels with international price levels, or the exchange rate that reflects
PPP, is another candidate for the concept of an equilibrium exchange rate.33 The PPP
exchange rate would reflect the value of the domestic currency in its ability to pur-
chase an identical basket of goods and services across borders.
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 179
In practice, however, many goods and services cannot be traded across borders,
and thus arbitrage activities that are supposed to equate domestic and international
prices and ensure that the exchange rate accurately reflects PPP might not exist.
Furthermore, while PPP is useful in comparing international standards of living, it
does not reflect the country’s external balance.
Exchange Rate That Equates Export Prices with Those of Trading Partners’ Another
candidate for the equilibrium exchange rate is one that equates one country’s export
prices with those of its trading partners.34 Theoretically, this rate should ensure a
level-playing field among countries in the global market. In practice, however, the
same export prices do not necessarily translate into the same profit margins in dif-
ferent countries. Thus, such an exchange rate would still not necessarily represent an
equilibrium exchange rate.
The Direct and Indirect Effects of Monetary Policy From the exchange rate theories
discussed above, it is possible to broadly distinguish the channels through which
monetary policy affects the exchange rate into those that are long term and those
that are short term. In the long term, monetary policy affects the exchange rate indi-
rectly through changes in relevant macroeconomic variables, which might include
inflation, productivity, and the current account, among others. In the short term,
monetary policy can have effects on conditions and expectations in the foreign
exchange market microstructure.
By affecting the behavior of inflation and growth, monetary policy can influence
the exchange rate in the long run, as PPP and the portfolio balance models predict.
This channel of influence would work relatively slowly, as it takes time for mone-
tary policy to first influence macroeconomic variables, and later, for macroeconomic
variables to affect the exchange rate. In the short run, monetary policy announce-
ments can influence expectations of foreign exchange market players and thus the
exchange rate right away, as UIP and the market microstructure predict.
Foreign Exchange Intervention Apart from influencing the exchange rate through the
conduct of monetary policy, the central bank can directly influence the exchange
rate through direct intervention in the foreign exchange market. The term foreign
exchange market intervention often refers to the central bank’s act of buying and
selling foreign currencies in the foreign exchange market.36
By buying up foreign currencies and paying for them using domestic currency,
the central bank is effectively raising the supply of domestic currency in the sys-
tem, thus putting downward pressures on the price of domestic currency, (i.e., the
exchange rate). In contrast, by selling out its holdings of foreign currencies and tak-
ing in domestic currency instead, the central bank is effectively draining domestic
currency from the system, thus putting upward pressures on the exchange rate. If
the scale of such purchases or sales of foreign currencies is large enough, the central
bank can indeed directly influence the exchange rate.
issuing its own securities for sales to money market participants, the central bank is
effectively draining domestic money from the system. Such acts of buying up foreign
currencies and at the same time selling or issuing domestic securities to drain out the
resulting extra supply of domestic currency is known as a sterilized foreign exchange
intervention.
For an emerging-market country, a sterilized foreign exchange intervention of
capital inflows could be costly to the central bank, often because the central bank
would be purchasing low yielding foreign currency assets (e.g., U.S. Treasuries) while
issuing higher yielding domestic securities.37
In practice, although the central bank always has the option of imposing capital
controls to temper pressures on the exchange rate, it rarely exercises such options.
The introduction of regulations on capital flows could discourage all types of capital,
not just hot money, since it translates into uncertainty for international investors. In
the real world it is very difficult to discriminate between speculative and productive
inflows. Also, over time, speculators often find loopholes even in a well-designed
regulation that aims squarely at hot money.
Official Foreign Reserves and the Exchange Rate Policy According to the IMF, official
foreign exchange reserves are official public sector assets that are readily available
to and controlled by the monetary authorities for a range of objectives including to
“support and maintain confidence in the policies for monetary and exchange rate
management, including the capacity to intervene in support of the national or union
currency; limit external vulnerability by maintaining foreign currency liquidity to
absorb shocks during times of crisis or when access to borrowing is curtailed, and in
doing so provide a level of confidence to markets that a country can meet its external
obligations; demonstrate the backing of domestic currency by external assets; assist
the government in meeting its foreign exchange needs and external debt obligations;
and maintain a reserve for national disasters or emergencies.”38
In practice, OFRs could include gold, foreign currencies, foreign government
securities, foreign government guaranteed securities (such as mortgage backed secu-
rities), as well as foreign corporate bonds and foreign equities, depending on the
statute governing the particular central bank.
When the central bank wants to dampen exchange rate appreciation, it could
intervene in the foreign exchange market by selling out domestic currency and buy-
ing up foreign currencies. The sales of domestic currency will raise supply of the
domestic currency and dampen the appreciation pressures on the currency. The pur-
chase of foreign currencies will contribute to the buildup in OFRs.
When the central bank wants to temper exchange rate depreciation, it can buy
up domestic currency by selling parts of its OFRs in the foreign exchange market.
The purchase of domestic currency will reduce its supply of domestic currency and
temper depreciation pressures on the currency. The sales of foreign assets out of
OFRs will reduce the amount of OFRs under the control of the central bank.
OFRs and the Central Bank’s Balance Sheet The use of OFRs in foreign exchange market
intervention will have implications for the central bank’s balance sheet. OFRs can be
considered assets on the central bank’s balance sheet that are financed by liabilities
such as domestic currency (e.g., money issued to buy up foreign currencies during
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 183
foreign exchange market interventions), and central bank securities (e.g., securities
issued by the central bank when sterilizing the effects of foreign currency purchases).
The purchase of foreign currencies to temper appreciation pressures on domes-
tic currency will have the effect of enlarging the central bank’s balance sheet by
raising both assets and liabilities, if such a purchase is done without sterilization, or
is being sterilized by the issuance of central bank securities. Foreign currencies pur-
chased will now be considered as a part of OFRs and thus the central bank’s assets.
If the central bank uses domestic currency to buy foreign currencies without
sterilization, then the domestic currency used in that operation would contribute to
the rise in the liabilities of the central bank. If the central bank uses the domestic cur-
rency to buy the foreign currencies but then sterilizes the operation by issuing central
bank securities to drain out the extra domestic currency from the system, then OFRs
(assets) would rise, while liabilities would also rise, but ultimately in the form of the
central bank’s issued securities, rather than the domestic currency.
If the central bank uses the domestic currency to buy foreign currencies but
sterilizes the operation by selling domestic government securities to drain the extra
domestic currency from the system, then the size of the central bank’s balance sheet
will remain the same as that before the purchase of foreign currencies. The composi-
tion of the asset side of the balance sheet, however, will be different from before, as
the central bank would have effectively substituted its government securities hold-
ings with the foreign currencies purchased.
Management of OFRs When the central bank buys up foreign currencies to temper
appreciation pressures on the domestic currency, it normally does not want to simply
keep the purchased foreign currencies in its vault. Rather, it would prefer to pre-
serve the purchasing power of those foreign currencies it has, and possibly earn some
investment returns. As such, the central bank would often diversify foreign currencies
it has into various financial instruments, making it into an investment portfolio.
In managing its portfolio of OFRs, the central bank often aims for safety,
liquidity, and appropriate returns. Traditionally, central banks invest their OFRs in
safe, highly liquid instruments, such as foreign currency deposits at reputable finan-
cial institutions, as well as highly rated foreign government securities, particularly
U.S. government securities.
In the past decade, however, OFRs of many emerging-market economies have
grown very quickly, owing partly to the central banks’ need to purchase foreign
currencies in response to appreciation pressures on the domestic currency that came
from the growth in their export earnings and capital inflows from advanced econo-
mies. In the wake of the 2007–2010 financial crisis, the large balances of OFRs,
often financed by issuance of central bank securities, have become a concern from a
balance sheet perspective.
In the wake of the crisis, returns from investment in traditional reserves assets,
such as foreign currency deposits and government securities of advanced economies,
fell to historical lows. Meanwhile, to sterilize their foreign currency purchases, the
emerging-market central banks often had to issue securities that pay higher inter-
est rates than could they receive on their investment in OFRs. Furthermore, as
emerging-market currencies kept appreciating, emerging-market central banks were
also experiencing huge valuation losses on their holdings of foreign assets when
measured in terms of their domestic currencies.
184 CENTRAL BANKING
In response to carry losses (the difference between the low yields of investment
in traditional reserves assets—such as short-term deposits and advanced economies
government securities—and the high interest rates that emerging-market central
banks had to pay on their sterilization securities), as well as valuation losses, many
emerging-market central banks started to diversify into other classes of assets.
These new asset classes often included emerging-market government securities,
mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by advanced market governments, corpo-
rate bonds from both advanced economies and emerging-market countries, and
equities. The specific classes included in the mix depend on what the central banks’
own statutes allow.
SUMMARY
The exchange rate is a key variable that the central bank must watch, since it is the
price of money in terms of another currency and could affect monetary stability as
well as financial stability. Exchange rate regimes can range from rigid pegs on one
end of the spectrum to free floats on the other. In the middle, regimes include the
traditional fixed exchange rate, the fixed exchange rate with a horizontal band,
the crawling peg, and the managed float.
Major exchange rate theories include purchasing power parity, uncovered inter-
est parity, portfolio balance models, and exchange rate market microstructure theory.
At the macro level, the central bank must be aware of the interrelationship
among the exchange rate, inflation, and interest rates. Also, the central bank must be
aware that a free-float exchange rate regime, free-capital flows, and an independent
monetary policy cannot coexist in the long run. Furthermore, the determination of
an equilibrium exchange rate can be quite elusive.
At the micro level, the central bank can influence the exchange rate by interven-
tions in the foreign exchange market, as well as by regulations on capital flows.
Foreign exchange market intervention entails the management of official foreign
reserves by the central bank.
KEY TERMS
absolute purchasing power parity foreign direct investment
Big Mac index foreign exchange intervention
common currency foreign loans
crawling peg free float
currency board impossible trinity
equilibrium exchange rate managed float
exchange rate market microstructure official foreign reserves
theory portfolio balance model of the exchange
exchange rate regime rate
exchange rate risk portfolio investment
fixed exchange rate with a horizontal purchasing power parity
band relative purchasing power parity
The Exchange Rate and Central Banking 185
QUESTIONS
1. Provide an example of the way that the exchange rate can affect monetary
stability.
2. Provide an example of the way that the exchange rate can affect employment.
3. Provide an example of the way that the exchange rate can affect financial
stability.
4. In a rigid peg exchange rate regime, can the central bank independently print
money to stimulate the economy without regard to money conditions in the
country that it pegs its exchange rate to? Why or why not?
5. Why might a central bank choose a currency board for its exchange rate regime?
6. What are the drawbacks of a currency board system?
7. Why might a central bank choose to adopt a free-float exchange rate regime?
8. What are the problems with a freely floating exchange rate?
9. What are key differences between a managed float exchange rate regime and a
crawling peg exchange rate regime?
10. According to relative purchasing power parity, if inflation goes up, what is likely
to happen to the exchange rate?
11. Why might an exchange rate deviate from purchasing power parity in practice?
12. According to uncovered interest parity, what is the relationship between the
interest rate differential between two countries and their corresponding exchange
rate?
13. According to uncovered interest parity, if the interest rate in one country is hiked
unexpectedly, what would happen to the exchange rate of that country? Why?
14. According to portfolio balance models of exchange rates, why might uncovered
interest rate parity (UIP) not hold?
15. According to portfolio balance models of exchange rates, if a country’s
productivity improves what is likely to happen to the exchange rate?
16. Why might the exchange rate move continuously, almost second-by-second,
given that important economic data are released only monthly or quarterly?
17. Why can’t the central bank aim to have an exchange rate target, free capital
mobility, and independent monetary policy at the same time? What is this
concept called?
18. How useful is the concept of equilibrium exchange rates? Please discuss using at
least three examples.
19. What is sterilized foreign exchange intervention?
20. Why might sterilized foreign exchange interventions be costly for emerging-
market central banks to undertake?
21. What might be the reasons for the central bank to impose capital controls?
22. What might be the reasons for the central bank to not impose capital controls?
PART
Three
Financial Stability
P art III focuses on financial stability, another key central banking mandate. The
financial stability mandate started receiving attention in the 1980s but has
received even more since the global financial crisis of 2007–2010.
Chapter 10 reviews various definitions of financial stability, provides an ana-
lytical framework that could be practical for central banks as they consider how
to fulfill this mandate, and reviews the theoretical foundations of financial stability.
Chapter 11 examines various tools that central banks might use to identify and
monitor risks to financial stability. This review is done using the analytical frame-
work proposed in Chapter 10, and prospective tools are examined from three key
overlapping areas, namely the macroeconomy, financial institutions, and financial
markets.
Chapter 12 looks at various tools that the central bank could use to intervene
to address risks to financial stability. Review of these tools also uses the analytical
framework proposed in Chapter 10.
187
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 189
CHAPTER 10
Financial Stability
Definition, Analytical Framework,
and Theoretical Foundation
Learning Objectives
. Define financial stability.
1
2. Explain why financial stability is important as a central banking
mandate.
3. Explain how weaknesses in the balance sheets of households, firms,
and the government could affect financial stability.
4. Describe the risks facing a financial institution.
5. Describe the risks facing a network of financial institutions.
6. Explain why information asymmetry could lead to instability in
financial markets.
Among the three widely cited central bank mandates, financial stability is arguably
the only one that does not yet have a single, quantifiable, operational definition
that is widely agreed upon.3 For price stability, one could argue that low and stable
189
190 CENTRAL BANKING
*As a lender of last resort, and thus as a bank supervisor, as well as a guardian of the payment
system, for example.
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 191
It might be helpful to recognize that financial stability encompasses three key interre-
lated elements for central banks: (1) a macroeconomy that is free of major financial
imbalances, (2) a system of financial institutions that is sound and stable, and (3)
financial markets that are smoothly functioning. These three elements of financial
stability normally interact with each other in a state of flux, and the absence of any
one element can lead to financial instability as well as the failure of the other two
elements.* Figure 10.1 illustrates the overlapping dimensions of the three key ele-
ments of financial stability.
An analytical framework based on recognizing the three key elements and their
interrelationships is practical from the central bank’s vantage point for at least three
reasons. First, it helps disentangle the inherent complexity of the interrelationships
among the key elements of financial stability into more tractable and manageable
parts. Second, it corresponds well with the institutional setup of most modern cen-
tral banks, even those without supervisory function. Third, it corresponds well to the
disparate body of theoretical and empirical research on the issues related to financial
stability that can also be grouped roughly into these three specific areas (see Gertler’s
1988 paper, for example).9 The body of research on financial stability will be dis-
cussed in more detail later in the chapter.
Macroeconomy
Area of
Areas of concern for
concern for financial
financial stability
stability Financial Financial
institutions markets
*In such a framework, a stable payments system helps stitch the three elements seamlessly
together.
192 CENTRAL BANKING
*Financial markets are markets where market players with excess funds and market players
in need of funds transact with each other. Market players might include banks, nonbank
financial institutions, and large and retail investors. The term financial markets, in fact, is
a generic term that encompasses a great variety of specific markets, including money mar-
kets (for short-term lending), capital markets (for long-term funding, which include both
equity and bond markets), and other markets, such as foreign exchange markets (for foreign
exchange funding), derivatives markets (for hedging activities), etc.
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 193
As for monitoring financial institutions, those central banks that have a bank
supervisory unit can use it to provide timely and detailed assessments on the banking
sector’s financial health. For central banks with a bank supervisory function, such
a unit also often has experience and tools to influence banks on issues related to
financial stability. Even central banks without a banking supervisory role often have
a unit that assesses and monitors developments in financial institutions, and those
central banks could utilize such a unit in monitoring and assessing risks that might
come from financial institutions, and to coordinate with relevant banking supervi-
sory agency outside the central banks.
In any case, it is well recognized that close coordination and data-sharing among
these three units, as well as with outside agencies, is vital if a central bank is to
effectively deal with financial instability risks.
Unlike the body of research on price stability and employment, the theoretical under-
pinnings of financial stability practices remained in the relatively early stages of
development and are still quite fragmented. To make the review of relevant theoreti-
cal knowledge more tractable, it might be useful to group it into the three key areas
of financial stability mentioned above: the macroeconomy, financial institutions, and
financial markets (see Table 10.1).
time of the Great Depression, when Irving Fisher26 argued that poorly perform-
ing financial markets contributed to the severity of the economic downturn (see
Mark Gertler’s 1988 paper27). Since then, studies such as one by Gurley and Shaw
in 1955,28 Kindleberger in 1978,29 Minsky in 1986,30 Bernanke and Gertler in
1990,31 Borio and Lowe in 2002,32 Borio and White in 2004,33 and Borio and
Drehman in 200934—as well as papers by Borio in 201135 and 2012,36 have noted
how financial activities and real economic activity can interact to reinforce boom-
and-bust cycles.
To make a review of theoretical foundation in this area more tractable, it
might also be helpful to delineate related issues into (1) the behavior of economic
agents, (2) the role of nonmoney financial assets, and (3) the behavior of financial
intermediaries.
The Behavior of Economic Agents Work along the line of the research cited above by
Gurley and Shaw in 1955, Kindleberger in 1978, Minsky in 1986, and Bernanke
and Gertler in 1990 pointed out that the balance sheets or net-worth positions of
economic agents (e.g., households and firms) can influence their spending and invest-
ment behavior, and thus business cycles.
Theoretically, a strong net-worth position of an agent would imply greater
resources available for spending or for use as collateral for borrowing. With a strong
balance sheet (probably supported by a strong prices for assets), an agent can spend
more (which would help generate more economic activity). Robust economic activ-
ity, meanwhile, could also support a further rise in asset prices and the agent’s bal-
ance sheet in a self-reinforcing manner.
A fall in asset prices, in contrast, could weaken the balance sheet of agents
and their ability to spend or borrow, which would slow down economic activ-
ity. If agents have heavy debt burdens relative to net worth, possibly as a result
of prior borrowing to purchase or invest in assets when asset prices were rising,
then the fall in asset prices could weaken their balance sheets and suppress their
ability to spend. Note that if agents had financed asset purchases largely by using
borrowed funds, then even a small fall in asset prices can severely harm their bal-
ance sheets.
If asset prices fall far enough, many agents in the economy might find their
net worth to be very low or negative, which would not only affect their ability
to spend and, by extension, general economic activity, but could also hamper
their ability to repay their debts This could result in both a banking crisis and a
collapse in general spending. Work by Borio and Lowe in 2002 and Borio and
Drehmann in 2009 showed that unusually strong increases in credit and asset
prices could indeed lead to banking crises in advanced as well as emerging-mar-
ket economies.
Given that governments can also be considered economic agents, the strengths
and weaknesses in governments’ balance sheets can influence real economic activity.
Using data from both advanced and emerging-market economies that spans about
200 years, in 2010 Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff showed that countries
whose governments have weak balance sheet positions (i.e., heavy debt loads that
represent more than 90 percent of GDP) were likely to have lower GDP growth rates
than otherwise.37
196 CENTRAL BANKING
1 2 3 4
rather than how a projects’ income might cover operational and financing
costs, are more willing to invest in projects whose financing costs might actu-
ally exceed total income over the life of the project. We can think of variable
rate subprime mortgages as being an example of Ponzi finance.
As Ponzi finance becomes pervasive, any hiccup (e.g., rising interest rates)
can lead to financial instability, since under Ponzi finance, lenders are already
lending to projects that are not viable in the long run.
At any one time, the economy might have a mix of these three types of
financing activities. But as the economy keeps growing, incentives in the econ-
omy lead to a transition from hedge finance to speculative finance, and then to
Ponzi finance.
For example, initially after a crisis interest rates are often low and liquidity
plentiful, and banks themselves might shy away from speculative and Ponzi
finance. As the economy starts to recover, but short-term interest rates are still
relatively low, firms and households might find it profitable to engage in specu-
lative financing, that is, to borrow at the low short-term rates and invest in
capital-intensive long-term projects that offer higher long-term yields. As the
economy enters the boom phase and asset prices start to rise, then households
and firms might start to engage in Ponzi finance, that is, borrowing to invest
in projects for the purpose of asset price appreciation, even if cash inflows
from the projects might not cover operational costs and debt repayment com-
mitments for the projects. Adding to this, Minsky points out, are the inherent
incentives of bankers to use leverage to expand their lending operations, which
can easily tip the whole system into instability.38
The Role of Nonmoney Financial Assets The research of both Gurley and Shaw in
195539 and Kindleberger in 197840 pointed toward to the importance of nonmoney
financial assets; that is, those financial securities issued by intermediaries that
can contribute to acceleration and crashes in economic activity. In their research
Gurley and Shaw pointed out that if the central bank were to effectively maintain
economic stability, there would be a needs for financial control—controls on the
proliferation of nonmoney financial assets—in addition to monetary control, or
control of money.
Meanwhile, Kindleberger pointed out that throughout history, booms and
resulting crashes could be traced to an introduction of new asset classes, whether
the asset was tulips in early sixteenth-century Holland or dot-com shares in the
late twentieth-century United States.41 Kindleberger passed away in 2003, before
the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, but securities backed by subprime mort-
gages come to mind as another new asset class that led to a boom and a resulting
crisis. The role of nonmoney financial assets in a financial crisis has gained much
attention in the wake of the 2007–2010 crises, although prior to that mainstream
research in macroeconomics has tended to neglect it. See “Concept: Money versus
Nonmoney Financial Assets in Macroeconomics” for more details.
198 CENTRAL BANKING
The Behavior of Financial Intermediaries Hyman Minsky’s 1986 book emphasized that
managers of financial intermediaries indeed were active profit maximizers, and
that their profit maximizing behavior would lead them to fund projects that were
progressively more speculative (projects that relied progressively more on capi-
tal appreciation, as opposed to income flows), driving the economy further into a
boom period.47
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 199
The Diamond-Dybvig Model: The Switch from Normal Functioning to a Bank Run If at any given
point in time the bank’s depositors demand withdrawals in excess of the funds that
the bank has on hand, then the bank could get into serious trouble. As Diamond and
200 CENTRAL BANKING
Factories
Bank A
Depositors
Dybvig point out in their 1983 work cited above, a bank cannot easily call in their
loans in order to raise funds to meet depositors’ demands without incurring signifi-
cant losses, since those loans are long-term.
Indeed, if a large enough portion of depositors demand withdrawal of their
funds at the same time, the bank could simply run out of money and go bankrupt.
Depositors would then have to litigate to recover their funds from the liquidation of
the bank’s assets. In practice, the recovery of funds through litigation could take a
long time, and depositors would have to contend with the possibility that they might
be unable to recover all their funds.
Consequently, if depositors expect that a large proportion of depositors would
want to withdraw their money at the same time, it is rational for all depositors to rush
in and try to withdraw their money. Depositors know that those who withdraw their
money early are likely to have an advantage, since at that time, the bank might still
have enough money on hand to repay depositors. This situation creates a self-fulfilling
prophecy, with all depositors rushing in to be the first to withdraw. (See Figure 10.4.)
According to Diamond and Dybvig, there are thus two equilibriums in financial
intermediation: one is normal functioning, and the other is a bank run. The normal
functioning case would occur as long as depositors expect most other depositors to
withdraw money only when they have real expenditure needs. In such a case, it is ratio-
nal for all depositors to also withdraw only when they have real expenditure needs.53
A bank run, however, can occur whenever depositors expect most other deposi-
tors to rush in and close their accounts. In such a case, it is rational for all depositors
to rush in and close their accounts. The switch from the normal functioning equi-
librium to a bank run could be triggered by multitudes of tangible and intangible
things, including, notably, expectations.
The Banking System as a Network The groundbreaking model of a bank run proposed
by Diamond and Dybvig in 1983 focused mainly on the case of a run on an individual
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 201
Factories
Bank A
Depositors
Only those who come while the bank still has money on hand
will likely be repaid on time and in full.
bank. Later, researchers started to look at the possibility of a systemic bank run, in
which distress in one bank could be transmitted to other banks through direct and
indirect linkages.
Most prominent among the direct financial linkages are interbank loans, where
banks lend to each other, possibly to meet liquidity needs. Payment systems are also
direct linkages, albeit of a more physical type. With these direct linkages among
banks, the banking system can be examined as a network. A hiccup that affects the
ability of one bank to meet its obligations to another could lead to ripple effects
through the network.
Indirect linkages are also a factor, because banks do often hold similar types of
assets in their portfolios and thus the value of their portfolios will also be affected
by each other’s actions. For example, during a panic, once a troubled bank starts a
fire sale of its short-term assets to raise funds, prices of those assets could fall very
sharply, causing losses in other banks’ portfolios. Other banks might then be forced
to have their own fire sales, which would affect everyone further.
The work of Rochet and Tirole in 1996,54 Allen and Gale in 2000,55 and Freixas,
Parigi, and Rochet56 the same year examined cases where the failure of one bank
or the payment systems triggered a chain of subsequent failures. In 2009, Andrew
Haldane looked at how the financial network had become more fragile in the p eriods
leading up to the 2007–2010 financial crisis.57
Network Resiliency and Network Fragility Theoretically, connections between banks can
make the banking network more resilient as well as more fragile, depending partly
on linkage structures, diversity of institutions, and the density of activities or concen-
tration of risks in the banking system.
According to Allen and Gale’s 2000 work, in a better connected network—that
is, where the interbank market is complete, meaning that banks of different types
(e.g., commercial banks, investment banks, banks that focus on wholesale lending,
and banks that focus on attracting deposits from savers) are all connected to one
202 CENTRAL BANKING
• Owing to asymmetric
Bank A information, Bank A cannot
distinguish risky borrowers
from safe borrowers, and
thus charges a uniform
Information asymmetry 10.5% interest rate for all
loans.
Lends to risky
borrower
at 10.5%
• The 10.5% rate is the
average of breakeven
Safe Risky
interest rates
borrower borrower
for those two types of
customers.
Invests in a safer project Invests in a riskier project
• Expected returns = 10% • Expected returns = 20%
• Probability of success = 90% • Probability of success = 60% • However, at 10.5% only
• Breakeven interest rate = • Breakeven interest rate = risky borrowers will
(10%*90%) = 9% (20%*60%) = 12% borrow, putting the
bank at greater risk of loss.
stability issues, including (1) adverse selection, (2) the principal-agent problem,
(3) moral hazard, and (4) coordination failure. Furthermore, a fifth—externali-
ties—which is a classic factor in market failures, was also found to be a factor in
the financial crisis.
Shareholders
(the principals) have the
Shareholders Principal primary objective of
Information asymmetry
a long-term
Board of sustained increase
directors in share values.
Information asymmetry
Investment Bank A
Agent Management and traders
Management
Information asymmetry (the agents) have
an incentive to go for
Traders short-term profits, which
sometimes could come at
the expense of the long-
term sustainability of the
business.
Moral Hazard Moral hazard refers to a situation in which players act more hap-
hazardly once they are insured. Moral hazard occurs because the insurer does not
have the ability to monitor or restrain the actions of the insured once the insurance
contract is implicitly or explicitly made. In banking and finance, popular examples
of the moral hazard problem include those related to deposit insurance and the gov-
ernment’s implicit bailout guarantees for financial institutions. With the presence of
deposit insurance or implicit bailout guarantees, depositors and investors have fewer
incentives to actively seek information or ensure the soundness of the banks or finan-
cial institutions that they deposit or invest their money with. Instead, the depositors
and investors will be more likely to deposit and invest their money with financial
institutions that offer the highest returns, since they know that their deposits and
investments will be covered by deposit insurance or by the government’s implicit
bailout guarantees.
Coordination Failure The presence of information asymmetry can also lead to coor-
dination failure in the financial markets. In the presence of greater uncertainty, the
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 205
presence of information asymmetry in the financial markets might simply stop trans-
actions among market players. Such a situation occurred and became acute at the
height of the 2007–2010 financial crisis, as banks were unwilling to lend to each
other because no one was certain about the financial health of their counterparties.
In the presence of great uncertainty, information asymmetry means that interest rates
(which reflect the prices of transactions in the financial markets) could not act as a
signaling device for efficient allocation of funds in the financial markets. In that case
those with excess funds to lend can choose to either keep the funds to themselves or
charge prohibitively high interest rates to compensate for unknown risks.
Externalities Externalities occur when the price of a product does not reflect the
social costs of producing the product. In other words, externalities occur when pri-
vate costs are socialized. In the context of banking and finance, the failure of a large
or systemically important financial institution (SIFI) imposes costs not only on its
depositors, shareholders, employees, and its direct counterparties, but also on other
financial market players and society at large.
The presence of externalities suggests that profits from the transactions of a
systemically important bank accrue only to the bank’s shareholders, employees,
and depositors, while losses from such transactions, if large enough to threaten the
bank’s survival, accrue to all market players and society at large.
CASE STUDY: Information Asymmetry and the Lead-Up to the 2007–2010 Crisis
As the 2007–2010 crisis unfolded, it became clear that prices at which financial transactions had been
done in the lead-up to the crisis were not based on full information. Information asymmetry was pres-
ent at various levels of financial transactions, from simple subprime mortgage lending to sophisticated
derivatives trading. In many ways, it could be argued that the pervasiveness of information asymmetry
in various pockets of the economy helped contribute to the emergence of the crisis.
Adverse Selection
An example of adverse selection in the context of the global financial crisis is subprime mortgage
lending in the United States. The term subprime is often used for those borrowers who do not have
good credit histories, or have low debt repayment ability. Inquiries found that prior to the crisis, in
order to earn more brokerage fees from mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers had willfully disregarded
subprime borrowers’ ability to pay, in many cases requiring no proof of income or assets from borrow-
ers. Borrowers, in turn, were provided with mortgage loans whose terms were very disadvantageous
to them and were not easy to understand. (See Figure 10.7.)
In this subprime mortgage lending situation, bad mortgage loans were selected for borrowers
who had the least ability to pay. The ultimate outcome was that, as subprime borrowers started default-
ing on their mortgages, mortgage lenders took large losses and many went bankrupt. Apart from
illustrating a case of adverse selection, the above example also points to the principal-agent problem,
another problem related to information asymmetry.
This could be done with little regard to the borrowers’ debt repayment ability, as long as the commis-
sions got paid. Mortgage lenders’ main interest, on the other hand, was that borrowers be able to repay
their mortgages.
Moral Hazard
The 2007–2010 crisis also highlighted the fact that investment banks’ compensation packages for
managers and traders were another case of the moral hazard problem. Since managers and traders’
bonuses were often directly tied to profits, it made sense for managers and traders to pursue strate-
gies that were likely to generate the most profits (e.g., buying securities backed by subprime mortgage
securities), even if the strategies were extremely risky. The events before the financial crisis revealed
that if the risky strategies that they pursued succeeded, managers and traders could make m illions.
Since the managers and traders were essentially using other people’s money (the banks’ balance
sheets) in the pursuit of their strategies, the most they would lose would not be their own money,
only their jobs, if those strategies ultimately failed. Since managers and traders were largely insulated
from the financial risks they took, they were more likely to pursue riskier strategies in a blind chase for
profits, which could be costly for their banks but not, essentially, for them.
Implications of Market Failures for Financial Stability As the preceding discussions have
shown, problems such as adverse selection, moral hazard, or the principal-agent
problem can lead to bad outcomes in financial transactions. In the context of finan-
cial stability, it could thus be said that if the prices of financial assets do not reflect all
known information, then such prices also might not accurately reflect inherent risks
of the underlying assets. Owners of those financial assets might be unknowingly
holding assets that are inherently too risky for them. (Think of banks owning bad
mortgage loans or homeowners owning houses they can’t afford, for example.) In
some cases, buyers of financial assets could be just agents for the ultimate owners of
those assets, and could have misaligned interest with those owners. (Think of invest-
ment banks’ managers and traders as agents who bought subprime mortgages that
were put on the banks’ balance sheet, with the banks’ shareholders as the ultimate
owners of the banks, for example.)
Financial Stability: Definition, Analytical Framework, and Theoretical Foundation 207
SUMMARY
Financial stability is a relatively new term, and as such there is not yet a single, quan-
tifiable definition that is widely agreed upon, unlike, for example monetary stability,
which could be defined as low and stable inflation.
Definitions of financial stability often encompass many elements, including the
smooth and effective functioning of the financial system, the low probability of
default, the absence of stress and disruptions in the financial system, and the absence
of major financial imbalances in the economy.
To make the analysis more tractable, this book uses an analytical framework
divided into three key interrelated areas of financial stability: the macroeconomy,
financial institutions, and financial markets. Such a framework helps group frag-
mented theories with regard to financial stability, and also corresponds well with
modern central banks’ institutional setups.
Theoretically, threats to financial stability might occur in the macroeconomy
through the interaction between real economic activity and financial activities. Easy
money conditions could encourage more speculative activities, which can turn into
asset price bubbles and economic instability. The work of Gurley and Shaw in 1995,
Kindleberger in 1978, and Minsky in 1986 provides insight into this phenomenon.
According to the 1983 work of Diamond and Dybvig, a bank is inherently prone
to a run, since it takes in deposits that are very liquid but lends out the funds into
illiquid projects. The banking system network can promote the resiliency as well as
the fragility of banks, depending on the linkage structures, the diversity of banks,
and the density of banking activities (see, for example, the 2000 work of Allen and
Gale, and the 2009 work of Haldane).
In theory, if financial markets function efficiently, then prices in the markets
should reflect inherent risks. The inherent information asymmetry of the type pointed
out by Akerloff in 1970 and Stiglitz and Weiss in 1981, however, can lead to moral
hazard, adverse selection, externalities, coordination failures, and principal-agent
problems, which imply that financial market prices might not reflect inherent risks.
KEY TERMS
adverse selection externalities
asset price bubbles financial network
bank run financial stability
coordination failure hedge finance
credit risk information asymmetry
208 CENTRAL BANKING
QUESTIONS
1. Why could there be diverse views as to the definition of financial stability?
2. Give examples of different views on the definition of financial stability. What
elements might be common among these views?
3. How might stability in the macroeconomy, financial institutions, and financial
markets be related?
4. Does a central bank with no bank supervisory function have a role in maintaining
financial stability? Why or why not?
5. How could weaknesses in households, firms, or the government’s balance sheets
affect stability of the macroeconomy?
6. Why might a central bank need to be mindful of the proliferation of new
nonmoney financial assets?
7. What could be theoretical reasons that nudged central banks to put less focus
on financial factors relative to monetary factors before the 2007–2010 global
financial crisis?
8. With reference to Minsky’s 1986 book, is the macroeconomy inherently stable
or unstable? Why or why not?
9. Why might overindebtedness of economic agents lead to financial instability?
10. Referring to the Diamond-Dybvig model, why might a bank run be a facet of an
equilibrium state of banking?
11. How might an increase in connectivity among banks increase resiliency of a
banking system?
12. How might an increase in connectivity among banks reduce resiliency of
a banking system?
13. In terms of interconnectedness among banks, what are direct exposures?
14. In terms of interconnectedness among banks, what are indirect exposures?
15. Why might troubled banks and firms cause stress and disruption in financial
markets?
16. Give an example of the principal-agent problem in the run-up to the global
financial crisis.
17. Give an example of moral hazard problem in the run-up to the global financial
crisis.
CHAPTER 11
Financial Stability
Monitoring and Identifying Risks
Learning Objectives
1. Identify key indicators that central banks use in monitoring risks
in the macroeconomy that are threats to financial stability.
2. Identify key indicators that central banks use in monitoring risks
in the financial institutions system that are threats to financial
stability.
3. Identify key indicators that central banks use in monitoring risks
in financial markets that are threats to financial stability.
*It should be noted here that the discussion presented in this chapter aims to provide an over-
view of the tools that are relatively widely available and does not get deeply into technical
details. Those interested in researching technical details can refer to the Notes section.
209
210 CENTRAL BANKING
stability, these tools and the framework used for the identifying and monitoring of
risks to financial stability are still very much a work in progress.1 As in any human
endeavor, there is still ample room for refinement and improvement.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there is no one-size-fits-all, standard tool-
kit. Determining the appropriate tools to use in a particular situation depends on
the circumstances of a particular economy, including its structure, stage of financial
development, and regulatory regime.
Financial imbalances
• Overindebtedness of
economic sectors
(households, firms,
the government, and the
external sector)
Areas of Macroeconomy • Asset price bubbles
concern for
financial Area of
stability concern for
financial
stability
Financial Financial
institutions markets
the possibility of widespread speculation in asset prices and possible asset price
bubbles. Speculation in asset prices often induce more and more players to take on
heavy debt loads in order to bid for assets. If asset prices rise to levels that are far
above those justified by their fundamentals, then it is also likely that buyers of those
assets have taken on debt loads at levels not justified by their fundamentals. Once the
economy starts to cool and asset prices start to drop, these buyers could be left with
unserviceable debt loads that lead them to default.
Using data from many economies that used a variety of policy regimes, Borio and
Lowe3 and Borio and Drehmann4 found that the coexistence of fast growth in credit
and asset prices often proceeded banking crises. This suggests that the fast growth of
credit will indicate a low capacity on the part of economic agents to absorb shock
(i.e., a sustained rise in credit suggests that economic agents have racked up too
much debt), while a fast rise in asset prices might indicate a high degree of asset price
misalignment. To monitor and identify financial stability risks in the macroeconomy,
the central bank thus needs to look at the possibility of overindebtedness on the part
of each economic agent, the possibility of overindebtedness in the overall economy,
and the movement of asset prices.
to fast-rising stock and housing prices), can lead to financial instability when the
economy slows down or when housing prices start to drop.
Financial ratios, such as household debt to GDP and household interest
payments to income, as well as the growth in various types of credit extended to
households (e.g., credit card loans, auto loans, and mortgages), can be useful in
assessing household indebtedness. Such data might come from surveys at the micro
level, coupled with data from financial institutions and macrolevel data. Although
there is no hard and fast rule to determine exactly the point at which these ratios or
growth rates could reflect overindebtedness, a fast rise in these measures could be a
reason for concern. Historical experience coupled with cross-country analyses could
also help determine if there is a cause for concern.
In addition, the central bank might also consider adopting a gap measure
approach along the lines of that proposed by Borio and Lowe in 20025 and Borio
and Drehmann in 20096 to analyze whether a given rise in household debt should
raise concern. For example, the ratio of household debt to GDP might be compared
to its historical trend; a large gap between the current ratio of household debt to
GDP and the historical trend might warrant more concern. The central bank might
also want to see whether the rise in housing prices deflated by GDP is much beyond
its historical trend, in order to evaluate the degree to which the household sector
might be exposed to risk accumulation in housing prices.
risks from the government sector. Fast-rising public debt might threaten fiscal sus-
tainability, that is, the ability of the government to repay debt without resorting to
a debt default. A debt default by the government would have far-reaching reper-
cussions on financial stability. Banks, pension funds, and mutual funds often hold
government securities as a staple in their portfolio holdings. A default by the govern-
ment would devalue portfolios of these entities considerably. Furthermore, interest
rates for private sector loans are often benchmarked against the yields of so-called
risk-free government debt. A debt default by the government could make interest
rates in the economy become very volatile and disrupt the financial intermediation
process in the economy.
In addition to public debt growth data, ratios of public debt to GDP and the
government debt repayments to total government expenditures are among the most
useful indicators for a fiscal sustainability assessment. Here the gap measurement
approach might be used to measure how the public debt-to-GDP ratio might have
deviated from its historical trend. To be comprehensive, however, the central bank
might also need to examine the composition of public debt, such as the currency of
debt denomination and debt maturity. Government debt denoted in a foreign cur-
rency requires that the government have enough of that foreign currency to repay
the debt when it becomes due. Local currency denominated debt, however, is easier
to roll over, or refinance, by new debt issuance.
In certain cases, the central bank might also need to look at the growth of
the government’s contingent liabilities, that is, those liabilities that might not cur-
rently be on the government’s balance sheet but ultimately must be financed by the
government when the need arises. Examples of contingent liabilities include every-
thing from future public healthcare liabilities to the debt of government-owned
enterprises.
In addition to balance sheet data, it might also be useful to look at the coun-
try’s sovereign debt ratings, as well as the difference (or spreads) between the yield
of securities issued by the government and the yields of those issued by another
country whose bonds are used as an international benchmark (such as the yields
of securities issued by the U.S. and the German governments, which are considered
international risk-free, or safe-haven, rates). The experience of the European sover-
eign debt crisis in the early 2010s showed that when fiscal sustainability is in doubt,
a drop in the country’s sovereign rating combined with a rise in the spread between
the government yield and the yield of a safe-haven benchmark can make refinancing
of existing government debt very difficult, making an actual government debt default
more likely. Another key variable that might warrant being closely monitored is the
movement in the yields of credit-default swaps (CDS) of the country’s sovereign
debt, which are essentially an insurance premium on the government securities of
the country.
fueling asset price bubbles. When asset price bubbles start to burst, capital flights can
occur promptly, putting tremendous downward pressure on domestic currency. In
a fixed exchange rate regime, if the central bank does not have enough reserves to
satisfy those wishing to pull their capital out, then it might be forced to allow the
currency to be devalued. The currency devaluation could cripple the ability of agents
in the economy to repay their foreign currency debts, especially if the agents’ income
was mainly from domestic sources. Meanwhile, the domestic banking sector would
also likely be suffering from their exposures to asset price bubbles.
To monitor and identify financial stability risks in the external sector, the central
bank will need to look at both the growth and level of external debt incurred by
various agents of the economy, as well as the currency and maturity profiles of that
debt. Capital flows data will also need to be closely monitored. Useful indicators
for assessing the sustainability of foreign debt would include the ratio of short-term
debt to international reserves holdings, the degree of currency mismatch of the debt
and the source of income to finance that debt, the degree of maturity mismatch of
the debt (are short-term foreign currency debts being incurred to finance long-term
local projects?), as well as the net open currency positions of the debt (the degree of
foreign currency debt not being hedged for currency risk).7
market, key indicators other than prices include price-earnings (P/E) ratios, for the
market as a whole as well as for different segments of the market.
In monitoring and identifying financial stability risks that might arise from financial
institutions, one must look at both individual institutions and the financial institu-
tions system as a whole. In a world in which financial institutions are increasingly
connected with each other through both direct and indirect exposures, contagion
among financial institutions and systemic bank runs are very possible. Figure 11.2
shows factors relating to financial institutions that may affect financial stability not
only in the institutions themselves, but also in the macroeconomy and financial mar-
kets through interrelated areas.
Risks to financial institutions, however, can come not only in terms of credit risk,
but also in many other forms, including market risk, liquidity risk, and operational
risk. Market risk arises when movements in market rates and prices (such as inter-
est rates, foreign exchange rates, and equity prices) adversely affect the institution’s
financial position. Liquidity risk arises from the possibility that an institution would
not be able to meet its obligations as they come due (possibly because it cannot liqui-
date assets or obtain adequate funding), as well as the possibility that an institution
would not be able to unload its holdings without significantly lowering the market
prices of the assets and incur large losses, owing to the dearth of market players dur-
ing market disruptions. Operational risk arises from the possibility that operational
problems (e.g., breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes) will
lead to unexpected losses for an institution.12
important. Indeed, in the United States many small banks are allowed to fail each
year and are not rescued by the government.
engineering (electrical power grids), can help in identifying and mapping the linkages
(direct and indirect) among various financial institutions within the network.19
By constantly monitoring (direct and indirect) linkages and financial institu-
tions within the financial network, it is expected that the authorities would be able
to better understand risk propagation and distribution within the financial system.
Currently, developments in this area are still in an early stage, as the researchers and
regulatory authorities are still grappling with issues related to the data that will pro-
vide a more complete picture of the system’s linkages and how risks might proliferate
among financial institutions in the system. (See, for example, the 2009 paper from
Segoviano and Goodhart.20)
indicators, which mirrored those for G-SIBs except for cross-jurisdictional activity,
which was subsumed into the complexity category.23
In identifying D-SIBs, central banks would learn more about how risks were
concentrated in their domestic banking systems and therefore monitor and assess
risk more effectively. The identification of G-SIBs, meanwhile, would help regula-
tory authorities become better at identifying and monitoring their banking systems’
exposures to risks from global systemically important institutions.
Macro stress tests have been getting more and more attention since the middle of the first decade of
the twentieth century. Macro stress tests are tests done to assess how financial institutions as a system
would fare under adverse macroeconomic conditions. In conducting macro stress tests, regulatory
authorities first make assumptions about plausible extreme adverse macroeconomic scenarios and cor-
responding movements of pertinent macroeconomic variables, such as GDP growth, inflation, and inter-
est rates. Then assumptions about these macroeconomic variable movements are used in econometric
or other types of relevant models to map how the movements would likely affect the institutions’ finan-
cial positions; for example, through default rates, earnings, and the price of assets in the institutions’
portfolios. Very importantly, feedback loops among the institutions such as counterparty credit risk and
liquidity risk would also be taken into account before arriving at the final outcomes.24
Ideally, macro stress tests will be useful in helping regulatory authorities to determine the safety
and soundness of financial institutions as a whole. However, the development of macro stress testing
techniques was still in its infancy when the 2007–2010 crisis struck. There was still a lack of under-
standing of the interconnectedness among financial institutions, partly because of the growing com-
plexities of banking activities but also because of the rise of shadow banking. Although ever-evolving
activities in the financial sector could potentially dampen the success of macro stress tests in predict-
ing an oncoming crisis, regulatory authorities have recently found the use of macro stress tests as a
potent communication tool to alleviate panic after a crisis has actually occurred.
U.S. authorities used stress tests to determine the soundness of the largest U.S. banks right
after the 2007–2010 global financial crisis. While results from the tests suggested that some banks
had inadequate capital to deal with further shocks and would have required extra funding, they also
suggested that most of the banks were in sound condition and that the extra funding that would have
been required was at manageable levels. In this sense, apart from determining the ability of the banks
to deal with further stress in the wake of the crisis, the tests were used as a tool to communicate
with the public so that ungrounded fears would not turn into panics. Following the U.S. success,
authorities in the euro area also used macro stress test results to shore up public confidence in
European banks in the wake of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis.
In a post-crisis world, U.S. authorities have also calibrated macro stress tests for use as a pre-
emptive tool in sustaining financial stability. Banks that do not pass the macro stress tests given by the
Federal Reserve will not be allowed to raise dividend payments or to do a stock buyback.25 The aim is
to encourage both the shareholders and the management of the bank to be more mindful of the risks
they are taking.
Despite the growing profile of macro stress testing, Claudio Borio and Mathias Drehmann have
warned central bankers not to let macro stress testing lull them into a false sense of security. According
to their 2009 paper, potentially problematic issues of macro stress testing include the fact that (1)
traditional macroeconomic models often do not well enough incorporate financial variables, (2) the
source of shocks in macroeconomic models often come from macroeconomic variables, but shocks
to the financial system would not necessarily come from macroeconomic factors, (3) the relationships
between macroeconomic risk factors and credit risk are still often poorly modeled, and (4) important
items that might be crucial to financial institutions sometimes are not included in the financial institu-
tions’ balance sheets (e.g., off-balance-sheet commitments).26
220 CENTRAL BANKING
Financial market indicators can provide useful information on the degree of risk
accumulation as well as the degree of stress and disruption in the financial sector.
Indicators of risks in the financial markets can often be extracted from transac-
tion data in the financial markets, whether they are movements in prices and yields
of financial products, or net positions of market players. Frequent transactions in
financial markets mean that, in many cases, these indicators could reflect conditions
in the financial system almost on a real-time basis. Figure 11.3 shows factors relat-
ing to financial markets that may affect financial stability not only in the markets
themselves, but also in the macroeconomy and financial institutions through inter-
related areas.
products keep rising, players are tempted to pile on even more leverage to buy more
products, possibly by using the products themselves as collateral for more borrow-
ing. The greater degree of leverage could expose market players and their lenders
to tremendous losses once prices start to drop. In a speculative asset price bubble,
prices of financial products can rise far beyond levels justified by their economic
fundamentals, and thus the greater degree of leverage would lead to even more
severe losses.
In practice, although it is difficult to determine ex ante if prices of financial
products have risen beyond their economic fundamentals or not, it is crucial that
the central bank examines unusually fast run-ups in prices of financial products very
closely, even if the central bank itself does not trade in those products.
Stress and Disruption While fast run-ups in prices of financial products could reflect
a rising degree of risk accumulation in system, rising volatility in financial product
prices could reflect a rising degree of stress and disruption in the financial markets.
As financial market prices should reflect publicly available information relating to
the markets, rising price volatility suggests that market players are not very certain
about the quality of information that they have and are very sensitive to new infor-
mation. With such uncertainty, market players might be willing to trade financial
products only at extreme prices (to hedge for missing information) or simply stop
trading. The stress and disruption in financial markets would affect not only market
players, but are likely to have ripple effects through the financial system and the
economy at large.
In practice, there are two key measures of price volatility: historical volatility,
which is calculated from historical price data, and option-implied volatility, which is
calculated from option prices of their underlying financial products when options on
those products are available. For both measures, rising volatility of financial market
prices would reflect a rising degree of uncertainty and the resulting stress and disrup-
tion in the financial markets.
Spreads
In financial market terms, a spread often refers to the difference in yields of two
types of financial products. An example would be a spread between corporate and
government bond yields of the same maturity, which means the difference in the
yields of these two bonds.
economy might have also appreciably risen. With low credit spreads, funding of
riskier projects would be easier than otherwise. The number of riskier projects
undertaken in the economy might be more than optimal. This was what happened
in the global financial markets prior to the global financial crisis of 2007–2010,
when the credit spread remained compressed for a considerable period of time.
Borio and Drehmann28 termed a situation in which credit spreads are low, while
credit growth and asset prices are increasing quickly, as the paradox of financial
stability.
In practice, there is no established rule to determine if a spread is too narrow
or too wide. The central bank often compares the existing levels of credit spread
to their historical level and analyzes them together with other financial market
indicators.
Stress and Disruption In contrast to the situation just described, when times are bad,
the spreads between yields of risky and risk-free financial products would likely
widen. The chance of failure of a riskier project would thus also rise. Buyers of
riskier products during such periods would demand a much higher risk premium if
they were to take on extra risks. This raises funding costs for projects, and further
raises the chance of actual project failures. In extreme conditions, such as during the
European sovereign debt crisis in the early 2010s, the spreads of riskier Greek gov-
ernment bond yields and less risky German government bond yields had widened so
much that the Greek government was unable to refinance its bonds and had to seek
international assistance.
During the 2007–2010 crisis, the widening of the Libor-OIS spread was also a
key important barometer of stress and disruption, as it could reflect credit risk in the
banking system, the market’s perception of risk endemic in the economy, as well as
liquidity risk in financial markets (see “Case Study: Libor-OIS Spread as an Indicator
of Stress and Disruption” in details).
During the 2007–2010 crisis, Libor-OIS spread became another important financial variable to monitor
as it reflected credit risk of the banking system, as well as liquidity risk in financial markets.
Libor Rate
Libor, or London interbank offered rate, is the interest rate that major banks in London agree to lend
among themselves, without collateral. Libor is calculated for 10 currencies, with fifteen maturities
ranging from overnight to one year. Libor is a popular benchmark used in calculating short-term fund-
ing costs among banks as well as other financial market players.29
Overnight-Indexed-Swap (OIS)
OIS, or overnight-indexed-swap, is a fixed/float interest rate swap, whereby a counterparty agrees to
receive a fixed rate of interest, called OIS rate, on a notional amount of money over a maturity (e.g.,
three months), in exchange for a compound interest payment to be determined by a reference floating
rate on the notional amount at the maturity. The reference floating rate is often tied to an overnight
interest rate such as the central bank’s policy rate (e.g., the effective federal funds rate in the United
States). As such, the OIS rate reflects the market’s expectations of the average of the reference over-
night interest rate over the maturity of the swap contract.30
Financial Stability: Monitoring and Identifying Risks 223
Risk Accumulation In cases where data are available, the central bank might find it
useful to monitor the aggregate net open positions for a key financial product, such
as foreign currencies (see, for example, the 2011 work from Lim et al.34). A dramatic
rise in net open positions (whether long or short) means that risk accumulation
in the system is rising, since players are exposing themselves to adverse moves in
foreign exchange rates.
Stress and Disruption A net open position in a financial product, when taken together
with movements in the price or yield of that product, could also reflect a degree of
stress and disruption in a particular market segment. During the European sovereign
debt crisis in the early 2010s, for example, the net open position of U.S. dollars
as reflected by the International Monetary Market (IMM) data from the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange was a useful indicator of how market participants responded
to uncertainty and switched back and forth between the view favoring U.S. dollars
against the euro and vice versa. In this particular case, such an indicator could be
useful even for central banks outside Europe and the United States, because large
movements in the U.S. dollar-euro exchange rate would have implications for their
own currencies.
224 CENTRAL BANKING
and nonbanks), domestic equity markets could provide pricing and vola-
tility information for the calculation of implied asset values, volatility, and
expected default frequencies. For nonlisted firms and financial institutions,
the relationship could be mapped using information from listed counterpar-
ties as a guide.
For the government, although the value of its assets cannot be observed
directly, it could be inferred both from prices in international markets (includ-
ing the foreign currency market) and information from domestic markets
regarding the value and volatility of certain liabilities on the government’s
balance sheet.
For the household sector, since there is no traded equity for use in esti-
mating assets, the 2008 research by Gray, Merton, and Bodie suggests that
macroeconomic data and information from the households themselves could
be used to construct measures of the portfolio of household assets directly.
Household balance assets would include financial assets and estimated labor
income. A subsidiary balance sheet of household real estate holdings might
also be estimated from real estate prices and volatility, and pertinent debt
obligations.
With balance sheets from the four sectors in place, the work from Gray,
Merton, and Bodie and Gray and Malone suggests that regulatory authorities
might then link the contingent claims balance sheets of the different sectors
(possibly adding the external sector to represent foreign claims) to assess in a
consistent manner how risk proliferates among the sectors. Furthermore, by
linking models of CCA analysis to macroeconomic models used for monetary
policy, potentially central banks would be able to assess the feedback loops
between economic activity, financial activities, and the probability of default
in the economy.
While it is still a work in progress, the use of CCA as a framework to
monitor and assess financial stability has several promising features. First,
it uses pricing and volatility from financial markets, which have built-in,
forward-looking elements not afforded by the traditional balance sheet data.
Gray showed in 2012 how the use of CCA on a real-time basis would have
predicted the upcoming stresses leading to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, as
well as the global financial crisis of 2007–2010.39 Second, by linking the bal-
ance sheets of different economic sectors, CCA could be used to assess risk
transmissions from one sector to the others. Third, CCA risk indicators could
be linked to macroeconomic variables and to macroeconomic models, which
would enable further testing and simulations of stress scenarios.
SUMMARY
In the macroeconomy, the central bank needs to monitor and identify the risk that
economic agents might be unable to repay their debts. This might be done before-
hand by identifying risks of overindebtedness among households, firms, and the
government, as well as the overindebtedness of domestic economic agents to exter-
nal lenders.
226 CENTRAL BANKING
KEY TERMS
contingent claims analysis macro stress test
contingent liabilities maturity mismatch
credit default swaps (CDS) net long position
currency mismatch net open position
domestic systemically important banks net short position
(D-SIBs)
paradox of financial stability
fallacy of composition
probability of default
gap measure
public debt to GDP ratio
global systemically important banks
(G-SIBs) spread
historical volatility systemically important financial institu-
household debt tions (SIFIs)
implied volatility too-big-to-fail
Libor_OIS spread too-connected-to-fail
QUESTIONS
1. What are examples of indicators that central banks might want to monitor with
regard to households to ensure financial stability?
2. What are key indicators that central banks might want to monitor with regard
to the corporate sector to ensure financial stability?
3. What are key indicators that central banks might want to monitor with regard
to the government to ensure financial stability?
4. What are key indicators that central banks might want to monitor with regard
to the external sector to ensure financial stability?
5. What are key indicators that central banks might want to monitor with regard
to asset prices to ensure financial stability?
Financial Stability: Monitoring and Identifying Risks 227
6. According to a 2002 paper by Borio and Lowe and a 2009 paper by Borio and
Drehman, what might be good predictors of a banking crisis?
7. How might financial imbalances in the macroeconomy affect financial stability?
8. Please explain key types of risks that an individual financial institution normally
faces.
9. In examining financial institution risks, one widely adopted framework is
CAMELS; please explain what CAMELS is.
10. What might be a fallacy of composition problem in the context of a system of
financial institutions?
11. How might network analysis help identify risk distribution within the financial
system?
12. Give an example of the way in which risk concentration within the financial
system might be identified and monitored.
13. Please explain the principle behind a macro stress test.
14. How can a macro stress test be used as a preemptive tool in sustaining financial
stability?
15. How might prices and yields reflect risk accumulation in the financial system
ex ante?
16. How might it be difficult to use prices and yields to identify risk accumulation
ex ante?
17. How might prices and yields reflect stress and disruption in the financial system
ex post?
18. Why might sustained tight credit spreads indicate risk accumulation? Why is this
counterintuitive?
19. During periods of stress and disruption, why might the spreads between risk-free
and risky assets widen?
20. Why might a rise in the net open position of a currency reflect risk accumulation,
or stress and disruption, or both?
21. Please explain the idea behind Contingent Claim Analysis.
22. According to Contingent Claim Analysis, what can be valued as contingent
claims on the assets of an entity?
CHAPTER 12
Financial Stability
Intervention Tools
Learning Objectives
1. Describe various tools that central banks can use to mitigate risks
in the macroeconomy in order to sustain financial stability ex ante
and ex post.
2. Describe various tools that central banks can use to mitigate
risks in financial institutions in order to sustain financial stability
ex ante and ex post.
3. Describe various tools that central banks can use to mitigate risks
in financial markets in order to sustain financial stability ex ante
and ex post.
4. Distinguish between Basel I, Basel II, and Basel III.
In Chapter 11 we reviewed some of the tools that can be used for monitoring and
identifying financial stability risks. In this chapter we look at some of the tools
that central banks might use to intervene, safeguard, and restore financial stability.
Following the analytical framework used in the previous chapters, we review the
tools in the context of three focus areas: (1) the macroeconomy, (2) financial insti-
tutions, and (3) financial markets. In each of the focus areas, we look at the tools
that are meant to be used ex ante (i.e., sustaining financial stability by reducing the
probability of a crisis happening, or reducing the severity of losses given a crisis), and
those that are meant to be used ex post (i.e., managing a crisis that is unfolding, or
providing a recovery resolution).
The key tools that the central bank might use to intervene and maintain financial
stability in the macroeconomy would be (1) monetary policy, and (2) macropruden-
tial measures, especially those of a credit-related type.1 Although monetary policy
is normally used for the price stability objective, it can also be used to safeguard
229
230 CENTRAL BANKING
Possible Tools
financial stability ex ante as well as ex post, since monetary policy has the potential
to dampen amplification effects from the business cycle. Monetary policy, however,
is a relatively blunt tool that affects all sectors of the macroeconomy. To address
risk buildups or financial imbalances in specific areas of the macroeconomy ex ante,
macroprudential measures, which are more akin to precision instruments, might be
more appropriate. (See Table 12.1.)
through hikes in the policy interest rate. An advantage of tightening monetary policy
early in this way is that it would prevent risks from building up to unsustainable
levels, which could seriously worsen the situation and make it more difficult to deal
with later on.
However, the use of monetary policy to discourage the taking on of excessive
debt by economic agents, or to preempt asset price bubbles early on, requires caution
on many fronts. Monetary policy normally affects all sectors of the economy, not
just those sectors or agents that are in danger of being overindebted. For example,
if the central bank chooses to hike the policy rate to temper a trend of fast-rising
household debt, the rise in costs of funds is likely to also affect the corporate sector,
even if the corporate sector was not the target of that hike. Another important con-
cern is that, how could the central bank ever be certain that the debt level in any one
sector is already too high, or that the rise in asset prices is excessive?
Limits on Loan-to-Value Ratios Limits on LTV ratios are used to address risk buildups
in the housing market.11 LTV ratios limit households’ borrowing capacity through
the amount of the down payment required for a housing purchase. An LTV ratio
of 80 percent in a particular segment of the housing market, for example, means
that the buyer needs a down payment equivalent to 20 percent of the house’s value,
since banks would only be allowed to lend 80 percent of the value of the house in
that particular market segment. If the LTV ratio is lowered to 70 percent, buyers
will have to find more money for down payments, since they now need a 30 percent
down payment. By lowering the LTV ratio, regulatory authorities can help reduce
speculative activities in the housing market.
In practice, there are many variations on the use of limits of the LTV ratio. The
central bank might lower the LTV directly as described above, or it could use other
variations, such as imposing different risk weights for different LTV ratios, so that
the banks will have to set aside higher reserves if they decide to lend to a client at a
higher LTV ratio.
Debt-to-Income Ratio Debt-to-income (DTI) ratios can also be used to address risk
buildups in the household sector. With limits on DTI ratios being imposed, lend-
ers can extend a new loan to a household only if the level of pertinent household
monthly debt repayments (mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, etc.) does not exceed
a certain percentage of the household’s income. By lowering limits on DTI ratios, the
central bank would be constraining the households’ capacity to borrow.12
In practice, limits on DTI ratios might be used in conjunction with LTV. They
both can be lowered when households are deemed to be incurring more debt so fast
that financial stability might be compromised.13
Ceilings on Credit Growth Ceilings on credit growth can be put on total bank lending
as well as on lending to specific sectors.14 Ceilings on credit growth for total bank
lending could help reduce amplification effects from the business cycle in general.
Banks would have to ration credits among different borrowers as they see fit. By
putting ceilings on credit growth for specific sectors, on the other hand, regulatory
authorities can address risk buildups in a more targeted way.
Caps on Unhedged Foreign Currency Lending Caps on unhedged foreign currency lending
are placed on banks, which may borrow overseas to lend to domestic borrowers in a
foreign currency.15 Caps on foreign currency lending can be used to limit exposure to
the unhedged foreign exchange rate risk that comes with external borrowing. When
lending in a foreign currency to a domestic borrower, the banks might thus require
the borrower to hedge the borrowing against foreign exchange rate risk, or they
might simply limit their foreign currency lending.
With caps on unhedged foreign currency lending, borrowers’ exposure to for-
eign exchange risk is limited, and thus their lenders are protected from credit risk.
The caps are especially important in the case of emerging-market economies with a
fixed exchange rate regime, since domestic interest rates that are higher than those
overseas might prompt banks to borrow from abroad at low interest rates in order
to lend to domestic borrowers at higher interest rates, without regard for the pos-
sibility that the central bank might be unable to keep the exchange rate at the fixed
level if banks do this on a large scale.
Such intervention could be done through (1) the easing of monetary policy, and
(2) the use of macroprudential measures.16
Monetary Policy Easing The easing of monetary policy can be done conventionally
through a cut in interest rates, and, in more severe cases, can be accompanied by
unconventional measures, including the provision of credit to financial institutions,
the provision of liquidity to financial markets, and the purchasing of long-term secu-
rities from the private sector (i.e., quantitative easing).17
Unconventional Easing In the case of an economic crisis, the central bank might choose
to use additional measures in addition to the easing of monetary policy stance. In
the wake of the 2007–2010 crisis, the U.S. central bank chose to do what had been
previously considered an unconventional measure. As discussed in more extensive
detail in Chapter 6, the unconventional monetary policy used to deal with the global
financial crisis of 2007–2010 had three elements: (1) lending to financial institutions,
(2) providing liquidity to key credit markets, and (3) purchasing of long-term securi-
ties.18 As noted by Ben Bernanke, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, one common
characteristic of the tools used for unconventional measures is that they rely on the
central bank’s authority to extend credit or to purchase securities.19
As discussed in Chapter 6, the first two elements (i.e., the lending to financial
institutions and the provision of liquidity to key credit markets) were of the lender-
of-last-resort type and were discontinued after the crisis had passed its peak. The last
element, that is, the purchase of long-term securities (government bonds as well as
asset-backed securities issued by the private sector), was aimed at providing liquid-
ity to the private sector, taking out so-called toxic assets from the private sector’s
balance sheets (in the case of privately issued asset-backed securities), and bringing
down long-term government bond yields. Given the fact that the last element is still
on going in 2014 at the time that this book goes to press, the first two elements might
fall into what Borio’s 2012 paper described as crisis management, while the third ele-
ment could be described as crisis resolution, as it was done to help the economy get
back on a path to sustained recovery.20
To help maintain stability of financial institutions, central banks with a bank super-
visory role can use various tools on banks or other financial institutions under
its supervision ex ante. The tools can be applied from a micro- or macroprudential
perspective, depending on the particular context. Central banks that do not have a
bank supervisory role still have the option of coordinating with regulatory authori-
ties that do, to impose such rules and regulations. Ex post, however, whether the
central bank has a bank supervisory role or not, it can intervene to safeguard finan-
cial stability through the provision of emergency liquidity or special resolutions for
troubled financial institutions where necessary.
Microprudential Supervision For central banks that have a bank supervisory role,
microprudential supervision would aim to ensure that individual banks do have
enough capital and liquidity to cover any emerging shocks, and that the banks are
managed in a safe and sound manner. Microprudential supervision is often associ-
ated with bank examinations and their associated actions, including enforcement of
regulations and laws to ensure bank compliance. As mentioned in Chapter 3, bank
examinations involve both onsite examination and offsite monitoring.
Through onsite examinations, the central bank would be aiming to ensure the
general safety and soundness of each of the individual banks under its supervision.
The use of the CAMELS rating in onsite examinations is one way that the central
bank can assess and address individual banks’ capital adequacy, asset quality, man-
agement, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk. In the period that falls in
between onsite examinations, the central bank would perform offsite monitoring to
check if, where needed, corrective actions have been made. Analyses of current and
projected conditions of the banks would also be made during this period, so that
areas of focus on the next onsite examination could be determined.
236 CENTRAL BANKING
With onsite examinations and offsite monitoring, the central bank would know
the health of each of the individual banks in detail. Through its legal power and the
use of “moral suasion,” the central bank could ensure that banks comply with regula-
tions and the law, and that suggested corrective actions are made by the banks when
demanded. Since a serious breach of compliance could expose a bank to the risk of
failure, the central bank always has the option to remove directors or management
of the bank for negligence or misconduct, and install a temporary administration. In
an extreme case, in which a bank has already been deemed insolvent or at great risk
of insolvency, the central bank might recommend a forced sale or liquidation of the
bank to prevent a bank run.
(1) Loan losses causes a fall (2) The bank’s capital is used
in asset value of the bank. to absorb losses from the
fall in asset value.
Capital
Capital
their money might be affected then a run on the bank might occur even before
the capital is depleted. To buffer any shock to the value of its assets, and to
ensure the bank’s resiliency, a high level of capital is often maintained. Figure
12.1 illustrates how a bank might need to use its capital to absorb its lending
losses.
Capital Ratio
Determining whether an institution has enough capital or not is assessed by
the ratio of the bank’s capital to the value of the bank’s risk-weighted assets
(RWA).
Since the value of different types of assets can behave differently when a
crisis hits, the effects on capital should be different. Loans that the bank has
made have different degree of riskiness, depending on (among other things) the
type of loan (housing loan, corporate loan, etc.) and the type of borrower (high
(Continued)
238 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
or low income individual, large corporation, small enterprise, medium enter-
prise, etc.). Since different types of assets have different degrees of riskiness,
the amount that the bank needs to hold as a capital buffer against a particular
type of asset will also depend on the degree of asset riskiness. In aggregate, how
much capital the bank should hold against their assets should thus be deter-
mined by how many different types of assets are being held and the degree of
riskiness of each type.
In practice, however, maintaining high levels of capital can be costly for
banks. Funds that are maintained as capital normally do not earn high returns
when compared to funds that are lent out as loans. Higher capital requirements
imply not only higher opportunity costs for banks, but also impose higher
handicaps on them, since the banks still need to pay interest to depositors as
well as overhead costs for their own operations, whether the deposits are lent
out or not.
Research is still being done on what measures should be used to assess what consti-
tutes good times, when capital requirements should be raised, and what constitutes
bad times, when capital requirements should be lowered.
In 2011, Borio, Drehmann, and Tsatsaronis suggested that the gap between the
credit-to-GDP ratio and its long-term backward-looking trend might be a good indi-
cator to signal the need for capital requirements to be raised, as it could capture the
buildup of systemic vulnerabilities. To signal the need for capital requirements to be
lowered, however, they found other indicators (such as credit spreads) to be better,
as they provide more timely signals of the banking sector distress that can precede
a credit crunch.27
(Continued)
240 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
balance sheets. At the other extreme, Basel I deemed corporate bonds to be
very risky and assigned them a risk-weight of 100 percent. This meant that for
corporate bonds held as assets on their balance sheets, the banks would have
had to hold capital as reserves equivalent to the full amount.
In total, Basel I specified that a bank had to hold capital of at least 8 per-
cent of risk-weighted assets. Basel I can thus be expressed as
where Capital is the value of the bank’s capital and RWA is the value of the
bank’s risk-weighted assets. In setting the minimum capital adequacy ratio at
8 percent of risk-weighted assets, the Basel Committee did not clearly specify
economic reasons why it chose 8 percent as the minimum. It was believed,
however, that 8 percent would ensure that there was enough room for safety
and allow international banks from different jurisdictions to compete on a
level playing field.
In the 1990s the Basel Committee revised the Basel Accord to cover mar-
ket risk, which comes with changes in financial asset prices and could affect
financial institutions’ balance sheets along with credit risk. After its introduc-
tion in 1988, more than 100 countries adopted the guidelines of Basel I for the
supervision of their financial institutions, with the specifics adjusted according
to the countries’ specific needs and circumstances.30
Basel II
In 2004, the Basel Committee published new guidelines for capital requirements
known as Basel II. Basel II was an attempt to make improvements upon Basel I
through the use of the three pillars approach. Pillar 1 put emphasis on making
capital requirements more comprehensive and responsive with respect to risks
that financial institutions might be facing. Pillar 2, known as supervisory review,
stressed the importance of a banking supervisor making risk-weight adjustments
to truly reflect what the supervisor sees as the underlying risks faced by a bank.
Pillar 3, market discipline, emphasized the ability of market forces to discipline
the bank’s management to be vigilant about risks that the bank might take.
Under Pillar 1, capital requirements were made more comprehensive and
responsive to risk. Operational risk and market risk were covered, in addition
to credit risk and all three were required to be quantified. For small finan-
cial institutions with simple transactions, ratings from external rating agen-
cies such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s could be used to determine the
risk-weights to be assigned to different assets. For larger financial institutions
or those with complex transactions, Basel II allowed the use of in-house risk
models to determine the risk-weights of assets on their own balance sheets.
Basel II also emphasized that different types of assets might have risk charac-
teristics that offset each other (e.g., certain derivatives on the bank’s balance
sheets could mitigate risk for other assets in the bank’s portfolio).
Financial Stability: Intervention Tools 241
Basel III
Although the Basel Committee published Basel II in 2004, its adoption took
time, as both regulatory authorities and banks needed to do a lot of prepa-
ration. By the time the global crisis became full-blown in 2008, however, it
became apparent that Basel II itself needed revision in many areas. The revi-
sions ultimately led to the issuance of Basel III in late 2010, which improved
upon Basel II with respect to the three pillars and laid out minimum global
liquidity standard as well as additional capital buffers for SIFIs.32
Pillar I Under Pillar I, Basel III aimed to improve the quality and quantity of
capital, as well as the coverage of risk and limits on the banks’ leverage.
With respect to capital quality, Basel III focused on having common equity
as capital. During the global financial crisis, despite the existence of capital
requirements, financial institutions did not have enough of a capital buffer to
absorb losses on their balance sheets. Partly this was due to the fact that Tier 2
capital, such as debentures and changes in the valuation of fixed assets, could
not actually be counted on to absorb the losses of the bank. Owners of deben-
tures of a bank are unlikely to convert the debentures into common equity
during a period of stress, since they would lose seniority in claims on the bank’s
assets. Fixed assets, such as the bank’s own real estate, can also fall in value
during the period of stress.
(Continued)
242 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
By focusing on having common equity as a key ingredient in capital
requirements, Basel III raised the quality of capital, since common equity can
be written down directly against losses during a period of crisis. Under Basel
III, common equity must be 4.5 percent of risk-weighted assets. The relevant
authorities also have the discretion to demand the write-off or conversion of
other capital instruments (such as debentures) into common equity to absorb
bank losses.
With respect to capital quantity, Basel III also required that banks have
a capital conservation buffer in the form of common equity equivalent to 2.5
percent of risk-weighted assets. This requirement, together with the one just
described, brought the total common equity standard to 7 percent. The conser-
vation buffer was meant to help with a dilemma that became apparent during
the financial crisis: when losses actually occurred, financial institutions were
unable to write down their capital to absorb the losses, since a write-down
would have reduced their capital to below the minimum capital requirements.
Basel III also required a countercyclical (or time-varying) capital buffer
in the form of common equity, to be imposed in the range of 0–2.5 percent of
risk-weighted assets when the relevant authorities deemed that credit growth
would lead to excessive buildups of systemic risk.
With respect to risk coverage, in light of the 2007–2010 crisis, which was
partly precipitated by the growth in securitization and derivatives trading
among different types of counterparties, Basel III required stricter treatment
for securitized assets, for trading and derivatives activities and counterparty
credit risk, as well as for exposure to central counterparties who were respon-
sible for clearing financial market transactions.
As a backstop to risk-based capital requirements, Basel III also introduced
a nonrisk-based leverage ratio, under which a bank would not be allowed to
have assets (including off-balance sheet assets) in excess of capital beyond a
certain ratio. The leverage ratio was meant to limit the temptation and the
ability of bankers to make an excessive number of loans or take on excessive
off-balance sheet exposure, both of which could jeopardize the soundness of
the bank.
Global Liquidity Standard for All Banks and Additional Loss Absorbency
Capacity for SIFIs
In addition to improvements in the three pillars, Basel III also introduced a
global liquidity standard and corresponding supervisory monitoring for all
banks, as well as higher loss absorbency capacity for SIFIs.
Additional Loss Absorbency Capacity for SIFIs For SIFIs, Basel III required
additional loss absorbency capacity through progressive common equity Tier
1 capital requirements ranging from 1 percent to 2.5 percent, depending on
a bank’s systemic importance. Basel III also suggested a 1 percent additional
loss absorbency for banks that are already facing the highest SIB surcharge, to
discourage those banks from materially increasing their global systemic impor-
tance in the future.
dynamic loan loss provisioning Another concept that has many similari-
ties to time-varying capital requirements is dynamic loan loss provisioning. Simply
put, dynamic provisioning suggests that banks raise their provisions for expected
losses for the loans they make during good times and lower their provisions for
expected losses during bad times.33 The key differences between dynamic provision-
ing and time-varying capital requirements are that (1) dynamic provisioning affects
the banks’ income statements directly, while time-varying capital requirements do
not, and (2) dynamic provisioning deals with expected losses from lending, while
time-varying capital requirements deal with unexpected losses that might come
through the business cycle.
During good times, the quantity of loans will increase but the quality of loans
may decrease as banks compete to extend credit. Accordingly, expected losses from
loans made during good times should rise, and banks should be expected to make
more provisions for lending during good times. As bad times come, with greater
provisions already made for the expected losses, the banks’ will not be affected as
244 CENTRAL BANKING
much as otherwise. Moreover, during bad times, as banks become more cautious,
and economic conditions are conducive only to the safest projects, loan quantities
are likely to decline, while the quality of loans is likely to rise. Expected losses from
lending during bad times are likely to be lower, and banks should be required to
make less provision.
The use of dynamic provisioning was pioneered by the Bank of Spain in 2000
and has since increasingly been adopted by many other central banks. A 2012 paper
from Wezel, Chan-lau, and Columba suggested that dynamic loan loss provision-
ing can be used as a complementary tool to time-varying capital requirements.34
Dynamic loan loss provisioning could act as a first line of defense, whereby banks
will have dynamic loan loss provision funds to run down during bad times, pro-
tecting their profits and capital unless it ultimately becomes necessary to tap into
their capital. To point out the complementarity between these two tools, it might
be worth repeating that dynamic loan loss provisioning will help safeguard banks
against expected losses, while time-varying capital requirements will help safeguard
the banks against unexpected losses.
that they could experience unexpected liquidity shortages, whether from internal or
external factors, despite being very well capitalized.
The Discount Window To prevent liquidity shortages from creating undue strain on
financial institutions and causing systemic failures, the central bank can provide
access to backup liquidity for eligible financial institutions through a facility that
is often known as the discount window. In the early days of central banking, the
discount window was the principal instrument of central banking operations where
the central bank provided funds to financial institutions that needed them. Later on,
with market operations becoming the dominant instrument of monetary policy, the
discount window was relegated to a complementary role, and was used primarily as a
safety valve to help alleviate unexpected liquidity pressures on financial institutions.35
As a provider of liquidity, the discount window can be used as another channel to
either inject liquidity into financial institutions that are under extreme liquidity pres-
sures, or to redistribute liquidity—through the borrowing financial institutions—to
other parts of the economy where it is needed.
To borrow from the discount window, eligible financial institutions normally
have to post eligible assets at a discount as collateral for the central bank. The inter-
est rate charged on discount window lending is often a little higher than the policy
interest rate, to discourage financial institutions from overreliance on the discount
window. By charging a higher interest rate on discount window lending, the central
bank is expecting financial institutions to manage their liquidity more prudently
and come to the discount window for backup liquidity only when necessary. In the
course of normal operations, financial institutions thus often try to access other
sources of liquidity first, since they are likely to be charged lower interest rates.
While the central bank might generally want to discourage banks from relying on
the discount window as their main source of liquidity, however, it has become increas-
ingly recognized that excessive stigma should not be placed on those that are truly in
need of temporary liquidity.36 Even well run banks might run into emergency liquidity
needs in times of general crisis, and the excessive stigma placed on discount window
borrowing might unduly deter them from tapping that much needed liquidity.
To resolve this dilemma, the central bank now often distinguishes between dif-
ferent tiers of liquidity provision, and accordingly charges different interest rates
at the discount window. The first tier is for provision of very short-term liquidity
backup to generally sound financial institutions, and the interest rate charged might
be only a little higher than the policy interest rate. Liquidity would be provided on a
no-questions-asked basis, and that liquidity could be used for any purpose. Financial
institutions that are not qualified to access the first tier of liquidity at the discount
window might still be allowed to access liquidity, but they would be charged a higher
interest rate, and the central bank might require confirmation that the loan is consis-
tent with regulatory requirements.
Special Resolutions for Troubled Financial Institutions and Living Wills Despite various mea-
sures put in place, there is always a possibility that a bank might still fail. To ensure
financial stability, the central bank and related authorities might need special resolu-
tions to ensure that a troubled bank does not fail in a disorderly manner.
According to 2012 work from Claire McQuire, there are four key types of spe-
cial resolutions that regulatory authorities might resort to when they want to ensure
246 CENTRAL BANKING
an orderly resolution for a troubled bank: (1) liquidation, or closing of the bank; (2)
conservatorship, or temporary administration of the bank; (3) purchase and assump-
tion; and (4) nationalization.37
Living Wills In the wake of the 2007–2010 crisis, it has been recognized that
modern financial institutions can be very large with very complex ownership struc-
tures and contractual obligations. Unless the banks’ structures are well-known to
regulatory authorities in advance, regulatory authorities’ efforts to provide a bank
Financial Stability: Intervention Tools 247
resolution at the time of the crisis might not be efficient or effective. Consequently,
financial reforms after the 2007–2010 crisis, such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the
United States, now require that the largest banks file living wills with regulatory
authorities that detail the banks’ existing ownership structures, assets, liabilities,
and contractual obligations plan for resolutions, in case the banks go bankrupt and
need to be wound down.38
Apart from helping regulatory authorities know in advance about the existing
structures and resolution plans of banks, the exercise of creating living wills forces
the banks’ management to know more about their own bank operations and plan
for emergencies. Among living wills of the 11 largest banks that filed living wills with
U.S. authorities in 2013, plans include recapitalizing of subsidiaries while putting
the parent company into bankruptcy, selling off assets and businesses, and closing
of business units.39 Given that the plans are done before the banks actually run into
trouble, living wills could also be considered an ex ante tool.
Since the central bank is normally not the direct regulator of financial markets,* it
is often the case that the central bank will take a hands-off or a very selective and
very cautious approach in dealing with those markets. As it is not a direct regulator
of financial markets, the central bank might not have adequate regulatory tools to
mitigate risk buildup among financial market players, except possibly in cases in
which players are banks under its supervision (and that only applies if the central
bank is a bank supervisor).
Although the central bank is normally not a direct regulator of financial mar-
kets, there are at least three key reasons that the central bank might need to take an
active role in reducing risk in the financial markets.
First is the growing importance of financial markets. The 2007–2010 crisis high-
lighted the need to rethink the role of the central bank in maintaining financial
market stability. In the United States, financial intermediation was increasingly being
conducted in the financial markets, outside of the traditional depository institutions
that were under central bank supervision. At the same time commercial bank assets,
as a proportion of total financial intermediary assets, has declined, while the pro-
portion attributable to securities broker-dealers, hedge funds, and mutual funds has
grown in importance.
What came along with the growing importance of these nonbank institutions
was the securitization of financial institutions’ assets (such as mortgages, auto loans,
and credit card loans) into tradable securities. Trading of these securitized assets
became an important activity among financial institutions all by itself. If develop-
ments in the United States are any guide, it is likely that financial markets in other
countries will also grow in importance relative to traditional banking.
*Depending on the country, the role of financial market regulation is either assigned to a
single regulator (such as the Financial Services Authority) or to different regulators for differ-
ent markets (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission).
248 CENTRAL BANKING
Using Monetary Policy to Address Risk Buildups in the Financial Markets In theory, ex ante, a
central bank could choose to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent the buildup
of risk in financial markets. A tightened monetary policy stance raises the cost of funds
among players in financial markets, which discourages them from undertaking more
speculative activities. In practice, however, this is rarely done, unless it is also clear that
the buildup of risk in any particular segment of the market is already a serious risk to
financial stability and ultimately price stability. The central bank would be very hesitant
to tighten its monetary policy stance simply in response to fast-rising prices of stocks, for
example, since the tightening would affect all sectors of the economy, and it can never
be sure whether the fast-rising stock prices are justified by economic fundamentals.
Regulations on Market Players Rather than simply tighten monetary policy stance,
the central bank might target regulations to financial market players under their
supervision (i.e., banks). Examples of such regulations include limits on net currency
Financial Stability: Intervention Tools 249
Liquidity Provision to Institutions Not Supervised by the Central Bank Once financial mar-
kets are experiencing stress and disruption, the central bank might also decide to
intervene ex post by providing liquidity to financial market players (even those that
are not directly under its supervision), if not doing so would aggravate system insta-
bility. Traditionally, central banks often refrain from providing liquidity to financial
market players not under their supervision for fear of moral hazard. As financial
markets have grown in importance, however, it could be hazardous for the central
bank to ignore liquidity shortages of systemically important players just because
they are outside its direct supervision.
On this note, it is good to draw from the U.S. central bank’s experiences in alle-
viating pressure in the financial markets during the 2007–2010 crisis. Notably, the
Federal Reserve intervened in the financial markets ex post in three nontraditional
ways: (1) the provision of liquidity to institutions and firms not supervised by the
central bank, (2) the expansion of types of collateral taken in lieu of liquidity provi-
sions, and (3) the provision of nonrecourse loans of longer maturities in certain cases
normally outside traditional liquidity provision.40
250 CENTRAL BANKING
Notable among firms and institutions that the U.S. central bank provided liquid-
ity to during the crisis although they were not necessarily under its supervision were
(1) primary dealers, consisting banks that are under the Federal Reserve’s supervi-
sion as well as nonbanks that are not;41 (2) money market mutual funds, which are,
strictly speaking, outside the Federal Reserve’s supervision but which have gained in
importance as people have started to treat the money in money market accounts as a
substitute for bank deposits (details of money market mutual funds will be discussed
in Chapter 13);42 (3) commercial paper issuers, which includes many nonfinancial
corporations that issued paper in the financial markets to raise funds for their opera-
tional activities, including payroll payments; (4) investors in the asset-backed securi-
ties market, which included banks and various other types of financial institutions
that invested in asset-backed securities; and (5) foreign central banks, which might
have needed to meet a demand for U.S. dollars from domestic and foreign corpora-
tions in their own jurisdictions.43
SUMMARY
If risks to financial stability become apparent, the central bank can intervene to sus-
tain financial stability both ex ante and ex post. Ex ante means that the central bank
intervenes to preempt a crisis from occurring. Ex post means that the central bank
intervenes to restore stability after a crisis has occurred.
To deal with threats to financial stability in the macroeconomy, the central bank
might tighten monetary policy and use macroprudential tools to tame overindebted-
ness among economic sectors ex ante. The central bank might also loosen monetary
policy and macroprudential tools to less the effects of the crisis on economic agents
in the macroeconomy ex post.
To deal with threats to financial stability in the financial institutions system,
the central bank could rely on capital and liquidity-related measures. Time-varying
capital requirements, dynamic loan loss provisioning, Basel II and III, are measures
to help strengthen banks’ capital, while limits on net open positions, limits on mis-
matches of currencies and maturities, as well as liquidity coverage ratio, and net
stable funding ratio are examples of liquidity-related measures. Ex post, the central
bank might provide liquidity to financial institutions through the discount window,
as well as to resort to special resolutions for troubled banks. In addition, regulatory
authorities might also require largest banks to submit their living wills.
Although the central bank is often not the lead regulator in financial markets,
it could deal with threats to financial stability in financial markets ex ante through
the use of monetary policy and regulations on banks under its supervision. Ex post,
the central bank might restore stability in the financial markets through the use of
monetary policy as well as liquidity provision to institutions not supervised by the
central bank.
KEY TERMS
Basel I currency mismatch
Basel II dynamic loan loss provisioning
Basel III liquidity coverage ratio
commercial paper issuer macroprudential measure
Financial Stability: Intervention Tools 251
QUESTIONS
1. Given experiences from the 2007–2010 crisis, why might a central bank use
monetary policy to lean on asset price bubbles in addition to cleaning up after
the bubbles have burst?
2. How can monetary policy be used to lean on asset price bubbles?
3. Why might the central bank hesitate to use monetary policy to lean on asset
price bubbles?
4. How can monetary policy be used to clean up after asset price bubbles have
burst?
5. Give four examples of macroprudential tools.
6. What are the key differences between dynamic loan loss provisioning and time-
varying capital requirements?
7. How can macroprudential measures be used to help sustain financial stability ex
post (i.e., after a crisis has occurred)? Should we expect these measures to help
reverse the crisis or just alleviate the effect of the crisis?
8. Give examples of how capital-related macroprudential tools could be used to
safeguard financial institutions against systemic risks.
9. Give examples of how liquidity-related macroprudential tools could be used to
safeguard financial institutions against systemic risks.
10. When the value of loans are written down, which component on a commercial
bank’s balance sheet would first be used to absorb losses?
11. What is a capital ratio?
12. What does Basel I say regarding the capital ratio of commercial banks?
13. What are the three pillars of Basel II and Basel III?
14. What are the key improvements of Basel II over Basel I?
15. What are the key improvements of Basel III over Basel II?
16. Give examples of special resolutions for troubled financial institutions.
17. Why might the central bank be hesitant to use monetary policy to address risk
buildups in financial markets?
18. Why is a level playing field necessary in financial markets?
19. Why might the central bank be hesitant to provide liquidity to firms that are not
under its supervision?
20. In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, what kind of extra
measures did the Federal Reserve embark on with respect to liquidity provision
in financial markets?
21. Give four examples of entities that were not under the Federal Reserve’s
supervision, but which were given access to liquidity by the Federal Reserve.
22. How could a macro stress test be used as a tool to help restore financial stability
ex post?
23. Why might we consider quantitative easing as a tool to help restore financial
stability?
PART
Four
Sustaining Monetary
and Financial Stability
for the Next Era
P art IV looks at the future challenges of central banking and how central banks
might prepare themselves to meet those challenges.
Chapter 13 reviews three major forces that will likely shape the economic and
financial landscape that central banks will be operating in, in the near future: the
intensification of the globalization process, the continued evolution of financial
activities, and unfinished business from the global financial crisis.
Chapter 14 discusses how central banks might prepare themselves to meet future
challenges and deliver value to society using a public policy analysis framework
that involves improving the analytical capacity, operational capacity, and political
capacity of central banks.
253
CHAPTER 13
Future Challenges for Central Banking
Learning Objectives
1. Explain how the intensification of globalization might pose chal-
lenges to central banking in the future.
2. Explain how the recent evolution in financial activities might pose
challenges to central banking in the future.
3. Describe key features of financial reforms instituted after the
2007–2010 global financial crisis.
P art I of this book discusses how central banking has evolved over the centuries
to meet the challenges that have arisen with changes in political, economic, and
financial circumstances. Parts II and III of this book discusses how the practice of
modern central banking is shaped by theoretical developments and practical expe-
rience. Specifically, Part II focuses on the central banks’ use of monetary policy to
achieve their monetary stability mandate. Part III, meanwhile, focuses on the central
banks’ use of macroprudential tools in addition to monetary policy to help attain
their financial stability mandate, given the lessons learned from the 2007–2010
financial crisis.
In this chapter we look into the future and discuss three major forces that are
likely to continue to shape the economic and financial landscape that central banks
operate in. These three forces are (1) the intensification of globalization, (2) the
evolution in financial activities, and (3) unfinished business from the 2007–2010
financial crisis. (See Figures 13.1 and 13.2.)
255
256 CENTRAL BANKING
Intensification of globalization
Central
bank
Evolution Unfinished
in financial business from the
activities global financial crisis
Central
bank
belief in market mechanisms. Despite various hiccups in the form of financial crises,
including the global financial crisis of 2007–2010, it is likely that the intensifica-
tion of globalization will continue. Through globalization, countries have become
so dependent on each other through international trade and investment that any
attempt to disentangle such interdependence would be too disruptive and costly.
The intensification of globalization will affect central banking through at
least three key dimensions: (1) freer flows of international capital, (2) freer cross-
border flows of goods and services and factor inputs, and (3) the rise of international
intermediaries. One important implication from the intensification of globalization
through these three dimensions is that external factors will have an increasing influ-
ence on domestic monetary and financial stability.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 257
The challenges of freer flows of international capital for central banks have been felt at least since the
gold standard era, when outflows of gold could threaten the value of the currency. Speculative attacks
on European currencies in the 1960s and 1970s, financial crises in Latin America in the 1980s and
1990s, and the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s were all also partly by-products of freer flows of
international capital.
Whereas the speculative attacks and financial crises of earlier eras had been largely confined
to particular countries or regions, as the globalization process has intensified, the effects of volatile
international capital flows now tend to be more global in nature. This was witnessed in the effects of
quantitative easing (used to fight the 2007–2010 crisis) in advanced economies, which led to large
capital outflows from advanced economies into emerging economies across the globe.2
Despite heavy intervention in the foreign exchange market by emerging-market central banks, the
large inflows of international capital led to a sharp appreciation in exchange rates, a pickup in domestic
economic activity and domestic inflation, as well as a pickup in asset prices in emerging-market econo-
mies across different regions from 2009 until early 2013.
Subsequently, in mid-2013, as the Federal Reserve announced the possibility of a tapering of the
quantitative easing program, the sharp outflows of international capital were felt across emerging-
market economies. The exchange rates of many emerging-market economies fell along with prices of
stocks, bonds, and in many cases, real estate.3
Going forward, in a world of freer capital flows, it will be a challenge for central banks of small,
open economies to temper the volatility of asset prices that the sharp reversal of international capital
flows brings about.
This is especially noticeable in the case of energy imports, which for many countries are
essential factor inputs to economic activity. For countries that rely heavily on energy
imports, fluctuations in oil prices can affect not only domestic energy prices, but also
the general price level, through cost-push inflation as well as the expectations effect.
Outsourcing of production to foreign countries with cheaper production costs, on the
other hand, could also help hold down inflationary pressures in the domestic economy.
On the export side, changes in global demand also have the potential to affect
both domestic economic activity and domestic inflation. A boom in global demand
for natural resources, for example, will likely lead to a boom in domestic economic
activity of a resource-producing country, as well as an uptick in inflationary pressure.
On the other hand, as countries are integrated more and more into a global sup-
ply chain, a glitch in that chain has the potential to affect economic activity in other
countries. For example, the major flood that disrupted car part and hard-disk drive
manufacturers in Thailand in 2011 did disrupt car and computer production, as well
as related activities, in other countries in these global supply chains.
In the past decade, through the intensification of globalization, many events seem to have had a great
impact on economic activity and inflation beyond their borders. In the early part of the first decade
of the twenty-first century, the burst of the dot-com bubble and terrorist attacks in the United States
helped slow down global demand and global economic activity for some time. Meanwhile, the acces-
sion of China into the WTO in 2001 and the entry of many low-cost emerging Asian economies into the
global trading system might have also contributed to a slowdown in global inflation through the floods
of their exports.5 In response to low inflation, many central banks, including the Federal Reserve, cut
their interest rates during this period.
In the middle of that same decade, as China and other emerging economies grew rapidly, they
started to demand more natural resources. Speculation that the demand for energy from China and
other emerging economies would keep going up helped push the price of crude oil from around USD
30 per barrel in 2000 to a peak of more than USD 140 in July 2008. The fear of a disinflation period that
had existed earlier in the decade started to dissipate.
To counter this pickup in inflation, by 2007 many central banks, including the Federal Reserve,
had started to raise their interest rates, only to find that as Lehman Brothers collapsed the following
year, they had to cut interest rates to near 0 percent to counter deflation.
While oil prices fluctuated wildly between USD 35 and USD 82 per barrel in 2009, by 2011 they
had again risen above USD 100 per barrel on concerns over the political uprising in Egypt. Although this
later spike in oil prices did not raise many inflation concerns in the advanced economies that were still
reeling from the financial crisis, it did raise concerns in many emerging economies, which were boom-
ing from capital inflows. In 2011, many emerging-market economy central banks in Asia started to
raise their interest rates to preempt inflationary pressures that were building from oil prices as well as
capital flows.
Going forward, it is easy to see that as countries integrate more and more into the global econ-
omy, their central banks will have to contend more and more with the ability of external factors to affect
domestic activities and domestic inflation.
increasing importance of international banks and the implications for global financial
stability has been recognized partly by the Basel Committee’s guidelines for the super-
vision of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), as discussed in Chapter 11.
During the most critical phase of the financial crisis of 2007–2010, it became
recognized that the existence of international banks could have profound implica-
tions for financial stability, not only in the home countries where these banks based
their headquarters and the host countries where these banks operate their branches
and subsidiaries, but also in other countries through the interlinkages of financial
transactions and contagion effects.
Going forward, the rise of G-SIBs and other international intermediaries will
likely add more complexity to supervisory work for central banks. International
cooperation among central banks, whether bilaterally or through multilateral chan-
nels such as the Basel Committee or the Financial Stability Board, will also be very
important.
Along with the increasing degree of globalization, the continued evolution of finan-
cial services will likely also shape the future of central banking, since they both will
change the landscape in which central banks operate. Two key features of the con-
tinued evolution in financial activities include (1) the rise of market-based financial
activities and (2) the rise of electronic payments.
Central
bank
funds in the economy, and (2) the embracing of market-based financial activities by
banks in their operations.
The Rise of Nonbank Financial Market Entities Nonbank financial market entities are
those entities that are involved in investment, risk pooling, or contractual saving
of funds, yet are not operating under a banking license.7 Prominent among such
entities is a category called institutional investors, which includes mutual funds, pen-
sion funds, insurance companies, and hedge funds.* Broadly speaking, institutional
investors are collective investment vehicles that pool large sums of money and invest
those sums in securities and other investment assets including real estate.
Institutional investors specialize in investing on behalf of others. An individual
who buys a share in a mutual fund, for example, is effectively putting money in the
pool of money managed by the mutual fund, and is entitled to a proportion of the
assets held by the mutual fund as well as a proportion of the income or profits that
those assets generate. By pooling large sums of money, institutional investors can
spread their investments across many securities or assets, and thereby diversify away
some of the risks that are associated with investment in only a single security or asset.
Money Market Mutual Funds The rise of institutional investors potentially poses
challenges to central banks in terms of financial stability. By pooling money from
retail investors and investing the pooled money on the retail investors’ behalf, insti-
tutional investors perform functions quite similar to banks, yet they are not super-
vised or regulated by central banks. The problem became apparent with the run
on money market mutual funds in the United States in the wake of the collapse of
Lehman Brothers (see Case Study: Money Market Mutual Funds for details).
Prior to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, money market mutual funds that invested money in short-
term debt securities (such as U.S. Treasury bills and commercial paper) were considered and accord-
ingly treated as near substitutes for bank deposit accounts by individuals in the United States. By
maintaining a stable net value of 1 U.S. dollar per share, and paying out steady dividends, money
market mutual funds allowed individuals to preserve their capital and earn yields that were slightly
higher than traditional bank deposits.
With large amounts of money being placed in money market mutual funds, the money market
mutual funds themselves became increasingly important as lenders of short-term liquidity to compa-
nies in the wholesale money market in the years leading up to the crisis. Companies and investment
banks (such as Lehman Brothers) borrowed short-term money in the wholesale money market by
issuing commercial paper that money market mutual funds would buy and hold.
When Lehman Brothers collapsed, however, the commercial paper issued by Lehman Brothers
became worthless and money market mutual funds that held Lehman Brothers’ commercial paper had
to absorb the loss and write down their assets. In the process of writing down the loss from Lehman
Brothers’ commercial paper, Reserve Primary Fund, which had been founded in the 1970s and was
the oldest money market fund, found that its shares fell below 1 dollar, to 97 cents per share.8 The fact
*Some smaller operators such as pawnshops are also considered nonbank financial market
entities, but they operate at a much smaller scale and their systemic impact is rather limited.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 261
that Reserve Primary Fund fell below 1 dollar per share caused panic among investors, since they had
deemed the investment in these funds to be almost as safe as bank deposits, and thought that they
would never lose their capital.
The run on Reserve Primary Fund and other money market mutual funds threatened not only
investors in the funds, but also companies and banks that relied on the funds as a key source of short-
term funding. In response to the run, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced an optional pro-
gram (akin to a deposit insurance program) to guarantee that if a covered fund’s share price fell below
1 dollar, it would be restored back to 1 dollar.
Hedge Funds Aside from the possibility of runs on mutual funds, the proliferation
of hedge funds also poses another challenge for central banks in terms of financial
stability. Hedge funds (unlike mutual funds, which aim to pool money from retail
investors and invest using relatively conservative styles) aim to pool money from
sophisticated or accredited investors and invest using relatively faster and riskier
styles, including short selling* and leveraging,† in order to achieve higher returns.
Since hedge funds need to be quick in exploiting good investment opportunities,
sometimes they can rush into similar kind of trades at the same time, which can tip
a market’s balance and financial stability. Examples include speculative attacks on
the British pound in 1992 and the Thai baht in 1997; in these instances, short selling
of the currency by a hoard of large hedge funds inflicted large losses on the central
banks of these countries and forced them out of their de facto fixed exchange rate
regimes.
Not all hedge fund operations are successful, however, and a failure of a highly
leveraged hedge fund could lead to systemic risk. The collapse in 1998 of Long Term
Capital Management (LTCM), a highly leveraged hedge fund, threatened to affect
many global banks and global financial markets, such that the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York had to step in and orchestrate a rescue despite the fact that it did not
regulate LTCM.
Insurance Companies In the wake of the 2007–2010 crisis, the U.S. central bank also
had to rescue AIG, a large insurance company that it did not regulate. Traditionally,
insurance companies diversify their investments in relatively safe assets (e.g., stocks
and bonds) to match their liabilities (i.e., insurance payouts). By the middle of the
first decade of the twenty-first century, however, AIG had branched out into insuring
the credit risk of companies and financial securities via the selling of credit default
swaps to a large number of counterparties, including large banks.
In a credit default swap, an entity insures its holding of, say, Company X’s
bonds by regularly paying the insurer a premium. If Company X’s bonds get down-
graded, then the insurer has to post cash collateral to the entity. If Company X
then defaults on its bonds, the insurer pays the entity to cover the loss on the
*Short selling involves selling borrowed securities in the hope that the prices of the securities
will fall so that they can be bought back more cheaply. If the prices do fall, sellers make a
profit on the difference between the price they sold them at and the price they bought them
back at, before returning the securities to the rightful owner.
†
Leveraging involves borrowing funds beyond one’s own capital to invest. It can also be done
through the short selling of securities to raise funds to invest in other securities.
262 CENTRAL BANKING
entity’s bond holdings. Using this logic, AIG also expanded to provide insurance
on complex financial securities, including mortgage-backed securities and subprime
mortgages.9
As the subprime crisis raged on, banks, firms, and mortgage-backed securities
were downgraded. AIG started to take on heavy losses from its credit default swap
deals. When Lehman Brother filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, AIG itself was
downgraded, and was on the verge of collapsing as demands for large amounts of
cash collateral came in from their counterparties.10
Finally the Federal Reserve had to step in and rescue AIG, since if AIG were
also to go bankrupt, its counterparties (including many large banks) would have
faced large losses that could have brought the whole system down. The fact that the
Federal Reserve had to step in to orchestrate the rescue of a hedge fund like LTCM,
and had to actually bail out AIG, an insurance company, reflects how market-based
activities and nonbank financial institutions have become so important that they can
pose systemic risk.
The Embracing of Market-Based Activities by Banks In the past three decades, not only have
market-based activities become plausible alternatives for bank-based activities, but
nonbank financial institutions have become very important as well. In many coun-
tries banks themselves have embraced market-based activities in their own opera-
tions. Among the important market-based activities that banks have embraced are
securitization and proprietary trading and in many cases banks have set up market-
based subsidiaries to handle these activities.
(Continued)
264 CENTRAL BANKING
(Continued)
At first glance, the line between market-making and proprietary trading
activities might look very thin. In a market-making activity, a bank might need
to commit its capital to buy securities from customers, similarly to proprietary
trading. In practice, however, given the opportunity costs involved in ware-
housing the securities, it could be argued that in a market-making activity, a
bank would want to keep as little inventory on hand as possible for the short-
est period of time possible. In a proprietary trading activity, however, a bank
would want keep a large position of securities for quite a longer period of time,
in order to generate the biggest possible profits.13
Despite quibbles on the definitions of market-making and proprietary
trading, many large banks officially started to dismantle their proprietary trad-
ing units in the early 2010s, partly in anticipation of the Volcker rule.14
explicit ban on banks, or institutions that own a bank, from owning or investing in
a hedge fund or private equity fund.16
The Rise of E-Payments Has Much Potential, but the Complete Picture Is Unclear At the
moment, we are still in the initial stages of the ICT revolution, and it is still not
clear where the revolution will ultimately take us. What can be safely deduced from
recent ICT developments, however, is that electronic payments of various forms will
proliferate.
Competition with Paper Money: Debit Cards, Credit Cards, Online E-Payments,
Mobile Payments, E-Money At the most basic level, the increase in electronic pay-
ments in retail transactions will compete with the use of paper money. The use of
debit cards, credit cards, online e-payments, mobile payments, and e-money will
potentially compete with the use of cash and checks. While this might potentially
reduce demands on central banks’ resources for money printing and handling, it also
implies that central banks will need to put more resources into understanding the
unintended consequences from the increase in these electronic forms of payment.
Increasing Financial Access for the Poor: Mobile Payments The rise of electronic
payments in the form of mobile payments has shown great benefits in increasing
financial access in remote places where there is little access to physical banks, but
where there is mobile phone coverage (e.g., in rural villages of developing countries).18
Some forms of mobile payment transactions can be made through mobile phone
services and charged through phone bills. This gives rise to the issue of appropriate
regulation to ensure consumer protection, that will not be stifling to innovation.
Online Payments
One area in which the use of credit cards and debit cards has become domi-
nant is online payments. Online payments, where the holder uses his credit or
debit card to pay for online transactions, has grown steadily over the years. In
the immediate future, new innovations such as Square, a device attached to a
mobile phone that allows small businesses and individuals to take credit card
payments, will likely also encourage more use of credit cards in lieu of cash.
*Theoretically, the buyer of e-money could buy a certain amount of e-money from a private
issuer by depositing an equivalent amount of, say, paper money with the issuer. The buyer of
e-money could then use the e-money to buy goods and services from merchants that accept it.
If the number of these merchants is large enough, the issuer of e-money is effectively issuing
money that potentially could be used across the economy, just like paper money issued by the
central bank.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 267
Mobile Payments
Mobile payments refer to regulated payment services that allow payment for
goods and services to be made from or via a mobile phone, in lieu of cash,
credit cards, or debit cards. Mobile payments can take many forms. In certain
forms, the user needs to be preregistered with payment service operators such
as PayPal or a credit card company. In other forms, users of mobile payment
can be charged through their mobile phone accounts, bypassing banks and
credit card companies altogether. Mobile payments not only allow convenient
transactions in the advanced economies, but also are widely used in developing
countries where access to physical banks might be limited.
E-Money
E-money involves an electronic store of monetary value on a device that could
be used to trade for goods and services, possibly also bypassing the use of bank
accounts (and thus is different from a debit card).
An example of e-money is a multipurpose card, on which monetary value
is electronically stored, and which can be used to pay for small daily items as
well as public transportation services (these cards are used in countries such
as Belgium, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Singapore, although the rate of
success and the extent of use vary among countries).
Although half a decade has passed since the bleakest periods of the 2007–2010
global financial crisis, the aftereffects are still being felt. Among the aftereffects of the
financial crisis that are still being played out and are likely to help shape the financial
landscape that central banks will operate in include (1) the heavy fiscal debt bur-
den in advanced economies, (2) the normalization of monetary policy in advanced
economies, and (3) the push for regulatory reforms.
Central
bank
Normalization
of monetary Push for
policy in crisis- regulatory
hit countries reforms
Congress’s failure to enact legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014, finan-
cial market players as well as President Obama saw the shutdown as being linked
to the debate on the raising of the U.S. government debt ceiling later that month.20
Even before the financial crisis of 2007–2010, it had already been well recognized that for many
advanced economies, unfunded liabilities of the government, such as healthcare and pensions liabili-
ties, could likely pose heavy costs on these economies in the medium term. On top of these unfunded
liabilities, however, the financial crisis of 2007–2010 brought about large jumps in fiscal burden that
pushed the public debt-to-GDP ratio of the major advanced economies (G7 countries*) from 83.2
percent of GDP to 124.8 percent of GDP in 2012.21
To deal with the financial crisis, the governments of the advanced economies had to step in
not only to provide financial assistance to rescue the financial system, but also to provide large fis-
cal stimuli to prevent their economies from falling into deflationary traps. The interventions by these
governments were funded largely by issuance of government securities, which resulted in a fast rise in
public debt for these advanced economies.
In the United States, the ballooning government debt helped prompt a downgrade of U.S. govern-
ment securities, the safest financial asset in the world, from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor’s, one
of the three key rating agencies, in 2011.22 In the euro area, a combination of the banking crisis and a
sharp economic contraction resulted in many governments being unable to refinance their own public
debt, which threatened a breakup of the euro area in 2010–2012. In Japan, the legacy from its own
financial crisis in the early 1990s still lingered. With the economy battling deflation for more than 20
years, despite massive injections of fiscal stimulus, Japanese government debt reached 237.9 percent
of GDP in 2012.23
Unless the situation is corrected in a timely manner, the vast amounts of pub-
lic debt in advanced economies are likely to continue to pose challenges for cen-
tral banks globally. Any marked deterioration in fiscal prospects of the advanced
*The Group of Seven (G7) countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and the United States.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 269
economies would mean that seemingly risk-free assets will no longer be perceived
as risk-free. This would cause not only turmoil in the global financial markets, but
also hurt the ability of many emerging-market central banks to intervene and pro-
tect their domestic financial markets. This is because many emerging-market central
banks hold a large part of their international reserves in the form of government
securities issued by the advanced economies.
The Reduction of Systemic Risk The effort to reduce systemic risk, at least at the inter-
national level, can partly be seen through the following initiatives.
The Volcker rule against proprietary trading by banks that was discussed earlier
in the chapter was another effort that aimed to reduce systemic risk. Since the United
States is the leading financial center, where many international banks operate, the
adoption of the Volcker rule is likely to have an impact far beyond U.S. borders.
*The Financial Stability Board was established in 2009 at the G20 London Summit, to act
as an international body that monitors and makes recommendations on financial regulations
and supervision. It is hosted by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.
†
It must be noted, however, that the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee are not
direct regulatory bodies, and while their recommendations might be helpful, it still depends on
regulatory agencies at the national level to adopt their recommendations.
‡
Over-the-counter refers to an arrangement in which two parties (e.g., two banks, or a bank
and a nonbank counterparty) agree to execute a derivative contract (such as a credit default
swap) privately between themselves, rather than through an organized exchange.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 271
Prior to the crisis, many derivative deals were done privately between financial institutions or players
and dealers in the financial markets. No one kept track of the total number of deals in the market, or
how the different financial institutions might be exposed to risk through their counterparties. When a
counterparty failed, there would panic as to who was exposed and the degree of exposure.
Furthermore, while in normal times OTC derivative trades might function properly, with sufficient
liquidity to establish (or discover) the prices of derivatives, during a financial crisis that might not be
the case.29 Lack of transparency could reduce liquidity and make the valuation of one’s own portfolio
holdings very difficult, which could lead to panic selling with no buyers.
In an OTC market during normal times, there would be dealers willing to make markets by main-
taining inventories of derivatives and selling them to those who wanted them, or buying derivatives
from those who wanted to sell them. During a financial crisis, however, OTC dealers might be less
willing to take the risk of maintaining inventories of derivatives that could fluctuate wildly in value and
actually stop making markets for derivatives altogether. With no dealers willing to step in to buy and
sell derivatives, market players cannot easily sell securities. Furthermore, one would find it difficult to
determine what market prices are, or what market value should be assigned to derivative holdings.
The OTC arrangement is different from the arrangement in an organized exchange, where financial
market players make bids and offers through a central platform, not through separate dealers. In an
organized exchange, players can post bids and offers for assets to the platform, so that everyone else
can see the prices and trade with them if they find the prices of those bids and offers to be attractive
enough. During a financial crisis, if market players really want to unload their holdings, they can post a
low offer price for their holdings to the exchange. If another party feels that the price offered is attrac-
tive enough, that party can buy it.
Better transparency of prices in an organized exchange helps make the market more resilient
during times of crisis. Also, with the central clearing system that comes with an organized exchange,
it is easier to keep track of trading activities. Through the use of margin requirements, a standard for
organized exchanges, counterparty risk is reduced, as the parties to a derivative contract will either be
constantly paying in or receiving payments to keep the value of the contract whole, or the contract will
be canceled before any one party is overly exposed to loss from the failure of its counterparty.
While leaders of the G20 (the Group of Twenty finance ministers and central bank governors)
agreed in London in 2009 about the importance of putting derivatives onto organized exchanges, the
task will likely take some time.30 Given the interconnectedness of financial markets across the globe,
moving derivatives onto an organized exchange in one country will only yield a good result if the same
is done in other countries. Otherwise the playing field will not be level, especially since some financial
market players will want to avoid the transparency that comes with organized exchanges.
As a follow-up to the G20 London meeting, currently regulators from various countries are work-
ing together to set international guidelines for rules on putting derivatives onto organized exchanges.
Rules will eventually address which products to put onto exchanges, timing for adoption, and compli-
ance and regulatory measures.31
A Change in the Regulatory Structure In addition to the efforts to reduce systemic risk
and increase transparency, the push for regulatory reforms has also focused on
needed changes in regulatory structures. The rise of shadow banking—that is,
intermediation and financial activities done by nonbank financial intermediaries or
market players—has meant that many market-based financial activities are being
done by different types of financial institutions, which themselves are supervised
by different regulatory agencies. Such complexities make it harder to pinpoint
responsibility and coordinate efforts to prevent a financial crisis or to rescue the
financial system.
272 CENTRAL BANKING
In the United States, a key example of changes in regulatory structure was the
creation of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which has regulatory
authority to identify risks that might be a threat to financial stability across the
entire financial system. FSOC was proposed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is chaired by the secretary of the Treasury,
and is composed of the heads of various U.S. financial regulatory agencies, such as
the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.
In the United Kingdom, it became apparent during the time of the global finan-
cial crisis that there had been difficulties in the coordination among the three key
agencies responsible for sustaining financial stability, that is, the Treasury, the Bank
of England, and the Financial Services Authority. The newly elected Conservative
Party thus decided to dissolve the Financial Services Authority, which previously had
been a super regulator overseeing various types of financial institutions, and create
two new regulators in its place: (1) the Financial Conduct Authority, with the focus
on consumer protection and ensuring healthy competition among financial institu-
tions, and (2) the Prudential Regulation Authority, with the task of regulating vari-
ous types of financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, insurers, and major
investment firms. The Prudential Regulation Authority is now part of the Bank of
England, while the Financial Conduct Authority is an independent agency.
In Europe, partly as a response to the European sovereign debt crisis, the
European Commission in 2012 proposed the Single Supervisory Mechanism, under
which the ECB would assume responsibility for the supervision of the largest banks
in the euro area and coordinate with euro area national central banks in the super-
vision of smaller banks.32 The proposal was a step toward a banking union within
the euro area, which the European Commission believed would help make it easier
should a decision be made to use European resources to recapitalize banks.33 The
ECB was to start assuming regulatory authority in 2014 and was to be accountable
to the European Parliament for supervisory decisions.34
It’s important to note that while a change in the financial regulatory structure
might help address problems that had already become apparent, by definition it may
lead to new, unanticipated problems. Financial players often move their activities
to where there is less regulation. Any change in regulatory structure creates new
avenues that are less regulated, and risk can build up in areas with less regulatory
oversight, or where new loopholes are created.
From the discussion above, we can see that the global financial and economic land-
scape that central banks will be facing will continue to evolve. The three major forces
that we discussed in this chapter can interact in numerous ways, and we can never
know the exact ways in which the global financial and economic landscape might
evolve.
Consequently, given that in the future central banks’ main mandates will still
be monetary and financial stability (notwithstanding the attention given to the full
employment mandate in the United States), there are three implications from our
analysis that central banks might focus on.
Future Challenges for Central Banking 273
SUMMARY
Looking forward, three major forces are likely to interact and shape the economic
and financial landscape that central banks will be operating in. The intensification
of the globalization process, the evolution in financial activities, and the unfinished
business from the 2007–2010 crisis are likely to raise the complexity of the land-
scape and pose challenges for central banks in their pursuit of monetary and finan-
cial stability.
KEY TERMS
credit card international intermediary
credit default swap leveraging
cross-border flows of goods and services market-making
debit card mobile payment
the Dodd-Frank Act money market mutual fund
domestic systemically important bank online payment
(D-SIB) organized exchanges
e-money over-the-counter derivatives
Financial Conduct Authority proprietary trading
Financial Stability Oversight Council Prudential Regulation Authority
global systemically important bank securitization
(G-SIB)
shadow banking
globalization
short selling
hedge fund
single supervisory mechanism
home countries
the Volcker rule
host countries
international capital
274 CENTRAL BANKING
QUESTIONS
1. How might globalization affect the future of central banking through freer flows
of international capital?
2. How might globalization affect the future of central banking through freer
cross-border flows of goods and services and factor inputs?
3. How might globalization affect the future of central banking through the rise of
international intermediaries?
4. How might the rise of money market mutual funds affect financial stability?
5. How might the rise of hedge funds affect financial stability?
6. Why should a central bank worry if banks have nonbank financial intermediaries,
such as mutual funds, as their subsidiaries?
7. In the promotion of the use of credit cards as a means of payment, what
implications on financial stability might we want to look out for?
8. What is e-money in terms of multipurpose card?
9. Why might the heavy fiscal debt burdens in advanced economies be detrimental
to stability of the financial markets in general, and emerging-market central
banks in particular?
10. How have quantitative easing measures in advanced economies affected
emerging-market central banks in the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial
crisis?
11. What are examples of regulatory reforms that would help reduce systemic risk
in the global financial system in the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial
crisis?
12. What are the similarities and differences between proprietary trading and
market-making activities?
13. What are the goals of the Volcker rule?
14. What are examples of regulatory reforms that would help increase transparency
in the global financial system in the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial
crisis? How are these reforms supposed to work?
15. What are examples of changes in the financial regulatory structure in the United
States in the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial crisis?
16. What are examples of changes in the financial regulatory structure in the United
Kingdom in the wake of the 2007–2010 global financial crisis?
17. What are examples of changes in the financial regulatory structure in the euro
area in response to the European sovereign debt crisis?
CHAPTER 14
Future Central Banking
Strategy and Its Execution
Learning Objectives
. Describe the concept of central banking strategy.
1
2. Identify what might have proven to be bad central banking
strategies.
3. Identify how central banking strategies might have changed in the
wake of the 2007–2010 global financial crisis.
4. Explain how a central bank might better meet future challenges
by improving its analytical capacity.
5. Explain how a central bank might better meet future challenges
by improving its organizational capacity.
6. Explain how a central bank might better meet future challenges
by improving its political capacity.
I n Chapter 13, we discussed three major forces that might shape the future economic
and financial landscape that central banks operate in. Since these forces could inter-
act in ways that are unpredictable, if central banks are to succeed in the ever-changing
landscape, they will have to be flexible, nimble, and adapt their operations to a fluid
environment. In Chapter 14 we propose using a framework based on public policy
literature, which central banks could adopt to enhance their capacity to effectively
navigate changes in the environment and successfully deliver value to society.
To successfully deal with the future challenges described in Chapter 13, central
banks will need to carefully consider their strategies in pursuing their mandates. As a
public sector entity, however, a central bank will consider strategy differently than a pri-
vate sector entity. Unlike a private sector entity (say, a commercial bank), a central bank
does not have a competitor or profit motive to consider, as would have been assumed
for the kind of business strategy analysis pioneered by Michael Porter in 1980.1
275
276 CENTRAL BANKING
In this section we will look the concept of strategy at both a basic and an
advanced level, and examine various strategies that have been proposed or adopted
by central banks.
The recent global financial crisis of 2007–2010, like many crises before it, has
prompted a reexamination of central banking strategy by central bankers, policy
makers, and academic economists. Work by Borio in 2011, Posner in 2009, and
Taylor in 2009, among others, suggest that central banks need to be aware that mon-
etary stability and financial stability are intertwined in the long run.4 If anything, low
interest rates prior to the 2007–2010 crisis might have contributed to its emergence.5
As the depth of the 2007–2010 crisis has shown, financial instability can lead to the
threat of debt deflation, which in turn will come back to haunt monetary stability.
Supervisory Strategy
On the supervision front, the use of macroprudential measures in addition to tradi-
tional microprudential supervision is now being emphasized, as reflected partly by
the introduction of Basel III. Since the 2007–2010 global financial crisis, there has
been great interest in creating and refining macroprudential tools that would deal
with risk buildups over time (e.g., time-varying capital requirements and dynamic
loan loss provisioning), as well as across institutions (e.g., macro stress testing, the
global liquidity standard, and additional loss absorbency capacity for systemically
important institutions). The use of macroprudential measures should also help allevi-
ate the burden placed on monetary policy with regard to sustaining financial stability.
Closer coordination among supervisors seems to be another popular strategy
adopted after the 2007–2010 crisis, as it has become clear that the line between dif-
ferent types of financial institutions (e.g., banks, asset management firms, and insur-
ance companies) has become rather blurred. The creation of the Financial Stability
Oversight Council in the United States, the absorption of the Prudential Regulation
278 CENTRAL BANKING
Authority into the Bank of England in the United Kingdom, and the introduction
of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) in the euro area seems to point in that
direction (although in the case of SSM, the main key driver was the blurring national
boundary lines among euro area members).
In addition to the above strategies, the recent crisis has also led to a fresh
reexamination of the role of central banking in the future. One of the more radical
ideas came from Goodhart’s 2010 paper that examined historical roles of central
banks. In it he asked whether it might be better to spin off the interest rate setting
function from central banks and put it into a separate, independent entity, while
(since the essence of central banking is liquidity provision) central banks retain the
liquidity management function and adopt the financial stability role.6 (See Case
Study: A Radical Rethinking of the Future Role of Central Banking.)
A 2010 paper by economist Charles Goodhart argued that the essence of central banking is its power to
create liquidity by manipulating its own balance sheet, and thus the key role of central banking should
be liquidity management for the financial system (e.g., through open market operations), not the actual
setting of interest rates, which could be done by some other entity.7 In the paper, Goodhart quotes a
former governor of the Bank of England who is reputed to have once said that a central bank is a bank,
not a “study group.”8
Following this line of argument, Goodhart suggested that the interest setting role (i.e., the conduct
of monetary policy) could be spun off from central banks, possibly to a politically independent study
group. Central banks, meanwhile, would concentrate on liquidity management and other tasks that
might be related to a central bank’s balance sheet (e.g., the lender-of-last-resort role and the implemen-
tation of quantitative easing when interest rates hit the zero lower bound). In normal times, a central
bank would do open market operations (OMOs) to ensure that short-term interest rates would remain
close to the interest rates set by the so-called study group.9
Although Goodhart argued in favor of spinning off the interest rate setting function (since liquidity
management and crisis resolution and prevention might need to be closely coordinated with the gov-
ernment while the interest rate setting function requires political independence), he also acknowledged
that in practice, setting interest rates and OMOs are two closely connected facets of monetary policy. If
the interest rate setting body is outside the central bank, then which entity would decide on the size of
quantitative easing measures? Or, if interest rates have risen beyond the zero lower bound, which entity
would set the width of the interest rate corridor, or the terms on the discount window, for example?10
Whatever strategy a central bank ultimately chooses to adopt, the success of a cen-
tral bank in achieving its mandates also relies heavily on effective execution of its
adopted strategy. In this section, we will use a public policy analysis framework to
examine ways that a central bank might enhance its capacity to effectively execute
its chosen strategy.
Here is should be noted that while a central bank is a bank, in the modern con-
text it is essentially a public entity. The modern central bank’s role in society is to
deliver monetary stability and financial stability, which are essentially public goods
that cannot be efficiently provided by the private sector, since markets are not able to
correctly price public goods. As such, a public policy framework is used here for the
analysis of how to enhance a central bank’s capacity to execute its strategies.
Future Central Banking Strategy and Its Execution 279
Analytical capacity
Central bank
mandates
*In the modern context, the value that a central bank delivers to society is reflected in its
mandates, whether those mandates are monetary stability, financial stability, or, in the case of
the United States, full employment.
280 CENTRAL BANKING
Analytical Capacity
Analytical capacity in our context refers to a central bank’s capacity to effectively
analyze how changes in the economic and financial environment might affect their
mandates, and what policy options might be available to address those changes. This
capacity depends on cognitive ability, expertise, and the experience of central bank
staff, as well as the availability of data to be used in the analysis.
Academic and Professional Training, Hands-On Experience, Job Rotation, Data Collection and
Dissemination For central bankers, such an enhancement in analytical capacity
might be gained from academic training and professional training and augmented by
hands-on experience and job rotations. Such training and rotation might take place
within the central bank or with outside agencies, domestic as well as international.
In addition, to effectively raise analytical capacity, the availability and capability
of a central bank’s IT system for data collection and dissemination, and the ability of
central bankers to utilize such a system, will also be vital.
This need for analytical capacity in the key areas of macroeconomics, finance,
and risk management is reflected in the recent selections of the heads of the Bank of
England, the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and the Bank of Japan in the period imme-
diately after the 2007–2010 crisis. Each of the heads of these major central banks
have advanced degrees in economics, as well as extensive experience in dealing with
international financial markets and financial institutions.*
*Mario Draghi (an Italian) became the head of the ECB in 2011; Mark Carney (a Canadian)
became the governor of the Bank of England in 2013; Haruhiko Kuroda became the governor
of the Bank of Japan in 2013; and Janet Yellen became chair of the Federal Reserve in 2014.
Future Central Banking Strategy and Its Execution 281
Organizational Capacity
Organizational capacity refers to the capacity to coordinate effectively, both inter-
nally within the organization and externally with outside stakeholders. Given that
risks to stability can manifest themselves differently in each of the three key areas—
the macroeconomy, financial markets, and financial institutions—and that such
manifestations can also interact across these three areas, a central bank will need to
organize itself to be nimble and flexible enough to deal with emerging risks. Effective
coordination will be required, not only internally but also externally (for example,
with other regulatory agencies at home and abroad). A central bank’s ability to
coordinate effectively both inside and outside the organization will be beneficial
to its decision making and policy implementation.
Internal Coordination Internal coordination includes data sharing and joint problem
solving across the organization. For example, data from banks showing a fast rise
in credit card and mortgage debt might be shared by the bank supervision unit with
the unit that is responsible for monetary policy and monetary stability, which itself
is monitoring the rise in household debt. Another example could be data sharing
between the unit that does foreign exchange market interventions, the unit that mon-
itors banks’ foreign currency exposures, and the unit that is monitoring the effects of
the exchange rate on the macroeconomy.
In cases in which internal data sharing and joint problem solving needs to be
improved, a central bank might set up an internal committee to coordinate and
facilitate these activities across units, or even to make relevant decisions. The key,
however, is to make sure that the committee is flexible and nimble enough to identify
risks as they emerge. If the context or the situation permits, such a committee might
also be given the responsibility to deal with the risks identified.
Political Capacity
Political capacity in this context means the ability of a central bank to form strategic
alliances and build coalitions and support among its key stakeholders and the pub-
lic, so that it can effectively and efficiently achieve its mandates and create value for
society.* This capacity is important since many of the policies conducted by a central
bank can create winners and losers within the society, drawing political resistance
from the losers. Yet such policies might be necessary for the greater good of the pub-
lic in the long run.
Ability to Create Consensus and Legitimacy for Policies Given the intensification of glo-
balization, the rise of financial markets, and the rise of international financial inter-
mediaries, the environment that a central bank operates in is likely to grow more
complex. In such a situation, a central bank will need to deal with the fact that
different stakeholders might have conflicting interests and conflicting perceptions of
situations. To effectively implement its policy in a complex environment, a central
bank will need to generate trust among its stakeholders so that they are confident
that the bank has the best interests of the public in mind.
To do this, a central bank will first need to identify the key stakeholders and
their interests. The bank will then need to communicate clearly to the stakeholders
what the ultimate goals of its policies are and what the short-term and long-term
effects of such policies might be.
For example, to ensure both long-term monetary stability and long-term finan-
cial stability, a central bank might find itself needing to raise interest rates to cool
down overheated economic and financial activities. The decision to raise interest
rates, however, might draw criticism and political resistance from the government,
which inherently wants more growth in the economy, as well as from businesses,
which want to keep the cost of capital low.
If a central bank does not have enough political capacity, then it might need
to spend excessive energy defending its position. Worse, without adequate political
capacity a central bank might be pressured to back away from its decision, a decision
that had been made based on improving the welfare of the public as a whole.
CASE STUDY: Political Capacity in the Context of Exchange Rate Policy in a Small,
Open Economy
A rush of capital inflows can affect different stakeholders in a small, open economy differently, which
means that different stakeholders might react to the situation in conflicting ways. In such a situation,
the central bank of that small, open economy might need to rely on its political capacity to ensure that
its policy decision is effective.
In this example, the rush of capital inflows could quickly push up the exchange rate of that small,
open economy. The fast appreciation of the exchange rate, however, could affect importers, consum-
ers, exporters, and local producers that compete with imports rather differently, or even in opposite
ways. On the one hand, importers and consumers might gain additional purchasing power from a
*The term politics can be a charged word in central bank circles. Here we employ the term
political capacity used in the 2010 book from Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, and Fritzen.
Future Central Banking Strategy and Its Execution 283
stronger exchange rate. On the other hand, exporters and local producers that compete with imports
might lose from such a situation, since their products will have a cost disadvantage.
While importers and consumers might keep relatively quiet about the gains that they have
gotten—partly because the gains are dispersed widely across many individuals and firms—exporters
and local producers that compete with imports might be more vocal about the situation—partly
because they feel that they are bearing the brunt of the burden of the fast appreciating exchange rate.
The government, meanwhile, might see the situation as an opportunity to pressure the central
bank to lower interest rates (at least through the media), using the argument that having domestic
interest rates that are higher than those in the advanced economies is actually attracting capital inflows.
Many businesses might agree with the government’s push for lower interest rates, since they might
want the cost of funds to be lower.
Against this backdrop, the central bank’s own internal analysis might suggest that interest rates
actually need to be raised to maintain monetary and financial stability in the face of such capital inflows.
Its internal analysis might suggest that capital inflows are the result of an external factor (quantitative
easing in this case), since all countries in the region have similar levels of interest rates and all are on
the receiving end of the capital inflows.
In such a complex situation, in order to carry out its policy as effectively and as efficiently as pos-
sible, a central bank will need to deal effectively with pressures coming from the different stakeholders.
A central bank will need to communicate its assessment of the situation to the different stakeholders
in the clearest manner possible to generate trust among them. Furthermore, the central bank might
need to engage with the media and the academic community to form a strategic alliance that can com-
municate the situation to the public and build public support. (This example reflects a situation faced
by the Bank of Thailand between 2010 and mid-2013.12)
Forming Strategic Alliances with Key Stakeholders and Communicating with the Public To
ensure consensus and that its policy is seen as legitimate, a central bank might need
to form strategic alliances with influential actors, including the media, academics,
think tanks, and other stakeholders who can help communicate its position to the
public. One key example of the use of political capacity is the decision of the chair-
man of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, to give an unprecedented exclusive inter-
view to 60 Minutes, a popular television investigative news program, in 2009 at the
height of the crisis.13
In the interview, Chairman Bernanke led the interviewer to the inside of the
Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC, and then into the room where the
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets to deliberate on monetary policy
decisions. He also brought him to his childhood home in South Carolina. Bernanke
was able to answer the questions about the Federal Reserve’s policies that had
been on the minds of many Americans, explaining his answers in simple terms.14
By opening up and humanizing the Federal Reserve, and clearly articulating the
Federal Reserve’s positions, Ben Bernanke was able to generate public trust that
many believed greatly helped the Federal Reserve in subsequently dealing with the
financial crisis.
The central bank has evolved greatly during its nearly 400 years of history. From its
humble origins as an institution set up to simply help sort metal coins, the central
284 CENTRAL BANKING
bank is now at the center of modern economic and financial life. While the actual
operations and structures of different central banks differ, it is widely accepted at
this time in history that central banks’ key mandates include the maintenance of
monetary stability and financial stability (and perhaps full employment, at least in
the United States).
The current state of central banking has been shaped by both theoretical devel-
opments and hard experience learned through episodes of instability and crisis. With
respect to monetary stability, it is now widely agreed that a central bank can best
use monetary policy to support long-run economic growth by ensuring that inflation
remains low and stable. With the central bank delivering low and stable inflation,
agents in the economy will be able to make their investment and consumption deci-
sions more effectively. A push by a central bank to stimulate growth in the short
run through easy monetary policy is likely to be futile and could lead to detrimental
effects, since it can feed inflation.
With respect to financial stability, the crisis in Japan in the 1990s and the 2007–
2010 global financial crisis have shown that monetary stability cannot exist without
financial stability. Financial imbalances can and do build up during periods of low
and stable inflation. Once such imbalances tip into a full-blown financial crisis, the
economy can face a deflationary spiral. Given such a threat, a central bank’s focus on
delivering low and stable inflation will not be enough. A central bank will need to be
mindful of how a monetary policy of low interest rates during a time of low inflation
might also bring about financial imbalances.
The lessons from the 2007–2010 global financial crisis, however, also high-
lighted the fact that monetary policy is not a cure-all. For one thing, monetary policy
is too blunt an instrument to deal with financial imbalances, as it affects everyone
in the economy. Lessons from the 2007–2010 financial crisis suggest a greater role
for macroprudential tools, which could be used to address financial imbalances in
specific sectors of the economy. Many of these macroprudential tools are currently
in an early developmental stage and are constantly being refined; examples are dis-
cussed in Chapter 12.
Going forward, the intensification of globalization, the rise of financial markets,
and unfinished business from the recent crisis could add complexity to the economic
and financial landscape that central banks have to operate in. To successfully main-
tain monetary and financial stability and deliver value to society, central bankers will
need to understand the inner workings of and be able to operate across three key
overlapping domains: the macroeconomy, financial markets, and financial institu-
tions. The public policy analysis framework discussed earlier in this chapter can be
used by central banks to improve their ability to execute their policies; the frame-
work’s emphasis on enhancing analytical capacity, organizational capacity, and
political capacity will allow central banks to be better able to meet future challenges
and effectively deliver value to society.
SUMMARY
According to Rumelt, strategy can be thought of as “strength against weakness.”
Two natural sources of strength include (1) having a coherent strategy, that is, one
that coordinates policies and actions, and (2) the creation of new strength through
subtle shifts in viewpoint.
Future Central Banking Strategy and Its Execution 285
For central banks, experience has shown that the pursuit of short-term eco-
nomic growth (whether through the direct financing of the government’s budget or
excessively easy monetary policy), the interventions that come too late in preventing
a financial crisis from deepening, the pursuit of overly accommodative monetary
policy in the face of a supply shock, the pursuit of the impossible trinity, and a nar-
row focus on inflation without regard to the possibility of asset price bubbles are bad
central banking strategies.
In the wake of the 2007–2010 crisis there has been a rethinking of central bank-
ing strategy, whether in terms of monetary policy or supervisory functions. It is now
recognized that monetary stability and financial stability are inherently intertwined,
and that monetary policy and macroprudential tools might be used together.
In order to meet future challenges and deliver value to society, a central bank, as
a public entity, needs to consider enhancing its ability to execute policies. This can be
done by the enhancement of analytical capacity, organizational capacity, and politi-
cal capacity as defined in the public policy framework proposed by Wu, Ramesh,
Howlett, and Fritzen in 2010.
To enhance analytical capacity, a central bank might want to ensure that (1) its
staff is well versed in technical and practical knowledge of the macroeconomy, finan-
cial institutions, and financial markets; and (2) it has access to appropriate data and
tools to be used to analyze the macroeconomy, financial institutions, and financial
markets.
To enhance organizational capacity a central bank will want to ensure effective
coordination, both internally (within the central bank) and externally (with other
regulatory agencies and stakeholders).
To enhance political capacity, a central bank will need to be able to articulate
clearly to stakeholders the tradeoffs and synergies that might occur in the pursuit
of its mandates, so that it can gain support for the effective conduct of its policies.
KEY TERMS
analytical capacity strategic alliances
organizational capacity strategy
political capacity study group
public entity
QUESTIONS
1. According to Rumelt, what is the basic concept of strategy?
2. What have proven to be bad strategies for central banks?
3. How might central banking strategy change in the wake of the 2007–2010
crisis?
4. What impact will its role as a public sector entity have on a modern central
bank?
5. What aspects of a central bank’s analytical capacity might be crucial in the face
of future challenges such as the intensification of the globalization process, the
rapid evolution of financial services, and unfinished business from the 2007–
2010 crisis?
286 CENTRAL BANKING
287
288 NOTES
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. James R. Barth, Gerard Caprio Jr., and Ross Levine, Guardians of Finance: Making
Regulators Work for Us (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).
38. Randall S. Kroszner, “Making Markets More Robust,” in Reforming US Financial
Markets: Reflections and Beyond Dodd-Frank, ed. Benjamin Friedman (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2011).
39. Barth, Caprio, and Levine, Guardians of Finance.
40. Ibid.
41. Gregory Viscusi, “EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts (Update3),”
Bloomberg, October 13, 2008, www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=
aAAqUi9CW.h4.
42. Maria Woods and Siobhan O’Connell, “Ireland’s Financial Crisis: A Comparative
Context,” Quarterly Bulletin, October 2012, Central Bank of Ireland.
43. Reuters, “Spain’s Public Debt to Approach 100 Percent of GDP End-2014,” September 30,
2013, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/uk-spain-debt-economy-idUKBRE98T0
G320130930.
17. Tasky, “Introduction to Banking Supervision”; J. Beverly Hirtle and Jose A. Lopez,
“Supervisory Information and the Frequency of Bank Examinations,” FRBNY Economic
Policy Review, April 1999.
18. Tasky, “Introduction to Banking Supervision”; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions (Washington, DC: Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2005).
19. Tasky, “Introduction to Banking Supervision.”
20. Hirtle and Lopez, “Supervisory Information and the Frequency of Bank Examinations.”
21. Simon Gray, “Central Bank Balances and Reserve Requirements” (IMF Working Paper
WP11/36, February 2011).
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Tasky, “Introduction to Banking Supervision.”
25. Ibid.
26. Claire L. McGuire, Simple Tools to Assist in the Resolution of Troubled Banks (Washington,
DC: World Bank, 2012).
45. Borio and Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework for Financial Stability”;
Ingves, “Central Bank Governance and Financial Stability.”
46. Thornton, “The Dual Mandate”; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
“How Does Forward Guidance?”
47. Posner, “Underlying Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2008–2009.”
48. Borio and Lowe, “Asset Prices.”
49. Ibid.
50. Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots.”
51. Ibid.
52. Thornton, “The Dual Mandate.”
53. Thornton, “The Dual Mandate”; Clarida, Gertler, and Galí, “Monetary Policy Rules in
Practice.”
54. Thornton, “The Dual Mandate.”
20. Kiley, “Output Gaps”; S. Beveridge and C. R. Nelson, “A New Approach to the
Decomposition of Economic Time Series into Permanent and Transitory Components
with Particular Attention to Measurement of the Business Cycle,” Journal of Monetary
Economics 7 (1981): 151–174.
21. Okun, “Potential GDP.”
22. Robert Lucas, “Economic Policy Evaluation: A Critique,” in The Phillips Curve and Labor
Markets, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1, ed. K. Brunner and A.
Meltzer (New York: American Elsevier, 1976), 19–46.
23. Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace, “Rational Expectations and the Theory of Economic
Policy,” Journal of Monetary Economics, no. 2 (April 1976): 169–183.
24. Charles A. Goodhart, Monetary Theory and Practice: The UK Experience (London:
Macmillan, 1984).
25. Bennett T. McCullum, “Rational Expectations and Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy:
An Overview,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 2, no. 4 (1980).
26. Ibid.
27. Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott, “Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency
of Optimal Plans,” Journal of Political Economy 85: 473–490.
20. Ibid.
21. Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting”; Silber, Volcker.
22. Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting.”
23. Ibid.
24. Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting”; Alan Greenspan, “Monetary Policy under
Uncertainty.” (Remarks at a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 29, 2003).
25. Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting.”
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Charles Goodhart, Money Information and Uncertainty, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan
Press, 1989); Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting.”
31. Daniel L. Thornton, “Why Does Velocity Matter?,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Review, December 1983, http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/83/12/Velocity
_Dec1983.pdf.
32. Ibid.
33. Daniel L. Thornton, “Why Does Velocity Matter?”; Goodhart, Money Information and
Uncertainty; Mishkin, “From Monetary Targeting.”
34. Goodhart, Money Information and Uncertainty.
35. Charles A. Goodhart, Monetary Theory and Practice: The UK Experience (London:
Macmillan, 1984).
36. Goodhart, Money Information and Uncertainty.
37. Ibid.
38. Bernanke, Laubach, Mishkin, and Posen, Inflation Targeting; Mishkin, “International
Experiences;” Greenspan, “Monetary Policy under Uncertainty.”
39. Mishkin, “International Experiences”; Greenspan, “Monetary Policy under Uncertainty.”
40. Alan Greenspan, “The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society.” (Remarks
at the Annual Dinner and Francis Boyer Lecture of The American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, Washington, DC, December 5, 1996), www.federalreserve.gov/
boarddocs/speeches/1996/19961205.htm.
41. John B. Taylor, “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy 39 (1993): 195–214.
42. Mishkin, “International Experiences”; Greenspan, “Monetary Policy under Uncertainty.”
43. John B. Taylor, “Origins and Policy Implications of the Crisis,” in New Directions in
Financial Services Regulation, ed. Roger B. Porter, Robert R. Glauber, and Thomas J.
Healey (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009).
44. Bernanke, Laubach, Mishkin, and Posen, Inflation Targeting; Lars E. O. Svensson,
“Inflation Targeting after the Financial Crisis” (Challenges to Central Banking in the
Context of Financial Crisis, International Research Conference, Mumbai, February 12,
2010), www.bis.org/review/r100216d.pdf?frames=0.
45. Charles Freedmand and Douglas Laxton, “Inflation Targeting Pillars: Transparency and
Accountability” (IMF Working Paper WP/09/262, 2009).
46. Bernanke, Laubach, Mishkin, and Posen, Inflation Targeting; Freedmand and Laxton,
“Inflation Targeting Pillars.”
47. Bernanke, Laubach, Mishkinand, and Posen, Inflation Targeting.
48. Mervyn King, “Changes in UK Monetary Policy: Rules and Discretion in Practice,”
Journal of Monetary Economics 39 (1997): 81–97; Svensson, “Inflation Targeting.”
49. Mishkin, “International Experiences”; Ben S. Bernanke and Mark Gertler, “Inside the
Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives 9, no. 4 (1995): 27–48; Lawrence J. Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, and
Notes 295
Charles L. Evans, “Nominal Rigidities and the Dynamic Effects of a Shock to Monetary
Policy,” Journal of Political Economy 113, no. 1 (2005): 1–45.
50. Mishkin, “International Experiences”; Christopher Ragan, “Monetary Policy: How It
Works, and What It Takes,” in Why Monetary Policy Matters: A Canadian Perspective, 2005,
www.bankofcanada.ca/monetary-policy-introduction/why-monetary-policy-matters/4-
monetary-policy/; Bernanke and Gertler “Inside the Black Box”; Christiano, Eichenbaum,
and Evans, “Nominal Rigidities.”
51. Svensson, “Inflation Targeting.”
52. Bernanke, Laubach, Mishkin, and Posen, Inflation Targeting.
53. Jonathan Spicer,“In Historic Shift, Fed Sets Inflation Target,”Reuters, January 25, 2012, www
.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-usa-fed-inflation-target-idUSTRE80O25C20120125.
54. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee, Press Release, January 25, 2012, www
.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120125c.htm; Spicer, “In Historic Shift.”
55. Svensson, “Inflation Targeting.”
56. Ibid.
57. Bank of Canada, “Monetary Policy,” Backgrounders, 2012, www.bankofcanada.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2010/11/monetary_policy.pdf.
58. Svensson, “Optimal Inflation Targets, ‘Conservative’ Central Banks, and Linear Inflation
Contracts” (NBER Working Paper no. 5251, September 1995).
59. Claudio Borio and Philip Lowe, “Asset Prices, Financial and Monetary Stability: Exploring
the Nexus” (BIS Working Paper no. 114, July 2002).
60. Masaaki Shirakawa, “One Year under ‘Quantitative Easing,’” Institute for Monetary and
Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, Discussion Paper No. 2002-E-3, 2002; Richard A.
Posner, “Underlying Causes of the Financial Crisis 2008–2009,” in New Directions in
Financial Services Regulation, ed. Roger B. Porter, Robert R. Glauber, and Thomas J.
Healey (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009).
61. Shirakawa, “One Year under ‘Quantitative Easing’”; Borio and Lowe, “Asset Prices.”
62. Claudio Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots of Financial Stability Policy:
Journey, Challenges and a Way Forward” (BIS Working Paper no. 354, September
2011).
63. Ibid.
64. Reserve Bank of Australia, “Inflation Target,” in Monetary Policy, 2013, www.rba.gov.au/
monetary-policy/inflation-target.html
65. Stefan Ingves, “Central Bank Governance and Financial Stability: A Study Group Report,”
Bank for International Settlements, May 2011.
66. Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan, “Unconventional Choices”; Shirakawa, “One Year under
‘Quantitative Easing.’”
67. Ben S. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response” (speech given at the Stamp Lecture,
London School of Economics, January 13, 2009), www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/
speech/bernanke20090113a.htm; Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan, “Unconventional
Choices.”
68. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response.”
69. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response”; Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan,
“Unconventional Choices.”
70. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response.”
71. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response”; Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan,
“Unconventional Choices.”
72. Ibid.
73. Federal Open Market Committee, Press Release, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, September 13, 2012, www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/
monetary/20120913a.htm.
74. Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan, “Unconventional Choices.”
296 NOTES
75. Louise Armidstead, “Debt Crisis: Draghi Presents ‘Unlimited’ Bond Buying Plan to
ECB Council,” The Telegraph, September 5, 2012, www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/
financialcrisis/9523871/Debt-crisis-Draghi-presents-unlimited-bond-buying-plan-to-
ECB-council.html.
76. Ibid.
8. Laidler and Robson, Two Percent Target; Bernanke and Gertler, “Inside the Black Box.”
2
29. Ibid.
30. The Monetary Policy Committee, “The Transmission Mechanism.”
31. The Monetary Policy Committee, “The Transmission Mechanism”; Bank of Canada,
“How Monetary Policy Works.”
32. The Monetary Policy Committee, “The Transmission Mechanism”; Ragan, “Monetary
Policy.”
13. Hyman P. Minsky, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1986).
14. Charles P. Kindleberger, Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).
15. Bernanke and Gertler, “Financial Fragility.”
16. Borio and White, “Whither Monetary and Financial Stability?”
17. Claudio Borio and Philip Lowe, “Assessing the Risk of Banking Crises, “BIS Quarterly
Review, December 2002.
18. Ibid.
19. Douglas W. Diamond and Philip H. Dybvig, “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and
Liquidity,” Journal of Political Economy 91, no. 3 (1983): 401–419.
20. J. C. Rochet and J. Tirole, “Interbank Lending and Systemic Risk,” Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking 28, no. 4 (1996): 733–762.
21. F. Allen and D. Gale, “Financial Contagion,” Journal of Political Economy 108, no. 1
(2000): 1–33.
22. X. Freixas, B. Parigi, and J. C. Rochet, “Systemic Risk, Interbank Relations and Liquidity
Provision by the Central Bank,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 32, no. 3 (2000):
611–638.
23. Andrew Haldane, “Rethinking the Financial Network” (speech delivered at the Financial
Student Association, Amsterdam, April 2009).
24. George G. Akerloff, “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, no. 3 (1970).
25. Joseph E. Stiglitz and Andrew Weiss, “Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfection,”
The American Economic Review 71, no. 3 (981).
26. Irving Fisher, “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica 1
(October 1933): 337–357.
27. Gertler, “Financial Structure and Aggregate Economic Activity.”
28. Gurley and Shaw, “Financial Aspects of Economic Development.”
29. Kindleberger, Manias, Panics and Crashes.
30. Hyman P. Minsky, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1986).
31. Bernanke and Gertler, “Financial Fragility and Economic Performance.”
32. Borio and Lowe, “Asset Prices, Financial and Monetary Stability.”
33. Borio and White, “Whither Monetary and Financial Stability?”
34. Borio and Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework.”
35. Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots.”
36. Claudio Borio, “The Financial Cycle and Macroeconomics: What Have We Learnt?” (BIS
Working Paper no. 395, December 2012).
37. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, “Growth in a Time of Debt” (NBER Working
Paper no. 15639, January 2010).
38. Hyman P. Minsky, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy.
39. Gurley and Shaw, “Financial Aspects of Economic Development.”
40. Kindleberger, Manias, Panics and Crashes.
41. Ibid.
42. Hyman P. Minsky, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy.
43. Ben S. Bernanke, “Nonmonetary Effects of Financial Crisis on the Propagation of the
Great Depression,” The American Economic Review 73, no. 3 (1983): 257–276.
44. Gertler, “Financial Structure and Aggregate Economic Activity”; Borio, “The Financial
Cycle and Macroeconomics.”
45. Gertler, “Financial Structure and Aggregate Economic Activity.”
46. Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller, “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and
the Theory of Investment,” The American Economic Review 48 (June, 1958): 261–297.
47. Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States: 1867–
1960 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963).
Notes 301
“A Framework for Dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks,” Bank for
International Settlements, October 2012.
18. Franklin Allen and Ana Babus, “Networks in Finance,” in The Network Challenge,
Strategy, Profit, and Risk in an Interlinked World, ed. Paul R. Kleindorfer and Yorram
Wind with Robert E. Gunther (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2009).
19. Franklin Allen and Ana Babus, “Networks in Finance”; Haldane, “Rethinking the
Financial Network.”
20. Segoviano and Goodhart, “Banking Stability Measures.”
21. Chan-Lau, “Balance Sheet Network Analysis”; Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,
“A Framework.”
22. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “Global Systemically Important Banks”; Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision, “A Framework.”
23. Ibid.
24. Borio and Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework.”
25. Douwe Miedeman, “U.S. Fed Sets Tough Tests in Annual Bank Health War Games,”
Reuters, November 1, 2013, www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-banks-fed-tests-
idUSBRE9A00W120131101.
26. Borio and Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework.”
27. Borio and Lowe, “Asset Prices.”
28. Borio and Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework.”
29. British Bankers’ Association, “BBA Libor,” http://www.bbalibor.com/.
30. Rajdeep Sengupta and Yu Man Tam, “The Libor-OIS Spread as a Summary Indicator”
(Economic Synopses, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2008). http://research.stlouisfed
.org/publications/es/08/ES0825.pdf, Retrieved March 10, 2014.
31. Daniel L. Thornton, “What the Libor-OIS Spread Says” (Economic Synopses, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, May 2009). http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/
ES0924.pdf, Retrieved March 10, 2014.
32. Steven Drobny, The Invisible Hands: Hedge Funds Off the Record—Rethinking Real
Money, (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
33. Rajdeep Sengupta and Yu Man Tam, “The Libor-OIS Spread as a Summary Indicator”
(Economic Synopses, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis), http://research.stlouisfed.org/
publications/es/08/ES0825.pdf, Retrieved March 10, 2014.
34. Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy.”
35. Dale Gray, Robert C. Merton, and Zvi Bodie, “A New Framework for Analyzing and
Managing Macrofinancial Risks and Financial Stability” (NBER Working Paper No.
13607, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2007).
36. Fischer Black and Myron Scholes, “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities”
Journal of Political Economy 81, no. 3: 637–654, 1973; Robert C. Merton, “Theory of
Rational Option Pricing,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, The Rand
Corporation 4, no. 1: 141–183, 1973).
37. Dale F. Gray, Robert C. Merton, and Zvi Bodie, “New Framework for Measuring and
Managing Macrofinancial Risk and Financial Stability” (Working Paper, August 2008).
38. Dale Gray and Samuel W. Malone, Macrofinancial Risk Analysis (Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, 2008).
39. Dale F. Gray, “Using Contingent Claims Analysis (CCA) to Measure and Analyze Systemic
Risk, Sovereign and Macro Risk” (presentation to Macro Financial Modeling Conference,
International Monetary Fund, September 13, 2012).
T. Wezel, and X. Wu, “Macroprudential Policy: What Instruments and How to Use Them?
Lessons from Country Experiences” (IMF Working Paper WP/11/238, 2011).
2. Claudio Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots of Financial Stability Policy:
Journey, Challenges and a Way Forward” (BIS Working Paper no. 354, September 2011).
3. J. Patrick Raines, J. Ashley McLeod, and Charles G. Leathers, “Theories of Stock Prices and
the Greenspan-Bernanke Doctrine on Stock Market Bubbles,” Journal of Post Keynesian
Economics 29, no. 3 (2007): 393–408; Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic
Roots”; Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy”; Christian Weisstroffer, “Macroprudential
Supervision: In Search of an Appropriate Response to Systemic Risk,” Current Issues:
Global Financial Markets, Deutsche Bank, May 24, 2012; International Monetary Fund,
“Macroprudential Policy: An Organizing Framework,” March 14, 2011, www.imf.org/
external/np/pp/eng/2011/031411.pdf; Financial Stability Board, “Macroprudential Policy
Tools and Frameworks—Progress Progress Report to G20,” October 27, 2011, www
.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_111027b.htm.
4. Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots.”
5. Richard A. Posner, “Underlying Causes of the Financial Crisis 2008–2009,” in New
Directions in Financial Services Regulation, ed. Roger B. Porter, Robert R. Glauber, and
Thomas J. Healey (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009); John B. Taylor, “Origins
and Policy Implications of the Crisis,” in New Directions in Financial Services Regulation,
ed. Roger B. Porter, Robert R. Glauber, and Thomas J. Healey (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2009).
6. Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots.”
7. Claudio Borio and Philip Lowe, “Asset Prices, Financial and Monetary Stability: Exploring
the Nexus” (BIS Working Paper no. 114, July 2002).
8. Bank of Canada, “Monetary Policy,” Backgrounders, 2012, www.bankofcanada.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2010/11/monetary_policy.pdf.
9. Reserve Bank of Australia, “Inflation Target,” in Monetary Policy, 2013, www.rba.gov
.au/monetary-policy/inflation-target.html.
10. Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy.”
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ben S. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response” (speech given at the Stamp Lecture,
London School of Economics, January 13, 2009), www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/
speech/bernanke20090113a.htm; Vladimir Kyuev, Phil de Imus, and Krishna Srinivasan,
“Unconventional Choices for Unconventional Times: Credit and Quantitative Easing in
Advanced Economics” (IMF Staff Position Note SPN/09/27, November 4, 2009).
17. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response”; Kyuev, de Imus, and Srinivasan,
“Unconventional Choices.”
18. Ibid.
19. Bernanke, “The Crisis and the Policy Response.”
20. Claudio Borio, “The Financial Cycle and Macroeconomics: What Have We Learnt?” (BIS
Working Paper no. 395, December 2012).
21. Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy.”
22. Borio, “Rediscovering the Macroeconomic Roots.”
23. Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy.”
24. Ibid.
25. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Reforms, Basel III Summary Table, accessed
May 11, 2013, www.bis.org/bcbs/basel3/b3summarytable.pdf.
26. Charles Goodhart, “Ratio Controls Need Reconsideration,” Journal of Financial Stability
9, no. 3 (2013): 445–450.
304 NOTES
27. Mathias Drehman, Claudio Borio, and Kostas Tsatsaronis, “Anchoring Capital Buffers:
The Role of Credit Aggregates” (BIS Working Paper no. 355, November 2011.)
28. Ibid.
29. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central
Bank Governors on Basel III implementation, October 2012.
30. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “International Convergence on Capital
Measurement and Capital Standards,” Bank for International Settlements, July 1988,
www.bis.org/publ/bcbs04a.pdf.
31. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “International Convergence on Capital
Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework,” Bank for International
Settlements, November 2005, https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs118.pdf.
32. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Reforms, Basel III Summary Table.
33. Lim et al., “Macroprudential Policy.”
34. Torsten Wezel, Jorge A. Chan-Lau, and Francesco Columba, “Dynamic Loan Loss
Provisioning: Simulations on Effectiveness and Guide to Implementation” (Working
Paper 12/110, 2012).
35. Committee on the Global Financial System, “Central Bank Operations in Response to the
Financial Turmoil” CGFS Paper no. 31, Bank for International Settlements, July 2008);
Corrine Ho, “Implementing Monetary Policy in the 2000s: Operating Procedures in Asia
and Beyond” (BIS Working Paper no. 253, June 2008).
36. Committee on the Global Financial System, “Central Bank Operations.”
37. Claire L. McGuire, Simple Tools to Assist in the Resolution of Troubled Banks
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2012).
38. Jesse Hamilton, “Banks File Living Wills Outlining Plans to Dismantle,” Bloomberg
.com, October 4, 2013, www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/banks-file-living-wills-
outlining-plans-to-dismantle.html.
39. Ibid.
40. Tobias Adrian, Christopher R. Burke, and James J. McAndrews, “The Federal Reserve’s
Primary Dealer Credit Facility,” Current Issues in Economics and Finance 15, no. 4 (2009),
www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues; Tobias Adrian, Karin Kimbrough, and
Dina Marchioni, “The Federal Reserve’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility,” FRBNY
Economic Policy Review, May 2011.
41. Adrian, Burke, and McAndrews, “The Federal Reserve’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility.”
42. Adrian, Kimbrough, and Marchioni, “The Federal Reserve’s Commercial Paper Funding
Facility.”
43. Ibid.
.htm; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Joint Press Statement of Leaders on
Operating Principles and Areas of Exploration in the Regulation of the Cross-Border
OTC Derivatives Market, December 2012.
29. Dodd, “Markets: Exchange or Over-the-Counter.”
30. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Joint Press Statement of Leaders.
31. Ibid.
32. European Commission, “Commission Proposes New ECB Powers for Banking Supervision
as a Part of Banking Union” (press release, September 12, 2012), http://europa.eu/rapid/
press-release_IP-12-953_en.htm; European Central Bank, “Banking Supervision: What Is
It?,” accessed February 20, 2014, www.ecb.europa.eu/ssm/html/index.en.html.
33. European Commission, “Commission Proposes New ECB Powers.”
34. European Commission, “Commission Proposes New ECB Powers”; European Central
Bank, “Banking Supervision.”
307
308 INDEX