Given all of these contingencies, the probability that a modern bank is solvent, but illiquid, and at the same time lacks sufficient collateral to obtain regular central bank funding, is, in my view, quite small. The textbook case for emergency liquidity assistance to individual solvent institutions has, as a matter of fact, been a most rare event in industrial countries over the past decades.
28. What if this rare event were nevertheless to occur and cause a systemic threat? The clear answer is that the euro area authorities would have the necessary capacity to act. This is not only my judgement, but also that of the Eurosystem, whose decision-making bodies have, as you can imagine, carefully discussed the matter. I am not saying that we are, or shall be, infallible; no one can claim such a divine quality. I am saying that there are neither legal-cum-institutional, nor organisational, nor intellectual impediments to acting when needed. In stating this, I am aware that central banks may be the only source of immediate and adequate funds when a crisis requires swift action, while solvency remains an issue and failure to act could threaten the stability of the financial system.
In these circumstances the various national arrangements would continue to apply, including those concerning the access of central banks to supervisors' confidential information. As is well known, such arrangements differ somewhat from country to country.
29. The criticism I have referred to also underestimates the Eurosystem's capacity to act. To the extent that there would be an overall liquidity effect that is relevant for monetary policy or a financial stability implication for the euro area, the Eurosystem itself would be actively involved.
The Eurosystem is, of course, well equipped for its two collective decision-making bodies (the Board and the Council) to take decisions quickly whenever needed, whether for financial stability or for other reasons. This readiness is needed for a variety of typical central bank decisions, such as the execution of concerted interventions or the handling of payment system problems. Indeed, it has already been put to work during the changeover weekend and in the first few weeks of this year.
A clear reassurance about the capacity to act when really needed should be sufficient for the markets. Indeed, it may even be advisable not to spell out beforehand the procedural and practical details of emergency actions. As Gerry Corrigan once put it, maintaining "constructive ambiguity" in these matters may help to reduce the moral hazard associated with a safety net. I know of no central bank law within which the lender-of-last-resort function is explicitly defined.
The question of who acts within the Eurosystem should also be irrelevant for the markets, given that any supervised institution has an unambiguously identified supervisor and national central bank. As to the access to supervisory information, the lack of direct access by the Eurosystem should not be regarded as a specific flaw of the euro area's institutional framework, as has been frequently argued, since this situation also exists at the national level wherever a central bank does not carry out day-to-day supervision.
30. Finally, the criticism reflects an overly mechanistic view of how a crisis is, and should be, managed in practice. Arguing in favour of fully disclosed, rule-based policies in order to manage crises successfully and, hence, maintain market confidence, is almost self-contradictory. Emergency situations always contain unforeseen events and novel features, and emergency, by its very nature, is something that allows and even requires a departure from the rules and procedures adopted for normal times or even in the previous crisis. Who cares so much about the red light when there is two metres of snow on the road? As for transparency and accountability, these two sacrosanct requirements should not be pushed to the point of being detrimental to the very objective for which a policy instrument is created. Full explanations of the actions taken and procedures followed may be appropriate ex post, but unnecessary and undesirable ex ante.
31. So far, I have focused on the provision of emergency liquidity to a bank. This is not the only case, however, in which central bank money may have to be created to avoid a systemic crisis. A general liquidity "dry-up" may reflect, for example, a gridlock in the payment system or a sudden drop in stock market prices. The actions of the Federal Reserve in response to the stock market crash of 1987 is an often cited example of a successful central bank operation used to prevent a dangerous market-wide liquidity shortfall. This kind of action is close to the monetary policy function and has been called the "market operations approach" to lending of last resort. In such cases, liquidity shortfalls could be covered through collateralised intraday or overnight credit, or auctioning extra liquidity to the market. The Eurosystem is prepared to handle this kind of market disturbance.
VI. CONCLUSION
32. In my remarks this evening, I have looked at the euro area as one that has a central bank which does not carry out banking supervision. This would be normal, because in many countries banking supervision is not a task of the central bank. What is unique is that the areas of jurisdiction of monetary policy and of banking supervision do not coincide. This situation requires, first of all, the establishment of smooth co-operation between the Eurosystem and the national banking supervisors, as is the case at the national level where the two functions are separated. The most prominent reason for this is, of course, the scenario where the provision of liquidity from the central bank has to be made in a situation that is generated by problems of interest to the supervisor. But beyond that, I do not know any country in which the central bank is not very closely interested in the state of health of the banking system, irrespective of its supervisory responsibilities.
33. In my view, we should move as rapidly as possible to a model in which the present division of the geographical and functional jurisdiction between monetary policy and banking supervision plays no significant role. I do not mean necessarily a single authority or a single set of prudential rules. Rather I mean that the system of national supervisors needs to operate as effectively as a single authority when needed. While the causes of banking problems are often local or national, the propagation of problems may be area-wide. The banking industry is much more of a system than other financial institutions.
34. I am clearly aware that we are far from having a common supervisory system. But since the euro has just been launched and will last, we have to look in prospective terms at what needs to be set in place. There is no expectation, at least to my mind, that the division of responsibility in the euro area between the central bank and the banking supervisory functions should be abandoned. Although the Treaty has a provision that permits the assignment of supervisory tasks to the ECB, I personally do not rely on the assumption that this clause will be activated. What I perceive as absolutely necessary, however, is that co-operation among banking supervisors, which is largely voluntary but which finds no obstacles in the existing Directives or in the Treaty, will allow a sort of euro area collective supervisor to emerge that can act as effectively as if there were a single supervisor. This is desirable in the first instance to render the supervisory action more effective against the background of current and future challenges and, second, to assist the Eurosystem in the performance of its basic tasks.
TABLES
Table 1. Market share of branches and subsidiaries of foreign
credit institutions as % of total domestic assets, 1997
From EEA countries From third countries TOTAL
Branches Subsidiaries Branches Subsidiaries
AT 0.7 1.6 0.1 1.0 3.4
BE 9.0 19.2 6.9 1.2 36.3
DE 0.9 1.4 0.7 1.2 4.2
ES 4.8 3.4 1.6 1.9 11.7
FI 7.1 0 0 0 7.1
FR 2.5 NA 2.7 NA 9.8
IR 17.7 27.8 1.2 6.9 53.6
IT 3.6 1.7 1.4 0.1 6.8
NL 2.3 3.0 0.5 1.9 7.7
SE 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.7
UK 22.5 1.0 23.0 5.6 52.1
Source: ECB report "Possible effects of EMU on the EU banking
systems in the medium to long term" (February 1999).
Table 2. Assets of branches and subsidiaries of domestic credit
institutions in foreign countries
as % of total domestic assets, 1997
In EEA countries In third countries TOTAL
Branches Subsidiaries Branches Subsidiaries
AT 2.6 NA 3.7 NA NA
DE 12.0 7.3 7.8 0.9 27.9
ES 5.5 1.4 2.1 5.9 14.9
FI 5.9 0.3 6.6 0.3 13.1
FR 9.1 6.9 9.4 3.8 29.2
IR 8.3 14.9 1.3 10.1 34.6
IT 7.2 2.7 3.8 1.5 15.2
SE 7.2 NA 5.4 NA NA
Source: ECB report "Possible effects of EMU on the EU banking
systems in the medium to long term" (February 1999).
Table 3. Concentration: Assets of the five biggest credit
institutions as % of total assets
1985 1990 1997
AT 35.8 34.6 48.3
BE 48.0 48.0 57.0
DE NA 13.9 16.7
ES 38.1 34.9 43.6
FI 51.7 53.5 77.8
FR 46.0 42.5 40.3
IE 47.5 44.2 40.7
IT 20.9 19.1 24.6
NL 69.3 73.4 79.4
SE 60.2 70.02 89.7
UK NA NA 28.0
Source: ECB report "Possible effects of EMU on the EU banking
systems in the medium to long term" (February 1999).
Table 4. Number of branches and subsidiaries of foreign credit
institutions, 1997
From EEA countries From third countries TOTAL
Branches Subsidiaries Branches Subsidiaries
AT 6 20 2 11 39
BE 25 16 15 15 71
DE 46 31 31 45 153
ES 33 21 20 6 80
FI 9 0 0 0 9
FR 46 118 43 98 305
IR 18 21 3 7 49
IT 36 4 17 4 61
NL 11 8 11 19 49
SE 14 0 3 1 18
UK 106 18 149 114 387
Source: ECB report "Possible effects of EMU on the EU banking
systems in the medium to long term" (February 1999).
Table 5. Private non-financial enterprises' bonds, credit
institutions' bonds and government bonds outstanding as % of GDP,
1997
Private Credit Government
non-financial institutions' bonds
bonds bonds
AT 2.7 31.1 30.6
BE 10.0 38.3 111.0
DE 0.1 54.6 37.6
ES 2.6 4.5 52.9
FI 3.7 7.1 35.5
IE 0.01 1.6 32.2
IT 1.6 19.4 100.4
NL NA 43.1 53.4
SE 3.6 38.6 46.5
Source: ECB report "Possible effects of EMU on the EU banking
systems in the medium to long term" (February 1999).
Euro and European integration
Speech delivered by Eugenio Domingo Solans,
Member of the Governing Council and the Executive Board of the
European Central Bank,
at the "Euro and Denmark" exhibition in Aalborg, Denmark,
on 10 September 1999
INTRODUCTION
It is a real pleasure for me to participate in the "Euro and Denmark" exhibition in Aalborg. It is the first time since my appointment as a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) in May 1998 that I have had the opportunity to speak in Denmark. Thank you for your invitation and for asking me to share my views on the euro and on European integration with investors and experts of this "pre-in" country.
I should like to refer to two main topics. First, and more extensively, allow me to explain the ECB's view and my own view on the role of the euro as an international currency. After this I intend to make some brief comments on the key role that the euro and the Eurosystem are playing in the process of European economic integration.
Before I begin, I should like to add that it goes without saying that the institutional position of the ECB - and therefore my own official position - concerning Denmark's entry to the euro area is one of strict neutrality. This is an issue which has to be decided by the Danish people, whenever and in whatever way they deem appropriate.
THE EURO AS AN INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY
The three basic functions of the euro
Every currency fulfils three functions: store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Concerning the first function (store of value), the euro is used and will increasingly be used as an investment and financing currency by market players, and as a reserve currency by public authorities. Regarding the second function of money (medium of exchange), the euro is used and will increasingly be used as a payment or vehicle currency for the exchange of goods and services and for currency exchange itself. It will also have an official use as an intervention currency. Finally, as regards the third function of any currency (unit of account), the euro is used and will increasingly be used by economic agents as a pricing or quotation currency and as a pegging currency by the authorities responsible for exchange rate issues.
Let me give you some information about the present use of the euro in each of these areas. I shall first refer to the private use of the euro, after which I shall consider its official public usage.
The euro as a store of value
The available information seems to confirm that the euro already plays a significant role as an investment and financing currency in international financial markets. Without going into precise details (1), regarding the international debt securities market (money market instruments, bills and bonds), it can be said that in the first two quarters of 1999 net international issues denominated in euro amounted to EUR 83.9 billion, compared with EUR 74 billion for the US dollar and EUR 50.9 billion for former euro area national currencies and ECUs during the same period of 1998. In other words, in the first two quarters of 1999 net international issues of debt securities denominated in euro were 13.4% higher than those denominated in US dollars, and 64.8% higher than those denominated in former euro area national currencies and ECUs issued during the same period of last year.
With regard to equity markets, the weight of euro area stock exchanges in terms of capitalisation ranks a clear second, far behind the United States.
As to the banking sector, the latest data show that, at the end of March 1999, above 40% of deposits and loans vis-а-vis non-residents were denominated in euro, with the share of the US dollar almost as high.
The euro as a medium of exchange
As for the second function of money (medium of exchange), the euro needs more time to develop as a payment currency for goods and services in international trade and as a vehicle currency in the foreign exchange markets. Although no precise data are available at this stage, the value of world exports denominated in euro is not likely to differ significantly from that of euro area exports. By contrast, the value of world exports settled in US dollars is nearly four times as high as that of US exports. This difference can easily be explained by the combined and reinforcing effects of network externalities and economies of scale in the use of a predominant international currency, as is the case with the US dollar.
The euro as a unit of account
The use of the euro as a unit of account (its third general function) is closely linked to its use for the other two main functions. The use of a currency as a unit of account is, in a way, the basis for its use as a store of value or as a medium of exchange. The value stored in euro, or the payments made in euro, will tend to be recorded in euro. Therefore, we can conclude that the euro is playing an ever larger role as a unit of account for all the financial assets linked to the use of the euro as an investment and financing currency, and has a much less relevant role as a standard for pricing goods and services, owing to the widespread use of the US dollar as a payment and vehicle currency in international trade. The convenience of using a single standard for pricing commodities in the international markets, allowing traders to make direct comparisons between prices, makes it difficult for the euro to acquire a significant role in this respect. We can conclude that the development of the euro as a unit of account will follow the pace at which the issuers or suppliers of assets, goods or services priced or quoted in euro obtain a predominant position in the international markets.
The official use of the euro
The euro also has official uses as reserve, intervention and pegging currency, all three functions being strongly interrelated in most cases.
With regard to its official use, the euro is currently the second most international currency after the US dollar, this being a legacy of the former euro area national currencies.
Compared with the former euro area national currencies, there has been a technical decline in the share of the euro as a reserve (and, therefore, as an intervention) currency, mainly owing to the fact that such former national currencies became domestic assets within the euro area. However, there are good reasons to expect an increase in international public use of the euro as a reserve and intervention currency, inasmuch as the public authorities understand that it is worthwhile to allocate their foreign reserves among the main international currencies and to give the euro a relevant share in accordance with its internal and external stability and the economic and financial importance of the euro area.
In connection with the use of the euro as a pegging currency, approximately 30 countries outside the euro area currently have exchange rate regimes involving the euro to a greater or lesser extent. These exchange rate regimes are: currency boards (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia); currencies pegged to the euro (Cyprus, FYROM [the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] and 14 African countries in which the CFA franc is the legal tender); currencies pegged to a basket of currencies including the euro, in some cases with a fluctuation band (Hungary, Iceland, Poland, Turkey, etc.); systems of managed floating in which the euro is used informally as the reference currency (Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Slovenia); and, last but not least, European Union currencies pegged to the euro through a co-operative arrangement, namely ERM II. As you well know, Denmark and Greece joined ERM II on 1 January 1999 with a ±2.25% fluctuation band for the Danish krone and a ±15% fluctuation band for the Greek drachma. Although the euro remains in second position after the US dollar in terms of its official use, the role of the euro will increase in the future, without a doubt.
The position of the Eurosystem concerning the international role of the euro
As a general conclusion stemming from the previous analysis of the use of the euro in the world economy, we can affirm that the euro is the second most widely used currency, behind the US dollar and ahead of the Japanese yen. The private use of the euro as an investment and financing currency and its official use as a reserve, intervention and pegging currency are increasing rapidly, while it is developing at a slower pace as a payment currency in the exchange of goods and services. The use of the euro as a unit of account is linked to its use as store of value and a medium of exchange.
Taking the current situation as a starting point, the Eurosystem's position concerning the future international role of the euro is crystal clear: we shall not adopt a belligerent stance in order to force the use of the euro upon the world economy. We are convinced that the use of the euro as an international currency will come about anyway. It will happen spontaneously, slowly but inexorably, without any impulses other than those based on free will and the decisions of market participants, without any logic other than that of the market. In other words, the internationalisation of the euro is not a policy objective of the Eurosystem; it will neither be fostered nor hindered by us. The development of the euro as an international currency will be a market-driven process, a free process, which will take place, without a doubt.
Factors determining the importance of the euro in the world economy
We understand that the euro fulfils the necessary conditions to become a leading international currency with the US dollar and not against it. There is enough room for both currencies in the world economy.
The necessary conditions for a currency to become an international currency are based on two broad factors: low risk and large size. The low risk factor is related to the confidence inspired by the currency and its central bank, which in turn mainly depends on the internal and external stability of the currency. The low risk factor tends to lead to diversification among international currencies, since diversification is a means to reduce the overall risk; it acts, so to speak, as a centrifugal force. By contrast, the large size factor relates to the relative demographic economic and financial importance of the area which supports the currency; in other words, the "habitat" of the currency. The large size factor generally tends to lead to centralisation around one or several key international currencies. It can be seen as a centripetal force, as a virtuous circle, which will tend to lead to an increasing use of the euro as an international currency. Let us consider these two factors in more detail.
The stability of the currency and the credibility of the ECB
The first factor concerns low risk, credibility and stability. The stability of the euro is a priority for the ECB. Compared with the idea of stability, the strength of the euro is of lesser importance. This does not mean that the exchange rate of the euro does not constitute an element to be considered in the monetary policy strategy of the ECB. However, the basic factor that will determine the importance of the euro as a widely used currency in the world economy, in addition to the demographic, economic and financial dimensions of the euro area, is, without a doubt, the stability of the new currency, understood as a means to maintain the purchasing power of savings.
