Although circumstances differ, our experience may also be of value to others. Forward guidance in general Up until the 1990s, the code of conduct among central bankers was one of secrecy. Today, however, central banks strive to be transparent. This development reflects a general trend towards greater transparency in modern societies. For some central banks, including Norges Bank, a change from fixed exchange rates to an inflation targeting regime also highlighted the importance of greater transparency. Transparency is necessary for accountability. With accountability the central bank can build credibility and trust, both by showing that the objectives are actually attained in the longer run, and by explaining deviations from targets. Forward guidance, understood as information about future policy intentions, may be viewed as a natural extension of this accountability framework. Economic agents are forward-looking, and hence the future stance of monetary policy matters to them. As Michael Woodford has stated, “For not only do expectations about policy matter, but, at least under current conditions, very little else matters.” 1 In macroeconomic theory, the importance of expectations has been appreciated since the rational expectations revolution of the 1970s. In the early 1990s, theorists started to model monetary policy as setting the interest rate. 2 Central bankers have since had a theoretical  1  Woodford, M. (2005): “Central Bank Communication and Policy Effectiveness,” NBER Working Paper 11898. 2  See Taylor, J.
1/5  BIS central bankers' speeches  Take the case of a vendor that provides critical services and is on the brink of bankruptcy. Are credit risk analysts, operational risk and business continuity professionals, and the business affected working together to share information, insights, and potential responses? Or, are silos preventing information from getting to the right people at the right time to prepare and act? Risk silos can result in siloed decisions, and looking at risks one by one is incoherent. We could drive operational risk to zero by having no operations (I guess we can all go home early), but then strategic risk rises to infinity. Since most meaningful decisions involve balancing risks, to get to the right decision, we need a risk picture that covers all relevant risk types and engages all relevant risk experts. Similarly, real world vulnerabilities do not have to conform themselves to a particular risk type. Think about weaknesses in identity and access management. This is a driver for risks ranging from cyber, to compliance, to operations, and more. This is also a type of risk that can’t be mitigated solely through technical controls put in place by information security experts; that is, a siloed risk response is insufficient. So, stronger collaboration and coordination across risk disciplines is one solution to the negative effects of risk silos. Another specific pain point created by risk silos is the flourishing, and perhaps overgrowth, of risk assessments. Most organizations have many risk reviews: often a different review for each type of risk.