Growth in the Norwegian economy remains strong and is stronger than projected earlier. Capacity utilisation is high. Wage growth is on the rise and there are prospects of higher inflation. At the same time, the krone had appreciated markedly and there are prospects that somewhat weaker growth in the world economy will contribute to curbing inflation and growth in output and employment in Norway. Reference was also made to the analyses in Monetary Policy Report 3/07, which indicate that the key policy rate should be raised further, but to a lesser extent than envisaged in June. In addition, the Executive Board pointed out that the projections are uncertain. New information may reveal aspects of economic developments indicating that the Norwegian economy is moving on a different path than projected. On the one hand, high capacity utilisation and higher cost inflation may lead to higher-than-projected inflation. On the other hand, the risk of slower growth in the world economy has increased. If global economic developments are weaker or if the krone appreciates more than we have assumed, inflation may be lower than projected at present. It was the view of the Executive Board that the key policy rate should be in the interval 4¾5¾ per cent in the period to the publication of the next Report on 13 March 2008, unless the Norwegian economy is exposed to unexpectedly severe shocks. Thank you for your attention.
And ultimately, where we identify that firms have taken an approach which is not consistent with the aims of the policy, then we will certainly let those firms know. Findings on impact tolerances On impact tolerances it’s clear from our work that, whilst progress has again been made, firms have found this more challenging than identifying IBS. This is in part due to the complexity of defining tolerances for the different regulatory objectives of customer harm or market integrity 3/6  BIS central bankers' speeches  versus safety and soundness, and – for the largest firms – financial stability. For example, we have seen that several of the IBS that have been submitted by firms were accompanied by an impact tolerance for customer harm or market integrity but did not include one for safety & soundness, and an even higher number did not include one for financial stability. These are gaps which we expect firms to fill as a matter of priority. We also noted that the granularity with which firms defined their IBS impacted the tolerances they then defined.