They took advantage of a liberal regulatory environment, good credit ratings, and the unusually advantageous conditions on the global markets and expanded their operations at a rapid pace. The European regulatory framework made this possible. In many ways their activities resembled those of banks in other countries. Under normal market conditions, this posed no immediate problem. The banks could have funded their operations even under sub-optimal market conditions. Many were of the opinion that the Central Bank should build up very large foreign exchange reserves, even up to a multiple of GDP, in order to back up the financial system. Given the current account deficit on the balance of payments, this would only have been possible with massive foreign borrowing. It would never have transpired, for the simple reason that the Icelandic government would have been unable to borrow such a large amount. Its credit ratings would not have tolerated it, and lenders would have been difficult to find. As I have touched on, the banks responded to mounting difficulties in various ways. Kaupthing, for example, abandoned its plans to acquire the Dutch bank NIBC. All of the  6  BIS Review 22/2009  banks sold assets and discontinued various non-core operations; however, as the IMF mentioned in the previously cited Staff Report, it was not a seller’s market. In addition, the banks all reduced their lending and laid off staff.
Finally, emerging/developing economies have been subject to wide swings in financing from abrupt withdrawal of funds in 2008 to significant inflows recently, and as a result they are starting to implement capital controls. The risk is that these may spread unless financial flows become less erratic and more long-term and stable. 7. Concern about commodity bubble and high-yielding products  Over the past several decades, the world financial system has produced a seemingly endless series of bubbles (e.g. the dotcom bubble, the housing bubble and the Yen carry trade). Each bubble had its apologists before it burst, who argued that it was rational and that “this time is different.” Historically, commodities (apart from oil) were in a downward trend for over 100 years until 2002. Since then the entire decline has been reversed and commentators are talking about a “Paradigm Shift.” Compared to historical trends, commodities are as over-priced as the US stock market during the “tech bubble” of 2000. The parabolic rise in commodity prices has serious consequences and it is open to question whether the world economy is strong enough to support their continued gains. It is particularly damaging to inflation and growth in emerging market economies which are relatively heavy users of commodities. With interest rates at current low levels, investors are looking for high-yield products; but high yield brings high risks as well.