In the long run, inflation is a monetary phenomenon: it cannot happen without an (at least) accommodating expansion of the money supply. And we know from historical experience that more often than not the major source of any such inflationary increase in the money supply has been the direct financing of government by the central bank. Hungary has not been an exception to this general rule - rather its confirmation. And once inflation is established, interest rates go up. Except for very short periods, it is impossible to keep market interest rates below the rate of inflation: who would be ready to undertake financial savings the remuneration of which would imply a loss in real financial wealth? To try to keep interest rates low by monetary financing of the government is a self-defeating device. It may work for a few months, but would end up producing more inflation and higher, not lower, interest rates certainly higher nominal interest rates, but very likely also higher real rates. The simple reason for this is that people are not fools - at least not for a long time. Monetary financing of the government is therefore likely to combine two evils at the same time: inflation and high interest rates. BIS Review 16/1997  -4-  2. The accumulated and potential future losses of the NBH on account of its borrowings in foreign currency have been taken over by the government. This is a salutary cleaning-up operation which ought to have been carried out long ago.
Another much more dangerous conflict of interest could arise where the bank is capable of exercising a decisive shareholding power in another non-banking firm, of which it is at the same time a major creditor. This could have unacceptable consequences not only for the firm’s other shareholders but, if the practice became widespread, could even lead to structural distortions for entire industries. To avoid this happening, I would favour rather strict regulations. For instance, mutual funds managed by banks should either have limits on the equity participation in individual firms or not have access to the firm’s Board. The same should apply, a fortiori, to any bank’s direct and permanent equity participation in a non-banking firm - unless, perhaps, the bank remains just a shareholder (as if it were, say, a pension fund), without direct banking operations with the firm in question. 4. Under the last point, I already touched on one particular aspect of corporate governance, namely when a bank can play a decisive role in a non-banking firm’s life. But you will also have to face up to the reverse problem: when a non-banking firm becomes a bank’s key shareholder and could therefore potentially induce risk-taking by the bank in its favour, at the expense of the bank’s other shareholders or of its depositors or customers. This is a particularly acute danger in countries where there are not many non-bank institutional shareholders, where the defence of minority shareholders has no tradition and where depositors are not properly protected.