Their take is that independent central banks are merely a troublesome relict and that monetary policy should largely be determined by the government’s financing needs. But experience from throughout history shows that this would, sooner or later, end in an economic policy fiasco. As you can see, the positions are far apart, with diametrically opposed interpretations of facts. The aim of my speech is to provide some clarity from the perspective of Switzerland’s central bank. To this end, I will set out some fundamental thoughts on the properties of sound money and the various types of money. I will then address the question as to whether, against the backdrop of our current monetary policy, the Swiss franc can still be described as sound money. Page 2/8  Sound money is stable money But let us first take a step back and look at money as a concept. Money is a generally accepted medium of exchange, and performs two other important functions, namely as a unit of account and as a store of value. As a unit of account, money serves to make economic transactions comparable. In this function, it is also used for representing the nominal value of all kinds of claims and liabilities. As a unit of account for determining value, money plays a prominent role in virtually all walks of life – from the workplace to healthcare and pension provision.
Some hedge funds that had used Bear to borrow money and clear trades were withdrawing cash from their accounts. Some large investment banks stopped accepting trades that would expose them to Bear, and some money market funds reduced their holdings of short-term Bearissued debt. The rumors of Bear’s failing financial health caused its balance of unencumbered liquidity on March 13 to decline sharply to levels that were not adequate to cover maturing obligations and funds that could be withdrawn freely. This precipitated the phone call that I described in the beginning of my testimony. The news that Bear’s liquidity position was so dire that a bankruptcy filing was imminent presented us with a very difficult set of policy judgments. In our financial system, the market sorts out which companies survive and which fail. However, under the circumstances prevailing in the markets the issues raised in this specific instance extended well beyond the fate of one company. It became clear that Bear’s involvement in the complex and intricate web of relationships that characterize our financial system, at a point in time when markets were especially vulnerable, was such that a sudden failure would likely lead to a chaotic unwinding of positions in already damaged markets. Moreover, a failure by Bear to meet its obligations would have cast a cloud of doubt on the financial position of other institutions whose business models bore some superficial similarity to Bear’s, without due regard for the fundamental soundness of those firms.