All of these help the public to understand our assessment of economic conditions through the lenses of these different types of forecasts. When asked about the trajectory for the monetary policy stance, I always point out that it is data dependent. The FOMC calibrates the stance of monetary policy to best achieve our twin objectives of price stability and maximum sustainable employment, taking into account our forecast for how the economy is evolving. This forecast reflects the ongoing flow of the data. Data releases that are close to our expectations have little additional impact on the forecast, while data releases that deviate significantly from our expectations can lead to more significant revisions of the forecast. It is, therefore, important for market participants and households to be able to follow the data along with the FOMC and to understand how we are likely to interpret and react to incoming data. While market analysts readily have access to economic and financial data, this access is not widely available to everyone. To help fill this information gap, for the past year we have been  BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  making available on our website a monthly publication called U.S. Economy in a Snapshot. This publication contains a set of key data charts as well as commentary by our staff economists. The purpose is to provide interested readers easy access to clear and concise presentations of important economic information. The associated commentary provides some pertinent observations one might draw from the data.
After all, information is a  2  BIS Review 2/2008  public good and rating agencies are the providers of this good. But the case for further regulation has not as yet been compelling. First and foremost, we should consider the contents of possible improvements. I would pinpoint three areas, among others, for consideration: first, greater transparency of rating methods and the overall role of rating agencies in the securitisation process. Second, a marked difference in the metric used for rating bonds and structured products, which would restore confidence in ratings. This could be done in two ways, which could also be combined: either by adopting another rating scale for structured products (with another symbol for example); or by including an additional measure in the credit rating, in particular on its volatility in times of market or liquidity stress. Third, a specific rating for liquidity risk. I am aware that rating agencies are considering this, despite the difficulties of such an exercise. We must hope that the discussions currently underway in international fora, such as the FSF and groups of central bankers in which the Banque de France is actively involved, will restore the integrity of the ratings system, given its prominent role in the development of modern financial markets. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your attention. BIS Review 2/2008  3