The significant CHF appreciation in early January 2015 has entailed measures tailored to the particular features of each country. Specifically, Polish authorities recommended banks to come up with individual solutions to cut down on debtors’ debt service. Croatia introduced a fixed exchange rate of the kuna against the Swiss franc for a one-year period. The Hungarian authorities took over much of the effort of managing the consequences of the developments in the CHF/HUF rate; it should be mentioned, though, that CHF-denominated loans accounted for approximately 50% of local government borrowings and would have had a significant impact on the budget assuming inaction on the part of the authorities. VI. Pseudo-remedies vs. realistic and balanced solutions  There may be various ways of action to solve the issue of CHF-denominated loans, but any negotiated solution should be based on the following principles: •  target those individuals in real need of support;  •  reasonable burden-sharing;  •  not generate moral hazard, i.e. not lead to unreasonable expectations in the future (related to not paying the debt service) and not discriminate debtors in other currencies (RON, EUR, USD);  •  not impair financial and banking system stability. Financial system stability is essential for: (i) ensuring financial intermediation and hence the funding of economic growth, (ii) job creation, (iii) higher household income, (iv) paving the way for credit repayment, (v) preserving depositors’ confidence in the banking sector;  •  comply with the EU Treaty and Romania’s accession conditions, i.e. not restrict free capital movement.
Apart from the adverse economic effects, the NBR’s intervention to help the domestic currency appreciate against the CHF to a level similar to that recorded prior to the Swiss National Bank removing the 1.2 EUR/CHF floor would also impact public policy. Such an intervention would result in changing the benchmark currency on the foreign exchange market from EUR to CHF, contradicting not only the economic reality, but also the EU membership legally binding Romania to adopt the single currency at a certain point in time. As for the possibility of the NBR imposing a ban on CHF-denominated loans, such a decision would have entailed the restriction of CHF-denominated capital flows, thus violating one of the fundamental prerequisites of Romania’s accession to the EU: full capital account liberalisation, completed in 2006. Besides, even assuming such a measure had been possible, it would have affected trade with and investment from Switzerland, as well as the financing of CHF hedged borrowers (exporters, as well as employees of companies with Swiss capital, whose incomes are expressed in CHF). The relevant presence of Swiss capital in Romania is pointed out by the direct investment from Switzerland, which totals around EUR 2 billion, as well as by the number of companies with Swiss capital (over 2,000). These companies’ annual turnover is worth about EUR 7 billion, while the number of employees has ranged between 50,000 and 60,000 (nearing the number of CHF borrowers).