It is namely the case that the preliminary works to the Sveriges Riksbank Act emphasise that the monetary policy instruments shall only be used to maintain price stability, and thus not to promote a safe and efficient payment system.3 We sometimes say that monetary policy shall take financial risks into account, as it can be difficult to stabilise inflation around the target if households are forced to rapidly reduce their debts.4 Such difficulties could arise, of course, but for me it is not consideration of the inflation target that mainly justifies letting monetary policy take financial risks into account. Instead I perceive taking financial risks into account to follow on from the task of “supporting the objectives of general economic policy with the aim of achieving sustainable growth”. A monetary policy that leads to an unhealthy build-up of credit or other financial imbalances is scarcely compatible with sustainable growth. But this task, like the task of stabilising economic activity, is subordinate to the inflation target. Monetary policy’s consideration of financial risks must therefore be weighed against the inflation target and economic developments. 1  For a tool to be sufficient to meet the inflation target and attain a balanced development in economic activity, it is necessary for the economy to mostly suffer demand shocks, not supply shocks. This observation is sometimes called the divine coincidence, an expression coined by Blanchard and Gali (2007). 2  See the Riksbank (2013a) p. 3. 3  See Bill 1997/98:40, p. 54. 4  See, for example, the Riksbank (2013b).
With only one tool, the repo rate, we are trying to attain the inflation target and at the same time attain a balanced development in economic activity. In practice, the repo rate is often adequate as a tool to  BIS central bankers’ speeches  3  give both inflation and economic activity a push in the right direction.1 But in recent years, we have also needed to manage the problem of economic activity being at different levels in different parts of the economy. We cannot use the repo rate to stimulate the corporate sector and limit the build-up of household debt all at the same time. In this situation, it is not evident how monetary policy should manage the balance between inflation, economic activity and the risk of an overly rapid increase in housing prices and household credit. Let me elaborate on my thoughts a little further here. Monetary policy must take financial risks into account The concern over lending to households increasing too rapidly has led to a majority of the members of the Riksbank’s Executive Board voting to hold the repo rate at a higher level than would otherwise have been justified. I have entered reservations against these decisions and advocated a lower repo rate, for reasons I will return to later. Despite my reservations, I share the majority’s concern over the rapid increase in household debt.