I did subsequently enter reservations in favour of an increase in the repo rate several times in 2007 when the majority on the Executive Board decided not to increase it.9 The second thing is that I accepted such a low repo-rate path the first time we presented our own path in February 2007. This was just before the completion of wage negotiations for large parts of the labour market and it sent the wrong signal to the social partners; that is that wages could be significantly increased without consequences in the form of too high inflation. Wage expectations had then risen to the highest level since the mid-1990s. But we were too focused on all the work that was required to produce and decide on the repo-rate path for the first time for me to adequately realise the consequences of the decision. When visiting different venues to speak about monetary policy, I have often been asked why we raised the repo rate from 4.50 to 4.75 per cent in September 2008, just before the financial crisis hit Sweden with full force. The members of the Executive Board were divided on the issue, with three for (including me) and three against and Stefan Ingves had to use his deciding vote to push the decision through. I usually say that with the information we had at the time I would have made the same decision again.
Once the testing system is fully operational and we are convinced of its efficiency, these restrictions will be gradually lifted. We believe that at this juncture it is our responsibility to protect our investors. We might as well move forward some of the law regulations — those making customers’ qualification tests mandatory — from April 2022 to at least 1 October 2021. At the time, we went along with market players and provided for a fairly comfortable and soft transition period in the law. We had an extensive discussion with Federation Council members. It stands to reason however that the major shift in the situation calls on us to take meaningful action to protect consumer rights. I admit that financial institutions themselves are unlikely to welcome this proposal, and their feedback will be negative. This is where we count on you to help, just as we have always counted on your support of our initiatives related to efficient consumer right protection in the financial market. The key reason for this is the nature of financial institutions: they are financial intermediaries which should operate in the interest of businesses and consumers, just like the Speaker said. We therefore believe that now is the time for prompt and serious discussion of this matter to make a decision. I am now handing over the floor to Sergey Shvetsov, who will enlarge on these and other initiatives I have presented.