We have to avoid shifting from a dollar-dominated system to a confrontational non-system with, for instance, a dollar world opposed to a renminbi world. We can all agree that such a fragmentation would generate instability, notably creating the risk of runs from one currency to another. iii Competitive currency devaluations between the two world wars created such instability, when the dollar and the pound were competing for leadership. Fragmentation might also lead to the development of separated payment systems with limited interoperability. And it could harm the GFSN (as reserves could be less convertible) with, consequently, a misallocation of capital. Another current concern is China’s reluctance to join the international community cooperative debt treatment process, the Common Framework. Finally, we all hope that the sanctions and other measures taken in an emergency situation will be withdrawn after a peaceful settlement of the geopolitical situation. In addition to this public – or geopolitical – fragmentation, there is a risk of “private” fragmentation through the disorderly development of crypto-assets, among which the somewhat misnamed “stablecoins”. As demonstrated by the turmoil on financial markets in recent weeks, they are possibly very unstable. We have long stressed the risks of such speculative investments. But it’s not enough: this must be taken as a powerful wake-up-call for a global regulation, which is urgently needed. MiCA on the European side paves the right way. Crypto assets could disrupt the International Financial System if they are not regulated, overseen and interoperable in a consistent and appropriate manner across jurisdictions.
I am happy to say that quite some research on the interaction of these two policy areas has been undertaken here at the ECB. [1] In particular, two papers of the Research Task Force are dedicated to this issue: one documents the macroeconomic impact of macroprudential policy measures and its interaction with monetary policy[2]; a second one sheds light and quantifies the transmission between monetary policy and bank stability. [3]  On-going research at the ECB Moreover, ECB research has showcased the particular importance of remaining vigilant about banks’ resilience in episodes of increasing cyclical systemic risk. Recent work quantifies how exuberant credit and asset price dynamics lead to large downside risks to bank-level return on assets, putting a banking system’s capital at risk over the medium term. [4] The quantification of bank capital at risk can support the calibration of macroprudential instruments. In turn, by subjecting the banking sector to specific shocks, a macroprudential stress-testing framework can help in assessing the capital shortfall in times of stress. Whereas traditional stress-testing frameworks focus on initial capital shortfalls, macroprudential stress-testing frameworks quantify the propagation of costs for banks and the real economy over time. This is the aim of the macro-micro approach, which takes into account the heterogeneity in banks’ reaction functions. [5] More generally, stress-testing has become a key instrument in the macroprudential and financial stability toolkit for assessing risks to the banking system in adverse conditions.