It would ensure regular supply of international liquidity, but could only provide partial protection against exchange rate volatility and valuation losses. There is an important trade off, there, which is the essence of a new “Triffin dilemma” and which cannot be avoided when looking at the public supply of international liquidity, whether by one nation or within a multilateral framework.   More fundamentally, a new currency which would provide a reliable store of value would, in fact, grant its holders a collective guarantee against exchange risk. That guarantee would benefit surplus countries and would be given by deficit countries. This issue was intensely debated when the substitution account was discussed and negotiated within the IMF, more than 25 years ago. It became clear, at the time that it would not be accepted by many countries unless some explicit, binding and symmetric rules on balance of payment adjustments were agreed upon simultaneously. Most likely, those questions would be raised again today and the creation of a new reserve currency would have to be part of a broader framework. Conclusion and provisional policy lessons Looking at the next decade, one can project two alternative – and polar – scenarios for the evolution of the international financial system. First, a scenario of progressive and partial fragmentation: no significant capital account opening would occur in many parts of the world.
As to the source, a possibility would be to create a process of periodic general allocation of SDRs, according to a predetermined schedule. Those SDRs, however, would not be immediately available for use by their beneficiaries. Rather, they would be “frozen” and unblocked only in pre – specified circumstances (Landau, 2009). Criteria for use would not be defined on the basis of individual countries’ situations, but on consideration of the conditions prevailing in the global economy and international capital markets. If properly constructed, such a scheme may provide, for no cost, the kind of insurance that countries are currently seeking by building excess reserves. How would countries access to this new source of liquidity? The traditional approach would allocate contingent liquidity to countries according to their quota shares in the IMF. However, those are very imperfect representations of countries’ liquidity needs especially in times of crisis. Taking inspiration from the contingent capital literature, one could imagine that countries could “buy” the access to contingent liquidity in crisis times by paying, in normal times, a premium to the issuer (the IMF?). This could prove less costly than accumulating excess reserves. Going one step further, and transposing an idea from Caballero and Kurlat (2009), the IMF could issue tradable instruments giving access to contingent liquidity once it  6  BIS Review 120/2010  has been activated. If broadly traded between public entities, the price of such instruments would give a useful indication of underlying systemic tensions in international financial markets.