As more instruments that transfer risk are added to the balance sheets of financial institutions, so leverage and connectivity  2  BIS Review 70/2006  grow. While some of these connections might constitute a "perfect hedge", they can leave the system more vulnerable to both counterparty risk and the liquidity of these markets. The precise extent to which market participants are now connected through interlocking obligations is difficult to gauge, but the UK interbank market provides some clues. Over 70% of the total lending in the market is accounted for by 15 institutions. And the major UK banks’ large exposures to the main foreign-owned LCFIs are almost two-thirds of Tier 1 capital. The rising correlation between the share prices of major UK banks and foreign-owned LCFIs also provides a hint of the growing interconnections (Chart 4). At the same time, rapid innovation in new financial instruments poses challenges within the financial system. As I have already discussed, these developments are likely to be positive in the long run, allowing market participants greater scope to diversify and manage risk. But in the short run, newer products, such as structured credit derivatives, do pose challenges. We simply do not have experience of how they behave in the full range of market conditions. The models that have been built by banks and other players in the market to value and hedge positions in these instruments are more sophisticated than ever before, but they are not proven in adversity.
But others might argue that the structural changes of the eighties and nineties which were consistent with an appreciating real rate because of much more rapid productivity gains in the tradable than in the non-tradable sectors, cannot be repeated, so that the assumption of a continuing secular uptrend is invalid. On that view, the net appreciation over the past couple of years may be deemed to have dragged us away from our preferred path. It is hard to judge where the proper balance of these views lies. I recall how, 15-20 years ago, the doom merchants were prophesying the end of Hong Kong’s long run of growth because we were rapidly losing competitiveness in much of manufacturing. Presumably they did not 1  Slides are not included in this text document. 1  BIS Review 54/1999  foresee the remarkable extent to which the service sector would develop as an alternative wealth-generating lynchpin of the economy. Now, the next generation of doom merchants is prophesying imminent disaster as competitiveness in certain parts of the service sector appears to have been eroded. Will they be wrong again? Have they failed to appreciate the true workings of the market economy and comparative advantage? Do they not realise how difficult it is to foretell exactly how an economy will evolve, even though the evolution is taking place right under our noses?