The corresponding consultation for U.S. dollar and some other non-U.S. dollar derivatives contracts closed just last week, and I look forward to hearing the results and next steps. Universal changes to derivatives contracts will take out about 95 percent of the exposure—the $ trillion number. If the market signs up to the ISDA protocol when it’s published early next year, it will be a huge step in the right direction. In addition, the ARRC has released four sets of recommended fallback language for different types of cash products. This fallback language clearly stipulates trigger events, replacement rates, and spread adjustments, and the triggers are close to those that ISDA has consulted on for derivatives. 2/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  And on Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff issued a statement highlighting risks and disclosures for market participants to evaluate proactively as they transition away from LIBOR. While derivatives and institutional cash markets make up the bulk of LIBOR-based contracts, consumer products are a critical area where the industry needs to focus. Ensuring a fair transition away from LIBOR is going to be particularly challenging, and it’s important consumers understand what the changes being made mean in real terms. Last week the ARRC published potential paths forward for adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). These include a set of guiding principles for ARMs and other consumer products, draft fallback language for new ARMs referencing U.S. dollar LIBOR, and a framework for use of SOFR in new ARMs.
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?