Governor Zhu suggested that the role and status of the SDR be enhanced, with the long term objective of creating a “super reserve” currency. However, the Triffin dilemma goes back to a period when international capital markets were poorly developed. By then, international liquidity was limited to instruments used to settle payments between official monetary authorities. It was represented by claims on such official  BIS Review 120/2010  3  entities. By contrast, in today’s world, most international liquidity is privately provided and represented by claims on private institutions. Interbank markets play a crucial role in this process. The more capital markets become integrated at the short end, the more international liquidity is provided by the private sector. As a consequence, there is a strong continuity and complementarities between domestic and international liquidity. Both depend on the willingness of counterparties to extend credit to each other. Both are subject to aggregate supply and demand shocks with sudden shifts in risk aversion or liquidity preference. Both result from leveraging and deleveraging by private institutions (Adrian and Shin, 2008). When markets seize, counterparty risk is perceived as excessive, uncertainty settles in, financial institutions deleverage their positions towards non residents, and then international liquidity dries up and disappears. When a shock occurs, public provision of liquidity has to substitute to private provision. In a domestic context, this is the function of the lender of last resort. But when the shortage is about foreign currency liquidity, this role has to be played by foreign exchange reserves.
Out of the total, only a small part of the SDR allocation  BIS Review 120/2010  5  will benefit countries which may effectively need to use them. More may be needed to substitute for national foreign exchange reserves as a permanent insurance mechanism. Contingent liquidity The search for new liquidity sources meets with an inescapable moral hazard problem. On the one hand, to be equivalent to reserves going forward, multilateral liquidity must be available ex ante and without condition. On the other, there is a danger that fully unconditional liquidity be used to deal with fundamental “solvency” imbalances. In real life, this is not an easy distinction to make. The dilemma is solved, at the domestic level, by the provision of eligible collateral. This may prove very uneasy for international liquidity: transferring ownership of substantial amounts of sovereign assets between countries or to international institutions would meet with huge legal and political difficulties. This is the rationale for conditionality. But, of course, conditionality creates an uncertainty which is incompatible with the purpose of instant supply of liquidity. A conditional facility will never be a perfect substitute for reserves. Many countries fully eligible to the Flexible Credit Line (FCL) have used foreign swaps instead. Anecdotal evidence suggests that swaps are often perceived as carrying less of a stigma effect.