The shift to a new policy took place between 1993 and 1995. 3  BIS Review 59/1999  However, it should be added with regard to the failed defence of the krona, that experiences of free capital movements were not especially extensive. The Government and the Riksbank and political analysts in Sweden did not have any experience of the conditions for economic policy in a globalised world. The new stabilisation policy regime The Government formulated the goal for monetary policy itself in January 1993. Inflation was to be maintained at two per cent per year with a tolerance interval of +/- 1 per cent. The goal is symmetric. It is as important to bring inflation up to two per cent when actual inflation is under two per cent as it is to bring down inflation when it is higher than the target. This can be said but a lot of practical issues remained to be resolved and the answers are not at all obvious: 1. How is inflation to be measured: by CPI, the GDP deflator, or some other measure of price movements? 2. Shall the Riksbank have other objectives besides price stability? 3. Shall policies be directed at controlling the money supply or inflation directly? 4. How is confidence to be established in the Riksbank’s policy and expectations about low inflation? 1. The inflation target The Riksbank’s objectives has been expressed in the following way in legislation: “The objective of the Riksbank’s operations shall be to maintain price stability.
These trustees have a legally binding obligation to exercise all of their rights as majority owner of AIG in the best interests of the U.S. taxpayer, with the proceeds of any ultimate sale of shares going directly to the Treasury of the United States. Efforts to reduce risk at AIG Financial Products As has been widely noted, the activities at AIG's Financial Products unit (FP) were a principal cause of the losses that drove AIG to the brink of bankruptcy in September 2008. Risks of substantial magnitude – including derivatives positions with a current total notional value exceeding one trillion dollars – still remain in force at FP, meaning that not millions but billions of taxpayer dollars are potentially at stake as the orderly wind-down of FP continues to progress. The winding down of these risk positions at FP is a delicate and complex matter with systemic implications for the U.S. and global economy. Our oversight of this riskreduction process remains a top priority.