Let us instead develop a coherent and integrated system that relies upon the classical elements of defense, but none of them exclusively: perimeter security to keep the adversary outside of the environment; defense in depth to safeguard our most critical assets; sophisticated intelligence to understand the adversary’s tactics; robust surveillance to monitor for intrusion and ensure environmental integrity; rapid response to fend off attack; effective collaboration with allies to enhance information sharing and collective security; and a strategic reserve to respond deftly in the event of loss. Make no mistake: as it relates to the wholesale services of the Federal Reserve Banks, we aspire not merely to a commercial standard of resiliency, or even a supervisory standard, but something approaching national security grade. We proceed on this trajectory from a position of strength, reflecting a record of experience that has endured the most severe terror attack in our nation’s history, a financial crisis of historic proportion, and an array of extreme weather events. But in this sphere, either intentionally we are progressing, or inevitably we are regressing: there is no idleness. Thank you for your generous attention today. I’d be pleased to respond to a few questions. 5/5  BIS central bankers' speeches
Let us imagine that our households – which we assumed did not amortise at all to begin with – are forced to amortise their loans over a period of 50 years. If the households began to amortise in this way, it would on the one hand initially mean increased expenditure for the households corresponding to between almost 5 and a good 12 per cent of their disposable income. To achieve the same effect with an interest rate increase, the mortgage rate would need to increase by almost 3 percentage points. On the other hand, the amortisations would mean that interest expenditure fell as the loan was paid off. As amortisation is a form of saving, this measure means in the long run that the loan cost falls and that the household improves its balance sheet or financial position. In this example we have assumed that the  19  With a tax deduction of 30 per cent, an interest rate increase of 1.7 percentage points means that the interest after tax increases by 1.2 percentage points. This is as much as abolishing the tax relief would increase costs if the interest rate was 4 per cent to start with. 20  http://www.fi.se/upload/43_Utredningar/20_Rapporter/2011/effekt_bolanetak_delstudie.pdf. BIS central bankers’ speeches  9  households do not have any savings, in practice of course they would also be able to manage changes in amortisation requirements by reducing other saving. Comparisons with the interest rate A relevant comparison is what a direct increase in the interest rate would entail for our households.