It also illustrates the importance of continuing to focus on bank culture and proper incentives in order to support financial stability over the longer term. At its core, the problem we face today is that the financial system has built a tremendously large edifice on a structurally impaired foundation. While many in the industry cannot recall a time when LIBOR did not exist, in fact, it was only developed in the 1980s. Since then, the use of LIBOR as a reference rate has exploded—with the size of financial contracts referencing U.S.dollar LIBOR today estimated at close to $ trillion.2 The vast majority of these exposures are derivative obligations, such as interest rate swaps. But, that tally also includes trillions of dollars of cash products, such as residential and commercial mortgages, corporate bonds and loans, and securitized products. And, with new contracts referencing LIBOR still being written, this balance continues to grow significantly. Broadly speaking, reference rates are vital to efficient market functioning. They facilitate trading in standardized contracts, which lowers transaction costs and increases market liquidity. Robust reference rates can also reduce information asymmetries and the risk of misconduct by providing transparent, independent pricing. But, in the case of LIBOR, the foundation had serious flaws. Most notably, LIBOR was (and is) based on submissions from individual banks—which, in turn, were based on hypothetical borrowing rates or expert judgments, and not actual transactions. Moreover, deficiencies existed in regulatory oversight and governance of the rate-setting mechanism.
It is clear, however, that the ambitions of most countries still fall short of the requirements in the Stability and Growth Pact. This is certainly attributable in part to the economic slowdown, with Italy as the clearest example. But it is also notable that the ambitions for budget consolidation are now lower than before the move to Stage Three. The relatively good growth during 1998 ought to have left room for budget consolidation in many countries but it was not used and in certain countries the structural deficit has actually increased. The Ecofin Council has in fact criticised a number of countries, including Germany, France, Austria and the Netherlands, for the low level of ambitions in their stability programmes. In Sweden, the budget position looks comparatively healthy. Our fiscal policy is likewise less restrictive than before but the structural deficit has been turned into a surplus that is now growing and the ambition is still to achieve a budget surplus of 2 per cent of GDP on average over the business cycle. At the same time it should be underscored that some variation in the objective across countries seems reasonable. The degree of fiscal readiness — and thus the requisite size of the surplus — depends on a number of factors. One is the cyclical sensitivity of government finances and another is the level of government debt. It is then reasonable that a country like Sweden has a larger public sector financial surplus than a country where the automatic stabilisers and government debt are smaller.