Floating exchange rates allow a country to pursue its own, independent monetary policy; however, the disadvantage of such an approach is that it can result in major (nominal and  2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  real) exchange rate fluctuations. A country’s currency may thus be substantially under or overvalued – sometimes for considerable periods of time. The problems associated with both fixed and floating exchange rates mean that, time and again, central banks have been on the lookout for compromises. Since the end of the Bretton Woods system, the SNB has twice introduced a temporary exchange rate floor in order to cap Swiss franc appreciation: first in October 1978 against the German mark, and latterly in September 2011 as a minimum exchange rate against the euro. The minimum exchange rate as a monetary policy instrument When a central bank announces a minimum exchange rate, it commits to enforcing a floor, if necessary by means of foreign currency purchases. Such a policy is designed to cap a currency’s appreciation. The minimum exchange rate is not conceived as an instrument for fine-tuning the exchange rate. Rather, it is intended to give guidance to the markets in a period of extreme uncertainty and to reduce excessive appreciation. However, a minimum exchange rate is not a long-term instrument. This is especially true in a country like Switzerland which has lower long-term average inflation rates than most countries and a currency that has appreciated consistently over the decades – both in real and nominal terms.
The assessment of capital adequacy needs to look beyond the computed capital ratio. The new Basel Accord therefore comprises three pillars. The first pillar provides a minimum capital measurement framework for credit and operational risks. In essence, the regulatory capital requirement is aligned more closely with the actual degree of underlying risk that the banking institution faces. It provides the capital measurement that has three options with different levels of complexities for both credit and operational risks to better reflect actual risk. The second pillar focuses on strengthening the supervisory process, particularly in assessing the quality of risk management in the banking institutions. The supervisory process aims to provide the mechanism to ensure that other risks such as concentration risks and market risks in the banking books being managed. Under such an environment, prudent lending such as that characterized by a high degree of portfolio diversification, could justify lower capital requirements. The third pillar specifies minimum disclosure requirements on capital adequacy to enhance market discipline. Despite its relatively more complex architecture, the implementation of the new framework provides a number of options and flexibility to banking institutions. This is to ensure that the approach adopted reflects and is commensurate with the nature of risk-taking activities and the level of sophistication of individual institutions. In adopting the standardized approach for credit risks, the credit exposures are weighted based on recognized external credit ratings.