However, at the latest monetary policy meeting in April 2010 I chose not to advocate a lower repo-rate path but instead an “extended” repo-rate path. In this extended path, the period in which the repo-rate is 0.25 per cent is extended to the end of the fourth quarter of 2010 instead of to the end of the second quarter as the majority decided. I thus supported the decision to leave the repo rate unchanged at 0.25 per cent, but entered a reservation in favour of the extended repo-rate path. My reason for this was that such a repo-rate path has the same effects as the lower repo-rate path; that is a higher level of resource utilisation and a level of CPIF inflation closer to the target. 1 An expansionary monetary policy can thus be achieved either with a lower repo-rate path in which the repo rate is reduced now or with an extended repo-rate path in which the repo rate is maintained at a low level for a longer period of time. Some of my colleagues have had certain doubts about a repo-rate level below 0.25 per cent. As you know, I do not share these doubts. In this context, the extended repo-rate path has the advantage that these doubts are no longer relevant. It also has the advantage that it reduces the monetary policy decision to the question of when the repo-rate should be increased.
This data constraint could also become an issue for some developed markets, given a structural break in data due to the financial crisis and market dislocation. On top of these, there is the issue of level playing-field, as the structure of bank asset and liability in emerging and developed countries may be significantly different. We have found several policies that may have impact on level playing-field, between countries and business models of banks. An example is the application of a simple leverage ratio, which does not take into account inherent risk, because this would tend to penalise banks in developing countries that generally hold less risky assets compared to developed countries. In addition, macro-prudential measures, such as leverage ratio, could likely have a macroeconomic impact, possibly similar to use of liquidity reserve requirement as per classic monetary policy tool, and thus coordination with macroeconomic policy is vital. For central banks with dual role, this is less of a challenge, but for separated regulators, the issue of organisation structure once again comes into play. Turning to the Bank of Thailand’s involvement on these regulatory debates through various international forums – such as the bi-monthly BIS Governor Meetings, the Standard Implementation Group of BCBS, of which we are a member – we have proposed that developing countries be invited to participate in the formulation of new standards right at the beginning, rather than to be included at the later stage of implementation.