I am therefore delighted that we were able to organise this colloquium with such a set of distinguished speakers, all of which have their exceptional professional standing deeply associated with the financial crisis, either as policy-makers, crisis managers, academics or proponents of regulatory initiatives. My introductory remarks this afternoon are organised around the title of this colloquium. My aim is to review policies in the last few years and draw some policy conclusions. I will first touch upon some of the lessons for financial stability, where Lucas’s contribution was especially important, as responsible for the financial stability function, and then turn to the experience with monetary policy. Lessons for financial stability The financial crisis erupted in August 2007, when off-balance sheet vehicles that had been set up by banks to manage portfolios of complex structured credit securities ran into funding liquidity problems. Although initially a liquidity squeeze, concerns about counterparty credit risks quickly spread as uncertainties intensified about the nature and extent of exposures of banks to what we now call “toxic assets”. And, as we know, these escalating tensions culminated in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, an event which triggered an unprecedented surge of volatility across mature-economy financial markets and a broad-based decline of asset prices. With this, an adverse feedback between the condition of the financial system and real economic performance was unleashed, contributing to a sharp economic slowdown across the developed economies.
Let me now turn to seven more awkward questions for us. First, how do we square the principle of proportionality with the steeper slope of regulatory requirements this inevitably causes for growing firms? This arises in many ways, where we take a softer approach for smaller firms but this has to be withdrawn as they grow. One example is the steps in our Systemic Risk Buffer regime, which we’ve debated with Sir John in the past – it’s true these could be smoothed to some extent by greater granularity and/or an ‘income tax’ approach, but the basic problem of gradient remains. This issue also arises on the resolution side, which is of course outside the scope of the competition objective – it must be right that we exempt small firms from bail-in debt, but this inevitably leads to a moment when successful firms stop being small and need to start issuing. Second, and related to the first, although we have in my view been pretty successful in encouraging new entrants, it is so far notable that no small bank has successfully become a large bank. Perhaps this will change through time, and it may have much more to do with behavioural stickiness of current accounts than regulation, but it would be complacent to be relaxed about it. As an aside, there may be lessons to be learned here from the general insurance market: it is notable that some of today’s largest GI firms started as small challengers within the last 20-30 years.