Secondly, due to the trade offs I described earlier, the government has proposed that the FPC be subject to a constraint that it should not act to preserve stability at the cost of significantly impairing the capacity of the financial sector to contribute to medium-to-long term economic growth. What this means in practice is that when faced with an immediate or incipient threat to stability, we must try to find a solution that avoids damage to long-term growth. That discipline is welcomed by the Bank. This is obviously all novel stuff. It is therefore helpful that the government plans to ask Parliament for a power periodically to flesh out the statutory objective, via a Remit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer – an arrangement that has worked well in the monetary field in the UK. It will enable practical lessons to be incorporated into the regime over time. Why is the UK’s macroprudential body separate from microsupervision? Most central banks have traditionally regarded their contribution to financial stability as deriving from their markets and banking supervision functions. That is explicit in the Federal Reserve’s 1913 statute, with which I began these remarks. And given the UK’s heavily concentrated banking system, effective banking supervision is obviously an essential precondition for preserving stability. But in terms of how organisations work in the real world, the flaw in relying entirely on this is that it assumes that those operational areas of the central bank will invariably make time and space to address the financial system as a system.
See also the Bank’s paper: “The role of macroprudential policy: A discussion paper”, November 2009. 8  BIS central bankers’ speeches  The benchmark instrument, in the sense that it will definitely exist, will be the countercyclical buffer (CCB) in the Basel 3 Capital Accord. In the UK, it will be the FPC that decides whether to switch off the semi-automatic application of the CCB when triggered by the ratio of credit to GDP and other indicators exceeding certain thresholds. (It is not altogether clear, by the way, who will have that responsibility in other countries; the function requires a system-wide perspective and a macroeconomic capability and so is not exclusively in the domain of microprudential regulators.) Beyond the one instrument agreed internationally so far, the UK government is also considering whether to give the FPC a variety of other instruments. These include varying liquidity requirements; and varying capital requirements against specific types of exposure (“risk weights”) and/or minimum haircuts for specific types of secured lending, whether financing hedge funds etc or Loan-To-Value ratios for property-related lending. The availability of such targeted instruments might be especially useful where the FPC wished to mitigate risks from overexuberance and collective imprudence in lending to a particular sector without necessarily affecting credit conditions more generally. Targeting a specific area of business might also sometimes help to resolve a collective action problem sustaining a bubble if enough lenders themselves thought risk was being underpriced.