As regards new technologies, algorithmic and high-frequency trading is becoming increasingly relevant in financial market transactions. Some evidence suggests that the proliferation of these trading technologies may increase the probability of flash crashes and intensify the procyclicality of financial markets. Therefore, it would be advisable to further analyse, and closely monitor, these activities. In terms of new instruments, we must, of course, talk about crypto-currencies. To date, they have played a relatively minor role in financial markets and have not posed a significant challenge for financial stability, not least because of their relatively limited adoption. A potentially much more relevant phenomenon is that of the so-called “stablecoin” arrangements, which are receiving growing attention by authorities across the globe given their potential implications for the payment system and financial stability. While precedents such as Tether show that there has been a genuine interest in developing less volatile tokens for quite a while, some of the latest initiatives have become an emerging source of concern for financial authorities. This is due to their recent drive towards global scale and the increased complexity of their respective ecosystems and the underlying stabilisation mechanisms. There is broad consensus that the heterogeneity surrounding the various design aspects of upcoming stablecoins augurs a myriad of new or amplified risks. Thus, current regulatory, supervisory and policy tools and practices need amending to secure their effectiveness. All these matters mark broadly unchartered territory for everybody.
In the spirit of building trust and agility during normal times, we have worked hard to strengthen coordination arrangements with our regional counterparts and key domestic authorities. To name a few, this has included the development of crisis management protocols that are outlined in the Strategic Alliance Agreement with PIDM, the Operational Framework for Financial Crisis Management and Resolution with the Securities Commission, and the Executives’ Meeting of Asia-Pacific Central Banks (EMEAP) Crisis Management and Resolution Framework involving 11 jurisdictions. Numerous refinements have been introduced, and several crisis simulations were conducted. All in response to anticipated changes in the financial and regulatory landscape, and to continuously elevate our level of operational preparedness. We remain committed to building strong relationships based on mutual trust that will serve us well through the uncertainties that invariably accompany any crises. And we continue to work on ensuring that these arrangements are credible when disaster strikes. For us, it is as important to encourage open and honest communications with our counterparts, as it is to have formal arrangements for information exchange. We cooperate with each other in conducting joint surveillance and capacity building initiatives. Through these collaborations, we gradually build respect, trust and goodwill, the kind that no framework can hope to manufacture. Let me now conclude. In no trivial part due to my mentors, predecessors and colleagues, past crises that affected Malaysia were well-managed, leading to speedy recovery with minimal losses to taxpayers, and the equally important structural transformations that followed. Clear statutory remits. Independent policy making.