If inflation is more than one percentage point either side of the target, we are required to write to the Chancellor explaining the reasons for the miss and the steps we are taking to bring inflation back to target. There was a flurry of excitement earlier this year when inflation reached 1.8%, and many commentators thought that we might soon have to polish up our letter writing skills. But so far we have not had to put pen to paper. Of course, a number of factors have contributed to the stability in inflation. Monetary policy takes time to affect inflation, so inflation in the early part of this period reflects decisions taken before the MPC was formed. And in the short term at least prices can reflect factors other than monetary policy. But, judged against previous policy regimes in this country, inflation targeting has been successful. Of course, you might expect me to say that. But the growing credibility of the arrangements is also reflected in measures of expected inflation in coming years, most of which remain close to the 2½% target. People often ask if this relative success at targeting inflation has come at a cost in terms of lost output or employment. It is increasingly accepted, I think, that there is no such trade-off in the long run. And, looking at the recent UK data, it is hard to see any trade-off even in the short run. Output has now risen for 36 consecutive quarters, the longest continuous expansion since post-war records began.
One prime example of this preventive work is the recent joint statements from the CNMV and the Banco de España warning the general public of the risks in relation to crypto-assets. Another example, specific to financial education, is the set of actions envisaged under the National Financial Education Plan. 1  We support this preventive work by exercising our corrective powers, wherever regulations and jurisdiction so allow, and by advocating legislative initiatives with regulators and legislators to remedy any shortcomings that we identify. The main strength of this protocol is that it deepens the cooperation needed to efficiently and effectively carry out our functions. This collaboration will also help to delimit each signatory’s respective field of action. Close cooperation between supervisors is particularly important in this domain, since we are often confronted with schemes that do not fit easily within a single regulatory field or sphere of competence. The idea is to avoid any grey areas where potential criminals can commit financial fraud. Not only are financial supervisors involved in the protocol, but so too are players as important and diverse as the public prosecution service, law enforcement authorities and associations representing notaries, registrars, the financial sector and the media. This, we are certain, will be a critical advantage in our efforts to combat financial fraud in both the preventive and corrective dimension. A warm welcome, then, to this initiative, which will have the Banco de España’s full support. 2