Starting from the February meeting, the repo rate was cut below zero and the first of a series of asset purchase programmes was begun. Furthermore, we signalled that there was a possibility of foreign exchange interventions if the krona appreciation already forecast were so strong and rapid that it jeopardised the upturn in inflation. We deliberately increased our focus on the development of short-run inflation, as we had a low tolerance of poor outcomes. What considerations should govern our choice of future path? We are now in April 2016 and I judge that we have largely succeeded in our efforts. Growth has become much higher than expected, although this is not merely due to monetary policy. The trend towards declining confidence in the inflation target has turned around in that inflation expectations have begun to rise again. The monetary policy conducted is far from uncomplicated. In a world of minus rates it is more difficult to assess what impact the interest rate decisions will have on different channels, that is, how the transmission mechanism will work. It is also difficult to assess the stimulation effects of the bond purchases. 2 Moreover, the Riksbank has been clear that low interest rates increase indebtedness among households in a way that increases vulnerability in the Swedish economy. But most of all, I feel that our monetary policy is successful and better than the alternative.
15/11/2019  Opening remarks 11th edition of the European SSM Roundtable/International Bankers Forum Margarita Delgado Deputy Governor  Good Morning and welcome to Banco de España for this 11th edition of the European SSM Roundtable, organised by the International Bankers Forum (IBF). The topic for today’s roundtable is the management of non-financial risk. This is an issue which is always in the spotlight and, at the same time, is quite hard to tackle. The concept of risk is continuously used in banking regulation. A quick search in the CRR1 or CRR2 text will reveal that it is mentioned nearly 1,500 times in each. Banks are certainly familiar with the regulatory requests to understand, measure, hedge, control, assess, address or mitigate risk. I believe it is fair to say that any firm that has survived the crisis and its long aftermath, without public support, has been largely successful in fulfilling these risk-related tasks. Of course, supervisors are also permanently concerned about risk; to some extent, it is what we are paid for. Still, I believe both banks and supervisors tend to feel rather comfortable when we assess financial risk. Don’t misinterpret me. We are perfectly aware of the consequences that a mismanagement of financial risk can entail, but we tend to look at financial risk in a more natural and intuitive way. Things get a lot stickier when we look at non-financial risk. What is the nature of non-financial risk? And what makes it different from more traditional financial risk?