Menü

The ECB and Its Watchers XVII

April 7, 2016

Gesellschaftshaus Palmengarten
Palmengartenstraße 11
Frankfurt am Main

Summary

With the eurozone still lagging despite the ultra-low interest rates and the bond-buying program of the European Central Bank, unconventional monetary policy measures were in the center of the discussion of the seventeenth edition of the "The ECB and Its Watchers" conference. The ECB's measures could be increased Peter Praet, the ECB’s chief economist, told the audience. "If further adverse shocks were to materialize, our measures could be recalibrated once more commensurate with the strength of the headwind, also taking into account possible side effects". Without the stimulus, inflation in the euro area would have been around half a percentage point lower in the first months of 2016 and the economy would be around 1.5 percent smaller by 2018, he said. However, he pushed back against radical proposals. Helicopter money was "not on the table", Praet told the audience. "It's not even discussed informally". Time and again, some economists argue that central banks should apply radical measures like this textbook concept of printing money and handing it to citizens in order to prevent deflation in the euro area. 

Benoît Cœuré, ECB Executive Board member, emphasized the ECB's independence. "Our mandate is not conditional on what others are doing," he said. Growth-friendly measures would make the ECB's ultra-easy monetary policy more effective, he added. Regarding the question what could be done collectively to make monetary policy more effective Cœuré came to the conclusion that "taking forward the EMU integrations will also improve the effectiveness of monetary policy transmission".

In his presentation, Charles Bean, professor at the London School of Economics, investigated monetary policy in a disinflationary world, looking at forward guidance, quantitative easing, negative interest rates or rather exotic options such as raising the inflation target to e.g. 4 percent or eliminating cash. Warning the central bank about trying to squeeze more and more out of monetary policy, Bean concluded that it was "time for fiscal and structural policies to play a bigger role". Also to Hans-Helmut Kotz monetary policy is overburdened. However, "the need for more coordination is dependent on the context", the Senior Fellow at the Center for Financial Studies warned.

Hyun Shin of the Bank of the Bank for International Settlements drew the attention to the banking sector criticizing that banks don't figure that much in macroeconomic models. However, in his view it was absolutely crucial to focus on bank capital. Presenting his recent study "Why bank capital matters for monetary policy", Shin appealed that "equity is the foundation of lending". As banks were better capitalized they could borrow more cheaply. Martin Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods touched upon the relationship between financial stability and monetary policy. Over the past one and a half years many unusual policies were applied, "all of them in the name of fighting inflation". However, according to Hellwig the justifications for unconventional measures were too weak, asking the ECB for more patience. "It took two or three years in the past for measures to have an effect," Hellwig recalled. "If you don't want to wait then force banks to capitalize now," he concluded. 

Catherine Mann, Chief Economist at the OECD focused on the challenges for monetary policy looking at global growth weakness "through the trade lens". In Mann's view, the responsiveness of many central banks by recurring to negative interest rates reminded her of a fashion item. As the global growth weakness was caused by China to a large extent, the development of its economy after the internal rebalancing was an important aspect.

Regarding the question whether monetary policy should take into account financial stability risks explicitly "weak macroprudential policy may increase the severity of a crisis," Lars Svensson, professor at Stockholm University, warned. Anil Kashyap of the University of Chicago argued that leaning against the wind in monetary policy "slows growth in the future but also can prevent a very costly crisis". In his opinion, the Bank of England model "beats the US and euro area model for tackling instability". But "it had not been tested yet".

Giovanni Dell'Arriccia of the International Monetary Fund warned of challenges that come to central banks' independence when their mandate is expanded: "When you include financial stability everything becomes more complicated".  Also to ECB Governing Council member Ignazio Visco it is very difficult to consider both financial stability and monetary policy. Nevertheless, "growth and price stability are key for financial stability," he underlined. "A very accommodative monetary policy involves risks but low levels of interest rates reflect a slack in the economy and dangerously low actual and expected inflation," he added.

Program

08:00 – 08:25

Registration and Coffee

08:25 – 08:30

Welcome

Günter Beck, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability & Center for Financial Studies

08:30 – 10:00

Debate 1: What Are the Appropriate Instruments to Bring Inflation Back to Target in a World of Systematic Disinflation?

  • Has forward guidance on interest rates satisfied its hoped-for expectations?
  • How effective has QE been? Which type of QE (private versus public securities) should be conducted?
  • Does QE suffer from diminishing pay-offs/increasing marginal costs? What is the right way to weigh the former against the latter? Are these costs different in a currency union relative to a national state?
  • Is there a need for more QE in the euro area?
  • What are the alternatives to QE (helicopter money, negative interest rates, ...)?

Chair:
Volker Wieland, Institute for Monetary Financial Stability

Speakers:
Peter Praet, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB (Speech)
Hyun Shin, Bank for International Settlement (Speech)
Charles Bean, London School of Economics (Slides)

Lead questions:
Sylvain Boyer, Natixis
Ulrich Kater, Deka Bank
Beatrice Weder di Mauro, University of Mainz

10:00 – 10:30

Coffee Break

10:30 – 12:00

Debate 2: Which Challenges Do the Currently Ongoing (And Likely Future) Changes in the Financial and (International) Economic Environment Pose on the Conduct of Monetary Policy in the Euro Area?

  • Will the new regulatory financial framework and recent trends in the financial-intermediation sector (towards more market-based financial intermediation) affect the conduct of monetary policy? If so, how? What role will the intended Capital Markets Union play in this context?
  • What likely challenges will arise from international developments, such as divergent monetary policies or subdued economic growth in so-called emerging market economies?
  • How likely do you think is it that the recommendations of the Five Presidents' Reports are implemented and how would this impact on monetary policy?

Chair:
Otmar Issing, President, Center for Financial Studies

Speakers:
Benoît Coeuré, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB
Martin Hellwig, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Hans Helmut Kotz, Center for Financial Studies & Harvard University
Catherine Mann, Organization for Economic Development (Slides)

Lead questions:
Claudia Broyer, Allianz SE
Paul Sheard, Standard & Poor's
Michael Wolgast, German Savings Banks Association (DSGV)

12:00 – 13:30

Lunch

13:30 – 15:00

Debate 3: Should the Current Monetary Policy Framework Be Adjusted to Meet (New) Post-crisis Challenges?

  • Are the existing institutional frameworks appropriate with regard to their specifications of the objectives of monetary policy or should they be adjusted? In particular, should monetary policy take into account risks to financial stability explicitly?
  • Is targeting an inflation rate of (below but close to) 2% too ambitious? What are the factors that may hinder the accomplishment of such a positive inflation target? Are these factors transitory or permanent? What are the sources: global forces or lack of commitment/sufficient instruments on the side of central banks?
  • Do we need to revisit the reasons for having a sufficient inflation buffer away from zero? Does an inflation buffer of close to 2% represent an appropriate buffer?

Chair:
Helmut Siekmann, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability

Speakers:
Ignazio Visco, Banca d'Italia (Speech) (Slides)
Lars Svensson, Stockholm School of Economics (Slides)
Anil Kashyap, University of Chicago, Booth School of Business (Slides)
Giovanni Dell-Ariccia, International Monetary Fund (Slides)

Lead questions:
Ernst Baltensperger, University of Bern
Stefan B. Schneider, Deutsche Bank

15:00 – 15:10

Closing Remarks

Günter Beck, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability & Center for Financial Studies

Meet the Panelists