EACC

Beating financial crime: EU Commission overhauls anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism rules

The European Commission has today presented an ambitious package of legislative proposals to strengthen the EU’s anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing (AML/CFT) rules. The package also includes the proposal for the creation of a new EU authority to fight money laundering. This package is part of the Commission’s commitment to protect EU citizens and the EU’s financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. The aim of this package is to improve the detection of suspicious transactions and activities, and to close loopholes used by criminals to launder illicit proceeds or finance terrorist activities through the financial system. As recalled in the EU’s Security Union Strategy for 2020-2025, enhancing the EU’s framework for anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing will also help to protect Europeans from terrorism and organised crime.
Today’s measures greatly enhance the existing EU framework by taking into account new and emerging challenges linked to technological innovation. These include virtual currencies, more integrated financial flows in the Single Market and the global nature of terrorist organisations. These proposals will help to create a much more consistent framework to ease compliance for operators subject to AML/CFT rules, especially for those active cross-border.
Today’s package consists of four legislative proposals:

A Regulation establishing a new EU AML/CFT Authority;
A Regulation on AML/CFT, containing directly-applicable rules, including in the areas of Customer Due Diligence and Beneficial Ownership;
A sixth Directive on AML/CFT (“AMLD6”), replacing the existing Directive 2015/849/EU (the fourth AML directive as amended by the fifth AML directive), containing provisions that will be transposed into national law, such as rules on national supervisors and Financial Intelligence Units in Member States;
A revision of the 2015 Regulation on Transfers of Funds to trace transfers of crypto-assets (Regulation 2015/847/EU).

Members of the College said:
Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice-President for an Economy that works for people, said: “Every fresh money laundering scandal is one scandal too many – and a wake-up call that our work to close the gaps in our financial system is not yet done. We have made huge strides in recent years and our EU AML rules are now among the toughest in the world. But they now need to be applied consistently and closely supervised to make sure they really bite. This is why we are today taking these bold steps to close the door on money laundering and stop criminals from lining their pockets with ill-gotten gains.”
Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner responsible for financial services, financial stability and Capital Markets Union said: “Money laundering poses aclear and present threat to citizens, democratic institutions, and the financial system. The scale of the problem cannot be underestimated and the loopholes that criminals can exploit need to be closed. Today’s package significantly ramps up our efforts to stop dirty money being washed through the financial system. We are increasing coordination and cooperation between authorities in member states, and creating a new EU AML authority. These measures will help us protect the integrity of the financial system and the single market.”
A new EU AML Authority (AMLA)
At the heart of today’s legislative package is the creation of a new EU Authority which will transform AML/CFT supervision in the EU and enhance cooperation among Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). The new EU-level Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will be the central authority coordinating national authorities to ensure the private sector correctly and consistently applies EU rules. AMLA will also support FIUs to improve their analytical capacity around illicit flows and make financial intelligence a key source for law enforcement agencies.
In particular, AMLA will:

establish a single integrated system of AML/CFT supervision across the EU, based on common supervisory methods and convergence of high supervisory standards;
directly supervise some of the riskiest financial institutions that operate in a large number of Member States or require immediate action to address imminent risks;
monitor and coordinate national supervisors responsible for other financial entities, as well as coordinate supervisors of non-financial entities;
support cooperation among national Financial Intelligence Units and facilitate coordination and joint analyses between them, to better detect illicit financial flows of a cross-border nature.

A Single EU Rulebook for AML/CFT
The Single EU Rulebook for AML/CFT will harmonise AML/CFT rules across the EU, including, for example, more detailed rules on Customer Due Diligence, Beneficial Ownership and the powers and task of supervisors and Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). Existing national registers of bank accounts will be connected, providing faster access for FIUs to information on bank accounts and safe deposit boxes. The Commission will also provide law enforcement authorities with access to this system, speeding up financial investigations and the recovery of criminal assets in cross-border cases. Access to financial information will be subject to robust safeguards in Directive (EU) 2019/1153 on exchange of financial information.
Full application of the EU AML/CFT rules to the crypto sector
At present, only certain categories of crypto-asset service providers are included in the scope of EU AML/CFT rules. The proposed reform will extend these rules to the entire crypto sector, obliging all service providers to conduct due diligence on their customers. Today’s amendments will ensure full traceability of crypto-asset transfers, such as Bitcoin, and will allow for prevention and detection of their possible use for money laundering or terrorism financing. In addition, anonymous crypto asset wallets will be prohibited, fully applying EU AML/CFT rules to the crypto sector.
EU-wide limit of €10,000 on large cash payments
Large cash payments are an easy way for criminals to launder money, since it is very difficult to detect transactions. That is why the Commission has today proposed an EU-wide limit of €10,000 on large cash payments. This EU-wide limit is high enough not to put into question the euro as legal tender and recognises the vital role of cash. Limits already exist in about two-thirds of Member States, but amounts vary. National limits under €10,000 can remain in place. Limiting large cash payments makes it harder for criminals to launder dirty money. In addition, providing anonymous crypto-asset wallets will be prohibited, just as anonymous bank accounts are already prohibited by EU AML/CFT rules.
Third countries
Money laundering is a global phenomenon that requires strong international cooperation. The Commission already works closely with its international partners to combat the circulation of dirty money around the globe. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, issues recommendations to countries. A country that is listed by FATF will also be listed by the EU. There will be two EU lists, a “black-list” and a “grey-list, reflecting the FATF listing. Following the listing, the EU will apply measures proportionate to the risks posed by the country. The EU will also be able to list countries which are not listed by FATF, but which pose a threat to the EU’s financial system based on an autonomous assessment.
The diversity of the tools that the Commission and AMLA can use will allow the EU to keep pace with a fast-moving and complex international environment with rapidly evolving risks.
Next steps
The legislative package will now be discussed by the European Parliament and Council. The Commission looks forward to a speedy legislative process. The future AML Authority should be operational in 2024 and will start its work of direct supervision slightly later, once the Directive has been transposed and the new regulatory framework starts to apply.
Background
The complex issue of tackling dirty money flows is not new. The fight against money laundering and terrorist financing is vital for financial stability and security in Europe. Legislative gaps in one Member State have an impact on the EU as a whole. That is why EU rules must be implemented and supervised efficiently and consistently to combat crime and protect our financial system. Ensuring the efficiency and consistency of the EU AML framework is of the utmost importance. Today’s legislative package implements the commitments in our Action Plan for a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorism financing which was adopted by the Commission on 7 May 2020.
The EU framework against money laundering also includes the regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the directive on combating money laundering by criminal law, the directive laying down rules on the use of financial and other information to combat serious crimes,  the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the European system of financial supervision.
Compliments of the European Commission.
The post Beating financial crime: EU Commission overhauls anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism rules first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

Digital sovereignty: EU Commission kick-starts alliances for Semiconductors and industrial cloud technologies

The European Commission kick-starts today two new Industrial Alliances: the Alliance for Processors and Semiconductor technologies, and the European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud.
The two new alliances will advance the next generation of microchips and industrial cloud/edge computing technologies and provide the EU with the capabilities needed to strengthen its critical digital infrastructures, products and services. The alliances will bring together businesses, Member State representatives, academia, users, as well as research and technology organisations.
Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the Digital Age, said: “Cloud and edge technologies present a tremendous economic potential for citizens, businesses and public administrations, for example in terms of increased competitiveness and meeting industry-specific needs. Microchips are at the heart of every device we use nowadays. From our mobile phones to our passports, these small components bring a wealth of opportunities for technological advancements. Supporting innovation in these critical sectors is therefore crucial and can help Europe leap ahead together with like-minded partners.”
Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said: “Europe has all it takes to lead the technological race. The two alliances will devise ambitious technological roadmaps to develop and deploy in Europe the next generation of data processing technologies from cloud to edge and cutting-edge semiconductors. The alliance on cloud and edge aims at developing energy-efficient and highly secured European industrial clouds, which are not subject to control or access by third country authorities. The alliance on semiconductors will rebalance global semiconductor supply chains by ensuring that we have the capacity to design and produce, in Europe, the most advanced chips towards 2nm and below.”
Industrial Alliance for Processors and Semiconductor technologies
Microchips, including processors, are key technologies that power all electronic devices and machines we use today. Chips underpin a large variety of economic activities, and determine their energy efficiency and security levels. Capabilities in the development of processors and chips are crucial to the future of today’s most advanced economies. The Industrial Alliance on processors and semiconductor technologies will be a key instrument to further industrial progress in the EU in this area.
It will identify and address current bottlenecks, needs and dependencies across the industry. It will define technological roadmaps ensuring that Europe has the capacity to design and produce the most advanced chips while reducing its overall strategic dependencies by increasing its share of the global production of semiconductors to 20% by 2030.
To this aim, the Alliance aims to establish the design and manufacturing capacity required to produce the next generation of trusted processors and electronic components. This will mean moving Europe towards a production capacity of 16 nanometre (nm) to 10nm nodes to support Europe’s current needs, as well as below 5 to 2 nm and beyond to anticipate future technology needs. The most advanced types of semiconductors are more performant and have the potential to cut massively the energy used by everything from phones to data centres.
European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud
As highlighted in the European Strategy for Data, the volume of data generated is greatly increasing and a significant proportion of data is expected to be processed at the edge (80% by 2025, from only 20% today), closer to the users and where data are generated. This shift represents a major opportunity for the EU to strengthen its own cloud and edge capacities, and hence its technological sovereignty. It will require the development and deployment of fundamentally new data processing technologies, encompassing the edge, moving away from fully centralised data processing infrastructure models.
The European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud will foster the emergence of disruptive cloud and edge technologies that are highly secure, energy and resource-efficient and fully interoperable, fostering trust for cloud users across all sectors. The Alliance will serve the specific needs of EU citizens, businesses, and the public sector (including for military and security purposes) to process highly sensitive data, while boosting the competitiveness of EU industry on cloud and edge technologies.
Throughout its lifespan, the work of the Alliance will respect the following key principles and norms:

Highest standards in terms of interoperability and portability/reversibility, openness and transparency;
Highest standards in terms of data protection, cybersecurity, and data sovereignty;
State of the art in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability;
Compliance with European cloud best practices, including through adherence to relevant standards, codes of conduct and certification schemes.

Participation in the Alliances
These Alliances are open for participation by all public and private entities with a legal representative in the Union and with relevant activities, provided they meet the conditions defined in the Terms of Reference.
Due to the strategic relevance of the activities in the respective sectors, membership of the Alliances is subject to compliance with a number of conditions. Relevant stakeholders must meet eligibility criteria, related notably to security (including cybersecurity), security of supply, IP protection, data protection and data access and practical utility to the Alliance. They must sign the Declarations and fill in an application form, which will be assessed by the European Commission.
Background
The European Alliance for Industrial Processors and Semiconductor Technologies builds on the Commission’s ambitions to bolster Europe’s microelectronics and embedded systems value chains and strengthen leading-edge manufacturing capacity. In December 2020, Member States committed to work together to reinforce Europe’s capabilities in semiconductor technologies and offering the best performance for applications in a wide range of sectors. 22 Member States are currently signatories of this initiative.
The European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud builds on the political will, expressed by all 27 Member States in October 2020, to foster the development of the next generation cloud and edge capacities for the public and private sectors. In their Joint Declaration, the signatory Member States agreed to work together towards deploying resilient and competitive cloud infrastructure and services across Europe.
Compliments of the European Commission.
The post Digital sovereignty: EU Commission kick-starts alliances for Semiconductors and industrial cloud technologies first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Read More
EACC

IMF | The Resilience of Private Balance Sheets in Europe during COVID-19

One of the positive surprises about last year’s recession is how little damage it inflicted on average household and corporate balance sheets in Europe.
In the past, deep recessions were followed by protracted weakness as they left households and businesses with significantly higher debt and lower income and capital. So far this has not been the case with the COVID-19 crisis, largely thanks to the extraordinary policy response by governments and central banks.
As the recovery takes hold, however, policy makers will need to maintain support for the hardest hit segments of the economy and remain alert for signs of economic damage yet to emerge. Not all private balance sheets were equally resilient.
In new IMF staff research, we observe the resilience of private sector balance sheets. For example, using a simple balance sheet vulnerability index, which combines measures of leverage (or indebtedness) and liquidity, we can see that despite the collapse in GDP in European Union countries and the United Kingdom in 2020, business and household balance sheets in Europe were little affected on average.
Before the pandemic, these indicators tended to move in tandem – declining GDP was usually accompanied by increased strain on corporate and household balance sheets. In contrast, even in the worst phase of the crisis last year, the index for the corporate sector in Europe only fell marginally—and by the end of 2020 the index actually improved. Although these sector-wide observations mask the diverse range of outcomes at the industry or firm level, particularly among those hardest hit by the pandemic, they underscore the resilience of the corporate sector as a whole.
European household balance sheets also improved in aggregate in 2020, despite higher unemployment and shorter working hours. People stayed home more and spent less, while policy measures supported their income.
The support to businesses and households also reinforced financial stability because of the key roles they play as investors, borrowers, and depositors. Their resilience prevented a deterioration of the assets of European banks and other financial institutions.
Who bears the cost, and when?
But if business and household balance sheets did not bear most of the losses from the COVID-19 crisis in Europe, then who did? The short answer is “the public sector.”
On top of traditional policy instruments such as unemployment insurance schemes, large emergency policy packages, including wage subsidies, grants, tax deferrals, and guaranteed loans, supported private-sector incomes and their financial strength. But they also increased government debt in 2020 (net of government deposits) by more than 5 percent of GDP in half of the countries and by more than 12 percent of GDP in seven others.
Central banks and private banks have purchased much of this new public debt. Asset purchase programs by central banks particularly helped maintain stable and low borrowing costs for government debt. Low interest rates also supported equity valuations while economic activity was depressed. Together with financial regulatory relief, such as loan repayment moratoriums and bank capital relief, these policies helped preserve equity and boost liquidity in the private sector, preventing a deterioration of business and household balance sheets.
The path ahead
Preventing the COVID-19 crisis from severely damaging private balance sheets is key to laying the foundations for a successful recovery in Europe. The extraordinary policy response to date has been the right thing to do in the face of an unprecedented exogenous shock.
But the pandemic is not over, so these gains need to be maintained in the next phase of the recovery. Risks to economic activity remain, including to private sector balance sheets if the pandemic is not fully controlled, thus warranting continued policy support for now.
The path ahead presents a delicate balancing act. As vaccinations advance and the economic recovery gathers steam, broad emergency support should give way to policy interventions increasingly targeted at the worst hit household groups and firms.
Recent studies indicate that there are pockets of acute vulnerability within certain industries and household groups, even if the aggregate picture for both sectors offers comfort. Thus, addressing solvency needs of viable firms in hospitality and other contact-intensive services, as well as providing further assistance to the self-employed and vulnerable households remains essential. But public balance sheets are not without limits and so the policy debate will turn to the appropriate path of reducing public sector indebtedness in due course.
After COVID-19 is under control and the recovery is firmly underway, uncertainty will diminish and it will be possible to roll back emergency support measures. This process may present challenges of its own, as some hidden economic damage may only become visible then. Managing these hidden risks calls for a gradual and cautious approach.
Compliments of the IMF.
The post IMF | The Resilience of Private Balance Sheets in Europe during COVID-19 first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

FSB | Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic from a financial stability perspective: Interim report

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a real-life test that may hold important lessons for financial policy, including the functioning of G20 reforms.
The COVID-19 pandemic is the first major test of the global financial system since the G20 reforms were put in place following the financial crisis of 2008. While significantly different in nature from the 2008 crisis, this real-life test may hold important lessons for financial policy, including the functioning of the G20 reforms.
The report identifies preliminary lessons for financial stability from the COVID-19 experience and aspects of the functioning of the G20 financial reforms that may warrant attention at the international level.
The report notes that, thus far, the global financial system has weathered the pandemic thanks to greater resilience, supported by the G20 reforms, and the swift, determined and bold international policy response. Authorities broadly used the flexibility within international standards to support financing to the real economy. Monitoring and coordination, guided by the FSB COVID-19 Principles, has discouraged actions that could distort the level playing field and lead to harmful market fragmentation.
The COVID-19 experience reinforces the importance of completing remaining elements of the G20 reform agenda. The financial stability benefits of the full, timely and consistent implementation of those reforms remain as relevant as when they were agreed. Those parts of the global financial system where implementation of the reforms is most advanced displayed resilience. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of effective operational risk management arrangements and the need to further enhance crisis management preparedness and promote resilience amidst rapid technological change.
The pandemic also highlighted differences in resilience within and across financial sectors. The March 2020 market turmoil has underscored the need to strengthen resilience in non-bank financial intermediation. The functioning of capital and liquidity buffers may warrant further consideration, while some concerns about excessive financial system procyclicality remain.
COVID-19 may yet test the resilience of the global financial system. Banks and non-bank lenders could face additional losses as support measures are unwound. Identifying systemic vulnerabilities early on remains a priority. One of the legacies of the pandemic may be a build-up of leverage and debt overhang in the non-financial sector. Addressing debt overhang, including by facilitating the market exit of unviable companies and by promoting the efficient reallocation of resources to viable firms, may be a key task for policymakers going forward.
The FSB will engage with external stakeholders on preliminary findings and issues raised in this report. The final report, which will incorporate this feedback and set out tentative lessons and next steps to address the identified issues, will be delivered to the G20 Summit in October.
Compliments of the Financial Stability Board.
The post FSB | Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic from a financial stability perspective: Interim report first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ESMA Consults on Remuneration Requirements under MiFID II

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s securities markets regulator, today launches a consultation on draft ESMA guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID II remuneration requirements.

The remuneration of staff involved in the provision of investment and ancillary services and activities, or in selling or advising on structured deposits to clients is a crucial investor protection issue. Therefore, ESMA has developed draft guidelines that aim to clarify and foster convergence in the implementation of certain aspects of the new MiFID II remuneration requirements, replacing the existing ESMA guidelines on the same topic, issued in 2013.
This Consultation Paper builds on the text of the 2013 guidelines, which have been substantially confirmed, while those parts now incorporated into the MiFID II framework have been removed. In addition:

it takes into account new requirements under MiFID II;
it provides additional details on some aspects that were already covered under ESMA’s 2013 guidelines; and
it incorporates the results of supervisory activities conducted by national competent authorities on the topic.

Next Steps
ESMA will consider the responses it receives to this consultation paper by 19 October 2021 and expects to publish a final report, and final guidelines, by end of Q1 2022.

Respond
Compliments of the European Securities & Markets Authority.
The post ESMA Consults on Remuneration Requirements under MiFID II first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ECB | A new strategy for a changing world

Speech by Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, at a virtual event series hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics |

Last week the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) published its new monetary policy strategy.[1] It was the ECB’s first review of its strategy since 2003, with most features of the framework still dating back to its founding years.
Since those times, the world economy has changed in fundamental ways.
About half of today’s ten largest global firms by stock market capitalisation did not exist when the euro was launched in 1999. In that year, imports accounted for around 30% of euro area economic activity; on the eve of the pandemic, this share had increased to 45%. And whereas in 2000 there were on average 24 people aged 65 and over for every 100 persons of working age in the euro area, this ratio stood at 32 last year.
These changes reflect three broad macroeconomic trends – digitalisation, globalisation and demographic change – that have had, and continue to have, profound consequences for the conduct of monetary policy.
Amplified by the two deepest economic contractions since World War II – the global financial crisis and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic – they shifted the challenge for monetary policy from fighting too high inflation towards preventing too low inflation, or even deflation, a phenomenon our previous strategy had not envisaged.
In many advanced economies, this challenge was aggravated by central banks approaching the lower bound of policy rates, which severely constrained the space of “conventional” monetary policy to protect price stability. In the euro area, the ECB’s deposit facility rate reached 0% in July 2012 and has been negative since June 2014.
In my remarks today, I would like to set out our motivation for the most important changes to our strategy, and explain how they will guide the ECB’s monetary policy decisions in the years to come.
Understanding low inflation
The ECB’s monetary policy strategy of 2003 was challenged by severe economic and financial crises, as well as deep structural changes in the economy, in particular during the most recent decade.
At the heart of these challenges were two distinct, albeit related, developments.
One was a gradual and persistent decline in the “real equilibrium” interest rate that balances savings and investments (slide 2).
Slow-moving structural factors, such as an ageing society and lower trend productivity growth, have led to an abundant supply of savings facing a muted investment demand, putting downward pressure on interest rates, not only in the euro area but across many advanced economies.
Available estimates of this “equilibrium” rate of interest suggest that, for the euro area, stable inflation is nowadays likely to require a negative real short-term interest rate. While the level of equilibrium rates differs across countries, the downward trend has been a global phenomenon.
The second, and equally widespread, development was a protracted period of disinflation.
Despite years of unprecedented monetary policy accommodation, inflation in the euro area, as measured by the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), has averaged just 1.2% since the global financial crisis (slide 3), well below the aim adopted by the Governing Council in 2003, namely an inflation rate of below, but close to, 2% over the medium term.
In combination, these two developments posed severe challenges for monetary policy, because the zero lower bound on interest rates constrained the available policy space to respond to persistent disinflationary shocks.
As a result, central banks worldwide have been forced to find additional instruments that could provide policy accommodation when their main policy rates were approaching zero.
The ECB, for its part, has introduced a wide range of such novel monetary policy tools in recent years, including negative interest rates, forward guidance, longer-term refinancing operations and asset purchases. Nevertheless, the euro area economy remained caught in the low interest rate, low inflation environment.
In our strategy review, we identified the elements that could break the vicious circle of low inflation and low interest rates by shedding light on the factors explaining why inflation has not accelerated more forcefully in response to the far-reaching measures we took over the years.
Our findings can be summarised in three blocks that have motivated the main adjustments to our strategic framework: first, the definition of price stability, including the scope of the relevant price index; second, the conduct of monetary policy in the vicinity of the effective lower bound, including the toolkit, our reaction function and the broader macroeconomic policy mix; and, third, a more active incorporation of major preconditions for price stability, namely financial stability and the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Let me explain each of these points in turn.
Defining price stability
According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the ECB’s primary objective is to maintain price stability. The first building block of our strategy is to operationalise this objective.
Including owner-occupied housing in the HICP
The ECB has confirmed the use of the HICP as a timely, reliable, comparable (over time and across countries) and credible inflation measure.
A key requirement for monetary policy is that the underlying consumption basket be representative of people’s actual consumption behaviour. If the index failed to capture relevant consumption expenditures that exhibit large and persistent price changes, then this could, over time, erode people’s purchasing power.
Housing is a case in point.
Although HICP inflation has been subdued in recent years, the costs of housing, which are not fully reflected in the HICP, have increased more forcefully. Over the past four years, residential property prices in the euro area increased, on average, at an annual rate above 4%, and at 6.2% in the first quarter of this year, the fastest pace since 2007 (slide 4).
Rising housing costs are absorbing a growing share of households’ lifetime income and are making housing increasingly unaffordable for some parts of society, in particular younger generations. This concern was expressed widely at our “ECB Listens” events.
In our review, the Governing Council, while praising the quality improvements to the HICP seen over time, recognised shortcomings in the current way of measuring consumer price inflation and decided to recommend a roadmap to include owner-occupied housing in the HICP.
Our roadmap builds on the net acquisition approach that will treat home purchases in much the same way as purchases of other durable goods, such as cars. As it refers directly to observed transaction prices of new dwellings, this approach is likely to reflect housing market conditions more accurately than alternative methodologies.[2]
The augmented HICP will not only better represent actual consumption expenditures by households, it will also better reflect the transmission of our monetary policy.
In particular, while changes in house prices often reflect a wide range of factors, including supply and demand imbalances, monetary policy, through its impact on mortgage rates and risk taking, can also be expected to affect the costs related to residential investment.
Substantial additional work by the European Statistical System, which will stretch over several years, is required before the HICP including owner-occupied housing can become the main index for monetary policy purposes at a monthly frequency.
Until then, we will use gradually improving quarterly owner-occupied housing indices to assess the impact of housing costs on inflation and thus inform our monetary policy deliberations.
A symmetric 2% inflation target
The previous quantitative definition of our inflation aim of “below, but close to, 2%” was subject to ambiguity as some observers considered it to be asymmetric, potentially implying that 2% was a ceiling rather than a target. Staff analysis suggests that such perceptions could, over time, give rise to meaningfully lower inflation and growth outcomes (left chart, slide 5).
While our analysis suggests that low inflation has, to a large extent, resulted from an unfavourable, one-sided distribution of shocks (as explained below), we judged that there was a risk that our previous inflation aim might further entrench expectations of low inflation (right chart, slide 5).
We have therefore replaced our previous aim with a clear 2% inflation target over the medium term, with deviations to the downside and to the upside being considered equally undesirable.
The simplification and clarification of the target, as well as our stronger commitment to symmetry, are crucial to remove any ambiguities and firmly anchor long-term inflation expectations at 2%.
Medium-term orientation and proportionality
The Governing Council confirmed the medium-term orientation of its monetary policy, recognising the difficulty to control inflation in the short run, given the variable and uncertain transmission lags of our measures to the real economy and inflation.
From the start, the medium-term orientation has afforded the Governing Council the required flexibility to tailor policy responses to the size, persistence and type of shock it is facing. For example, supply-side shocks often require a lengthening of the medium-term horizon in order to mitigate negative effects on real economic activity and employment.
The medium-term orientation also allows the ECB to take account of financial stability considerations in view of the interdependence of price stability and financial stability. The use of such flexibility will be subject to a careful proportionality assessment, which has been enshrined in our new strategy.
This assessment comprises a systematic analysis of the evolving balance of the benefits and costs of our actions, taking account of their effectiveness and side effects, as well as risks of a destabilisation of inflation expectations.[3]
Such an assessment is particularly important at the lower bound.
ECB staff analysis suggests that, at the lower bound, there is a risk that the marginal benefit of an additional unit of policy accommodation may diminish, not only in the euro area but across advanced economies (left chart, slide 6). The impact of monetary policy is also likely to be state contingent, with policy most effective in deep recessions (right chart, slide 6).
At the same time, the potential costs in terms of financial stability or income and wealth inequality may increase.
The outcome of such proportionality assessment can influence the choice and design of our measures, as well as the intensity with which they are used.
For example, the exclusion of household mortgages from the loans eligible under the targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO) aims to avoid fuelling house prices. Similarly, the two-tier system of reserves helps to protect the bank lending channel by mitigating the impact of negative interest rates on banks’ profitability.
Monetary policy at the effective lower bound
The second block of our strategy offers solutions to overcome the challenges of protecting price stability in the vicinity of the lower bound. Our review revealed that the presence of the effective lower bound gives rise to three broad requirements for effective macroeconomic stabilisation: an expanded monetary policy toolkit, a changed reaction function and a different macroeconomic policy mix.
A broader toolkit for the future
The ECB responded to the advent of the effective lower bound by substantially expanding its toolkit.
Our review suggests that these additional measures have been effective in stimulating growth and inflation despite a persistent lack of underlying price pressure.
There is compelling empirical evidence that negative interest rates, forward guidance, longer-term refinancing operations and asset purchases have contributed, individually and collectively, to easing the relevant financing conditions for firms and households loosening the constraints on monetary policy imposed by the lower bound on conventional interest rate policies.
For example, since the ECB brought its deposit facility rate into negative territory in 2014, the euro area GDP-weighted sovereign yield curve, which is a good summary indicator of the stance, has shifted measurably lower, and has flattened considerably (left chart, slide 7).
Broader financial conditions in the euro area, too, currently stand close to historically favourable levels (right chart, slide 7).
Our review has also shown that there is no compelling evidence suggesting that inflation has systematically become less responsive to economic activity.
While the euro area Phillips curve is relatively flat, staff analysis shows that its slope has not – in a statistically relevant way – become flatter over time and that economic slack and inflation co-move as expected by economic theory (left chart, slide 8).
Instead, Phillips curve models point to other factors – likely related to structural trends like digitalisation, globalisation and demographic change – putting persistent downward pressure on underlying inflation in recent years, even as slack receded (right chart, slide 8).
While this vindicates the medium-term orientation of our strategy, it also means that, in the vicinity of the lower bound, we can rely on a much broader set of instruments to protect our primary mandate.
We have therefore decided that the range of policy instruments used over the last few years will remain part of our toolkit in the future too, meaning they should no longer be regarded as “unconventional”.
Looking ahead, new and untested instruments will be used if needed and as appropriate.
Especially forceful or persistent action close to the lower bound
The constraints imposed by the effective lower bound affect not only the choice of instruments but also the way they are used.
Because central banks have a limited ability to lower rates deep into negative territory, disinflationary shocks close to the lower bound risk not being fully offset, thereby potentially becoming a more persistent drag on growth, prices and wages over time.
In view of these risks, the Governing Council clarified in its strategy statement that when the economy is close to the lower bound, monetary policy needs to respond especially forcefully or persistently to avoid negative deviations from the inflation target becoming entrenched in expectations.
We also clarified that this may imply a transitory period in which inflation is moderately above 2%. In practice, inflation overshoots may be the result of the Governing Council exercising patience in adjusting its policy stance when faced with an improving outlook.
A long period of low price pressures, and years of repeated overprediction of the future path of inflation, require that higher inflation prospects need to be visibly reflected in actual underlying inflation dynamics before they warrant a more fundamental reassessment of the medium-term inflation outlook.[4]
An appropriate policy mix at the lower bound
The third implication of the lower bound is that – in a world where the observed decline in real interest rates limits the extent to which central banks can stabilise the economy in the wake of demand-side shocks – fiscal and monetary policy need to complement each other.
The past decade suggests that the failure of inflation to accelerate more forcefully in the euro area is also the result of inadequate support from fiscal policy.[5] Before the pandemic hit, and despite weak demand, the euro area primary balance was positive and mostly growing in all years after 2014 (left chart, slide 9). Public investment fell rather than rose (right chart, slide 9).
A public sector that is largely insensitive to interest rate changes significantly reduces the effectiveness of monetary policy, in particular in the euro area where governments account for nearly half of total spending. An unresponsive fiscal authority also disregards the broad empirical evidence that fiscal policy is particularly effective at the lower bound.
While in normal times the stabilisation role of fiscal policy can be largely confined to the operation of automatic stabilisers, countercyclical discretionary fiscal policy is crucial in crisis times and in the proximity of the lower bound.
The policy response to the pandemic is a remarkable showcase for the power of monetary and fiscal policy interaction to boost confidence, stabilise aggregate demand and avoid a persistent destabilisation of medium to long-term inflation expectations.
Preconditions for price stability
The third building block of our new strategy recognises that some areas merit particular attention in the pursuit of price stability over the medium term.
One is financial stability, which can pose severe risks to price stability, as shown vividly by the global financial crisis. Another is climate change, which is increasingly threatening price stability through both physical and transition risks.
Financial stability and price stability
Our revised framework explicitly recognises potential financial stability risks that may come with our policy measures, in particular with a more forceful or persistent policy response close to the lower bound.
Specifically, in addition to our economic analysis, our price stability assessment and proportionality analysis will now be based on a revised monetary and financial analysis that recognises that financial stability is a precondition for price stability (slide 10), and that macroprudential policies do not yet offer effective protection.
The focus of this analysis will be on the monetary policy transmission mechanism, in particular via the bank lending, risk-taking and asset pricing channels, and will systematically evaluate the longer-term build-up of financial vulnerabilities and imbalances and their possible implications for future tail risks to output and inflation.
Assigning a more prominent role to financial stability does not mean that the Governing Council will conduct policies of “leaning against the wind”, whereby monetary policy is systematically tightened when systemic risk builds up, or of “cleaning”, whereby monetary policy is systematically loosened when systemic risk materialises.
It rather means that we will follow a flexible approach in accounting for financial stability considerations, which is consistent with the medium-term orientation of our strategy.
Climate change and price stability
While the revised monetary and financial analysis will give more room for financial stability considerations, the enhanced economic analysis will give greater prominence to structural trends and their implications for inflation, potential output and the equilibrium real rate of interest (slide 10).[6]
One of the most important structural trends facing humankind in the 21st century is climate change and the economy’s transition to carbon neutrality.
In our strategy review, we analysed in depth the profound implications of physical and transition risks from climate change for both price and financial stability, as well as for the transmission of monetary policy and the value and the risk profile of the assets held on the Eurosystem’s balance sheet.
We acknowledged the growing evidence pointing towards climate change-related risks that could materialise much faster than previously expected. In fact, the physical damages of climate change are already clearly visible (slide 11). Just how severely our lives and economies will be affected by climate change in the future depends on our determination to take decisive global policy action today.
While governments and parliaments have the primary responsibility to act on climate change, the ECB, within its mandate, recognises the need to further incorporate climate considerations into its policy framework.
We have therefore committed to an ambitious climate-related action plan that will be consistent with our price stability objective and guided by market efficiency considerations.[7]
The focus of our activities will be, among other things, on two broad areas.
First, we will significantly enhance our analytical and macroeconomic modelling capacities and develop statistical indicators to measure the carbon footprint of financial institutions, as well as their exposures to climate-related risks, and to foster our understanding of the macroeconomic impact of climate change and carbon transition policies.
Second, we will adapt the design of our monetary policy operational framework.
For example, we will introduce disclosure requirements for private sector assets as a new eligibility criterion, or as a basis for a differentiated treatment, for collateral and asset purchases. We will also consider climate-change risks when reviewing the valuation and risk control frameworks for assets mobilised as collateral.
And we will adjust the framework guiding the allocation of corporate bond purchases to incorporate climate change criteria. These will include the alignment of issuers with the Paris agreement through climate change-related metrics or commitments of the issuers to such goals, with a view to reducing the emission bias induced by the current market neutrality principle in our corporate bond portfolio (slide 12).
Conclusion
Let me conclude.
Our strategy review has been a long journey. We have taken stock of how the ongoing secular changes in our economies and societies affect the conduct of monetary policy and our ability to protect price stability in the euro area in such circumstances.
Many elements of our monetary policy strategy have been vindicated by the events of the past two decades. Our shock-based medium-term orientation, for example, has avoided unnecessary volatility in economic activity at times of rising inflation and supported incomes and wages in the face of disinflationary shocks.
Other elements of our strategy have been challenged and required adaptation in the light of the changed macroeconomic landscape that implies a higher probability of hitting the lower bound in the future.
To avoid that low inflation becomes entrenched in expectations and activity, we have changed our definition of price stability to a clear and symmetric 2% target in the medium term. We have also clarified that, when our policy rates are close to the lower bound, we intend to react especially forcefully or persistently to disinflationary shocks. This may also imply a transitory period in which inflation is moderately above target.
Our revised framework explicitly takes into account the potential risks that a prolonged period at, or close to, the lower bound may entail for financial stability and other considerations relevant for medium-term price stability. A revised monetary and financial analysis will facilitate a more systematic evaluation of potential financial vulnerabilities in the future.
Finally, in recognition of the exceptional risks that climate change poses to welfare, growth and price stability, and with a view to accelerating the transition to a more sustainable economy, we have committed to a comprehensive climate-related action plan that will culminate in broad changes to our monetary policy implementation framework.
In a rapidly changing world, and given the potentially significant structural changes that the end of the pandemic may unleash, we intend to assess periodically the appropriateness of our monetary policy strategy, with the next assessment expected in 2025.
Thank you.
Compliments of the European Central Bank.

The post ECB | A new strategy for a changing world first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ECB | Interview with Financial Times: Christine Lagarde

Interview with Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, conducted by Martin Arnold on 11 July 2021 |
It is only a few days since you announced a new strategy. How will this change the ECB?
I think what has changed is how we define price stability and while in the past, we had this vaguely ambiguous and a little bit complex “below, but close to, two per cent”, we now have what I would call a simple, solid, symmetric two per cent target. So we express very firmly that we are determined to deliver two per cent. I think that is a big change.
Number one, it is simple. So we do away with the perceptions, the ambiguity, the variations between what some see as 1.7, others as 1.95. It’s two per cent and it is simple. It is solid because it gives us space to manoeuvre our monetary policy, it is a well-accepted measurement of price stability around the world and it limits the welfare cost of too high inflation.
And maybe the really important third “s” is symmetry, because we affirm very clearly that there may be deviations up or down, either below or above two per cent and we state that we consider both deviations up or down as equally undesirable. At the same time, we know that it’s not going to be a straight two per cent linearly forever once we reach the target and we’ll recognise that it will oscillate around two per cent.
And finally, we also acknowledge and draw the conclusion from the constraints resulting from the effective lower bound, and we know that as we are close to the effective lower bound, it will require an especially forceful or persistent monetary policy response. So those two qualifiers are very important: an especially forceful reaction or a persistent reaction because we are close to the effective lower bound.
So that’s what has changed from a pure monetary policy point of view. I have also some other changes on my mind. And you can obviously understand that having inserted climate change as one of the key components that we take into account going forward is important, is important to us all, because it was unanimously agreed. But it was important to me as one of the goals I had.
It has been an 18-month process and you have done a lot of work and heard from a lot of people. What are the main lessons you’ve drawn from the strategy review?
There are two lessons that I draw from that process. One is that process matters. And bringing together staff from the entire euro system was important, taking time and making sure that we actually spent a full day, sometimes more, with all Governing Council members able to respond, to react, to internalise, to convince all other members of their views and to arrive at some collective thinking. In my view, this was decisive in making sure that we had turned every stone − as I had committed to at the beginning − and that all voices were heard.
Second, we made a point of listening to the people, which I don’t think had ever happened before. So throughout Europe, in 19 countries, and certainly at the ECB, we conducted what we called − copycatting the Fed a little − the ECB Listens. There were multiple events that took place in various countries. I know that, France, for instance, has had 19 different events, not only to listen to what people thought, to hear their concerns, but also to try to explain what monetary policy was doing and what contribution it made to the economy, to investment, to employment with the overarching goal of price stability. So that was a real learning experience for all of us, I think, to understand the Europeans’ concern about monetary policy, what it does, what inflation means to them, what links there are with unemployment, which was a big concern.
What were their biggest concerns?
During the events that I participated in myself, and I heard it from other governors, key concerns revolved around, number one, climate change. Why aren’t you doing more about climate change? Why are you financing some segments of the corporate sector that are not respecting the commitments of the Paris accord or that have no concern for the planet? That we heard loud and clear. The second concern that we heard loud and clear as well, was housing costs. Housing costs us a lot, we Europeans, and this was the case in many countries. Why is it not more taken into account in your measurement of inflation? And that led us to do two things. One is to identify a technical and statistical path to better including housing costs in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), which is not something that we are responsible for, but that we can recommend and encourage, which is what we’ve done. It would be for Eurostat to hopefully deliver. But second, because we know it’s going to take time, we also agreed to take into account alternative measurements, alternative indexes that are not necessarily published in the same rhythm and in the same sequences as HICP, but which will also inform our decision-making process. Those are the two major, strong inputs that we received from the ECB Listens events.
By ditching the inflation target of below two per cent and diluting the importance of its monetary analysis, are you breaking the final links to the old Bundesbank strategy that shaped the creation of the euro? 
No, I think what we tried to do with the strategy review was to really adapt the ECB to a world that had changed significantly in the last 20 years. The strategy review was not a random or tantrum decision on my part. It was the acknowledgement that since 2003, the world had changed a lot. You know, the natural interest rate, the equilibrium rate had gone down. A lot of factors were having an impact that probably was not as strong in 2003, let alone in 1999 when the euro was launched. So demographics took not a new turn – because it’s a long trend – but certainly became more salient. Productivity was clearly affected as a result of the various crises and the saving trend and behaviour – all that has changed since 2003. And it required that we had a fresh look at the strategy of the central bank to make it fit for purpose for the current circumstances. And I think it’s also a recognition that circumstances will continue to change, possibly at an accelerated pace because of the digital revolutions that will be accelerated because of the greening of our economies that need to take place. It’s in recognition of that, that we agreed that the strategy would have to be looked at again and reassessed in 2025.
Does the new strategy make the ECB more accommodative than it was previously? 
I think the new strategy gives us the ability to be flexible around two per cent, because we recognise that two per cent is not a ceiling and we recognise that there will be oscillation around two per cent. It is more flexible in that we recognise the effect of the effective lower bound and the constraints that it imposes on us. And we define very clearly with the especially forceful or persistent response and the strong response that we are prepared to give. And we also accept that it may imply on a transitory basis, moderate deviations above the target. So in that sense, it is more flexible.
Second, we also recognise the effectiveness of all the tools that we have in the toolbox. And that is not just the first and foremost and traditional tool of the ECB interest rates. But we recognise the effectiveness of those other tools that we had to invent over the course of the last ten years, which are forward guidance, asset purchase programmes, targeted longer-term refinancing operations and negative interest rates. So in that way, I’m not saying that it is more accommodative, but I’m saying that the tools are there and, if they need to be used, we recognise their effectiveness and the fact that some of them, given the effective low bound that we are close to, will have to continue being used.
Do you think the new two per cent target and the acceptance of some overshooting of it in certain circumstances mean that you will be more patient before raising rates in the future, even when you hit your inflation target in the medium term?
I think that what we will have to do now is redefine our forward guidance to align it with the strategy review. When we say that our response has to be especially forceful or persistent, I think persistent is precisely intended to signal that we will not prematurely tighten. But that will have to be a little bit clarified in the forward guidance that we will revise shortly in order to align it with the strategy review. But the use of “persistent” is an indication that there cannot be premature monetary tightening as we have seen it in the past.
That word “persistent” does seem to be key. So do you think it will feature in your forward guidance?
The forward guidance will have to align with the strategy, as we have agreed upon. I’m sure that we will try to shed some light while reserving enough judgement, discretion and capacity to adapt to circumstances. But I don’t want to prejudge on that because that’s going to be debated around 21 and 22 July.
Critics say that the new strategy has done nothing to convince them you’re better equipped to hit your new target more than you have done in the past. Why should they believe you this time? 
Three points. One is we will remove any ambiguity. Below, but close to, two per cent is ambiguous. You can sit down on either side of 1.8 or 1.7 or 1.9. And those decimals actually matter. So we remove the ambiguity. It’s two per cent full stop. Second, I think our commitment is strongly affirmed. We are committed to delivering on our target, which is two per cent. The strategy, which I regard as a sort of constitutional foundational framework chart for future monetary policy determination, is a strong signal. We are all on the same page. There’s a unanimous agreement. There is a total consensus around that foundational document, that constitution of ours. And third, there is also a commitment to better communicate around the strategy review, which I hope we are doing, but also to better communicate on an ongoing basis so that the ambiguity that we have removed from the “below, but close to” does not resurface with ambiguous communication. So I think that, of course, proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but we need to be very clear in our communication of our commitment to deliver our 2 per cent target
The first test will be in changing your forward guidance in just over a week and a half. 
It will be tested every six weeks from now on. But I’m not under the illusion that every six weeks we will have unanimous consent and universal acceptance because there will be some variations, some slightly different positioning. And that is fine.
The ECB said in its strategy review that it discussed new instruments. Did you discuss things like buying other types of assets, like equities and bank bonds, or even doing direct distributions of cash like helicopter money? 
As I said, we tried to leave no stone unturned, so out of intellectual integrity, we looked at the whole range of anything that you can think of. But that was as part of the intellectual exercise of looking at the whole realm of possibilities. But it didn’t go further than that.
Did you reach any conclusions on the possibility of those being in your tool box at a future date? 
We certainly concluded that all the unconventional and new instruments were actually part of the toolbox and could be used under the circumstances of the effective lower bound and the need to be persistent in our response.
Did you assess as part of the review whether further loosening of monetary policy is less effective when interest rates are already at or close to their effective lower bound? What was your conclusion? 
What we reaffirmed very clearly is the principle of proportionality, of measuring the efficiency, the effectiveness, of calculating the possible side effects and doing what I call a cost-benefit analysis. We are committed to doing it each and every time, as we should. And that was the high-level strategy platform that we agreed on. It’s then a monetary policy decision, a mechanism to actually apply that reasoning to each and every tool that we possibly recalibrate one way or the other.
People have said your new strategy doesn’t mention the elephant in the room, which is fiscal policy. Why not come out and say that to hit your inflation target you need more help from fiscal policy, for instance, a permanent borrowing facility at the EU level and more flexible fiscal rules at the EU? 
It is actually extensively mentioned, but not in the two-pager. In the 15-page accompanying document, you have quite a bit on fiscal policy and on the close bond between fiscal policy and monetary policy. And, yes, you’re completely right that in this environment of low interest rates and when there is the slack that we still have, fiscal policies are very effective and fiscal multipliers are higher and both of them working in tandem is actually much more efficient. So it is not that we were completely oblivious to the fiscal policy impact. Quite the contrary, we did actually have one special seminar on fiscal and monetary policy and there is a lot of hard work that was put into it.
A big worry for some Governing Council members is monetary financing and the idea that you will end up being unable to tighten policy when needed, even under your new strategy, because it would be too painful for the heavily indebted countries of southern Europe in particular. Did you examine this potential problem in the review? 
This is a matter that was obviously raised and discussed when we looked at fiscal and monetary policy and how one actually multiplies or leverages the other, and how different it has been this time around from the great financial crisis and the immediate years after that. I think there are sufficient safeguards both on the monetary front and on the fiscal front and obviously, they’re going to return and come back into the debate on the fiscal front in particular. But as far as monetary policy is concerned, we have a clear and unambiguous prohibition to do monetary financing. And we have to absolutely respect that, whatever format, whatever clothes it takes. Equally, on the fiscal front, there are many safeguards that have been put in place that have been escaped from over the last couple of years and will continue to be escaped from until the end of 2022, but will come back in some shape or form in order to protect from this monetary financing.
Do you have a view on the shape of the EU fiscal rules when they are reintroduced? This debate has already started in Brussels. Do you want to contribute? 
If we are asked for our views, we will certainly communicate them. And I think we have in the past already. But we are certainly keen that whatever is built is simple, easy to measure, countercyclical and comes soon enough so that governments and investors actually know where they stand in terms of the framework within which fiscal policies will be exercised. I think we’ve also been known to argue that a good euro area budget is certainly a step in the right direction in order to complete the monetary union by giving it a fiscal arm as well. But this is not really a decision that belongs to central banks. It is something that is going to belong to the governments of the 19 Member States.
Your new strategy includes “the recognition that financial stability is a precondition for price stability”. Does that mean that if we have another shock in the future and spreads widened dramatically in government debt markets, we could count on the ECB to do whatever it takes to combat that. 
We have demonstrated that in the past, and we certainly fought against the risk of fragmentation simply because we want our monetary policy to be properly transmitted throughout the entire euro area. So if that was to happen again, we would certainly take the measures in order to protect the transmission of our monetary policy and set aside that risk of fragmentation. In the words of one of my predecessors, the euro is irrevocable and monetary policy has to be channelled through all corners of the euro area.
What is the goal of your climate action plan? Is it to guard against the risks of climate change for the ECB’s own balance sheet and the wider financial system? Or do you have broader ambitions to act as a catalyst for making Europe a greener place? 
Both. It’s clear that, from a risk management point of view, we just have to change the way in which we operate by better analysing, better advising and being active in relation to our own portfolio and our own eligibility criteria when it comes to accepting collateral. So it’s on all three fronts. The analytical work that we do has to factor in climate change in a much deeper and better way. The advice that we give, in particular through ECB Banking Supervision, has to embed climate change concerns and alert the banks with which we work to the risks that they are facing. And we’ve very recently done a lot of climate change testing and scenario analysis using the Network for Greening the Financial System scenarios to really understand, and help the banks understand, where there is exposure and how concentrated it is. And we have to act. We started on our non-monetary policy portfolio. We are going to extend that.
We are not going to invent the information and disclosure requirements. We are not going to be able to actually assess the transition plans. And there will be lots of efforts that will be required by the standard setters, by the auditors, by the accounting firms and all the rest of it. But we also have to be, together with these others, at the forefront and not three steps behind. And if we signal that strongly enough, then we certainly operate as a catalyst force. When you set eligibility criteria, it’s a bit of a signal.
There are growing tensions in the Governing Council, particularly over the pace of your emergency bond purchases. How long can you preserve this unity that you have managed to construct, not least by sitting down with all your fellow Governing Council members to watch the football and by going on retreats to the Taunus hills? 
I neither have the expectation nor the illusion that we will be unanimous on all the decisions that we make. As I said, I regard the strategy review as foundational. The agreed framework within which we are going to weave our policy responses over the course of the next five years, and that’s why it mattered so much to me. That’s why we went to the Taunus retreat and spent two days hammering out some of those issues and why we watched football together. Yes, that’s true. But the weaving of monetary policy within that framework is going to take multiple colours. So unanimous agreement on each and every weaving moment is not a requirement. The more we can agree, the broader the agreement, the better. I think we should really not undermine or underrate those keywords that we have, which is this especially forceful or persistent reaction, the recognition of the constraint, this sort of gravitational force exercised by the effective lower bound that we have to resist, and the transitory period during which we recognise that our policies may imply a moderate deviation above target.
On those keywords, how key is the word “or”? Why not say especially forceful “and” persistent monetary policy action?
I think it’s the recognition of the effective lower bound. The “especially forceful” is if the economy is facing an adverse shock. So in the face of the adverse shock, you have this especially forceful reaction because you don’t want to be trapped. But recognising that close to the effective lower bound you need to be even longer in the game, that’s why you say “persistent”.
Do you think that you are already forceful enough because you’re clearly close to the lower bound? Or is it now just a question of being persistent and you’ll get there?
It’s being persistent. It’s being very attentive to the next projection and how both headline, core and other indicators of inflation and inflation expectations will be delivering, to see that the persistence we have demonstrated is actually moving the needle.
The new strategy says you will “continue to respond flexibly to new challenges as they arise”. Does this mean that you want to preserve some of the added flexibility of the PEPP, your pandemic emergency purchase programme, after it ends, for instance, on issuer limits and also on buying non-investment grade securities like Greek bonds? 
This is not something that we debated as part of the strategy review. We will discuss those matters because they will matter when we get closer to the end of PEPP, but this has not been a strategy review topic.
We’ve seen record rises in house prices in many European countries and many countries in the world. At what point could the risk of a housing bubble and bubbles in other asset markets lead to changes in monetary policy? 
It really depends on what we see. And while there are cities, in particular in some countries where housing prices have gone up significantly and are a concern for people, we don’t see it on average across the euro area. We will include housing prices through alternative indexes into our assessment of overall inflation.
The cost of owning a house, not house prices, right? 
We will include the consumption part of owning a house. So we will not include the investment part.
There is still much to be decided on how you implement the strategy isn’t there?
Sure, and it will be a constant effort every six weeks. But I tell you, it’s been a very interesting process, sometimes laborious, but every bit of it was helpful and conducive to this result.
Compliments of the European Central Bank.
The post ECB | Interview with Financial Times: Christine Lagarde first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

ECB | Preparing for the euro’s digital future

Blog post by Fabio Panetta, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB |

We are entering the age of digital money. Much like commodity or representative money in the past, digital money is emerging in response to changes in society and technology.
Today, digitalisation is reaching all areas of our lives. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has shown just how fast such change can happen. And this is affecting the way we pay. We are increasingly buying digitally and online. The role of cash as a means of payment is declining.
Private solutions for digital and online payments bring important benefits such as convenience, speed and efficiency. But they also pose risks in terms of privacy, safety and accessibility. And they can be expensive for some users. Digital payments are still used more by consumers with higher incomes, whereas the preference for cash is higher among those with lower incomes, reflecting its essential role for financial inclusion.
Central banks cannot ignore these developments. Over many centuries, the sovereign has provided its own currency to citizens as a symbol of stability, safety and trust. Providing money as a public good is central to the mission of central banks.
Given the digital transformation under way, which has the potential to transform the payments landscape and even the entire financial system, central banks must be bold and keep up with the pace of change.
Today, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank has therefore decided to formally launch a project to get ready for the possible issuance of a digital euro. In concrete terms, this means that we will commit the resources necessary to design a marketable product. But a decision about whether or not to issue a digital euro will only come at a later stage. And in any event, a digital euro would complement cash, not replace it.
The launch of this project today follows on from the exploratory work we have done so far.
Our first step – the Eurosystem’s report on a digital euro – laid the groundwork and identified the rationale for potentially issuing a digital euro.[1]
People living in the euro area have costless access to a safe and universally accepted means of payment in the form of cash. But this should also be true for digital and online payments. A digital euro would reduce the cost of transactions. It would foster financial inclusion by aiming to make digital payments available to those who currently don’t have access to financial services. And it would enable users to make their purchases across all outlets and countries in the euro area.
A digital euro would also provide safety. Just like cash, a digital euro would be a direct claim on the central bank and would therefore have no risk – no liquidity risk, no credit risk, no market risk.
Being offered by the central bank – which has no commercial interest in monetising the data of users – the digital euro would help to protect people’s privacy against commercial usage or unjustified intrusion. An appropriate, transparent governance set-up that complies with European regulation on data protection would further guarantee that users’ personal data are only accessible to legitimate authorities, with a view to preventing illicit activities such as money laundering or terrorist financing.
A digital euro would level the playing field and encourage innovation by enabling competing providers – large and small – to build on it. By providing services with “digital euro inside”, European intermediaries would be in a position to strengthen the services they offer to their customers and stay competitive even as global tech giants expand into payments and financial services. And central bank money would remain at the heart of the payment system, strengthening Europe’s autonomy in the age of digital money.
Our second step, after publishing the Eurosystem report, was to hold a public consultation. We received a record level of feedback, revealing a considerable interest from Europeans in these potential benefits. It also showed that the most important features of a digital euro for households and firms are privacy, security and broad usability.[2]
In parallel, together with the national central banks (NCBs) of the euro area, we conducted experimental work to assess the technological feasibility of a digital euro.
Our experimentation revealed that existing infrastructure, such as that used by the Eurosystem for instant payments – TARGET Instant Payment Settlement (TIPS) –, as well as distributed ledger technology, could be scaled up to process the roughly 300 billion retail transactions carried out in the euro area each year.
This experimental work also allowed us to identify possible options to protect privacy, ranging from segregating data to using cryptographic techniques.
And finally, our experiments showed that the energy needed by the settlement infrastructure we used is negligible compared with the energy consumption and environmental footprint of crypto-assets such as bitcoin, which uses more electricity than Greece or Portugal alone[3].
A summary of the main findings of our experimentation has been published today[4], and the detailed results will be shared by the NCBs in the coming weeks.
But while all these steps have shed light on the possibilities of a digital euro, many questions still need to be answered.
Money and payments permeate our everyday lives and underpin the economy. Any changes stemming from technological innovation, if not properly designed, can become a source of disruption for our financial systems, economies and societies.
Designing a new form of central bank money will involve defining operational and technological requirements and identifying the preferable options. For example, between possible ways to ensure that the digital euro is used as a means of payment rather than as a form of investment, with a view to preserving financial stability. Or between a centralised ledger, which could be easier and more efficient to handle, a distributed ledger, which may be better suited to peer-to-peer transactions, and/or local storage on a user’s device, which would enable offline payments. These aspects all have a bearing on one another. Making a coherent set of choices will be key to a smoothly functioning system.
This is the backdrop to our decision to launch a digital euro project, starting with two years of investigative work on the design that a digital euro should have. It will involve focus groups, interaction with financial intermediaries, prototyping and conceptual work. We will engage with all stakeholders. And we will continue to interact closely with other European institutions to define the necessary legislative framework. The European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Council and the Eurogroup have all recognised the importance of the digital euro for an innovative financial sector and resilient payment systems, and they have encouraged the Eurosystem to continue its work.[5]
Our aim is to be ready, at the end of these two years, to start developing a digital euro, which could take around three years.
A digital euro will be successful if it adds value for everybody involved – citizens, merchants and financial intermediaries. We want to design the digital euro to be such a success.
The Eurosystem will drive this project forwards with the necessary degree of caution, inherent in our mandate to provide stability – both monetary and financial. But we will not shy away from writing this new page of European progress.
Compliments of the European Central Bank.

The post ECB | Preparing for the euro’s digital future first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

European Green Deal: EU Commission proposes transformation of EU economy and society to meet climate ambitions

Today, the European Commission adopted a package of proposals to make the EU’s climate, energy, land use, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. Achieving these emission reductions in the next decade is crucial to Europe becoming the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050 and making the European Green Deal a reality. With today’s proposals, the Commission is presenting the legislative tools to deliver on the targets agreed in the European Climate Law and fundamentally transform our economy and society for a fair, green and prosperous future.
A comprehensive and interconnected set of proposals
Today’s proposals will enable the necessary acceleration of greenhouse gas emission reductions in the next decade. They combine: application of emissions trading to new sectors and a tightening of the existing EU Emissions Trading System; increased use of renewable energy; greater energy efficiency; a faster roll-out of low emission transport modes and the infrastructure and fuels to support them; an alignment of taxation policies with the European Green Deal objectives; measures to prevent carbon leakage; and tools to preserve and grow our natural carbon sinks.

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) puts a price on carbon and lowers the cap on emissions from certain economic sectors every year. It has successfully brought down emissions from power generation and energy-intensive industries by 42.8% in the past 16 years. Today the Commission is proposing to lower the overall emission cap even further and increase its annual rate of reduction. The Commission is also proposing to phase out free emission allowances for aviation and align with the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) and to include shipping emissions for the first time in the EU ETS. To address the lack of emissions reductions in road transport and buildings, a separate new emissions trading system is set up for fuel distribution for road transport and buildings. The Commission also proposes to increase the size of the Innovation and Modernisation Funds.
To complement the substantial spending on climate in the EU budget, Member States should spend the entirety of their emissions trading revenues on climate and energy-related projects. A dedicated part of the revenues from the new system for road transport and buildings should address the possible social impact on vulnerable households, micro-enterprises and transport users.
The Effort Sharing Regulation assigns strengthened emissions reduction targets to each Member State for buildings, road and domestic maritime transport, agriculture, waste and small industries. Recognising the different starting points and capacities of each Member State, these targets are based on their GDP per capita, with adjustments made to take cost efficiency into account.
Member States also share responsibility for removing carbon from the atmosphere, so the Regulation on Land Use, Forestry and Agriculture sets an overall EU target for carbon removals by natural sinks, equivalent to 310 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2030. National targets will require Member States to care for and expand their carbon sinks to meet this target. By 2035, the EU should aim to reach climate neutrality in the land use, forestry and agriculture sectors, including also agricultural non-CO2 emissions, such as those from fertiliser use and livestock. The EU Forest Strategy aims to improve the quality, quantity and resilience of EU forests. It supports foresters and the forest-based bioeconomy while keeping harvesting and biomass use sustainable, preserving biodiversity, and setting out a plan to plant three billion trees across Europe by 2030.
Energy production and use accounts for 75% of EU emissions, so accelerating the transition to a greener energy system is crucial. The Renewable Energy Directive will set an increased target to produce 40% of our energy from renewable sources by 2030. All Member States will contribute to this goal, and specific targets are proposed for renewable energy use in transport, heating and cooling, buildings and industry. To meet both our climate and environmental goals, sustainability criteria for the use of bioenergy are strengthened and Member States must design any support schemes for bioenergy in a way that respects the cascading principle of uses for woody biomass.
To reduce overall energy use, cut emissions and tackle energy poverty, the Energy Efficiency Directive will set a more ambitious binding annual target for reducing energy use at EU level. It will guide how national contributions are established and almost double the annual energy saving obligation for Member States. The public sector will be required to renovate 3% of its buildings each year to drive the renovation wave, create jobs and bring down energy use and costs to the taxpayer.
A combination of measures is required to tackle rising emissions in road transport to complement emissions trading. Stronger CO2 emissions standards for cars and vans will accelerate the transition to zero-emission mobility by requiring average emissions of new cars to come down by 55% from 2030 and 100% from 2035 compared to 2021 levels. As a result, all new cars registered as of 2035 will be zero-emission. To ensure that drivers are able to charge or fuel their vehicles at a reliable network across Europe, the revised Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation will require Member States to expand charging capacity in line with zero-emission car sales, and to install charging and fuelling points at regular intervals on major highways: every 60 kilometres for electric charging and every 150 kilometres for hydrogen refuelling.
Aviation and maritime fuels cause significant pollution and also require dedicated action to complement emissions trading. The Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation requires that aircraft and ships have access to clean electricity supply in major ports and airports. The ReFuelEU Aviation Initiative will oblige fuel suppliers to blend increasing levels of sustainable aviation fuels in jet fuel taken on-board at EU airports, including synthetic low carbon fuels, known as e-fuels. Similarly, the FuelEU Maritime Initiative will stimulate the uptake of sustainable maritime fuels and zero-emission technologies by setting a maximum limit on the greenhouse gas content of energy used by ships calling at European ports.
The tax system for energy products must safeguard and improve the Single Market and support the green transition by setting the right incentives. A revision of the Energy Taxation Directive proposes to align the taxation of energy products with EU energy and climate policies, promoting clean technologies and removing outdated exemptions and reduced rates that currently encourage the use of fossil fuels. The new rules aim at reducing the harmful effects of energy tax competition, helping secure revenues for Member States from green taxes, which are less detrimental to growth than taxes on labour.
Finally, a new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will put a carbon price on imports of a targeted selection of products to ensure that ambitious climate action in Europe does not lead to ‘carbon leakage’. This will ensure that European emission reductions contribute to a global emissions decline, instead of pushing carbon-intensive production outside Europe. It also aims to encourage industry outside the EU and our international partners to take steps in the same direction.

These proposals are all connected and complementary. We need this balanced package, and the revenues it generates, to ensure a transition which makes Europe fair, green and competitive, sharing responsibility evenly across different sectors and Member States, and providing additional support where appropriate.
A Socially Fair Transition
While in the medium- to long-term, the benefits of EU climate policies clearly outweigh the costs of this transition, climate policies risk putting extra pressure on vulnerable households, micro-enterprises and transport users in the short run. The design of the policies in today’s package therefore fairly spreads the costs of tackling and adapting to climate change.
In addition, carbon pricing instruments raise revenues that can be reinvested to spur innovation, economic growth, and investments in clean technologies. A new Social Climate Fund is proposed to provide dedicated funding to Member States to help citizens finance investments in energy efficiency, new heating and cooling systems, and cleaner mobility. The Social Climate Fund would be financed by the EU budget, using an amount equivalent to 25% of the expected revenues of emissions trading for building and road transport fuels. It will provide €72.2 billion of funding to Member States, for the period 2025-2032, based on a targeted amendment to the multiannual financial framework. With a proposal to draw on matching Member State funding, the Fund would mobilise €144.4 billion for a socially fair transition.
The benefits of acting now to protect people and the planet are clear: cleaner air, cooler and greener towns and cities, healthier citizens, lower energy use and bills, European jobs, technologies and industrial opportunities, more space for nature, and a healthier planet to hand over to future generations. The challenge at the heart of Europe’s green transition is to make sure the benefits and opportunities that come with it are available to all, as quickly and as fairly as possible. By using the different policy tools available at EU level we can make sure that the pace of change is sufficient, but not overly disruptive.
Background
The European Green Deal, presented by the Commission on 11 December 2019, sets the goal of making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The European Climate Law, which enters into force this month, enshrines in binding legislation the EU’s commitment to climate neutrality and the intermediate target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.The EU’s commitment to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 was communicated to the UNFCCC in December 2020 as the EU’s contribution to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.
As a result of the EU’s existing climate and energy legislation, the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions have already fallen by 24% compared to 1990, while the EU economy has grown by around 60% in the same period, decoupling growth from emissions. This tested and proven legislative framework forms the basis of this package of legislation.
The Commission has conducted extensive impact assessments before presenting these proposals to measure the opportunities and costs of the green transition. In September 2020 a comprehensive impact assessment underpinned the Commission’s proposal to increase the EU’s 2030 net emissions reduction target to at least 55%, compared to 1990 levels. It showed that this target is both achievable and beneficial. Today’s legislative proposals are supported by detailed impact assessments, taking into account the interconnection with other parts of the package.
The EU’s long-term budget for the next seven years will provide support to the green transition. 30% of programmes under the €2 trillion 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework and NextGenerationEU are dedicated to supporting climate action; 37% of the €723.8 billion (in current prices) Recovery and Resilience Facility, which will finance Member States’ national recovery programmes under NextGenerationEU, is allocated to climate action.
Members of the College said:
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “The fossil fuel economy has reached its limits. We want to leave the next generation a healthy planet as well as good jobs and growth that does not hurt our nature. The European Green Deal is our growth strategy that is moving towards a decarbonised economy. Europe was the first continent to declare to be climate neutral in 2050, and now we are the very first ones to put a concrete roadmap on the table. Europe walks the talk on climate policies through innovation, investment and social compensation.”
Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, said: “This is the make-or-break decade in the fight against the climate and biodiversity crises. The European Union has set ambitious targets and today we present how we can meet them. Getting to a green and healthy future for all will require considerable effort in every sector and every Member State. Together, our proposals will spur the necessary changes, enable all citizens to experience the benefits of climate action as soon as possible, and provide support to the most vulnerable households. Europe’s transition will be fair, green and competitive.
Commissioner for Economy, Paolo Gentiloni, said: “Our efforts to tackle climate change need to be politically ambitious, globally coordinated and socially fair. We are updating our two-decades old energy taxation rules to encourage the use of greener fuels and reduce harmful energy tax competition. And we are proposing a carbon border adjustment mechanism that will align the carbon price on imports with that applicable within the EU. In full respect of our WTO commitments, this will ensure that our climate ambition is not undermined by foreign firms subject to more lax environmental requirements. It will also encourage greener standards outside our borders. This is the ultimate now or never moment. With every passing year the terrible reality of climate change becomes more apparent: today we confirm our determination to act before it is really too late.”
Commissioner for Energy, Kadri Simson, said: “Reaching the Green Deal goals will not be possible without reshaping our energy system – this is where most of our emissions are generated. To achieve climate-neutrality by 2050, we need to turn the renewables evolution into a revolution and make sure no energy is wasted along the way. Today’s proposals set more ambitious targets, remove barriers and add incentives so that we move even faster towards a net-zero energy system.”
Commissioner for Transport, Adina Vălean, said: “With our three transport-specific initiatives – ReFuel Aviation, FuelEU Maritime and the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation – we will support the transport sector’s transition into a future-proof system. We will create a market for sustainable alternative fuels and low-carbon technologies, while putting in place the right infrastructure to ensure the broad uptake of zero-emission vehicles and vessels. This package will take us beyond greening mobility and logistics. It is a chance to make the EU a lead-market for cutting-edge technologies.”
Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius, said: “Forests are a big part of the solution to many of the challenges we face in tackling climate and biodiversity crises. They are also key to delivering the EU’s 2030 climate targets. But current conservation status of forests is not favourable in the EU. We must increase the use of biodiversity-friendly practices and secure the health and resilience of forest ecosystems. The Forest Strategy is a real game changer in the way we protect, manage and grow our forests, for our planet, people and the economy.”
Commissioner for Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, said: “Forests are essential in the fight against climate change. They also provide jobs and growth in rural areas, sustainable material to develop the bioeconomy, and valuable ecosystem services to our society. The Forest Strategy, by addressing the social, economic and environmental aspects all together, aims at ensuring and enhancing the multifunctionality of our forests and highlights the pivotal role played by millions of foresters working on the grounds. The new Common Agricultural Policy will be an opportunity for more targeted support to our foresters and to the sustainable development of our forests”.
Compliments of the European Commission.
The post European Green Deal: EU Commission proposes transformation of EU economy and society to meet climate ambitions first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

EACC

Economic and Financial Affairs Council

Main results
Infographic – Recovery fund: the EU delivers
See full infographic
Ministers focused on the economic recovery. They adopted the first set of Council implementing decisions on the approval of 12 national recovery and resilience plans.
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain can now sign grant and loan agreements and start receiving funds from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility.
Ministers also exchanged views on the further implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The Facility will make available a total of €672.5 billion in grants and loans for reforms and investments in member states. The use of funds will boost the recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic and support the EU’s climate transition and digital transformation.

Today we have excellent news for the Europe’s recovery. We approved the first set of implementing decisions on national recovery and resilience plans. 12 member states can now sign the financing agreements and get the funds to power the recovery. By focusing our reforms and investments on green and digital targets, we can emerge from the crisis stronger. This is an unprecedented opportunity to reshape our economy and make it more resilient for the future.
Andrej Šircelj, Slovenia’s Minister for Finance

Council gives green light to first recovery disbursements (press release, 13 July 2021)
A recovery plan for Europe (background information and timeline)
Financing the climate transition (policy page)

European Semester
Ministers approved conclusions on the 2021 in-depth reviews for 12 member states in the context of the European Semester. The reviews are part of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure and build on the alert mechanism report for 2021.

Council conclusions on the 2021 in-depth reviews (press release, 13 July 2021)
European Semester in 2021 (background information and timeline)

Other business
The Slovenian presidency presented its work programme in the field of economy and finance for July-December 2021. Ministers held a general discussion on the recent EU sustainable finance strategy and the proposal for an EU green bond standard. The presidency also presented the state of play of the financial services legislative proposals.
Ministers were informed of the outcomes of the G20 finance ministers and the Central Bank governors meeting of 9-10 July 2021.
Compliments of the European Commission.
The post Economic and Financial Affairs Council first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.