The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But I don't know how much of that was the typical theatre between Frankfurt and Silvio Corruptioni and how much of it was serious policymaking.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I guess I am missing something...what?
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
In the case of cross-border banking you need central banks to clear payments with each other. The ECB might act as a clearinghouse for payments among national central banks. If that is the case and the ECB refused to clear payments with the Italian Central bank, the Italian monetary system might become cut off from the rest of the EU.
At least as I understand the situation. Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority oversees the centralised clearing system in which all the Hong Kong clearing banks (also note issuers) participate. Because Hong Kong's is a 'real-time' settlement system, there is no need for a central counterparty as a 'risk intermediary' because there is no risk.
I explicitly referred to this some ten years ago when the implications sank in of 'Peer to Peer' connectivity - and a decentralised, dis-intermediated 'Market 3.0' - in the aftermath of a market-centric Dot Com I set up.
Market 3.0: the final version
In a spot transaction the two functions take place contemporaneously and the exchange of value is conditional: if I don't have the shares, I can't offer them for sale, and if I don't have the money, I can't bid for the shares. The consequence of this is that for true real-time settlement of a spot transaction, there is no requirement for a risk intermediary such as a central counterparty because there is no risk. Where there is an element of time between the conclusion of the contract and its settlement, then this introduces the requirement for risk management, and the interpolation of a risk intermediary such as a central counterparty or insurer.
In a spot transaction the two functions take place contemporaneously and the exchange of value is conditional: if I don't have the shares, I can't offer them for sale, and if I don't have the money, I can't bid for the shares.
The consequence of this is that for true real-time settlement of a spot transaction, there is no requirement for a risk intermediary such as a central counterparty because there is no risk. Where there is an element of time between the conclusion of the contract and its settlement, then this introduces the requirement for risk management, and the interpolation of a risk intermediary such as a central counterparty or insurer.
Because Hong Kong's is a 'real-time' settlement system, there is no need for a central counterparty as a 'risk intermediary' because there is no risk.
There is no way to completely eliminate settlement risk. Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
You still have to deliver banknotes to settle balances occasionally? There is no way to completely eliminate settlement risk.
There is no way to completely eliminate settlement risk.
The clearing banks issue Hong Kong Bank Notes, except for the lowest denomination HK $10 notes which are issued by the HKMA.
These notes get credited to bank accounts when paid in to a branch, thereby generating a (real time) credit in the system. While they are circulating, the issuers benefit from the Seigniorage.
The only settlement risk here is of counterfeit currency notes.
This is slightly different from the situation in Scotland, where Scottish Bank Notes must be matched - during the working week - by funds deposited with the Bank of England. Over the week-end the Scottish banks benefit from the Seigniorage....an interesting hybrid. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
The fact that payments clear at the central bank means that if the central bank can always clear Treasury checks by accepting the IOU of the Treasury as an asset and increasing Central Bank liabilities by adding an equivalent amount to the Treasury account.
If the Central Bank for reasons of political theater is not allowed to do that, but it has an interest rate target to maintain, the Treasury auctions those IOU's, with payment ending up in its account at the Central Bank, and then that the Central Bank more or less ends up buying up those bonds to stabilize interbank interest rates.
The reason that the action of a conventional Central Bank action ends up (either directly or after the fact) eliminating the debt service burden on the Treasury is that the Central Bank is either owned by the government or chartered by the government as a not-for-profit, with any surpluses going back to the Treasury. So once Central Bank operating expenses are covered out of interest income on Treasury bonds they hold, all the excess goes straight back to Treasury.
Its the combination of the clearinghouse function and surplus on income over operating costs returning to the Treasury that ensures that Treasury checks never bounce. If the ECB can interfere with an NCB clearing payments, it can interfere with the NCB operating as a clearinghouse for payments across national borders, making reserve assets of commercial banks held in that NCB's accounts a second-class citizen, only good for clearing payments within the country.
That's why the question of whether the ECB is by treaty required, allowed, or not allowed to interfere with cross-border clearances between NCB's is of interest. And IANL, so even if I had the text, I could only guess how it would be interpreted by a court.
And whether an NCB in the Eurozone can get away with freelancing in this way ~ and I suspect that the Bundesbank had good enough lawyers to make sure that one way or another, the treaty terms do not allow that kind of freelancing ~ given the unsustainability of multiple cash rate policies in a single currency zone ~ that's what led to the formation of the Federal Open Market Committee in the US ~ there's also a quite reasonable argument that an NCB should not be allowed to engage in this kind of action.
I still prefer a system of determining the shortfall from full output, allocated on a per capita basis, and the ECB buying individual member state bonds on the open market equivalent to that amount ~ which would be a confederalization of fiscal policy. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by DoDo - May 20 9 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 13 comments
by gmoke - May 17 1 comment
by DoDo - May 12 10 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 209 comments
by gmoke - May 171 comment
by ARGeezer - May 1613 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1210 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments