Friday, 19 September
For this special edition of Macro Matters, Stefan Ingves joins us in Switzerland during the BIS Innovation Summit to continue the conversation on future-proofing central banks amid a rapidly changing global financial landscape. Central banks face mounting pressures—from persistent inflation and political scrutiny to diverging policy paths around the world. At the same time, financial innovation is reshaping money and payments faster than regulators can respond. Stefan explores how central banks can navigate these challenges while maintaining independence, ensuring stability, and fostering global cooperation.
Stefan Ingves spent 17 years as Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank. Previously, he was chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and chairman of the Banking and Risk Management Committee at the BIS.
Stream Macro Matters on all major podcast streaming platforms
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music / Audible | iHeartRadio
Transcript:
Slater: Welcome to Macro Matters, a podcast where global experts offer clear-eyed analysis on global economic policy. I’m your host, Emily Slater, Executive Director of the Bretton Woods Committee. Each episode, I sit down with BWC’s diverse network of members, from global policymakers to private sector leaders, to discuss timely topics in economics, geopolitics, and finance. In a media landscape full of noise, these conversations offer clarity. We go beyond the headlines to explore not just what’s happening in the global economy, but why it’s happening, what it means, and what might come next.
Slater: Welcome everyone. We are here today at the BIS Innovation Summit in Basel, Switzerland, and I am very excited to have on a very esteemed guest here with us today who of course knows Basel well and knows the BIS well, and we are going to get into a lot of issues around the future of central banking, future of financial stability, monetary policy, all issues that are relevant to the BIS and Stefan’s background. So quickly to introduce my guest, Stefan Ingves, former governor of Sveriges Riksbank, former vice chair of the BIS, former chairman of the Basel Banking Committee on Supervision and a BWC member and has been engaged in a lot of BWC’s work on central banking and cross –border payments. So, Stefan, we are at the innovation summit here. We’ve had a couple of days now of sessions and hearing a lot of discussion on really new technologies and innovation. That’s really the theme of the summit is kind of future-proofing central banks. So, we’ve heard all about the innovation hubs, you know, kind of projects in regards to technology. We’ve heard a lot about AI. We’re talking about, you know, digital assets in terms of tokenization, stablecoins. We’ve heard about quantum computing. And so really what this summit has been about is how the central banks are thinking about all of these technologies and, you know, what that might mean for central banks going forward, how they’re going to kind of deal with these as they’re implemented in the market. So, you know, since we’re here, we’re finishing up the Innovation Summit. I just want to start by asking you, sort of, what are your key takeaways from these last couple of days and what do you think about what the biggest challenges are for central banks going forward?
Ingves: Many central banks have been around for a long time and intellectually we come from an environment where everything was on paper. And now it’s absolutely clear that going forward we are moving into an environment where nothing will be on paper. Everything will be digital in one form or another. At the same time, when it comes to money, money is a convention, money is about what we have in our heads. And given that the world is shifting right now, that makes it absolutely necessary in the central banking world to think about money but think about money in a setting where new technologies are emerging and evolving. And I think that the past few days is kind of about a consensus that this happens. And that, of course, raises the question, now what do we do? And many of the panels and the issues are being discussed here. It’s essentially a long to-do list about what is going on with the sense that this is not going to go away. Like it or not, we’re going to have to deal with it as best as we can.
Slater: Some may be, some technologies may be more successful than others, but technological innovation and disruption is inevitable. And I think I’ve been encouraged really by the fact that the BIS and the innovation hub here are really thinking about this. I mean, they’re really trying to be forward looking. I mean, we always hear that sort of the markets in the private sector move so quickly, and the public sector is always, you know, playing catch-up. And I think that’s true, but I’ve been encouraged by some of the discussion at this summit and some of what we’re hearing that, that the central banks are really trying to stay on top of this, on top of these technologies and really think about, how to manage them and manage both the risks and the opportunities.
Ingves: That is absolutely true, and I mean, here we have participants, both from the central banking community and the private sector. And most of them on the IT side, pretty much, I think, have more or less the same background. So, it’s important, actually, for all these people to meet and talk to each other and sort of think hard about what is next, what is doable, what can technology do? How can we use these new technologies in order to make something which people really, something which is of benefit to the general public.
Slater: So, sticking with some of the technologies, I mean, one of the things at BWC that we’ve been, I think, pretty excited about on the sort of technological front is some of the digital assets and some of the innovation that’s been taking place there. And you’ve done work with Bill Dudley on our cross–border payments paper, where we’ve really kind of looked at the sort of G20 roadmap and objectives for how to make cross -border payments more efficient, quicker, more frictionless. So, there’s a couple of BIS projects here that are kind of in focus that we’ve been talking about Project Nexus, Project Agora. So, you know, I think at BWC, we really see the cross -border payments as one of the best use cases of some of the innovations. So, tell me a little bit about kind of where we stand on cross –border payments, where we stand on this G20 roadmap. What’s getting done? What’s not getting done? What are your thoughts?
Ingves: I would say with hindsight, and I’ve been in this business for a long time, people have been talking about cross-border payments for as long as I can remember. And that’s not really a good record because some of these things actually can be fixed and probably could have been fixed some time ago. But now we are at a point where many things are going on at the same time. And I do think that most people agree that these are, we’re not really today talking about technological constraints. Because you can do many things today. And given that I can talk from Basel to somebody in New Zealand in real time, then many individuals find it strange that I can do that. But the money doesn’t move, or it moves slowly, or it costs a lot of money. And that creates tension, that really, really creates tension. And there is a consensus today among people who deal with these things that, yes, these things are doable, but then you need to come to agreements on how to do them. And that’s where it gets complicated, that’s where it’s hard because you have to move from talking about things to actually getting them done. And then You mentioned Project Nexus as one example, and that sort of is one way of showing that you can actually do this. But to really make it happen, then you have to have a governance structure, and you have to have somebody running these systems, and you have to come to agreements on how to do it, and that takes time.
Slater: And that’s where it’s been getting stuck, yeah. And it takes political will. And that’s probably getting a little more difficult to reach consensus as the world is getting a little bit more fractured, I think. So, what do you think are some of the prospects for moving forward on sort of projects next to this?
Ingves: The world, as you say, is getting more fractured, but on the other hand, no one, as far as I recall has said that are going to start imposing capital controls or something like that. So, money can still move around the globe. And that means that there is a need to talk about these things. But at the same time, when you talk about IT systems and when you talk about how to implement things, it’s easy at the intellectual level to come up with the idea that we need a global system. But it’s completely different to actually produce a global system. So, kind of a gradual approach where you try to prove your case, let’s say in a regional setting, I think is more likely to happen. Because the distance is just too far if you talk about something global from day one, because it just won’t happen. So, if we can do this step-by-step if we have a few countries that can kind of prove that it is doable and that it actually happens and then hopefully you take it from there and eventually more and more countries join.
Slater: Kind of a building blocks approach regional building blocks approach and of course one of the sort of takeaways in our work on cross -border payments was you know even in that regional building blocks approach you know you kind of need all countries to have a fast payments system to be able to then integrate right integrate them cross -border and of course the US is as you know the global reserve currency and one of the biggest money movers it doesn’t have one it doesn’t have really any incentive to move towards a fast payment system.
Ingves: No that is that is correct but as I said yesterday on the panel keep in mind that the IMF has 191 member countries, and that means that if one is different, a big one, a good number of the other ones are going to move anyway, one way or the other. So that’s one set of issues. The other set of issues is a bit similar to stock exchanges. If you go, let’s say, 20, 30 years back, all stock exchanges were national and local in the old days, and you had trading floors. So, it was very sort of physical. Today you can buy a stock exchange off shelf and in the future I’m pretty sure that you can buy a payment system off shelf as well. And that means that we’re moving in that we’re moving in that direction and that also creates a need for many countries, I think to cooperate because particularly in smaller economies it doesn’t really make sense to do everything yourself from scratch. So, you’re better off actually doing this, creating a group of countries to do it.
Slater: Well, let’s stick a little bit with some innovations. But I want to kind of turn more to the financial stability side of things. So, there’s been a lot of conversation right now about stable coins, CBDCs, kind of the ecosystem around that. There’re certainly questions about sort of monetary sovereignty, especially here in Europe. I think a lot of reaction to the recent legislation passed by the US to put some regulatory guardrails around stablecoin usage and implementation. So, I think one is, I guess, from a financial stability perspective. Do you think some of these stablecoin regulatory frameworks that have emerged, the US, there’s some in Hong Kong, there’s MiCA in Europe, do you think this is a step in the right direction? Are you concerned about financial stability risks from some of these new digital assets and technologies?
Ingves: It’s better to have some kind of framework compared to having nothing at all. And if you have too many flowers out there blossoming, then eventually some accidents are bound to happen somewhere. So, it’s a good thing that this sort of conversation is going on. Time will tell if the legal frameworks will become more similar over time or not. I just don’t know. Too early to tell, but this is really a combination of three things. You need to understand something about money, what money is, and that’s kind of a specialty of central bankers. It kind of goes with what you do. Yeah, it goes with the territory. It goes with the territory. So that you need to understand. Second point is that you also need to understand IT because the IT technology defines what you can do with money today and how you can move money around. But then you have the third part, and that’s the legal framework, because without a legal framework you basically, have nothing. And it’s pretty tough to combine those three specialties into something which is really good. And we’re still in the early stages of that.
Slater: Yeah, and I think that’s again something that at the Innovation Summit we’ve really seen that they are combining all of those three specialties here and we’re having discussions with those three kinds of stakeholders and trying to really. You know they’re fostering conversation here to really co-create the optimal kind of frameworks.
Ingve: And this is stuff because IT people prefer to talk to IT people, macroeconomists prefer to talk to…
Slater: They don’t speak the same language, right?
Ingves: Macroeconomists prefer to talk to macroeconomists, and here you’ll have to get all of them into the same room, and they need to get a level of common understanding when it comes to what they want to achieve.
Slater: That’s right, they certainly don’t speak the same language, so kind of getting everybody on the same page is half the battle, right, to even be able to move forward. But maybe on some of the stablecoin stuff, a little too early to tell if there’s really financial stability risk, anything systemic here. But we’re going down this path and we’re going to start seeing how it goes. But are you concerned?
Ingves: But two things are obvious when it comes to this. One is, of course, IT security as such, because you don’t want technically speaking to have the money disappear or somebody else kind of messing you up within those systems, the other part which is definitely not going to go away is KYC, know -your -customer, money laundering, tax evasion, and all the rest of it. It would be very unfortunate, I think actually at the global level, if we were to end up in a situation where you have kind of formal systems and central bankers deal with formal systems and then you have a bunch of completely informal systems where there aren’t any rules at all. So, this will remain an issue for probably many years to come.
Slater: Yeah, and we’ll need to see some convergence. Which of course is what the BIS and FSB were designed to do to have discussions about how that convergence should move forward globally, which we’ll get into a little bit more of that in a few minutes. But tell me a little bit, I’m just so intrigued by kind of the global reaction to the U.S., to the Genius Act and the stablecoin regulation because I feel like everyone’s been quite surprised that the U.S. is, you know, finally, I say finally, come out with some regulatory guardrails because it had really been stuck for several years. But it was clear that the US was always going to go to the stablecoin route and not the CBDC route. I mean, that was kind of clear. So now there’s this big reaction. And I think Europe and China and other countries that are kind of trying to figure out, how do they move forward with their digital euros. And can there be worlds in which CBDCs and stable coins exist? And what are the monetary sovereignty issues that you see around this whole debate?
Ingves: First of all, when it comes to monetary sovereignty, it’s very important that you have stable money. Nowadays, we explain that in terms of an inflation target. So, if inflation goes to a thousand percent, there’s nothing that can save you because essentially money is a product that produces a service to the general public. And if it’s of good quality, people will use it. And if it’s of bad quality, they will use somebody else’s money. Now in addition to the whole business about stable money inflation and those things, which is what we very often talk about, I would like to introduce the term transactional efficiency, which is essentially saying that it has to be easy and cheap to use your own money. And if it is not, then you will start using somebody else’s money. And in this day and age, when you can move stuff to the cloud and it’s difficult to say where money is located, then it becomes a more kind of competitive environment than in the past because you know public will have more choices and that means that you have to think through domestically are we up to speed when it comes to this what is it that we the central bank as an institution are supplying is it good is it not so good is it likely that people will move elsewhere then. But it’s also a value judgment to what extent do you want to have a central bank digital currency or not? And that’s a value judgment. Economists cannot sort of take care of that issue. And because at the end of the day, it’s a political decision that is required because do you want it to be possible for your citizens to hold central bank money or not? That’s really the crux of the matter. And here, different countries can come down in different paths, healthy pathways. And most likely, we will see many different paths, but I think it’s also important to, again, back to the 191 number. We tend to forget that in a good number of poor countries, the central bank is one of the better or if not the best functioning institutions and that means that in those environments with a fairly high likelihood if you have your own currency people will have a preference for holding a central bank digital currency compared to holding private money which is not at all the case in many other many other countries so we will see a variety.
Slater: Okay turning a little bit away from some of the more innovation issues I want to get into some of your core expertise really around financial stability issues and what you worked on in this building for so many years. Stefan right with you know Basel III standards post-global financial crisis. I mean you were really you know the one spear one spearheading that whole agenda and those negotiations to get the world to come up with a safer, more sound system post crisis, which I think everyone has agreed has, we’ve weathered it, weathered the COVID shock. The system is stronger, it’s more capitalized, it’s better, it’s sounder, it’s safer. So, first kudos to you on that. But I want to kind of ask a little bit about, we’re starting to hear some conversations in the U.S. about what the sort of U.S. agenda is going to be on the regulatory front, we don’t know, kind of the Basel end game stuff in the U.S., there was pretty strong pushback against some of those last final kind of standards being implemented. So just want to get your take a little bit. I’m like, where do you see the global regulatory agenda going from here? Do you think we’re heading towards a deregulatory race to the bottom if the U.S. makes some drastic moves? Do you think we’re going to see divergence? What’s your take?
Ingves: We have always had elements of divergence, so never really had kind of in some sense a uniform global system but here we’re talking about and the Basel committee came from a conversation about globally active banks which means that smaller banks have always done many different things in different parts of the parts of the world but as long as you move money around freely and that seems that that’s going to stay I think Then you’re going to have a push towards uniformity in one way or the other. But then periodically you will have attempts to diverge. And here there is an element of, I would say, cyclicality to the whole thing. And here I think it’s unfortunate, if I’m talking about it from a Basel III perspective, that the whole thing came out of the global financial crisis many different things had to be fixed, taken care of. It took many, many years to get to Basel III, and then it takes another more than 10 years to implement. And I think that some of these rules and regulations, at least in the European context, are being implemented around 2030 or 2032 or something like that. And then of course, those who are active in 2032, they are going to ask themselves, why was it that grandpa did this or that such a long time ago? And we always tend to think that this time is different and that we know better. So, there is a sort of an element of cyclicality to this. And as long as the times are reasonably good, you will always find arguments that the supervisors are in some sense too strict, and if we can sort of pump up the system again by increasing leverage, everybody will be happy ever after, but if you read the Reinhardt-Rogos book that goes back to medieval days, this time is different, we sort of make the same mistake over and over again when we sort of say now, we’re going to fix this once and for all but unfortunately that’s not really the way it happens so we have to be just we have to keep at it, just keep at it and be a persistent and as I said with free capital flows there is a pretty strong incentive to hold these things together maybe not 100%, but at least if you get to, let’s say, 85 or 90, you should be happy.
Slater: And it takes so much political will, and that’s really the hard part. And you’ve lived that firsthand, right? I mean, are there parts of the sort of Basel III agenda, end game, et cetera? Is there unfinished business that you would like to see done moving forward?
Ingves: There is always unfinished business in the sense that keep in mind that all these rules and regulations there are compromises. And many, many people have strong views on this and that. And also, in order to get things done, sometimes you just basically, have to say that we are done. And that usually means that some, let me call them imperfections pop up and bubble up to the surface over time so I would never really say that these things 100% are perfect and in that sense there is actually a bit of a similarity between these types of rules and tax systems because you can have all sorts of views on tax systems but they also tend to get complicated and they’re gradually changed over time.
Slater: So, looking at kind of the financial stability you know landscape systemic landscape and what are you most concerned about where do you see risk at the moment?
Ingves: It’s always the same issue where did leverage go? So you’re kind of always on the lookout for leverage And if it gets over levered, and if this phenomenon, whatever it is, and if it’s of a very large size, so that sort of people get carried away with it, then that runs the risk of actually becoming systemic and that is dangerous. And then the money has to come from somewhere from the beginning, which usually is from the old banks. And then you have to be careful so that you find those over-levered sectors early enough. So that you don’t end up with a situation where you say oh my gosh, is this what this actually looks like? Because then you end up with this kind of exposed conversation and you say we should have seen it or, we should have understood. I think it was the Queen of England who said ask the question, “Didn’t you see”? Or something like something like that. So that’s always the same the same issue and then of course when people start talking about let’s say presently. Simplification saying that these rules of regulations are too complex and yes, they are complex, but then one has to be careful, so that simplification does not mean that capital charges go down. And there’s constant pressure to roll back in order to pump up the system in the short run, because the benefits in the short run are such that there is an incentive in the short run to do this. And then you have this constant trade -off between now and in the future, now and in the future. And given the way the human mind works, it’s so easy to say no, not now. I’ll deal with this problem later.
Slater: So, on the simplification, I mean, do you think there’s any areas of the Basel 3 or of the sort of international regulatory framework that should be revisited or that could be rethought?
Ingves: Well, let me put it like this. The most complex part of these systems is actually the banks own internal models. So, the banks and the bankers themselves have actually been party to what has evolved over time. And that’s one of the complexities we have when it comes to all of this. Yes, you can simplify. You can probably simplify in many different ways, but that means that the leverage ratio has to go up, because the leverage ratio is simple and easy to understand. And usually, the private sector is vehemently against that. So, you really, really have to be careful when it comes to what you’re asking for and how you want simplify. I do accept them and understand this conversation about making it simpler for smaller banks, for example, because they just don’t have the capacity to use the most complex systems. But then capital has to stay where it is and definitely not go down. And there’s a trade-off here because if you really want to run the financial sector with very little capital, then there are very few things you will be allowed to do. And that will be very complex. And the more capital you have, the more degrees of freedom you will have in terms of what you can allow banks and others to do. So, you constantly have this trade-off, and people will probably discuss these things forever.
Slater: Yeah, how to get How to get the balance right in the cycle that you’re talking about at that point in the cycle. One of the big conversations that you know we hear a lot about in terms of financial stability risks right now is actually that the risk is pooling outside of the regulatory perimeter or the banking regulatory perimeter rate and non -banks and private credit. Kind of how do you see that? Are you concerned about that? I mean, should there be a conversation? I mean, about regulatory frameworks in this non-bank sector?
Ingves: When it comes to private credit, I have a hard time seeing why you would end up massively with private credit because we have had sort of commercial banks for hundreds of years because they specialize in understanding what corporations are doing. So, they sort of collect information and they gather this information, and they pass judgment on what they know, and I find it difficult to understand if you do a lot of private credit that the individuals who actually do this type of private credit would come to the same level of understanding. So, you can probably have private credit, but on a small scale. But I still do think that we will have banks for a long, long time to come. And I think there’s one observation of mine that matters here, because I have had the… I have, during my years at the IMF, worked in many countries where they were in deep economic trouble and also in countries where more or less kind of the banking sector collapsed. But the banking sector always recreates itself sooner or later because we need banks. Because they provide services. And also based on this sort of kind of small observation, there’s a sort of something positive about it in the sense that banking produces a service to the general public and banks are much needed and they’re not going to disappear.
Slater: All right, maybe moving a little bit towards monetary policy issues, we’ll kind of wrap it up there, but I think there’s a lot of conversation right now of course about sort of monetary policy central bank independence, I mean of course in the US we have a big Fed FOMC meeting coming up next week with a lot of pressure on the Fed right now a lot of questions about its independence so I guess one I mean maybe first question is you know we’re expecting Fed rate cut next week I think that, you know, Governor Powell kind of previewed that in his speech at Jackson Hall. You know, in terms of what the U.S. trajectory looks like in terms of interest rate cuts, what implications will that have globally?
Ingves: I really don’t want to pass judgment on interest rates because I’ve been in this business for so long. And it’s not my job to behave like the old guys in the Muppet show, sitting there yelling what to do. It’s hard enough when you are in this business to do things on your own. So, I’m pretty sure that those at the Fed are doing their utmost when it comes to coming up with a wise decision.
Slater: And it’s a really uncertain environment. I mean, they’re really grappling with Uncertainty. Right and there’s no playbook for this I think right in terms of the level of tariffs that we’ve seen and what and the impacts of that so it’s a tough job, but I’m just wondering if you know how do other central banks, you know when the Fed makes the decision sort of how do other central banks think about that? Is there any sort of look what they did? You know do we have pressure now to do the same thing or is it all really domestic conditions that kind of drive this?
Ingves: With free capital flows, everything sort of in some sense hangs together. And particularly in small open economies with completely free capital flows. Basically, at the end of the day, you import the global real rate of interest. So that matters. But at the same time, I would say that all central banks or almost all central banks have a national mandate. So that is definitely what comes first. That’s what comes first. And your job is not to sort of follow somebody else, but at the same time, you need to understand that when others do things, it will affect you. And that you have to sort of factor into the equation and think about to what extent that matters to your particular institution or not and your mandate. And it’s easier if you’re an inflation targeting central bank and I come from that environment and the opposite, these are the Danish neighbors because they have a fixed exchange rate visa the euro for a long, long time. And then of course in that environment you can’t really argue about monetary policy. You import your money. You just have to. You just have to. But it’s not that central bankers in some sense collectively get together and sort of decide to do this, that and the other, because it’s clearly understood that all central bankers have a national mandate.
Slater: Maybe just kind of sticking with sort of central banks. As I said, the Fed in particular in the U.S. has, you know, there’s been tons of headlines about it being under pressure. But, you know, tell me a little bit about sort of why most Central Banks are independent. You know, not all, but most Central Banks around the world have this sort of independence model. Tell me why that’s important in terms of monetary policy making.
Ingves: I ended up working for many, many years in an institution that was established in 1668. And now independence is very often called inflation targeting. But the issue has stayed the same, and it’s very basic, because politicians and many understands that at the central bank, that’s where the money is. And then you actually, need to control how much money you supply to the system as a whole because otherwise, you end up with too much inflation. And this has been tried time and time again, all over the world where you have not succeeded and just failed when it comes to inflation. And of course, worst cases are hyperinflation. And a good way of phrasing this is basically to say that the central banking and this was said by a federal reserve governor in the early 50s, you have to have somebody who’s willing to take away the punch ball when the party really gets going. And again, it’s really about constrain. It’s a self-imposed constraint for the system as a whole, with the conclusion that on average in the long run that will produce a better outcome. And that is what really matters. But you always have this difficult trade of here and now and then the future. And what do you do institutionally and what governance framework do you put in place in order to stay on the narrow path.
Slater: I guess I would just be curious to hear too. I mean, obviously, you know, BWC is based in Washington. I mean, a ton of headlines right now about what the U.S. is doing. You know, just how does, how do you non-U.S. citizen, how are you just sort of viewing, you know, what’s going on in the U.S. landscape in terms of you know just central banking in terms of financial stability you know what is how’s the world kind of reacting to some of this.
Ingves: Well I can’t speak on behalf of the world I can only speak on behalf of myself and of course what’s going on speaking for myself is that I never ever expected many of these things to happen and that of course leaves you sort of scratching your head I don’t have a lot of hair to scratch but sort of wondering now what because talking about sort of the money part of it everything has always been done sort of on the assumption for many years that that this is it’s a state it’s a stable place.
Slater: And you know US dollar as the reserve currency you know certainly big you know a big factor, and I think big for the rest of the world in terms of what they’re watching now and how the US is going to kind of approach the strength of the dollar and through its policymaking. Maybe we’ll just end on, we’re at the BIS Innovation Summit; we talked a little bit about a kind of global cooperation coordination. So, in this landscape where the U.S. is pulling back as a kind of global leader, I think fair to say under this current administration, and it has some skepticism of international organizations, like maybe like the BIS, like the IMF, like the World Bank, UN, et cetera. How do you see the future of central banking in financial stability coordination and cooperation. We said it’s sort of getting harder, we think in this landscape. So, do you think anything’s going to continue to get done? Do you think it’s going to get harder? Do you think there’s political will to continue to move forward?
Ingves: Hard to tell, but at the same time, it sort of goes with the name of the BIS, the Bank for International Settlements and given in this day and age and with the sort of IT developments that we’ve been talking about here for a couple of days, it’s getting easier and easier to move money around the globe. And that pulls the whole thing in one direction and then to just stop cooperating, it’s not I think in a meaningful way of going about because everybody is over time will actually be better off by cooperating and that’s why actually the BIS has existed since 1930. So, there’s got to be something in it because otherwise this institution would have ceased to exist a long, long time ago. So, these things tend to be kind of cyclical and now we go through a period when this is sort of lively discussed but at the same time given the technological changes that are taking place as I said it’s getting easier and easier to move money around and that means that you still have to keep talking. Money talks. Yeah, you don’t need to agree on everything but still you need to keep talking. Yeah. Keep talking, talking.
Slater: All right well we have covered a lot of ground I appreciate you taking the time to chat with us today Stefan always great to get your views and no one better to kind of talk through all things central banks all things financial stability so I appreciate you taking the time and appreciated hearing your insights.
Ingves: Thank you.
Slater: Thank you.