Top Federal Reserve officials were careful to be seen to be understanding of the plight of lesser central banks during the International Monetary Fund’s meetings in Washington last month. But they may have unintentionally made things worse. By confirming their reluctance to assume greater international commitments, they underlined the divide between central banks that have access to the Fed’s dollar swap facility and those that do not – or, between those with and without a Fed backstop.
In an environment of record low government bond yields, an indication that safe and liquid assets are scarce, it is likely to make a big difference whether or not a country has access to an unlimited source of dollar liquidity.
Fed vice-chairman Stanley Fischer focused on the international transmission of monetary policies and the Fed’s responsibility to the global economy. This appears to have been in response to repeated complaints, in particular from emerging markets, that highly accommodative monetary policy has caused a surge of capital inflows to their economies and made them unduly vulnerable to sudden reversals. The Fed acknowledges there may have been adverse spillovers from changes in its policy stance (such as the “taper tantrum”), and that a normalisation of monetary policies may bring further volatility. There is therefore a considerable premium on access to dollar liquidity. Mr Fischer merely offered that the Fed will “promote a smooth transition by communicating our assessment of the economy and our policy intentions as clearly as possible”. At the same time he stressed that the Fed is not a “global central bank”.