The General Council of the Riksbank finds no conflict of interest in connection with monetary policy decisions
Some media have claimed that Stefan Ingves and Cecilia Skingsley will not have been impartial when they made monetary policy decisions on the purchase of corporate bonds in the secondary market. This has prompted the General Council to make an examination of their holdings in relation to the monetary policy drafting and decisions. This examination is now complete.
“The examination shows that the link between the Executive Board members' shareholdings and the development of the shares in respect of the members' participation in the proceedings and decisions is too weak for them to be assumed to have been liable for disqualification. There has been no negligence in the performance of their duties according to the examination,” says Susanne Eberstein, Chair of the General Council of the Riksbank.
Legal bases and the Council's assessment in brief
The legal memorandum describes in detail the criteria that need to be met in order for a conflict of interest to be considered to exist, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. In brief, the person needs to be influenced by the decision to a not insignificant extent (conflict of interest), or there needs to be some other special circumstance that calls their impartiality into account. There must be a causal link between the decision and the effect that may be assumed to be a consequence of it. The examination of circumstances shows that the event chain and thus the connections are too weak. Nor has there been any reason for Stefan Ingves and Cecilia Skingsley to report their shareholdings to the Executive Board as a whole for the Riksbank to make a decision on the matter of a conflict of interests.
“Of course, the Riksbank's decisions in the area of monetary policy affect all of our private finances, including those of members of the Executive Board. It is important and good that the Board members publicly report their assets and liabilities to Parliament, in the way that they do. This favours an open and objective review,” says Susanne Eberstein.