Nevertheless it finds a compromise of facade

The Fed yesterday maintained interest rates at 0, opting for the status quo as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England (BoE) this month. It also confirmed that rates could remain low "for a period extended" and gave more details on the expiration of the programs of "quantitative easing". The output of the devices of crisis is the challenge of the year for the institutes of emissions Government by the BoE securities purchases also reached the target of 200 billion initially. Willem Buiter, Chief Economist at Citi, decrypts the strategies of central banks and point their differences. According to him, the Fed will take no risk on growth. The ECB could normalise the situation too soon rather than too late.

Do you think that central banks, including the Red, can easily defeat their devices of crisis

None of them is facing major technical barriers. Fed's hold on the application, therefore its balance sheet will be deflated at the same time as the liquidity needs banks. It has also several tools to drain liquidity in the system: other than raise interest rates, it can perform dismally inverted, better pay reserves deposited with the banks or sell financial assets, because it holds a stock of public and private securities. I think the problem is mainly political. Crisis exit strategies will lift the veil on what central banks have done in recent years and especially will reveal the price of assets purchased or taken into pension. But do not forget that issuing institutes have no liquidity constraints, so they can keep titles as long because they want to sell when market conditions are considerable support. Central banks will make profits, the Fed has already announced it for the preceding financial year.

What are the main differences between the central banks to the problem of "exit" from crisis

The Fed will not risk the recovery. It is very conservative and can extend some of its programmes, for example on mortgage, if it thinks that certain sectors are still too fragile. The Bank of England and European Central Bank would also react if really necessary. Moreover, the Institute of issue of the euro area was the first to massively inject liquidity into the financial system, prior to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

However, I believe that the risk that the ECB out too early is greater than to be left behind. In the euro area, monetary bias is clearly restrictive, to such an extent indeed that the Central Bank has an asymmetric approach to its mandate of price stability: it is concerned particularly inflation exceeding 2. The Board of Governors decides whether or not to take into account the oil price in the evolution of prices, depending on what suits him. It is for me a violation of its mandate.

The ECB claims its independence from the tax policies of Governments. What do you think

In my view, be independent does not mean not to cooperate. Some members of the ECB are also in agreement with this point of view. But in the Executive Board and of the Council of Governors, others believe that the mere fact of coordinated efforts is an infringement of the independence of the institution. Mr. Stark is part of them. This bias, for credibility, seems dangerous to me. Monetary policy in the US and UK are from this point of view more responsible.

Precisely, can be expected from the ECB a gesture to the Greece

Mr Trichet was clear: the ECB will not interfere with its operation for a single country and will be not conciliatory to irresponsible fiscal behaviour in the euro area. Thus, I do not think that it will maintain rules relaxed on the "collateral" - made securities in pension against a loan - beyond this year to eventually allow Greek borrowing to remain eligible to refinance. Nevertheless, it finds a compromise of facade.

How to make decisions differs according to the central banks. What system do you

I think that the consensus, as the practice the ECB, is the worst possible system. Lack of transparency and makes it less predictable monetary authorities, even if the European objective of price stability compensates for this hazard. The consensus also prevents to be an opinion on the competence of the various stakeholders. There is a cultural gap between Europe and the anglo-saxon model. The Fed and the Bank of England are resting their verdicts on the vote of their members and these votes are known to the public. The United Kingdom, the Governor can even be placed in a minority, that this return in question its status.

What threat the financial system now according to you

A point is worrying: banks will have needs additional capital to meet the criteria of Basel on the prudential rules. The markets are not in a position currently provide all the funds. This is added the problem of potential losses related to bad loans. Uncertainties are numerous.