Transcript of the questions and answers from the press conference

In your statement, the language has changed slightly compared to the previous one. You now refer to overall inflationary risks, whereas last time you spoke of modestly inflationary risks. I wanted to ask whether this change is intentional and, if so, could you explain how your view has shifted?

Yes, the change is intentional. Inflationary risks have increased compared to the past, particularly when you calculate the momenta of core inflation, which I monitor closely. The six-month moving averages of core inflation are now tending to show a slight upward trend, and that’s why we’ve described the risks as inflationary.

You said that inflationary pressures currently preclude a further decrease in interest rates. Should we interpret this to mean that the debate was, and perhaps at the next meeting will be, about choosing between keeping rates stable and possibly cutting them? Could you comment on that – what is the direction of thinking, is there a view that ideally rates should still be lowered at some point, but it’s unclear when or by how much?

The Bank Board was unanimous today that it is not possible to lower interest rates further at this time. To answer your question more precisely, we are keeping all options open. If necessary, we will raise rates; if necessary, we will lower them. All options remain on the table, but at present it looks like rates will stay at their current level for some time.

Bank Board member Jan Kubíček said that 3.5% could already be considered a neutral rate. Do you personally agree with that?

I personally don’t believe much in neutral rates. I believe in the logic, philosophy or vision that rates should be higher than they were before Covid – and remain so for a long time. That’s what matters most to me. I don’t have a specific rate level in mind.