Governments showed a strong commitment to reduce systemic risk by saving important financial institutions, by providing guarantees for inter-bank lending, by raising the level of deposit guarantees for the public etc. Such measures, most of the times designed as temporary, appear to have been successful in restoring the market confidence and steering the world economy back in the gradual recovery path. Focusing on the financial markets and institutions in the aftermath of the crisis, a number of issues, previously known but many times neglected, have re-appeared forcefully to request a serious and thorough response by the authorities. Many of these issues relate to the financial activity itself, others are connected more with the surrounding economic environment. It can be said now that the supervisory authorities of the financial markets and institutions are partly responsible for what happened. Despite the rhetoric, they failed to properly and timely  BIS Review 139/2009  1  identify and control the risk in the financial industry. Here one can mention the soft-hand on bank wholesale borrowing that financed the foreign currency credit in a certain jurisdiction, the neglect for the special purpose entities that were created to by-pass balance sheet prudential requirements etc. There are many reasons for this weakness and a number of them, in my opinion, go beyond the legal and resource capabilities of the supervisory authorities to act. On their own, the supervisory authorities were wrong in basing their work on the misconception that strong individual financial institutions are sufficient for the entire financial system stability.

Revising the liquidation procedures for similar financial institutions with cross-border presence is another area that will confront the public authorities in the world with a stronger challenge. The main purpose of the reform of the financial regulatory framework will be to accommodate new incentives that will create a stronger environment for risk management in the financial industry. The main principle here is “prevention is the better cure”. In this regard, the perimeter of the supervision regulatory framework will be extended to include other important non-bank financial institutions and probably the bank holding companies. At the same time, the approach in the regulatory framework is expected to feature more automatic  2  BIS Review 139/2009  requirements (and less discretionary ones), as it tries to move toward more simplicity and clarity. The move toward simplicity and clarity, will certainly reduce manipulability and enhance transparency and credibility of the banking and financial activity. These changes will be complemented by similar ones in the area of customer protection and market transparency. The regulatory framework of the financial industry is also expected to be less pro-cyclical, as new interesting proposals are being identified to adopt a countercyclical approach for capital requirements, provisioning and accounting. Ensuring responsible governance for the banking and financial institutions is going to be another area of developments. New regulatory requirements and instruments to seek more involvement and higher responsibility of boards of directors for risk management and discourage uncontrolled risk undertaking are being identified.