Our macroprudential authority – the National Committee for Macroprudential Oversight, comprising representatives from the central bank, the Ministry of Public Finance, and the Financial Supervisory Authority – adopted last year a recommendation to the Government, seeking to improve financial discipline in the economy and the financial soundness of firms. I strongly believe that addressing these structural vulnerabilities in the corporate sector will significantly increase the number of bankable firms and enhance the financial inclusion of Small and Medium Enterprises. Last, but not least, the climate-related topics have become more and more prominent worldwide. The financial system should not ignore the effects of climate risks. Central banks and supervisory authorities have joined the scene. There is a significant interest at EU level in the role of sustainable finance, a High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance being established by the Union. The Network for Greening the Financial 4  System, that brings together 34 members, out of which 8 are central banks and supervisory authorities, highlighted the role of climate risks as a source of financial vulnerabilities. Not only the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather can translate into economic and financial losses for the real economy and the financial system, but consequences can also arise from transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Governments’ climate policy, new technologies and consumer preferences will be the main drivers influencing the developments in carbon-intensive sectors.

Macroprudential instruments like debt service-to-income (DSTI) or loan-to-value (LTV) are very powerful in preserving financial stability, but the access to credit for households from the lower income percentile might be affected. 2  However, in the long run, these macroprudential policies might have a positive contribution to preserving the wealth of borrowers, underpinning also financial inclusion. This is also the Romanian experience. When we entered the European Union in 2007, we had to get rid of all our macroprudential measures like LTV (loan-to-value) or DSTI (debt-service-to-income), because at that time such instruments were considered to hinder the free movements of capital. We reintroduced these measures in 2009, after the outbreak of the crisis. The bulk of non-performing loans we witnessed came exactly from exposures dating back to the time when the above-mentioned measures had been lifted (2007-2008) and the most affected borrowers were from lower-income buckets. For these individuals, higher access to finance and better financial inclusion in the short run implied over the medium and long term difficulties in repaying debts and, in many cases, negative equity for their balance sheets. Our lesson is that improving financial inclusion should take place in a sustainable manner. Macroprudential instruments might hurt this inclusion in the short term, but they will support it in the medium and long run. Our active involvement in raising the degree of financial education of the population is crucial for reaching the same objective. I am very interested to hear your views and experience on this matter.