In my current role, as Executive Director for Markets at the Bank of England, Chair of the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee, and a member of the Global FX Committee, I have a responsibility to foster strong, efficient and fair foreign exchange markets in sterling and other currency pairs. But I was also in at the birth of the Code itself, because in 2014-15 I led the team that produced the Fair and Effective Markets Review, which recommended amongst other things that the ‘Global Preamble’ produced by national FX committees in March 2015 should be expanded into a full-blown Global Code, sweeping away the various national texts that preceded it, and setting a new standard for trading practices and behaviours in a market that urgently needed reform. Two years later, in May 2017, the Global Code was launched, setting out a common set of guidelines for good practice in the FX market. The Code contains 55 principles covering ethics, governance, execution 2  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  2  and transparency, information sharing, risk management, confirmation and settlement; and it tackles aspects of current and future market development, including electronic trading, algorithmic trading and prime brokerage. The drafting process was a truly global effort, taking two years and involving central banks and market participants, including buy-side, sell-side and end-users, from 16 jurisdictions around the world. Many of you, or your institutions, played a vital role in that process. Takeup of the Code, which is voluntary, has grown rapidly.

I think this is now a conclusion shared by all Central Bankers in the world, whatever the regulatory environment they live in. An intimate knowledge of the banking sector and of different financial institutions is extremely helpful in managing periods of tensions and stress on money and credit markets. Central Banks have had to make almost instant judgment on the provision of liquidity in different forms and different maturities. There are circumstances where being able to assess the creditworthiness of market participants and the effective amplitude of their needs is of extreme help. More generally (and somehow academically), in times of crisis, the distinction between liquidity and solvency problems becomes both more important and much more difficult to make. Having, so to speak, all the cards in your hands, minimizes the risk of making mistakes. Second, as concerns the supervision infrastructure, it seems to me that clear, simple, robust and pragmatic arrangements have performed better than more sophisticated and elaborate schemes. As you know, I had myself to face a situation of acute crisis and make decisisions in real time, concerning a major, and internationally active, financial institution. At no time did I have the feeling that our current arrangements were deficient and prevented me for getting the necessary information and making the necessary decisions. As you also know, seen from a public interest perspective, we could solve the situation without any significant disturbance to capital market. Nobody knows about the future.