Several key initiatives contribute to this Financing Union and already exist: (i) the Capital Markets Union, which promotes the diversification of private financing; (ii) the Juncker Investment Plan, which mixes public and private investment towards the real economy; and (iii) the Banking Union, which addresses persistent financial fragmentation. These initiatives, however, lack the unified governance of a Financing Union, which would help circumvent bureaucratic barriers and foster synergies. In addition, progress towards a Financing Union is still needed in four key areas: First, providing incentives for cross-border investments – mainly in equity – through accounting, taxes and insolvency laws. Strengthening the free movement of capital within the EU requires overcoming a wide range of legal obstacles. We should improve the 2/5  BIS central bankers' speeches  predictability of insolvency frameworks, eliminate tax-related biases that penalise equity and harmonise the accounting rules for small businesses; Second, developing pan-European savings products more oriented towards long-term investment. This could be done through a variety of savings vehicles: the creation of European venture capital funds, new market initiatives for green bonds, securitised portfolios that are diversified across member states, and so on and so forth; Third, completing the Banking Union; Fourth, controlling financial activities and risks that are of vital importance for the euro area, such as supersystemic CCPs. Improvements in these four areas are needed so as to reach significant gains for digitalisation, SME’s scaling-up or energy transition. In each of these fields we have significant investment needs.

As part of the Financing Union, completing the Banking Union Allow me now to dwell for a moment on the third area of progress, which is also my third concentric circle: completing the Banking Union. The Banking Union is a major step forward for the euro area and is now operational, based on the single rulebook and – already – two pillars: the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) since end-2014; and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) since the beginning of 2016. Those two pillars will have to be complemented by a third pillar: Deposit Insurance, where we could find practical and reasonable compromises. But there are two additional challenges that are less often mentioned: consistency, and consolidations. The first challenge in order to complete the Banking Union is to achieve better consistency between regulation, supervision and resolution, at three levels: First, in the concrete mechanisms: finalising and simplifying the resolution pillar should be a priority. The case of the Italian banks has illustrated just how complex it is to combine the resolution regime laid down in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) with the State aid framework for orderly liquidation. In addition, confidence in the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) and its capacity to intervene has to be bolstered. The setting-up of a common backstop, as mentioned in the European Commission’s communication of 11 October, is a promising avenue, which could take the form of a credit line granted by the ESM.