But alongside the risk-based approach, as an alternative way of measuring capital adequacy, it guards against model risk. This in turn makes the overall capital adequacy framework more robust. The leverage ratio is often described as a “backstop” to the “frontstop” of the more complex risk-weighted approach. I have to say that I think this is an unhelpful description. The leverage ratio is not a “safety net” that one hopes or assumes will never be used. Rather, bank capital adequacy is subject to different types of risks. It needs to be seen through a variety of lenses. Measuring bank capital in relation to the riskiness of assets guards against banks not taking sufficient account of asset risk. Using a leverage ratio guards against the inescapable weaknesses in banks’ ability to model risk. Whether the leverage ratio or the risk weighted capital ratio bites on any individual bank will depend on what are the greatest risks facing that bank. BIS central bankers’ speeches  3  Work on an international standard for a leverage ratio is well advanced, though a standard will not be set before 2019. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last November that the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee should review whether a leverage ratio should be introduced in the UK before 2019. The Bank, accordingly, issued a consultation document last Friday on how a leverage ratio might work alongside the risk-weighted approach in the UK. We have made a great deal of progress in reforming the capital adequacy framework for banks.

In addition, the structure of financial flows from abroad shows larger funding through FDI inflows, which mitigates the risks to external sustainability. However, debt financing is also mounting, attributed by both public and private sector. Although, according to most indicators of external indebtedness, Macedonia is still in the "safe zone", the growth of external debt is undoubtedly a signal for additional vigilance by policy-makers, which is especially true for developing countries. Bearing in mind that, despite the positive developments, the domestic savings rate in the Macedonian economy remains below the average and among the lower rates in the CESEE countries, an active contribution from all counterparties is necessary. For banks, this means continuous improvement of the offer of savings products, which will be price-competitive, but also adjusted to the needs of the "ordinary" depositor and keeping-up with the challenges of the modern life. In this context, I would also mention the savings that are still out of the official channels and whose attraction and channeling into official financial channels can significantly increase financial intermediation. Let's not forget the potential of the non-banking financial sector, which through a more active promotion and financial education of citizens on alternative forms of saving, can contribute to the mobilization of additional savings from the households. The development of the institutional investors creates a base for the development of the domestic capital market and increasing its importance as a financial intermediary in the economy. The role of the institutions is also important.