Kuttner, Kenneth N. and Ilhyock Shim (2013), “Can Non-Interest Rate Policies Stabilize Housing Markets? Evidence from a Panel of 57 Economies”, BIS Working Papers No 433. Mian, Atif, Rao, Kamalesh and Sufi, Amir (2013), Household Balance Sheets, Consumption and the Economic Slump. Quarterly Journal of Economics (128)4, 1687–1726. Ostry, Jonathan, D. and Atish, R. (2013), Obstacles to International Policy Coordination, and How to Overcome Them. IMF Staff Discussion Note 13/11, International Monetary Fund. Rajan, Raghuram (2014), Competitive Monetary Easing: Is it Yesterday Once More? Speech at the Brookings Institution, 10 April. Rey, Hélène (2013), Dilemma not Trilemma: The Global Financial Cycle and Monetary Policy Independence. I Global Dimensions of Unconventional Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Jackson Hole Symposium, 2013. Schularick, Moritz and Taylor Alan M. (2012), Credit Booms Gone Bust: Monetary Policy, Leverage Cycles and Financial Crises, 1870–2008. NBER Working Paper 15512. Smets, Frank (2013), Financial Stability and Monetary Policy: How Closely interlinked? Sveriges Riksbank Economic Review 2013:3. Jubilee issue. Stein, Jeremy C. (2013), Overheating in Credit Markets: Origins, Measurement, and Policy Responses. Speech at “Restoring Household Financial Stability after the Great Recession: Why Household Balance Sheets Matter”, research symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, 7 February. Stein, Jeremy C. (2014), Incorporating Financial Stability Considerations into a Monetary Policy Framework. Speech at the International Research Forum on Monetary Policy, Washington, D.C., 21 March. Summers, Lawrence (2014), Washington Must Not Settle for Secular Stagnation. Financial Times, 5 January. Svensson, Lars E.O. (2011), Monetary policy after the crisis.

When I was preparing for this event, I could not help but look back to three years ago – April 2018 – and the thoughts that I shared with you at that event. On that occasion, I highlighted three issues as having significant potential to change how effective we are in our AML work: The promise of technological innovation; The emerging focus on public-private information sharing; and Getting the risk-based approach right by thoroughly understanding risks. 5. Three years on, I think we can all agree that the potential of each of these has been clearly demonstrated. The path to achieving a step-change in the outcome of current responses to money laundering and terrorist financing – based on the tools and techniques at our disposal – is much clearer. Let’s quickly recap what we have seen and experienced so far. 6. First, the value of technology in allowing us to swiftly overcome some of the challenges caused by COVID-19 is well recognised. Digital and online innovation has helped to improve remote access to financial services. That has also allowed banks and other financial institutions to protect their workforces through work-from-home arrangements, and provided data analytics to raise red flags on networks of COVID-19 fraud accounts. At the HKMA, we are committed to supporting innovation that works for all types of customers and for both small and large institutions. We also recognise that our regulatory framework needs to keep pace – focusing on outcomes, and being forward-looking.