with looser standards. consistency across borders is not just in regulators'interests - it's in yours as well. an uneven playing field undermines confidence in the global banking system, disrupts competition, and ultimately increases systemic risk. it puts banks at risk of operating in jurisdictions where regulatory frameworks are not equipped to deal with crises, leaving you exposed when things go wrong. by contrast, global implementation of basel iii creates a level playing field, ensuring that all banks - no matter where they operate - adhere to the same high standards. this uniformity strengthens global financial stability and, in turn, enhances the confidence of your shareholders, customers, and counterparties. the opposition to basel iii reflects a kind of short - term thinking, that, frankly, i find hard to understand. weakening of basel iii may give you a few basis points in capital relief, but it exposes you to long - term vulnerabilities. as the memory of the global financial crisis fades, we risk entering a race to the bottom. a race that would be very dangerous for financial stability. or, as daniel davis said in his much - quoted financial times article,'while the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to the next banking crisis is paved with good exemptions.'2 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches so in short, it is essential to implement the basel iii standards in all jurisdictions. not least because, as you know, financial markets are not waiting for us to learn the lessons of 13 years ago. new risks are always emerging, as the events in march last year showed. the demise of silicon valley bank and credit suisse not only brought lessons for banks and supervisors. they also highlighted that we may need some targeted changes in banking regulation beyond basel iii. i want to mention three areas here : liquidity, interest risk and at1 instruments. first on liquidity. partly as a result of social media and digitalisation, the outflow of deposits at svb was much faster than in previous cases, and much faster than lcr calculations take into account. this raises the question of whether the lcr should be calibrated differently for certain types of deposits. the aim would be to increase banks'resilience and provide incentives to attract longer and more diversified funding. another avenue which should be explored in the light of the svb case is whether unrealised losses should be better reflected in the capitalisation of banks. here i'm

##ed in 2017 by the final basel iii standards. they focused on enhancing the risk - weighting framework, introducing more robust capital floors, and limiting the variation in banks'internal risk models. these standards, by now famously known as the basel endgame, have not yet been implemented by jurisdictions around the world. the eu, in its implementation, deviated on important points, making banking regulation weaker than agreed in the new standards. in the us and the uk, initial legislation proposals have also been weakened, 1 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches with some elements not fully aligned with the basel iii agreement. legislators also point at each other when making these adjustments. us banks spent tens of millions of dollars on a lobbying campaign that included ads in the middle of american football games. i don't think it's ethical to interrupt football games for any kind of message, let alone on basel iii. but on a serious note : our failure to implement fully what had already been agreed upon back in 2017 should be worrying. not only to me, as a regulator, but also to you, as bankers. to explain why, let me give you my version of a pro - basel lobbying commercial. implementation of basel iii will increase the credibility of capital ratios and strengthen the banking sector. think of it as a safety net, your safety net. it will ensure that when the next economic shock comes - and it will come - you will be better prepared to withstand it. the capital buffers required by basel iii are not a burden ; they are a shield, allowing you to absorb losses while maintaining operations, protecting your customers and preserving your reputation in times of stress. many in the banking sector view regulation as a constraint, something that limits profitability and imposes undue costs. but it's just the other way around. basel iii is not an obstacle to growth, it is an enabler of sustainable, long - term growth. banks with strong capital positions and sound liquidity management are better positioned to extend and rollover credit, invest in new technologies and fund large - scale projects. they are better able to maintain lending during an economic downturn. and stronger banks can secure more favourable funding conditions, attract long - term customers and build partnerships that increase shareholder value. basel iii works best when it works everywhere. when basel iii is implemented unevenly across jurisdictions, it creates a patchwork of regulations that opens the door to regulatory arbitrage. banks may be tempted to shift operations to regions