weigh up monetary stability, gdp stability and financial stability. for instance, both in developed and emerging countries, monetary regimes focused on a single instrument, such as the interest rate, have become more flexible. many central banks have had to revisit their usual regulation, operation and intervention mechanisms. in this sense, it is essential to analyze how this crisis affects the economy and policies. as a matter of fact, there was partly a “ surprise effect ” due to which early warning mechanisms failed. therefore, there is a social debt in terms of the capacity to prevent and warn about potential risks. furthermore, the dramatic reversal of the previous prosperity has led to a significant reassessment of risk premia. even the " awareness " of the meaning of risk in itself has changed. previous confidence in the possibility to accurately quantify and estimate risk has been lost and later proved to be naive. in addition, academics have come to revalue frank knight ’ s definition of uncertainty, according to which the relevant variable ’ s probability distribution may be unknown to economic agents. all in all, the crisis has caused greater “ humility ” in all of us. undoubtedly, the interaction of several phenomena, in econometric terms, was what mattered most. the synergy of different factors combined was not taken into account. for this reason, a vibrant and healthy discussion is taking place about the most appropriate theoretical models and paradigms. another important debate focuses on fiscal policy. this issue has gained so much relevance that in the most recent jackson hole symposium there was a whole section dealing with it. professor auerbach from the university of california and professor gale from brookings thoroughly compiled a series of empirical and theoretical studies related to the impact of countercyclical fiscal policies, arriving at a single clear conclusion : the controversy on the multipliers will remain open. this year we have seen a paper by cogan, cwik, taylor and wieland, from stanford university, and another by christiano, eichenbaum and rebelo, from northwestern university, both based on the same “ workhorse ”, the smets and wouters ’ stochastic dynamic general equilibrium model, showing opposite results : the former argue the multiplier is below one, whereas for the latter, it is above one. why such differences? because of the assumption that consumers and monetary policy will behave in a certain way. and again, an interesting contribution of auerbach and gale ’ s paper was

meet these objectives. this is why we suggest policies that contribute to acquire a better understanding of the field as a way to reduce uncertainty and increase the effectiveness of our existing programs. it is time to outline our experience, our knowledge, and put our organizations to work to implement concrete results to develop standards and better practices at regional level. it will contribute to the stability and sustainable development of our financial systems and our economies. after this meeting, i am invigorated to keep working on the effective implementation of aml / cft policies with the same dedication, the same commitment, the same energy in my country and in latin america. my deepest belief is that only with a responsible and realistic contribution of regulators and the private sector we will succeed in giving ourselves the chance to live in better countries, better regions and a better world. thank you very much.