by banks that were not yet doing it, showing banks'1 / 3 bis - central bankers'speeches willingness to integrate energy performance data into their credit risk management policies. this is good news. however, as supervisors, we are also concerned about the existing stock of loans. most of the data on this are based on proxies, which makes it difficult for both banks and supervisors to design and implement proper risk management measures. obtaining real data is admittedly challenging, yet many of the banks represented here today have made notable strides. you have found a way to collect energy performance data and use them effectively. and we invite all banks that have not yet advanced on collecting such data to learn from the good practices of those banks that have made critical leaps forward. legislative changes will improve the availability of energy performance data integrating climate - related data is also vitally important in view of impending legislative changes. the revised energy performance of buildings directive1, which includes common requirements for setting up national databases on the energy performance of buildings, is an important development that should help narrow the data gap. in the spirit of the directive, further work is needed to ensure adequate data management and increase the reliability and consistency of climate - related real estate data across the european union. establishing a comprehensive european database of all buildings in the eu will take time. so banks cannot just sit back and wait. as supervisors we expect banks to manage all material risks. and this requirement is not conditional on the attainability of harmonised data. we therefore strongly encourage all efforts to improve data availability and welcome the successful strategies that some banks have implemented to address data gaps. today's agenda will focus on the collection of energy performance data for the commercial and residential real estate sectors. but this will not be the only topic. properties in areas prone to hazard events such as floods, rising sea levels or wildfires are increasingly vulnerable and could see a decrease in their collateral value. last week's devastating floods in austria, czechia, hungary, italy, poland, romania and slovakia were a stark reminder of that. therefore, later in today's programme we will discuss the challenges and potential solutions for monitoring physical risk. in the coming weeks, the ecb will publish an analytical paper focusing on whether residential mortgage rates in high climate risk areas are influenced by this risk. the paper finds evidence that climate - related risk is already priced into mortgages. in other words, we see that an average bank took climate - related risks into account as loans

also need to be implemented and applied uniformly. this is the job of the single resolution authority. the details of implementing the single resolution regime, which has only recently been agreed, are currently under discussion. central to this discussion is the precise detail of the bis central bankers ’ speeches levies to be paid by banks to the resolution fund, which therefore begs the question : who pays what? the target level of the fund is €55 billion, to be paid in over a period of eight years starting in 2016. how much individual banks will pay has not been definitively clarified. the european commission is working out the details at the moment. we know that some banks have riskier business models than others. that ’ s why – and this is what the legislation provides – the levies to be paid by banks to the fund include a riskweighted component in addition to a flat levy. not every bank will pay the same amount, therefore. the single resolution mechanism is intended to ensure that banks can be wound down more efficiently than in the past. this will reduce the costs of resolution and hence the potential burden on the single resolution fund. another side effect will be to reduce the urgency of having a single european deposit guarantee scheme. if banking supervision and resolution are conducted at a european level, the probability of banks defaulting should fall. if a bank still gets into difficulties, supranational structures are in place to ensure it can exit the market in an efficient and orderly manner. this exit will be conducted in line with the bank recovery and resolution directive ( brrd ). the directive envisages preferential treatment for depositors within the hierarchy of creditors, so they will have to be compensated far less often. this reduces the need for funds from national deposit guarantee schemes, which will only have to be drawn on in absolutely extreme cases. the directive on deposit guarantee schemes is itself in the process of being revised. its purpose is to harmonise national deposit schemes and provide them with more funds. this should also help ensure that national deposit guarantee schemes have sufficient funds for the time being. conclusion viewed from a historical perspective, banking union is being established very quickly, which is good news. because everyone benefits from a single financial market architecture : europe ’ s banks, investors and savers, the real economy ; and our monetary policy can also be more effective if the financial markets are less fragmented along national borders. bis central bankers ’ speeches