payment services. so i believe that there is indeed a level playing field and that the legislator has taken into consideration a risk - based approach. another request i sometimes hear is for regulatory sandboxes for fintechs. this is an area where, i would suggest, we exercise caution. it raises a lot of questions – where to start and where to stop, who to involve ( or not ) and which activities to include – to name just a few of the challenges. i ’ m not sure we have the right answers yet, but this is ultimately a matter for the legislators. challenges before concluding, i would like to mention cyber risks and the challenges of digitalisation. a virtue of central bankers is that they are, by nature, worried about risks and security. and one concern that is very closely linked to innovation and digitalisation is that of cyber risks. increasing digitalisation exposes the entire ecosystem to increased cyber risks because of a greater reliance on the internet and thus a broader attack surface, which can be exploited by hackers using increasingly sophisticated techniques. as a result, financial market actors and infrastructures become susceptible to cyberattacks. central banks and other authorities have identified those risks and issued guidance in that respect. the g7 published its “ fundamental elements of cybersecurity for the financial sector ” and the cpmi / iosco issued its “ guidance on cyber resilience for financial market infrastructures ” – to name just the most important publications. i strongly encourage all market players to consider cyber risks as critical to their institution and to draw up a fully fledged cyber strategy and response plan. conclusion innovation and digitalisation in payment services will significantly change the payments market. they offer opportunities for efficiency gains and improve the competitiveness of actors that embrace them. the legislative framework established by psd2 supports such innovation and enhances competition. it offers a legislative basis for a level playing field between new entrant tpps ( fintechs ) and incumbent banks. regulatory requirements for tpps and banks obviously differ but so does the spectrum of services that they provide and the level of risk that they encounter and need to protect against. i welcome if both fintech tpps and banks were to make use of the opportunities granted by law and to compete for the most innovative and efficient provision of payment initiation services and account information services. they should build their services on common technical standards with a pan - european reach to benefit their customers and the europen citizens in general. but they should pay

times, the consumer and his protection are central to the existence of business. consumer protection is achievable by having appropriate commercial laws and open competition. but our experience in dealing with provision of financial products and services indicates that the law is heavily loaded in favour of the financial services industry. as far as competition is concerned, it has no implications for the most vulnerable sections of the society. further, the legal processes tend to be expensive and unaffordable in terms of both time and money. the good times for the financial services industry have meant expensive services and products for the common person while bad times have meant inadequate or no supply of even basic financial services. can the above contradictions be balanced without having consumer protection at its core? what did the consumer gain when the times were good for the financial services industry and why is he made to suffer today, for no fault of his, just because the industry has fallen into bad times? the disconnect between business strategy and consumer protection can only be bis central bankers ’ speeches a recipe for disaster. when mr. bill gates made the famous statement “ world needs banking but it does not need banks ” everyone perhaps was euphoric that we would soon breach the final frontier of banking. but it is going to be quite some time before we say good bye to banks. the recent past has seen product innovation and product penetration through use of technology. the challenge posed by the rapid changes in products and service delivery models is our ability to scale up our efforts regarding financial education and customer awareness. a financially literate and enlightened customer would be able to better judge the suitability of a product to meet his requirements. the question i am often asked is : “ why as a regulator, are you concerned about customer care and protection? why is it not left to the market forces and competition to take care of? ” the answer to this lies in the fact that in a service industry where market forces and competition play out freely, this may well be the case. however, banking / financial services industry being a highly regulated service industry with very stiff entry norms, consumer protection cannot entirely be left to the market forces. hence, the regulator has a role. availability of financial services / products at affordable prices on an uninterrupted basis is the purpose and result of financial sector stability. responsible marketing, responsible lending, responsible grievance redress mechanism and responsible consumer protection are not mutually exclusive but are inter - dependent. the public deposits and the