, but requires of banking groups to wholly divest their proprietary trading activities – they cannot be continued even in separate subsidiaries of banking groups. the vickers and high - level expert group proposals are wider in scope, seeking to regulate more trading activities than the volcker rule, but are in a sense less radical in the implementation of the separation as they allow separation within the banking group. however, the uk government has proposed to give authorities reserve powers to call for full separation, meaning disallowing even the group structure, in case banks try to circumvent the ring - fence. by avoiding the challenging segregation of proprietary trading and market making, our proposal differs from the volcker rule. our proposal prevents market making to become a way to circumvent the prohibition of proprietary position - taking in securities market. when comparing our proposal with the proposal to be implemented in the uk, one can say that the proposals started from different directions. the vickers proposal started from the narrow banking philosophy and sought to restrict the use of those funds. we on the other hand focused on the most volatile parts of banking business and sought to cordon off those so as to protect the traditional universal banking model, as we used to know it, from engaging in excessive risk - taking. the end results as to where the line is drawn between the entities to be separated are, however, not totally different. the main difference in where the line between the separated entities is to be drawn is that we would allow the deposit bank to engage in securities underwriting whereas this activity would be separated in the uk. as i already mentioned, our solution is based on the view that underwriting is closely connected with corporate finance. earlier this year also the french and german governments published proposals for structural reform in the banking sector. these national level initiatives can be seen as adoptions of our proposal as they apply the same “ subsidiarisation ” model. the activities to be separated are somewhat narrower as proprietary trading ought to be separated to the trading entity, but not market making. however, there would be supervisory powers to limit the open positions taken in the course of market making. hence, the french and german proposals can be seen as an intermediate position between our proposal and separating only proprietary trading in the narrow sense. bis central bankers ’ speeches continuing with a few words on the rest of our proposals. [ slide 10 : the five proposals of the high - level expert group ] our analysis of capital requirements also found its way to our final

marja nykanen : problems in embedding climate risks into the traditional financial risk framework speech by ms marja nykanen, deputy governor of the bank of finland, at the bank of finland and the finnish ministry of finance conference " greener finance for sustainable future ", helsinki, 31 october 2019. * * * ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second day of the conference. i am glad to see such a broad spectrum of expertise here. i am marja nykanen, deputy governor of the bank of finland. in recent years, the bank of finland has become active in climate - related issues. for example, we participate in the work of the network for greening the financial system ’ s work streams and plenary. the intergovernmental panel on climate change ( ipcc ) publishes reports on scenarios that will happen if we fail to lower our emissions. from the most recent special report, we learned that the arctic and polar areas will experience considerable transformations as glaciers melt at an increasingly faster rate. the melting creates a massive amount of meltwater, which will have significant impact on rising sea levels. but the report shows that polar areas also face other consequences. let ’ s take, for example, the arctic ocean. it provides a habitat for many species. by 2100, it will freeze later in the year with thinner ice and leave those species without a sufficient habitat. also by 2100, up to 80 % of scandinavian and central european mountain glaciers might have vanished. for me, such future prospects are unsettling. even though the scenarios seem worrying, it is not too late to act. we, as finance professionals, play an important role in this fight against climate change. as we heard yesterday, a significant amount of investment is required to transform our economies into sustainable ones. to facilitate investment, we need a well - functioning financial market with availability of green funding instruments. and, in order to ensure a well - functioning financial system, we must keep an eye on the system - level climate risks that might threaten the stable functioning of the financial system and smooth flows of funding for sustainable investments. in the discussion of climate change risks to the financial sector, two types of systemic risks have been identified. firstly, there are physical risks, namely damage caused by extreme weather events or climate - related natural disasters. these include hurricanes, floods, storms, heat waves etc. in addition to potential risks to life, such events generate great financial damage. for example, such