relative terms given their stronger capital positions and funding structures. • technological innovation will threaten to disintermediate banks. but to the extent that asian banks themselves adopt the new technology platforms, they will strengthen their ability to penetrate unbanked markets and expand their footprint. of course, it goes without saying that asian banks should guard against complacency and continue to meet high prudential standards and strengthen their risk management capabilities. many of you will be presenting your thoughts over the next two days on these and other issues on the future of asia ’ s banking and finance. i look forward to hearing your insights. bis central bankers ’ speeches

different rules for corporate governance contribute to fragmentation. these issues warrant consideration to facilitate financial reintegration. the single resolution mechanism as an essential complement another essential element in building a more integrated european banking market is greater harmonisation of how non - viable banks are resolved. this requires a consistent legal framework between countries and a single resolution mechanism to enforce that framework. the first part has already been agreed by governments ; the second part, the srm, needs to be pursued as a matter of urgency. a robust srm would encompass all banks established in member states participating in the ssm. it would have at its centre a strong and independent single resolution authority that can act evenly across countries and take decisions in the european interest. and it would have adequate powers, tools and financial resources to resolve institutions swiftly and effectively. the key to an effective resolution regime is that it creates legal certainty, consistency and predictability, thus helping to avoid ad hoc solutions. to this end, there are two points where i think more certainty is needed. first, while the new eu resolution framework provides the appropriate resolution toolbox, it would be better to have it available right from the start of the srm. i therefore support implementing the bail - in tool well before 2018. second, to price risk properly, investors need to see a clear pecking order in resolution financing – running from capital write - downs and bail - in to use of a bank - financed single resolution fund. however, it would be difficult to make such a pecking order credible without a public backstop for the single resolution fund for exceptional cases where its resources are exhausted. otherwise, investors may suspect that governments would at some point be forced to step in again. such a backstop would still result in the private sector paying as any borrowing by the fund would have to be repaid, if needed through ex post levies on the banking sector. in other words, the future system would not be about bail - outs or mutualisation – it would be fiscally neutral ; the taxpayer would not pay. conclusions let me conclude. i have discussed today the benefits of a european perspective to our current challenges. this is not the perspective of idealists. rather, in a closely integrated monetary union, it is the perspective of realists. a european perspective is firmly enshrined in monetary policy. and it is equally enshrined in our approach for establishing the ssm. we will overcome fragmentation to create a truly integrated financial market. there is still