measurement of prices in the real estate sector, the assessment of household vulnerabilities, and new developments such as related to fintech. 6 2. data and policy evaluation collecting data is not, and should not be, an end in itself. we need to join the dots, not just collect them. data provide information about the structure and state of the financial system, and they can be used to assess the effects of post - crisis financial sector reforms. after the crisis, several major reform initiatives were launched, which aim at enhancing the stability and resilience of the global financial system. so far, national and international bodies have focused on monitoring the implementation of these reforms ( fsb 2016 ). to answer the question of how financial sector reforms have affected market dynamics and the real economy, we need to go a step further. in 2017, the g20 leaders have thus adopted a framework for the evaluation of reform effects ( fsb 2017 ). the framework has three elements : causally attributing observed trends in financial markets to reforms, understanding relevant heterogeneities across banks, countries, and over time, and understanding general equilibrium effects. one crucial objective of policy evaluation is to make a distinction between the effects of reforms on individual firms, and the effects on the financial system. ( short - term ) costs of reforms for the 2 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches private sector, such as costs of compliance, are often more visible and easier to measure than longer - terms benefits for society as a whole. some of these benefits arise through shifts in costs from the public to the private sector : withdrawing implicit public guarantees for financial institutions increases the costs of debt, because creditors cannot rely on bailouts and thus demand higher risk premia. this will show up as a private cost. yet, society as a whole benefits if the financial system becomes more stable and if risk is not shifted to the public sector. 7 to see why structured policy evaluation is needed, take the effects of increased capital requirements. better capitalised banks are more resilient and can lend more to the real economy. at the same time, post - reform trends in bank lending have differed across countries, banks, and industries. this raises a number of questions : has lending declined because of weaker credit demand? do banks lend more prudently? what has been the impact of regulations on stability and growth? does bank lending support sectoral reallocation – and thus growth? aggregate time trends in lending do

short time. the european banking industry is likewise intensively involved in target2. indeed, if it were not strongly requested by the banking industry, the single shared platform would still be nothing but a distant dream. and it is also clear that we will only be able to realise target2 securities with the active involvement and constructive cooperation of the banks and the central securities depositories ( csds ). target2 securities should not be understood as a hostile or, indeed, friendly takeover of the csds ’ business by the eurosystem. the main issue here is also our core function, ie settlement in central bank money. the eurosystem has no intention of using target2 securities to set up a european central securities depository. in this respect target2 securities differs from the us fedwire securities system which is a fully - fledged central securities depository though only for government paper. in europe, the csds will retain full responsibility for the safe custody and administration of securities and for relationships with their customers. however, target2 securities demands that, in technical terms, the maintaining of securities accounts also be effectively transferred to the eurosystem platform. given the fact that if for reasons of security and efficiency the integration of securities and central bank money accounts is required there are just two options. either the central banks “ outsource ” their money accounts to the various csds or the csds shift their securities accounts to the eurosystem. for the reasons i mentioned at the start of this speech, the second approach is the clear favourite. however, i would like to emphasise again that using target2 securities will make sure that the proven, clear delineation of responsibilities in the market will remain intact, ie central banks provide the settlement in central bank money, csds are the owners and custodians of securities accounts. naturally, we must also bear in mind economic considerations when providing settlement services. this prevents “ public ” money from being “ wasted ” and guarantees that it will be used sensibly. at the same time, it enables us to tackle any potential competitive distortion. take, for example, target2 : it will not only meet user demands but will also ensure costeffectiveness. the idea to establish a single technical platform for target2 translates into exploiting economies of scale and achieving cost reductions. cost - effectiveness also means making maximum use of the synergies the eurosystem has to offer with regard to target2 securities as well. this, in turn