and - medium - size enterprises which will also create employment opportunities for saudis. the forthcoming stage of the saudiization policy will focus on increasing the share of saudis in new posts created by economic growth. the government has recently launched a programme for supporting small and medium size companies, thereby, new jobs will be available for saudis. there are also a number of challenges in deepening and broadening the financial sector with significant implications for the economy. these include the creation of a viable and vibrant mortgage industry, which would have significant impacts on housing, construction, durable goods and other ancillary sectors. also, there are initiatives in place to establish sound insurance and leasing industries. these initiatives are also aimed at enlarging the institutional investors'base that can channel resources in developing a pool of expertise, professional skills and technical knowledge in the financial sector. i wish to conclude with the observation that saudi arabia's economy is currently undergoing through a stage of accelerated growth in all sectors of the economy at a level and pace unprecedented in the past. the government is spearheading this dynamic growth with its avowed policy of structural reforms and liberalization in the economy, as evidenced by its success in attracting the private sector and foreign direct investment into primarily the non - oil sectors of the economy. the saudi economy is an integral part of the global economy and is thus susceptible to systemic risks, although saudi arabia did not feel the financial turmoil and liquidity crisis experienced by the rest of the world as a result of the recent sub - prime crisis, we are, nonetheless, vigilant in our efforts to continually monitor the domestic market and to ensure continuation and stability of policies and regulations. i wish all success to your forum and a good stay in the kingdom. thank you for your attention.

novel activity or concepts. finally, we should consider whether there are necessary — and targeted — adjustments we should make to banking regulation. this will likely include a broad range of topics, including taking a close look at deposit insurance reform, the treatment of uninsured deposits, and a reconsideration of current deposit insurance limits. 6 we should avoid using these bank failures as a pretext to push for other, unrelated changes to banking regulation. our focus should be on remediating known, identified issues with bank supervision and issues that emerge from the public autopsy of these events. a debate about regulatory changes must also consider where we are today as compared to prior to the 2008 financial crisis. the banking system is strong and resilient despite recent banking stress. the fed has refined regulatory standards over time at the direction of congress, and through the “ tailoring ” regulations i discussed earlier that are designed to better align regulation with risk. 7 even with the implementation of these changes, banks today are better capitalized, with more liquidity, and are subject to a new range of supervisory tools that did not exist prior to 2008. this banking system is not only strong today but is well prepared to continue supporting the provision of credit and the broader economy. radical reform of the bank regulatory framework — as opposed to targeted changes to address identified root causes of banking system stress — is incompatible with the fundamental strength of the banking system. i am extremely concerned about calls for casting aside tiering see federal deposit insurance corporation, “ options for deposit insurance reform ” ( washington : federal deposit insurance corporation, may 1, 2023 ), https : / / www. fdic. gov / analysis / options - deposit - insurancereforms / report / options - deposit - insurance - reform - full. pdf. economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protection act, public law no. 115 - 174, 132 stat. 1296 ( 2018 ). - 11 expectations for less complex institutions, given the clear statutory direction to provide for appropriately calibrated requirements for these banks. i have also heard calls for broad, fundamental reforms for the past several years, shifting away from tailoring and risk - based supervision. i believe this is the wrong direction for any conversation about banking reform. the unique nature and business models of the banks that recently failed, in my view, do not justify imposing new, overly complex regulatory and supervisory expectations on a broad range of banks. if we allow this to occur, we will end up with