supervisors talk regularly and pass along key information ; we are fine doing so, but firms could position themselves better if they communicate significant items to core supervisors on similar timetables. given the global management structures of many business lines and risk functions, a risk event in one jurisdiction may have an immediate impact in other jurisdictions. another element of improving communication is sharing more global information with host supervisors. in order for us to better understand your operations and to put the u. s. operations into the global context, we need to have a better understanding of the global operations. many, if not most, firms assert that they manage businesses and risk on a global basis. with this approach, firms have an obligation to share relevant and significant issues around the globe with key host country supervisors on a timely basis. as well, firms need to share more global data – including key risk management reports – that allow host supervisors to better understand important vulnerabilities, as well as the overall condition of the firm. while information sharing among supervisors can address some of this, it ’ s insufficient to assume that key host country jurisdictions don ’ t need to have a view of the overall health of the company. and, finally, clarity – or transparency – of communication with supervisors needs to be a focus going forward. there are times when firms attempt to respond to questions or concerns with very narrow answers or with an overwhelming amount of paper. this generally leads to additional follow up – on both sides – and a lot of time and energy expended to resolve the outstanding questions. i encourage you to ask for clarity when we aren ’ t being clear and to try to understand better what we are looking for by asking more questions. one way that you can facilitate better information flows is to provide us with what you provide to senior management and board members, rather than producing something just for us. • second, invest in mis. one of the key weaknesses identified during the last crisis was that information systems within firms weren ’ t robust enough to provide timely and accurate risk management information as events unfolded. while some progress has been made to address some of these weaknesses, there is still quite a bit more work needed in firms to achieve a robust risk reporting infrastructure. from a host supervisor ’ s point of view, significant improvements in mis are necessary to demonstrate that firms have clarity about their businesses and risks and have the tools necessary to manage the risks both here and abroad. at the same time, the challenges in implementing effective mis across a global firm are made

, recovery planning is actually an even more important issue. because fmus provide critical services to the industry, experiencing a major disruption that could lead to resolution – or dissolution – is unacceptable. it is important, then, that a ccp be structured in a way, and develop and have tools available, to enable it to recover from losses and continue operations under extreme scenarios. simply put, the debate on ‘ less complex ’ for financial market utilities is much more about recovery than it is about resolution. steadfast resiliency may include casting a more critical eye on the resources needed for a single ccp to withstand a plausible, severe shock. conclusion while there is still work that needs to be done to make financial institutions more resilient, better managed and less complex, we have also made a great deal of progress. i ’ d like to close my remarks by highlighting some of the practical steps we are taking on the supervisory side to continue that progress. • first, through collaboration and communication with other supervisors, both domestic and foreign, we are continuing to work across global firms to address issues together and break down barriers to sharing information and coordinating better among supervisors. i ’ d say this is still a work in progress. bis central bankers ’ speeches • second, we need to continue to communicate our relevant supervisory findings in a timely manner and our communication needs to be candid and direct. still too often i find that we don ’ t say what we mean the first time – and this leads to confusion and, at times, bad outcomes. • lastly, we need to be more proactive in establishing an open dialogue with the directors of the financial institutions we supervise. we look to the directors to flag for us the key risks that keep them up at night. and, it is our obligation to explain the intuition behind our supervisory concerns and the rationale for needed change. thank you for your attention today. i would be happy to answer a few questions. bis central bankers ’ speeches