, a situation that is unique to trinidad and tobago. withdrawable shares, therefore, pose a greater loss of risk than deposits for credit union members in the event of a credit union ’ s failure. in january 2014, the central bank disseminated its consultation paper on the “ protection fund for deposits and shares held in credit unions ” to the credit union sector for comments. the key elements of the proposed protection fund are the following : • all credit unions that have an operating certificate granted by the central bank will be eligible to join the protection fund, except if in they are liquidation ; • initial seed funding will be made by the credit union sector ( and possibly by the central bank and the government ). sound funding is critical as it is quite possible that there may be immediate claims on the protection fund ; • the protection fund is expected to be established one year after the enactment of the cua ; and • the protection fund will cover deposits and withdrawable shares in the total amount of $ 125, 000, of which $ 75, 000 will apply to deposits and $ 50, 000 to shares, subject to the number of accounts. initial feedback relating to the introduction of the protection fund surrounds the decision by the central bank to use to the dic to administer the fund and not the existing trinidad and tobago credit union deposit insurance fund ( ttcudif ), formerly known as the “ stabilization fund ”. there are at least three reasons why the central bank chose the dic as the administrator and not the stabilization fund. bis central bankers ’ speeches these are as follows : • first, membership in the protection fund will be mandatory for all credit unions. membership is voluntary in the stabilization fund, which is a co - operative. • second, there are economies of scale to using the dic. it has the track record, infrastructure and requisite expertise from over twenty five years of managing a similar protection fund for the banks and non - banks. • finally, the dic stands as an entity with its own statute governing its administration and functioning and is therefore independent of the credit union sector. lingering industry concerns ladies and gentlemen, despite the compelling case for regulation of credit unions by the central bank and extensive, broad - based stakeholder consultations on the proposed new regulatory regime, some industry concerns still linger. i would like to address the following three concerns : • potential conflict between two regulators ; • non - recognition of the evolution of credit union services beyond “ collecting people ’ s money and loans ”

##s, it is worth noting that all parties to this consultation are in agreement that reducing imbalances in a manner compatible with sustained global growth poses a multilateral challenge to be addressed as a shared responsibility. let me now turn to the events we are currently witnessing in the global financial system, which illustrate the vulnerabilities of the system and point to shortcomings on the part of the public authorities as well as in the private sector. with the global financial system still undergoing a process of de - leveraging and risk re - pricing, the risks to global and financial stability should not be underestimated. signs of these risks, inter alia in domestic and external real and financial imbalances, should be addressed resolutely by the relevant parties. it is therefore highly welcome that, in view of the ongoing turmoil, the international community promptly called for a concerted response aimed at identifying the weaknesses, drawing comprehensive lessons and formulating policy responses with a view to strengthening the resilience of the financial system. work has progressed intensively both at the international as well as the eu level. i will highlight the important work being done by the financial stability forum ( fsf ) and its excellent report on enhancing market and institutional resilience, which was recently released to g7 finance ministers and central bank governors. the g7 identified a number of recommendations by the fsf that are considered among the immediate priorities for implementation within the next 100 days. financial institutions, for instance, should fully and promptly disclose their risk exposures, write - downs and fair value estimates for complex and illiquid instruments in their upcoming mid - year reporting. moreover, the international accounting standards board ( iasb ) and other relevant standard - setters should take urgent action to improve the accounting and disclosure standards for off - balance sheet entities and to enhance guidance on fair value accounting, particularly on valuing financial instruments in periods of stress. what is also relevant is that financial institutions should strengthen their risk management practices, including rigorous stress testing, under the support of supervisors ’ oversight. finally, by mid - 2008, the basel committee on banking supervision ( “ basel committee ” ) should issue revised liquidity risk management guidelines and the international organisation of securities commissions should revise its code of conduct for credit rating agencies. additional measures that are to be implemented by end - 2008 relate to strengthening prudential oversight of capital, liquidity and risk management and enhancing transparency and valuation. moreover, the role and uses of credit