that are eligible for regular purchases ( as of 11. 03. 2016, the ecb has purchased under the app programme : €801. 2 billion : pspp holdings : €620. 5 billion, abspp holdings : €19. 1 billion, cbpp3 : €161. 6 billion. breakdown : €46 billion on the primary and €115. 6 billion on the secondary market. ) a new series of four targeted longer - term refinancing operations ( tltro ii ), each with a maturity of four years, will be launched in june 2016. my short comment on the above measures is that they are a combination of quantitative easing with credit easing, namely a widening of qe as seen from the higher amount of monthly purchases, and credit easing as evident in the eligibility of corporate debt for ecb purchases, plus of course the second round of tltros, meaning literally that the central bank pays commercial banks to provide loans to businesses. bis central bankers ’ speeches why did ecb president mario draghi decide to proceed even further with the above expansionary monetary policy, eleven months after the initiation of the program? 2. the current economic outlook of the euro area the answer to the above question lies in the euro area economic outlook. core inflation fell to 0. 8 % in february ( flash estimate ), down from 1. 0 % in january. according to ecb forecasts in march 2016, inflation in the euro area is now projected to be at a very low level ( 0. 1 % ) on an annual average basis in 2016, before rebounding to 1. 3 % in 2017 and 1. 6 % in 2018. inflation expectations, as measured by the five - year inflation - linked swap rate, declined to a historic low of 1. 37 %, compared with 1. 7 % just prior to the start of the pspp. gdp growth has been revised downwards by 0. 4 percentage point, to 1. 4 % for 2016 ; for 2017 and 2018, real gdp is expected to grow by 1. 7 % ( revised downwards by 0. 1 percentage point ) and 1. 8 %, respectively. in short, it seems that up to this point the qe programme had a rather minimal impact on inflation or inflation expectations and growth in the eurozone. from my point of view, three main factors have contributed to the inability of inflation to increase. first, supply - side factors have been deflationary, as

which will in turn improve public debt dynamics and sustainability, but will also reduce unemployment, effectively tackle non - performing loans and private debt, and so on. if i may slightly rephrase us president bill clinton : “ it ’ s the growth, stupid! ” i have one further comment regarding private debt now, which exceeded €200 billion, and now accounts for 113 % of greece ’ s gdp. the breakdown is as follows : npls : €100 billion, tax arrears : €80 billion, overdue insurance contributions : €20 billion. given its short - to medium - term effect on private consumption ( which determines gdp growth by 75 % ), doubts arise about the growth prospects of the greek economy in the next five to ten years. given the disinvestment issue, which i discussed earlier, that is why i have been writing since 2010 that the country badly needs an investment shock. second remark : nobody, i am sure, in this room, but also outside of it, would wish for the unpleasant experience of last year ’ s backtracking to be repeated this year, i. e. the deposit outflow which destabilised the banking system and resulted in the introduction of capital controls, a bank holiday and bank recapitalization – only a year following the 2014 recapitalisation – and, of course, the recession in 2015 and 2016, from initially positive expectations for both years. the cost of last year ’ s backtracking was elevated, as we all understand, but what i would like to point out here today is that the cost of any further delays this year would be equally high. if the negotiations of the first review of the 3rd memorandum are drawn out over time, then the risks of a destabilisation of the economy and its financing conditions would be heightened. let me be more precise : i should mention that the cost of this delay is reflected in the deferment of voting major bills at the hellenic parliament which are at a stalemate for some time now, although they concern critical issues relating to the country ’ s growth, such as the development law, the new framework on public procurements, the modernisation of public construction works, scientific research and development. without a timely review, all of the above bills are in the air. the price to pay for our economy will be heavy. i hope that the benefits of a timely review are clear to everyone. and for one more reason : the credibility deficit vis -