that the economic recovery is still weak and is only gradually strengthening. so, at the moment you do not see any need to act? our monetary policy decisions are gradually finding their way into the provision of credit and the real economy, even if only slowly. we therefore want to keep a steady hand. we would only see ourselves forced to act if there was a fundamental change in the economic situation or the monetary stance was materially altered because of developments in the markets – for example, in the event of a sharp increase in long - term bond yields. so far, i am not worried by what i am seeing. so, renewed worries about deflation are exaggerated? there is nothing in the data that supports such an assessment. in the united states, the first interest rate rise is on the horizon. would this make the ecb ’ s job easier, for example because the euro would lose value against the us dollar, or more difficult because rising us bond yields have often pushed up their european counterparts in the past? if the federal reserve comes to the conclusion that it can raise interest rates, that means that the us economy is strong. that would be good news for the global economy, and therefore also good news for the euro area. it will be crucial that global financial markets are resilient enough to deal with this change in monetary policy. and, are they resilient enough? or should we be worried that the first us interest rate rise since june 2006 will cause chaos in the markets? we have been living with very low interest rates for a very long time. the challenge is to ensure that market participants recognise that the future regime will be more like it normally was in the past – with higher interest rates. there is a risk that some have forgotten what that bis central bankers ’ speeches looks like. that also applies to us in europe. it is extremely important that our unconventional monetary policy does not damage financial markets. but that is exactly what many market participants are accusing central bankers of – especially the ecb. they are accusing them of overriding market mechanisms and ousting private investors. it is clear to me that these unconventional measures have to be of a temporary nature. if they became a permanent phenomenon, that would have much more significant implications for market structures and the profitability of financial intermediaries. then i would be worried. but i am convinced that this regime will be temporary, and that is because our purchase programme is already bearing fruit. at the moment, market participants are

take place solely on secondary markets, where bonds that have already been issued are traded. if interventions take place, they will involve buying government debt from investors, not from governments. all this is fully consistent with the treaty ’ s prohibition on monetary financing. moreover, they will focus on shorter maturities and leave room for market discipline on longer maturities. second, omts will not compromise the independence of the ecb. the ecb will continue to take all decisions related to omts in full independence. it will decide whether to intervene based on its own assessment of monetary policy transmission and with the aim of safeguarding price stability. the fact that governments have to comply with conditionality will actually protect our independence. the ecb will not be forced to step in because of a lack of policy implementation. third, omts will not create excessive risks for euro area taxpayers. such risks would only materialise if a country were to run unsound policies. this is explicitly prevented by the esm programme. and we have been very clear that each time a programme starts being reviewed, we will routinely suspend operations and resume them only if the review has been concluded positively. this will ensure that the ecb intervenes only in countries where the economy and public finances are on a sustainable path. finally, omts will not lead to inflation. we have designed our operations so that their effects on monetary conditions will be neutral. for every euro we inject, we will withdraw a euro. in our assessment, the greater risk to price stability currently is associated with the possibility of falling prices in some euro area countries. in this sense, omts are not in contradiction to our mandate : in fact, they are essential for ensuring we can continue to preserve price stability. moreover, we have no evidence that the announcement of the omt programme has affected inflation expectations. they continue to be firmly anchored. this is testament to our track record on price stability over the last decade and our credible commitment to preserving it. we have all the necessary tools at our disposal to maintain it and to withdraw any excess liquidity in case of upward risks to price stability. since the announcement of the possibility to undertake omts, there have been several signs of greater tranquillity in financial markets : the significant decline of sovereign spreads, the resumption of capital flows by money market funds in the united states, which had stopped for about a year, some issues of corporate and sovereign bonds from countries that had lost access to the market for