would like to stress that these measures are really necessary. not only to prevent further harm, but also to restore trust in the financial sector. trust is an extremely important aspect of any services sector, and the financial sector is a services sector pur sang. if a feeling of uneasiness remains among clients and investors, or financial institutions cannot trust each other as they should, then financial ( and consequently economic ) development grinds to a halt. so restoring trust in the financial sector is an absolute priority and we have to go great lengths to achieve this. at the same time it seems as if the sense of urgency for change among bankers and politicians has somewhat diminished lately, now that we see the first signs of recovery. opposition against the proposals from the basel committee is growing, through lobbies from the financial sector. for this reason, we, as supervisors, have to do our utmost best to uphold these proposals, because otherwise countries may be forced to implement measures on their own. the result of this will be a distortion of the international level playing field, which in the end will not benefit the financial sector. it is for this reason that we will organise a comprehensive quantitative impact study in the first half of this year. with this impact study we can see what the impact of all individual proposals will be, as well as the aggregate impact of all proposed measures combined, so that we can implement measures with care, in a responsible and well - considered manner. and all of these measures will be considered in the light of the economic recovery, making sure that they will not harm the recovery process. i am aware of the current debates about reducing the size of the sector, adding taxes, cutting bonuses, and the like. it is true that there are indeed excesses which are not acceptable anymore, and these have to be dealt with. at the same time, we should refrain from overreacting and take care to not implement measures which we have not fully thought through. beside all these new regulatory measures we have realised that there is also an urgent need for closer international supervisory cooperation. the rapid development in cross border banking has shown us supervisors that our current organisational structure is no longer adequate and limits our ability to rapidly respond to developing situations. a shift towards a more unified regulatory framework has therefore slowly been set into motion, for instance in europe with the new structures for cebs or ceiops, or through the intensified use of supervisory colleges. crucial, though, in this process, is full and mutual

innovation. let me conclude here. every business cycle is unique. however, we may try to find patterns and take lessons from the past and from other countries. in summary, over the long run, business cycles tend to be more moderate and co - movement appears to be less strong than we would expect. most of this can be explained by the absence of international shocks to the economy. however, since economies have increasingly become integrated, the risks of disturbances spilling over to other countries seem to be greater than ever. on the other hand, as i have indicated, modern economies are becoming more resilient at the same time. this may be viewed as a positive effect of increased economic linkages. it is my opinion that this effect should be encouraged ; and i am convinced that the task of improving economic linkages is well dedicated to the amcham. looking at the current business cycle, i am convinced that the worst part is behind us now. most indicators point to a sustained recovery of the us and the world economy. as we emerge from this downturn it will become clear that the dutch economy has experienced a volatile business cycle and that strong linkages to the us economy can be a great advantage.