##ing the old ones and new regulatory framework is being put in place to make the financial system more resilient. the redesigned regulatory framework encompasses measures such as enhancing the quality and quantity of capital to be maintained by banks, reducing leverage, enhancing risk coverage, stipulating liquidity ratios, maintenance of countercyclical capital buffers etc. more importantly, the recognition of the role of systemic risk and the importance of financial stability are the major lessons learnt from the crisis. the new regulatory framework, inasmuch as it requires higher quantum of higher quality capital and liquidity buffers leading to reduced leverage, has raised intense debate over the impact they could have on the economic growth and the profitability of banks. it is argued that the increased capital requirements would impinge on the profitability of banks, forcing them to either increase their lending rates to maintain their margins or cut down on lending to preserve their capital base, both of which may have a large negative impact on economic growth. the proposed restrictions on activities permitted to be undertaken by banks and the ring fencing of certain banking activities have also led to concerns in some quarters. the prohibition under the dodd frank act on proprietary trading by us banks, bank holding companies and their affiliates, despite certain carve outs has, particularly, caused discomfort bis central bankers ’ speeches from the perspective of its negative impact on market liquidity and its cross border implications. on the other hand, many feel that these regulations are necessary to preserve systemic stability and to ensure long term growth. the crisis has wreaked havoc on the global economy with significant economic and social costs. to strengthen the financial system and enhance the systemic stability with a view to minimizing the incidence of such crises in future, it is argued that stronger regulation is necessary. the proponents of stronger regulation argue that the benefits of financial stability would outweigh the costs of regulation and, therefore, there is a good reason for revamping the regulatory framework. the debate is still inconclusive and the judgement on whether these regulations are a necessity or a case of overkill is broadly dependent on which side of the fence you are on i. e. whether you are a regulator or associated with a regulated financial sector entity. there are, of course, many others not in either of the two categories who hold strong views. while even the critics broadly agree on the idea that regulations need a revamp, the critical question remains, how much regulation is adequate? at what point the regulations start having dimini

’ speeches often expressed, therefore, is that these regulations are an unnecessary burden on edes. today ’ s panel discussion on “ financial regulatory reforms : not far enough, or overkill ” is quite apt in scope and timing. i am sure we are going to have an enlightening discussion on the adequacy and impact of the regulatory reforms. the eminent panelists would present their views on the subject followed by q & a. now, over to the panelists … bis central bankers ’ speeches