esrb has a good work process in the sense that it combines two features : first, all members are free to send participants to an esrb workstream. this is an inclusive working method where different perspectives meet, where there is a “ buy - in ” for the members and where peer pressure is exerted. second, there is the procedural aspect which i mentioned earlier, that the decision - making body eventually votes on what road to take. notably, the esrb has been able to publish a quite extensive amount of work and has contributed actively to the general debate. this is, in my view, very important for implementing a macroprudential culture in a broader sense, reaching outside the circle of the esrb membership. simply by shedding light on some of the macroprudential issues we are dealing with, and explaining why we see a need to tackle them, may contribute to managing expectations ; making the job of safeguarding financial stability just a little easier. the esrb ’ s contributions also cover very complex, and in some respects sensitive, issues where the parties involved may have started from views that are very far apart from one another. being capable of getting results even when dealing with difficult tasks like that is an important quality of a body like the esrb. i should mention that the asc, with its composition of distinguished academics with different expertise, and in a sense more independent views, has been a catalyst in some of the work i | 3 just mentioned. some of the topics on which the esrb has produced and published valuable contributions include, for instance, the regulatory treatment of sovereign exposures ; macroprudential assessments of various issues related to shadow banks, an area where there is still a lot of new ground to cover ; the insurance sector ; and commercial and residential real estate markets in the eu, to name just a few. i am also thinking of the work on structural issues regarding the banking sector, for instance in a report called “ is europe overbanked? ” by the asc. this is a very relevant question in my view, and one that we will most likely get back to in the first panel today, where the ecb vice president will lead the panel discussion addressing the effects of the low interest rate environment. the latter is another topic which benefits from being assessed from a macroprudential viewpoint, and which is naturally also on the esrb ’ s agenda. the regular identification and monitoring of potential systemic risks also benefits from the esrb

- bank financial institutions. there is, of course, also the esrb ’ s role in the new regulatory framework connected to the crd / crr. in addition, i also think that the esrb more or less by construction is well | 8 placed to help its members tackle mainly national problems, by using peer pressure and working against inaction bias in various ways. this may be very important, not least when vulnerabilities emerge due to problems that are mainly beyond an individual authority ’ s own control. one may wish that we would have come even a little bit further in this area at this point, but it is important to realize that it takes some time to set up the necessary internal framework and processes. but by now the esrb has that kind of machinery in place. the next step is to start using it. even if we have a much more complete supervisory framework in place today, both nationally and at the eu and euro area levels, i think the role for the esrb as the eu ’ s macroprudential overseer is becoming more and more important. at a high level, there is in particular an increasing need to keep a truly systemic perspective, capturing all financial sectors, their interlinkages and dynamics. the eu banking sector is facing structural problems, non - bank financial institutions are becoming more important, ccps have taken on a systemically important role and the low interest - rate environment is, among other things, challenging the insurance industry, and the eu financial sector does not seem to become less interconnected. all these issues must be tackled with the impact on the financial system as a whole in mind. and i think the esrb is key in that endeavour. for every challenge we face and overcome, we learn. we learn and that makes us better prepared for tackling even more difficult challenges further down the road. that is in my view certainly true for the esrb. we learned from the financial crisis and there has been a substantial amount of learning by doing since. i must say that the blueprint was good to begin with ; pretty much all the necessary nuts and bolts were already in place to create a macroprudential body. having central banks and supervisors around the same table as european institutions, and not least, adding the independent views of the advisory scientific committee to the mix, is in my view a good set - up. furthermore, i think that the plan for how all those nuts and bolts and other components should be connected and work