the euro area. as the ssm changed the way supervision addresses problems and communicates what it expects to be done by banks, it also changed the timing and the way banks, their management and their owners acknowledge shortcomings and find solutions. one important step led to a common methodology for the supervisory review and evaluation process, the core of supervisory activities and the basis for the capital level the ssm expects a bank to hold according to its individual risk profile. starting with 19 different supervisory practices and information levels, it was pivotal to set a basis of quantitative as well as qualitative information about individual banks and the differences in national banking systems. we can now reap the fruit from bis central bankers ’ speeches having a single european supervisor by moving our capacity for benchmarking to a european level. but it was not only a busy year, it was a very special year, too. everything we decided, we decided for first time. everything we did set a precedent. thus, everything had to be discussed in the supervisory board of the ssm, consisting of the representatives of the 26 national supervisory authorities as well as of 6 ecb representatives. we formulated supervisory policies in all major areas, for example large exposure limits, the fitness and properness of board members, conditions for changes in qualifying holdings, prerequisites for capital reductions and issuances, model approvals, capital and liquidity waivers, ips etc. we also discussed and agreed on concepts and processes for supervisory planning, onsite inspections, risk analysis, reporting of banks. integrating 19 national supervisory cultures and traditions with a wide range of administrative practices demanded and still demands organisational and methodological rigour. this rigour is sometimes misinterpreted as being not proportional or not in line with qualitative supervision. but common concepts and methods have helped and are helping us to put in place the fundamental pillars of a truly european supervisory approach. some stakeholders had grown fond of some habits and customs. those customs had to be abandoned to make room for a new common approach, as the objective of the ssm is not to preserve 19 national approaches but to foster convergence towards best standards of supervision. it is not my intention to only look back at our past achievements. we cannot lean back and hope for easy wins in the years to come. there are still a lot of challenges ahead of us, which we have to face and address. firstly, there are issues for which we still lack a common approach. for

be necessary for central banks to stimulate research on topics and approaches relevant to them. the mars network has been very successful at promoting some of the new approaches and tools that we need, in particular by building an aggregate framework incorporating financial instability. we would now find it desirable that this approach takes root in academic circles, and can permeate the development of a new paradigm, influencing research and teaching. in other words, we invite other researchers, both in academia and in policy institutions outside the escb, to follow up on the progress already made to establish closer links between current policy challenges and economic thinking. i thank you for your attention. bis central bankers ’ speeches