easier to put into practice when you are working with someone like mike gill, who wants to get things done and is at heart an internationalist. and, so it should be no surprise that during the period mike was here at the cftc, things did get done, and they continue to get done building on his legacy. there is another feature of clearing that is distinctive. as i said earlier, by its very nature it concentrates the risks associated with the trades being cleared. that's how and why ccps are such crucial nodes in the financial system. but it also means that if a ccp doesn't manage its risk well, the concentration magnifies the impact of the problem. moreover, ccps tend to be highly interconnected because the instruments they clear are likewise interconnected – think about the different ways to trade interest rate risk. a small number of ccps provide most of the capacity in over the counter derivatives clearing. and, a small number of clearing members provide the majority of clearing services to clients at all of these big ccps. these firms are also providing key services to the ccps, such as settlement, custody and liquidity backstops. we can take a few points from this. clearing is quite complicated and technical as an activity. i'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that here in washington, conversations in bars are not of the sort : " tell me how does margining in a clearing house work ". its notoriously a dry subject, but important, hugely so. but therein lies a risk – even at international meetings there can seem to be other things to talk about, happily so, and that can lead to problems of neglect. except, onto the scene came mike gill and chris giancarlo. the enthusiasts had arrived. suddenly, it seemed a pleasure to talk about clearing. the fun kids talked about clearing. the serious point is that supervising big ccps requires deep cooperation between authorities across multiple jurisdictions. it requires cooperation not fragmentation. we knew how to do that, but it always seemed harder to put in practice than it should have done. we don't like economic fragmentation in the world, rightly so, but somehow arguments are made that its ok to do so for clearing. no it isn't as a matter of fact, because such a view defies the logic of how financial markets work. supervising and regulatory cooperation is a key part of the right approach. i want to finish by looking forwards

/ news / speeches conclusion macroprudential may no longer be the buzz phrase it was a decade ago. but its objective of promoting a financial system that can serve households and businesses in bad times as well as good remains as important as ever. the avoidable damage caused by the economic tremors of 2008 is a salutary reminder of the costs a fragile financial system can impose on an economy. in the uk at least, macroprudential policy has become an operational reality. now, with the help of research and the latest techniques, we ’ re looking to the future. that work will help us stay disciplined and agile in keeping up with changes in the economy. it ’ s guiding us to what needs to be monitored closely in the non - bank system and where new standards of resilience might be needed to keep up as the financial system changes shape. keep up we must. it ’ s no use waiting for the tremors. when the economic ground shakes, whenever that may be, we will all want the financial system to be resilient. all speeches are available online at www. bankofengland. co. uk / news / speeches