it is important today to say that we supervisors are neutral when it comes to bank mergers. we may monitor such processes, but we certainly do not initiate them. you are aware of that, but perhaps there are some sections of the public arena which are not. the initiatives for mergers and acquisitions and their design are matters for the management of the institutions and their owners. supervisors only come into play when we are presented with a plan. the law states that mergers require the approval of the supervisory authorities, whose job it is to check whether the new institution satisfies the regulatory requirements now and in the future. that calls for a sound and sustainable business model. the assumptions and projections made in the business plans presented to us will therefore be subjected to thorough analysis. as in all banking supervisory matters, you and, of course, the direct stakeholders in particular can count on our constructive and critical involvement. you see, banking supervisors can only play a constructive role if they are inquisitive and analytical – in keeping with their duty towards the institutions and society as a whole. we have a commitment to society and the general public to preserve stability, solidity and security in the consolidation process. as in the past, this is a commitment we will also take very seriously in future mergers. however, what mergers cannot resolve is a more deeply seated challenge facing the german banking market : the liquidity surplus. a bank needs to invest these funds it is unwilling to pay us the negative interest rate of 0. 4 %. competition is therefore fierce, and it wouldn ’ t get any easier with only half as many institutions in the marketplace. ladies and gentlemen, let me move on to my third topic, which is not digitalisation but digital transformation. because 4 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches what lies ahead of us over the next few years is more than just a few fancy apps. we can barely grasp the sheer momentum of the digital change which will transform the world, and it ’ s certainly impossible to overstate its impact. five years from now, fintech players won ’ t be like creatures from outer space, but linked organically with traditional institutions. furthermore, whole new dimensions look set to open up. who today can predict the possibilities that blockchain, bigtech and changes in customer behaviour can bring? this has a consequence which is not at all new but can blow up into something dramatic : business models not only have to be revised and updated, but sometimes have to be taken back to the drawing

implementation of the package finalising basel iii in europe, which has been agreed for the beginning of 2022. so the end of the “ basel marathon ” is within our sights. a comprehensive impact study is under way. thank you to all the institutions which participated in this arduous exercise. the investment will pay off. you see, the new commission that will be assembled after the european elections will table a draft bill based on the findings from this impact study. but if we really want to put this reform agenda to bed once and for all, we will have to implement all the global agreements, without exception. two thoughts spring to mind here. first, this opportunity to strengthen banking sector resilience is one we should not squander. second, by unrestrictedly implementing the basel standards ( which are, of course, non - binding in legal terms ) we need to rule out for ourselves any pretext which allows others to deviate from the rules. otherwise, a project that has been achieved with a great deal of time and effort – and is unique in terms of global economic regulation – will be at stake. particularly in light of the dangers to multilateralism, we need to be committed advocates of global standard - setting – in our own interests and for the common good – including in the way we put these standards into practice. i ’ ll be the first to concede that for some institutions, these reforms will put more work on their plates. just take the output floor, which is having a clear impact on a number of larger institutions running riskier business models. that said, the necessary adjustments are doable, and they ’ re warranted, too, in light of these institutions ’ risk profiles. and for many institutions, the additional capital requirements introduced by the reforms are in any case on the low side – for smaller and medium - sized banks they come to 5. 7 % on average. some institutions will even see their capital requirements decline. let ’ s turn to the third topic that will pass. in all likelihood, the united kingdom will, at least in five years ’ time, no longer be a member of the european union ; and london – this is something i 2 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches firmly believe, unlike others – will no longer perform the role it plays today for the eu as a financial centre. on the continent, credit institutions and other financial agents will have expanded their operations and interconnected their activities to such an extent that they will be