benoit cœure : interview in kathimerini interview with mr benoit cœure, member of the executive board of the european central bank, in kathimerini, conducted by mr alexis papahelas on 22 april 2015. * * * the greek government would like to reach an agreement on a new programme in june without concluding the current review. is that acceptable? will greece need a new programme anyway in order to finance its fiscal needs? since the elections were announced, heightened uncertainty has been dragging down economic activity and risks impacting the health of the financial system. the current situation is clearly not sustainable and requires quick and decisive action by the greek authorities to turn things around. in recent days, there has been tangible progress in the quality of the discussions with the three institutions – the ecb, the european commission and the imf – which can be built upon. still, significant differences on substance remain and substantial further work is needed. we wish these discussions to succeed. the current programme was extended by the eurogroup on 20 february with the express purpose of working towards a conclusion of the review. it expires on 30 june, and the eurogroup has also made it clear that a new programme would, as a minimum, require the present one – and thus the present review – to be successfully concluded in good time. this is what the greek government now has to focus all its energy on. issues related to a possible follow - up arrangement can be addressed afterwards. the greek government claims that it should get the smp profits without concluding the programme review in order to overcome the liquidity crunch it is facing. could this happen? the so - called “ smp profits ”, i. e. the profits made by the ecb on the greek bonds it purchased during the crisis, are distributed to the national central banks that are members of the ecb and then are transferred to the member states. it is therefore for euro area governments to decide when to transfer the money to athens. the eurogroup clarified on 20 february that only a successful conclusion of the review will permit this transfer. there has been speculation that the greek government might not pay the next instalment to the imf. what would the consequences of such a move be? you are right to ask about consequences. and it is important to understand all the consequences for the economy and for the people, direct and indirect, that would result from a failure to repay debt in a timely manner. let me give you just

to continue to work very actively on all of its work streams regarding the regulation of the non - banking sector. this includes regulatory reform of money market funds, securitisation and the interaction with the banking sector. i am looking forward to the progress report to be delivered for the g20 meeting in october. further regulatory challenges in a number of key domains, decisions have been taken by the international community. it is no time to challenge them. it is time to implement. in a crisis period where confidence is of the essence, it would be extremely damaging if the authorities were to hesitate, demonstrate an absence of resolve and of the fortitude that is required by the circumstances. i see resistance of some in the financial sector against basel iii. i see similar messages on the sifis. for me, it is crystal clear : what has been decided is decided. but there are other areas of regulatory reform where work is still underway. let me briefly highlight two key areas on which we need to stay committed and where swift progress is of the essence. first, there is the review of the markets in financial instrument directive ( mifid ), on which a proposal is expected to be released by the european commission this autumn, will represent a key step in the right direction. amending the mifid should enable the eu regulatory framework to keep pace with financial innovation while responding to the g20 commitments to deal with less regulated and more opaque parts of the financial system. second, it is key that transparency is enhanced across the board : with regard to markets, institutions and products. lack of information contributes to the mispricing of risks, mistrust among market participants can turn situations into downturns. in order to build confidence and contribute towards the stability of markets it is important that financial innovation and technological advances contribute to the ability of financial markets to sustainably provide financial services to the real economy. we need to establish a harmonised framework that enables coordinated action, increases transparency and reduces the risks posed by these market practices. moreover, we need to better identify, monitor and assess the potential threat to market stability posed by high frequency trading. the iosco consultation on regulatory issues raised by the impact of technological changes on market integrity, carried out in response to a g20 leaders request during the seoul summit in 2010, recalls that “ the benefits from technological advances should not bis central bankers ’ speeches overshadow the risks that these innovations pose to the efficiency and integrity of markets. these changes raise issues