have made cybersecurity one of our strategic priorities. and secondly, personal data and big data. naturally, the spread of connected objects that is triggering an exponential rise in the amount of data available on insurance policyholders represents an opportunity for the business of insurance, which consists precisely in collecting and exploiting data in order to quantify and put a price on risk. nonetheless, i would urge insurers to take a responsible approach : we need to strike the right balance between segmentation and the sharing of risk between policyholders. the basic principles of solidarity and risk - pooling that are intrinsic to insurance are at stake. and we must not lose sight of our collective values regarding individuals ’ right to privacy. before concluding, i would like to add a few words about brexit. the french authorities are mobilised and committed to making paris a leading destination for insurance undertakings. the acpr has taken the lead with an english - language fast - track authorisation. we are holding serious and discrete discussions with various business prospects. the recent announcement by the american group chubb, the united states ’ leading property and casualty insurer, of its intention to transfer its operations to paris demonstrates that our expertise in supervision in particular is a recognised asset. but mobilising must not mean abandoning our high standards and requirements, and brexit cannot be an opportunity for british entities to simply set up empty shell corporations in europe, mere company name plates, while keeping their resources in the united kingdom. in this respect, i fully agree with the vigilance called for by eiopa. and lastly, brexit also brings with it certain risks, and consequently the need for contingency plans : i am thinking particularly of the french policyholders who took out insurance directly with british undertakings, and by way of symmetry, the french undertakings with commitments in the united kingdom. beyond what the insurance sector can do for our economy, i would like to conclude by telling you what we can do for you. at the banque de france and the acpr, we are ready and committed to supporting you through all the current upheavals that are forcing you to rethink your business models and professional reflexes. that could be digital technology – for which we have created a fintech unit and put in place the fintech forum – and could also be regulatory developments or even climate change, which we will discuss again on 11 and 12 december in paris. i know that you are

central bankers'speeches increasing, but remains below our target. already before the 2008 crisis, central bankers firmly believed that price stability is a necessary – and for some even a sufficient – condition to ensure financial stability. this view is referred to as the ‘ jackson hole consensus ’. following the financial crisis, financial imbalances were seen as a huge source of disruption which decision - makers needed to remedy, questioning the relationship between monetary and financial policy tools and objectives. let me give two polar views on that. a first approach, in line with the ‘ jackson hole consensus ’, is to clearly separate monetary stability from financial stability. in line with the tinbergen rule and the mundell efficiency principle respectively, one policy should fulfil one objective and each policy tool should be assigned to the objective it can fulfil the best. in this regard, monetary policy would not be efficient at mitigating financial imbalances but would not generate them either. on the other side, an extreme approach is to consider that both policies are strongly intertwined and that their respective objectives could be merged : in this case, monetary policy could reduce risk taking and target asset price bubbles. i consider that full adherence to the separation principle and the combining of objectives are both approaches that are too radical to conduct monetary and financial stability policies. the implementation of unconventional policies has blurred the frontier between the two objectives. let me quote here my colleague vice - president vitor constancio : “ macroprudential policy and monetary policy rely on separate tools and aim to achieve different objectives. yet, they need to be co - ordinated, which is a non - trivial task. ” 3 it is a wise view. keeping monetary policy aligned with its primary objective of price stability but not blindly sticking to the separation principle may help us to manage our two main objectives and strengthen our credibility. as you may know, the banque de france, like many other central banks, has had the dual mandate of maintaining price stability and preserving financial stability since 2013. the financial stability mandate is demonstrated by the fact that the governor of the banque de france has the sole right and responsibility to make proposals for implementing macroprudential instruments to the high council for financial stability, the french macroprudential authority. i consider this specific role assigned to the governor of the banque de france as an opportunity to make price and financial stability objectives more consistent. first, macroprudential policy complements the monetary policy framework decided