i cannot subscribe to. the only thing i can say is that sometimes i think people in the financial markets have to brush - up on their english lessons to understand when we say nothing yet has been decided for march. it is not our communication which is flawed, it is the hype that is being provoked by people with vested interests. if you would look at what we communicate, i think this is quite clear. the situation has changed since december, we will reexamine and reassess and possibly, if needed, also correct. and we are fully determined to fulfill our mandate. this has been communicated by the ecb and it should be taken for what it is : a strong commitment. but to construct out of this already individual measures, that is speculation. why has the situation changed since december? you highlighted a lot of positive things in the economy. there are several factors which have intensified. one is the oil price, which since december was at one point down close to 40 %, now it ’ s only 20 %. that is something to assess – the volatility – whether you look through it or whether there is a risk of it becoming entrenched. the second is china and other emerging market economies. if we only had the domestic economy, i would not say that downside risks have increased. from the domestic point of view we might be at neutral. what would buying bonds or cutting rates even more into negative territory do for the economy? you ask exactly the questions that we will discuss in march. everything is on the table. is unconventional monetary policy becoming conventional? unconventional measures play an important role. they have been effective, but in a specific circumstance of a very prolonged recessionary and deflationary environment. i do not consider that this is the new normal. if you ask me about secular stagnation, it ’ s a theory that we obviously take very seriously. but to say we accept it as the new normal would not be in line with what the ecb - president has said at his last press conference : “ we continue to fight. ” normally you don ’ t fight the normal, you fight the abnormal. are financial markets becoming too dependent on central banks coming to the rescue every time there is a drop in equity markets? what is moving us is not to support one sector or asset class over another. our mandate is the overall health of the economy. but we need financial markets as a transmission channel. bis central bankers ’ speeches if you

look at the media, there were a lot of headlines about a crash in stock markets. that can also affect psychology. but then, look at where we are with stock markets : about 10 % below record highs, but more or less in line with where we were a year ago. it ’ s not exactly a crash. volatility is always a burden. but among the major downward risks, i would say the potential slowdown of the emerging markets is probably a higher risk. could the ecb expand the line - up of securities it purchases? in terms of fantasy, the sky ’ s the limit. but in the end, we have no constraint in the use, the diversity, or the volume of our toolbox as we see fit. i would not create any expectations in one direction or the other. are eurozone banks sufficiently strong to channel the ecb ’ s stimulus to the economy? it is not an easy ride for the banks, but in terms of stability, the banks have greatly strengthened their position. the question for the banks is not so much capital right now, it ’ s much more one of profitability. you ’ ve been a central banker for almost two decades. has the role of central banks changed over that time? this experience makes you very humble regarding how the economy works, or the ability to fine - tune it. one thing which is still the same is the great risk of short - termism. i still perceive central banks as being able to have a longer - term view of the situation, and it is quite important to continue to have such an actor in the economy and society. bis central bankers ’ speeches