experience and cross - border regulatory frameworks. to elevate payments to the next level, we need to consider these matters from different angles, for instance, from a social science perspective. or consider the virtual asset space. i believe fintech enthusiasts like you all have probably explored some form of investment in virtual assets. which channels did you use for your investments? how confident were you in your investment decisions? again, these matters go beyond the realms of finance and technology. from an investor's point of view, investment in virtual assets is about customer protection and trust. for the intermediaries selling and distributing the products, such as banks, clear guidance and standards from regulators are top - ofmind. these concerns will need to be looked at from legal, policy, and regulatory perspectives. i've mentioned earlier that to drive fintech forward, a cross - disciplinary mind - set is essential. the most effective way to achieve this mind - set in any organisation, in my opinion, is to foster collaboration among bright minds from diverse fields. fintech is by nature collaborative rather than competitive. it is focused on opportunities rather than threats. so, how can we put collaboration into action in the fintech space? i'd like to try to answer this question from two angles : cross - sector collaboration and cross - border collaboration. 2 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches cross - sector collaboration holds immense value because each sector can focus on doing what it's best at, in turn maximising overall efficiency. an example is the hkma's open api initiative for the banking sector. we published the framework in 2018 and have been monitoring its implementation. the hong kong association of banks ( hkab ) established the api standards, the banks implemented the apis according to the framework and standards, third - party service providers used the apis to offer innovative services, and the science park consolidated all the api information for developers'reference. this is a good example of how collaboration among smart people from different sectors can drive success, each focusing on their own areas of expertise but working towards a common goal. another example is the digital asset initiatives i mentioned earlier that in the digital asset space, investor protection is crucial and needs to be examined from legal, policy, and regulatory perspectives. this is an area where the hkma has cooperated with our regulatory counterpart, the hong kong securities and futures commission ( sfc ), to provide guidance and standards to the industry. we have rolled out investor

prudence, and a great credit to hong kong's banking system. we also seem to have achieved a good balance in the relationship between the supervisor and the banking system. an excellent example of how that balance has contributed to banking stability is the 70 % loan - to - value policy for residential mortgage lending by banks. this policy, now a cornerstone of our prudential arrangements, pre - dates even the foundation of the hkma and evolved out of a productive dialogue between hkab and the supervisor. it has survived strong political pressure for relaxation and market pressure for innovative credit risk transfer through securitisation. the policy – now nearly two decades old – fits in well with the macroprudential approach which, particularly in the light of the recent crisis, supervisors in other jurisdictions now consider to be essential to banking stability. the fact that no such policy existed in the advanced financial systems is remarkable enough. but what is more remarkable is the level of initiative of the hong kong banking sector itself in seeing the importance of systemic stability and giving it precedence over the profitability of individual institutions. we might therefore observe, in the light of this and of our experience over the past year, that hong kong has got it broadly right in the relationship between the supervisor and the banking system. however, this should not lead us to the complacent conclusion that there is nothing much that needs changing. and indeed, no such conclusion is in our minds. both the carse report and the recent reports to the financial secretary on the sale of lehmanrelated products see room for development and improvement in the way we carry out our work. quite apart from our own hong kong - specific initiatives, there are movements for reform at the international level, resulting from a very different experience in the more developed economies, which we cannot ignore. this point brings me to my second observation : the need to move with the times. the past year has seen a plethora of ideas and proposals for reforming financial regulations, and interventions by government that were unprecedented in their nature and scale. even in economies less deeply affected by the latest crisis, including hong kong, it has been necessary to deepen government involvement, for example in more extensive deposit guarantees or in more intense supervision of banks'risk management – although it is gratifying that so many of the tools that we have been able to rely on, including the apparatus and contingency arrangements for ensuring liquidity, have been developed in a pre - emptive rather than