d. c. in april 2015. see also the working paper of the banca d ’ italia by riggi, mariana and fabrizio venditti ( september 2014 ) : “ surprise! euro area inflation has fallen ” published in questioni di economia e finanza 237. chatelais nicolas, annabelle de gaye and yannick kalantzis ( 11 may 2015 ) “ low inflation in the euro area : import prices and domestic slack ”, rue de la banque 6. bis central bankers ’ speeches part b – monetary policy in the euro area let me turn now to monetary policy. the eurosystem ’ s decisions are based on its assessment of the path of inflation over the medium term. yet, measuring inflation expectation is a difficult task. one reason is that monetary policy is transmitted to the price level with a varying lag. survey measures of inflation expectations can also be an unreliable guide. for example, research conducted at the banque de france has shown that surveybased measures are biased in a systematic and predictable way. 6 it has been shown that professional forecasters surveyed by the ecb fail to systematically update their 1 - year or 2 - year ahead inflation forecasts when new information is released, and the distribution of their forecasts is wider when they update them. this explains our preference for using a range of indicators to gauge inflation expectations. nevertheless, in the last couple of years, most measures of inflation expectations, be they survey - based or market - based, have pointed in the same direction of a prolonged period of too low inflation, well below our target of being close to but below 2 % over the medium term. as a consequence, monetary policy has become progressively more accommodative. first, in a context of fixed rate full allotment introduced on the 15th of october in 2008 to offset liquidity risk in the market by ensuring banks ’ continued access to liquidity, we have introduced forward guidance to avoid an unwarranted tightening of the effective monetary policy stance. initially implemented in july 2013, this guidance was “ firmly reiterated ” in early 2014 and remains in place today. second, the eurosystem introduced targeted longer - term refinancing operations ( tltros ) and the asset purchase programs for covered bonds and asset - backed securities in june 2014, with the goal of improving the transmission of our monetary policy. third, the main refinancing rate was cut to 5 basis points and the deposit rate

better take into account certain strategies, and thereby accept a certain level of risk. a likely effect of recovery options or transfer tools is that the structure of the remaining group might become less complex and therefore carry less risk. besides, the stance on waivers of internal requirements for entities located in the same member state ( or even in the same banking union ) has proven overly conservative. we need pragmatism, and consistency between the srb and the ssm : when an entity has been waived from capital requirements, or is simply not subject to capital requirements, the resolution authority could apply the same on mrel. proportionality to risk could entail other changes, such as the calculation of banks ’ contribution to the srf. as of today, the size of institutions has an overwhelming importance in the determination of these contributions. this is more than questionable : size does matter in order to bring an institution under the scope of resolution, but size and risk are two different notions and they should be more clearly differentiated in technical implementation. in order to ensure the fairness of contributions, and greater adherence to the srm overall, it is necessary to adapt formulae accordingly. beyond fairness, penalising the largest banks or groups prevents the emergence of pan - european groups, which is one of the banking unions ’ objectives. here let us acknowledge that page 5 sur 5 we have collectively failed so far ; we have a banking union without really crossborders european banks. this is a major weakness. this is where we should bring our ziel, our strategic objective, into our field of vision. and even more so since mrel requirements in the european union are, on the whole, far more stringent than the tlac international standards and their translation into other jurisdictions ’ regulations. * * * let me conclude by saying that, in 2022, after the first seven years of existence of the single resolution mechanism, it may be time to recall what clausewitz rightly identified as the greatest difficulty : “ to adhere steadfastly in execution to the principles which we have adopted. ” that does not mean showing rigidity in technical implementation, on the contrary. it means taking a risk - based approach and conducting a balanced analysis of the best way forward in order to serve these principles in a relevant way. i will end my speech with another phrase of roman wisdom : in medio stat virtus, virtue lies in the middle. i thank you for your attention.