s guidance – assessing culture is not a single point in time event. it should be a regular and ongoing exercise that management teams, boards of directors and supervisors conduct, taking the range of feedback from interactions and work conducted inside the firm, interactions and reactions from the firm ’ s senior management team, and interactions and dialogue with the board of directors. alongside risk culture, much work has been done on the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors. the g30 has issued two reports in the last two years. the first report, issued in 2012, set out fresh ways to describe and develop more effective governance at financial institutions. the second report, issued late in 2013, deals specifically with the interactions of boards of directors and supervisors. both reports place less emphasis on the form of corporate governance – the traditional structures of boards and the like – and focus more on the actual behaviors of the various players involved, be it the chairman, the lead director, the chief risk officer, auditors or senior management. the 2013 report proposes a new kind of relationship, one that involves far more direct contact and ongoing dialogue between directors and supervisors about the key issues confronting firms and the financial system, such as assessing financial institution strategies, business models, risk vulnerabilities, governance effectiveness and corporate culture. the federal reserve has growing experience in this area. nearly three years ago, the new york fed initiated a program of “ enhanced engagement ” with directors and senior management at the major firms we supervise, very much along the lines now described in the g30 report. we provided additional training for our senior supervisory officers concerning corporate governance and relationship - building with boards, key directors and senior managers. we also gave direction on how to focus their interactions on the most important supervisory matters, particularly with respect to the firm ’ s risk profile and risk management bis central bankers ’ speeches practices. we also reached out to board chairmen and chief executive officers to enlist their cooperation and support. this has required everyone involved to step up to the plate in a new way. for our senior supervisors, it has meant taking a higher - level and more encompassing view of the potential problems that a firm might encounter and, when necessary, delivering clearer and more timely supervisory messages and guidance to the firm. for directors and senior managers, it has meant a shift toward greater openness and increased candor with supervisors about the condition of the firm, its business strategies and risks, and the issues that they are most concerned about. it has also required devoting more

the market participants means that the liquidity that is still available in the financial system is not redistributed in the same way as under more normal circumstances. so why have the central banks been given this liquidity supporting role? the simple reason is that they – through their right to create money – have unlimited opportunities to provide liquidity in the national currency. this opportunity is essential when managing a financial crisis. as the banks ’ operations have become increasingly internationalised and their need for international securities markets has increased, however, the need to also offer liquidity assistance in other currencies has increased. but the riksbank, like other central banks, has limited possibility to lend foreign currency. here the central banks – for natural reasons – do not have any possibility to create liquidity. the foreign currency reserve at the central bank's disposal thus becomes an important tool with regard to meeting the banks ’ needs for liquidity in foreign currency in a crisis. this applies in particular in a small economy with a small currency, like sweden's. as liquidity problems are normally the first symptoms of a crisis, it is generally also the central banks that first take action in a crisis. they often have several ways of quickly adding liquidity. these include liquidity assistance to individual institutions, so - called emergency liquidity assistance, or to the financial system as a whole. a concrete example of when this type of measure was needed was the financial crisis 2008 - 2009, when it was difficult for the banks to obtain access to liquidity on the markets. many central banks were then forced to supply liquidity to a great extent so that the financial system would not suffer any shocks. the riksbank lent usd to the equivalent of around sek 250 billion. 5 in addition, the state in the form of the swedish national debt office provided guarantees corresponding at most to around sek 350 billion. 6 this was all done for the purpose of safeguarding the liquidity supply in the financial system so that households and companies would not suffer disruptions. i have now talked about three core tasks that central banks have to contribute to creating an efficient and stable financial system – issuing banknotes and coins, responsibility for a central payment system and acting as liquidity provider in a crisis. let me also say a few words about how we work to be able to carry out these tasks in a good way. 5 riksbank's annual report 2009, figure 11 ; http : / / www. riks