sector, i would like to highlight two points that might reduce the information asymmetry between financial institutions and businesses, a pre - requisite for building a sustainable financing ecosystem for this sector. firstly, financial institutions must have the capacity and capabilities, to assess the viability of projects despite the complex, diverse and rapidly - changing nature of green technology. secondly, green businesses need continuing advisory support as they may be technically strong, but lack the capabilities to develop comprehensive business plans and cash flow projections, needed to demonstrate that a project is viable to financiers. taking into considerations the two points i earlier raised, bank negara malaysia has worked closely with the ministry of finance and the ministry of energy, green technology and water to establish the green technology financing scheme ( gtfs ), a framework designed to improve the preconditions for financial institutions to finance viable and innovative green technology companies. this is achieved through arrangements that help to bridge information gaps between financiers and businesses. these arrangements also involves credit enhancements and financial incentives, to address current market short comings in meeting a legitimate economic need. also critically important are efforts being pursued to strengthen the capacity of financial institutions, to provide continuing advisory support to businesses that are mutually beneficial to both business ventures and financial institutions. central to this effort is the certification process to verify that businesses which qualify for the gtfs are not only able to demonstrate the required technical capabilities, but are also commercially viable. other complementary efforts include education and awareness programmes, organised around the country to inform and update, financial professionals as well as businesses on the latest developments in the green technology sector. likewise, courses offered by ibbm are designed to equip finance professionals to effectively assess the viability and risk of green technology projects. in 2010, a joint action committee comprising of government agencies and financial institutions was formed to provide an efficient and coordinated platform to tackle implementation issues, such as, on the compliance and monitoring processes of green projects financed under the gtfs. bis central bankers ’ speeches as a result of these holistic efforts, green technology financing is beginning to gain traction amongst financial institutions. to date, the gtfs has supported rm805. 5 million in financing to 65 companies, operating in a broad range of green technology sub - sectors which encompasses energy, buildings, transportation and water and waste management, reflecting a year - on - year growth rate of 130 % in terms of total financing and 171 % in terms of companies assisted. while still small in

fully revealing, last year about three - fourths of public pension systems were underfunded, and about one - third were funded at less than 80 percent. lengthening life expectancies and tight public budgets are making existing pension promises ever more difficult to keep – and the problem is significantly magnified if promised health benefits are included. the funding situation puts systems under a great deal of pressure to reach for higher returns by investing in riskier assets. but as has been so clearly and forcefully demonstrated over the past year, there is no free lunch with risk - taking : the price is volatility, the extent of which should be well disclosed and the implications of which should be well understood. the generally high weight on equity and real estate investments in the typical public pension fund portfolio has increased in recent years. part of that exposure has come from increased investment in private equity, real estate investment trusts, and hedge funds. indeed, some funds have allocated 25 percent or more of their portfolios to these " alternative " categories. with exposures like those, public pension systems should maintain formal risk - management procedures that are independent of the selection and evaluation of managers and that are carefully designed to minimize conflicts of interest that can weaken the risk - management function. i mentioned earlier that current measures of pension liabilities might be less than fully revealing. why might that be so? the chief reason is that public pension benefits are essentially bullet - proof promises to pay. we all have read about instances in which benefits were lost when a private - sector pension sponsor declared bankruptcy and terminated the plan. in the public sector, that just hasn't happened, even when the plan sponsor has run into serious financial difficulty. for all intents and purposes, accrued benefits have turned out to be riskless obligations. while economists are famous for disagreeing with each other on virtually every other conceivable issue, when it comes to this one there is no professional disagreement : the only appropriate way to calculate the present value of a very - low - risk liability is to use a very - low - risk discount rate. however, most public pension funds calculate the present value of their liabilities using the projected rate of return on the portfolio of assets as the discount rate. this practice makes little sense from an economic perspective. if they shift their portfolio into even riskier assets, does the value of the liabilities backed by their taxpayers go down? financial economists would say no, but the conventional approach to pension accounting says yes.