significant disparity in the view of business conditions among firms and industries ; and there may be also a tendency for respondents to play down positive news regarding their business. the bank, keeping in mind both the advantages and limitations of the two types of information, strives to gather as much microeconomic information as possible using no small amount of operating resources. to explore the activities of various economic entities in depth, the bank's 32 branches and 12 local offices throughout japan perform an important role. their analyses of regional economic developments and the behavior of firms and financial institutions in the respective region are concentrated in the bank's head office through, for example, the meeting of general managers of the bank's branches. the branches make reports based on the results of the tankan ( short - term economic survey of enterprises in japan ) for the respective region, analyses of regional economic indicators, and interviews with firms and financial institutions in the region. the information gathered from the branches is summarized in the bank's regional economic report, which is released quarterly. the branches also disseminate information locally in their respective areas through the monthly release of a report on recent economic and financial developments and quarterly release of the tankan for the respective region. the staff of the bank's branches and offices, including the general managers, may have asked you on occasion to devote some time to completing interviews and tankan surveys. i wish to express my deep thanks for your kind cooperation, and would like you to know that these interviews and surveys provide an essential foundation for the bank's conduct of monetary policy. we seek your continued cooperation with us to this end, and please know that your opinions and requests are always welcome. thank you very much for your kind attention.

concentrated ownership? i have an open mind on this issue, too. both alternatives have their advantages and disadvantages. a broad ownership may better protect the interests of the minority shareholders, but if financial problems occur the majority owners have stronger incentives to provide capital injections. the governance of a bank is sometimes promoted by having strong owners, but there are also examples of strong owners misusing the bank for their personal purposes. all in all, you should be open to different forms of ownership but monitor them closely. should you allow different forms of banks, such as commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, development banks and micro - finance institutions? in my view : yes, of course. competition is best served by having a range of bank ownership structures such as shareholding, mutual ownership, nonprofit organisations, etcetera. but having said this i want to warn against certain practices i have experienced in some countries which i would call “ compartmentalization ”. this happens when the legislation prescribes unnecessary and ineffective borderlines between the allowed activities of defined banking categories. usually, the intention is to ensure limited competition and high profits for the various categories. such restrictions are in effect a subsidy to the banks and they are harmful to the consumers and to the overall economy. the rule - of - thumb should be that any bank should be allowed to conduct any of the generally regulated bank activities if it can prove that it possesses adequate competencies, systems and resources. should there be one set of prudential rules for all institutions conducting bank - like activities or should you differentiate? could there be “ light - touch supervision ” for small and non - complex institutions for instance in micro - finance or local credit unions or exchange houses? there is no obvious answer to these issues. on the one hand you want to create a fair level - playing field for all bank activities which call for equal treatment. but on the other hand there is no necessity to burden small institutions with the elaborate regulations intended for large and complex banks. as i noted before, there must be a reasonable relation between the amount of regulation and its cost to the institutions. consequently, i would accept the case for lighter supervision of small and non - complex institutions, but there must always be adequate supervision to ensure discipline also for those. even when a small institution fails it causes disruptions and a loss of confidence in banks in general. we have recently had bad experiences in sweden, so if you intend to introduce risk - based supervision i advise you to do