topics that can be further harmonized in the future. these topics fall into three categories : further harmonization within the scope of t2s, harmonization to be implemented by the private sector or harmonization that they may require action by the public authorities. it is clear that the eurosystem will promote and implement all the issues that can be directly harmonized within t2s. as regards the private sector, we expect that the market transformation induced by t2s will offer market participants to develop and implement their own harmonization initiatives, for example in the field of corporate actions. the eurosystem welcomes very much all such efforts towards harmonization and stands ready to give all the support needed. as regards harmonization to be carried out by the public authorities, this would fall under the responsibility of the european commission bodies and working groups, such as cesame, the legal certainty group ( lcg ) and the fiscal compliance experts group fisco. working with the industry leaders and experts on the t2s advisory group, we, the ecb and the eurosystem will advise and cooperate with such bodies, with a firm eye on the need for progress. to focus our own effort, we intend to present a progress report on the achieved degree of harmonization to the ecb ’ s governing council by early 2009. overall, integration and harmonization have become a core objective of the european union ; the european bodies are determined to support the european financial industry to increase competitiveness by giving it access to an efficient, state of the art financial infrastructure supporting a true single market. the eurosystem is ready to firmly commit to deliver t2s as a state - of - the - art settlement system to the market via the csds by 2013 at the latest. it is also clear, that the eurosystem cannot do it alone. as substantial financial investments will need to be made for building t2s, so we need the support and the commitment of the csds. we have asked all european csds to express – by 4 july – their support for the t2s project. we are sure that csds will consult their clients and other stakeholders, many of whom have already expressed strong support, often also in public. the governing council will take into account this feedback when it meets on 17th july to decide if the eurosystem will further support the t2s project. as president trichet has said on many occasions “ it is not, in any respect, time

rate mortgages ranges from less than 20 % in france and germany to more than 80 % in luxembourg, the netherlands, portugal and slovakia ( see ehrmann and ziegelmeyer ( 2013 ) ). the great variety of households revealed by household - level data stands in sharp contrast to the stark representation of consumers in many dsge models ( especially those of the first generation ), in which consumption smoothing or intertemporal substitution is typically governed by a single parameter that is often calibrated in an ad hoc manner. the experience of the great recession, in which individual households were subject to different income, interest rate and wealth shocks that generated responses that differed from those recorded in previous recessions, suggests that we should take household heterogeneity seriously. to conclude, the eurosystem ’ s household finance and consumption survey provides researchers with an invaluable source of information that will make it possible, by way of a cross - country perspective, to enhance our knowledge about the effects of specific monetary policy measures on the financial and economic decisions taken by households. thank you for your attention. for example, ehrmann and ziegelmeyer ( 2013 ) estimate that a 300 basis point cut in interest rates would result in a substantial reduction of the median debt - service burden, in particular for households in the lowest income quintile where the ratio of median debt service to income would otherwise have been 44 %, rather than the observed 32 %. bis central bankers ’ speeches references anderson, e., inoue, a. and rossi, b. ( 2013 ), “ heterogeneous consumers and fiscal policy shocks ”, cepr discussion papers, no 9631, centre for economic policy research. blundell, r., pistaferri, l. and preston, i. ( 2008 ), “ consumption inequality and partial insurance ”, american economic review, no 98 ( 5 ), pp. 1887 – 1921. blundell, r., pistaferri, l. and saporta - eksten, i. ( 2012 ), “ consumption inequality and family labor supply ”, nber working papers, no 18445, national bureau of economic research. broda, c. and parker, j. ( 2012 ), “ the economic stimulus payments of 2008 and the aggregate demand for consumption ”, mimeo, northwestern university. carroll, c., slacalek, j. and tokuoka, k. (