. however, it is also clear that the globalisation of financial markets and increased merger activity exert pressure on those markets to adapt, to become more and more integrated, and similar. firstly, in terms of the kind of financial transactions which are considered “ state of the art ” and, secondly - this will take more time - also in terms of market structures. therefore, harmonisation as well as close cooperation between supervisors around the world are highly desirable. this is well understood and already common practice, as is demonstrated by the multilateral cooperation in international forums. iii let me now turn to the three specific areas, addressed in the question. in the area of accounting, the g7 assigned the international accounting standards committee ( iasc ) the task of establishing a worldwide harmonised set of core accounting principles. i strongly support this initiative and very much hope that we move towards a true world standard on this basis. ias ( international accounting standards ) should in my opinion be the requirement for a listing on all major stock exchanges of the globe. german legislation already allows banks to set up their consolidated accounts on the basis of the ias. the ias are currently reviewed by the basel committee, the iosco ( regulators for securities firms ) and the iais ( regulators for insurance firms ). some differences of opinion still exist, especially on the issue of “ fair value ” accounting. the iasc obviously prefers “ fair values ” ( which means market values ) for all financial instruments including the loan portfolio. the majority of regulators ( including germany ) favour such accounting only for instruments traded on financial markets. for traded instruments we can easily calculate “ fair values ” whereas this is much more difficult for assets and liabilities of the banking book. the european commission has taken up this issue with the aim of arriving at a common standard for ias and the european accounting legislation. iv with regard to the regulatory framework for e - money the us and europe take a different approach. in europe, the issuance of e - money will probably be regulated ( although the relevant eu directive has not yet passed the european legislative process ). most european countries perceive a need for such regulation in order to ensure sound market practices, to protect those who use e - money, and to take adequate account of both systemic and monetary policy concerns. the envisaged rules will allow for enough freedom for the e - money business to evolve, and technological progress will not be hindered. the united states is taking more of a “ wait and

at the same time, we must stay alert to the potential risk of “ green bubbles ”. green investments are not automatically risk - free. to conclude : the general objective of regulation and supervision is to preserve and to improve individual and systemic resilience against financial risk. therefore, any regulatory changes suggested in the context of sustainable / green finance need to follow a risk - based approach. 1 / 2 bis central bankers'speeches we in the ngfs are developing an analytical framework in order to quantify and assess the impact of climate - related risks on the economy and the financial system. this will further strengthen our ability to safeguard financial stability and effectively supervise banks – which is why i look forward to paving the way for a greener, more sustainable financial system. 2 / 2 bis central bankers'speeches