favour of a retail payments system that provides users with a wide choice of options from a wide range of providers. each payments method has its strengths and weaknesses, and so users should be able to choose the most suitable payments method for each particular type of transaction. in some cases the pricing of the transaction enables them to do so in a manner which contributes to an efficient low - cost retail payments system, while in some other cases it does not. the best way of improving efficiency is usually to increase competition rather than to regulate, but i think i have shown that some parts of the retail payments system are constructed in such a way that competition increases costs and reduces efficiency. in those areas, regulation is required, and the reserve bank through the payments system board will continue with its task of improving efficiency, competition and safety of the retail payments system.

track of the latest proposals and understand what they could mean for their own institutions. for those institutions looking to prepare for adoption of basel ii, making the manifold 5 / 6 upgrades in risk - measurement and - management systems - - not the least of which is developing credible databases - - is even more difficult, especially since complete and final supervisory expectations have yet to be released. but we certainly hope that institutions do not lose momentum based on the revised timeline for basel ii ; indeed, that timeline reflects our assessment of the work that still lies ahead. while institutions might be challenged to move forward in certain areas until the basel ii npr and its associated supervisory guidance is issued, we still believe that they can make strides in other areas. for one, the agencies all along have emphasized the importance of institution - specific implementation plans, which include gap analyses, clearly defined milestones, and remediation plans. in other words, we think that institutions could now continue development of the corporate governance surrounding each institution's efforts in basel ii implementation and focus on their individual implementation processes. in addition, supervisors have begun to discuss individual qis4 results with each participant ; these discussions include specific feedback about the institution's results and some general peer comparisons. additionally, we do recognize that the recent update to u. s. implementation plans could generate some challenges for u. s. institutions as they try to implement basel ii worldwide, as well as for foreign banks operating in the united states. overall, we think these challenges are manageable and we can facilitate solutions to them during the implementation process. while not downplaying potential challenges, the u. s. agencies, in deciding to adjust implementation plans, thought it was important to ensure that implementation in the united states be conducted in a prudential manner and without generating competitive inequalities in our banking markets. as before the september 30 announcement, we continue to work with institutions and foreign supervisors to minimize the difficulties in cross - border implementation. our support includes extensive discussion with other countries in the basel accord implementation group, as well as more informal, bilateral discussions with institutions and foreign supervisors. our view is that these cross - border issues do not necessarily represent fundamentally new problems ; while requiring some work, these challenges are manageable. it is also useful to point out that all basel member countries have their own rollout timelines and national discretion issues, not just the united states - - which is entirely appropriate. in order to assist institutions in resolving their cross - border challenges