evident during the crisis. even though maturity transformation is indeed intrinsic to banking activity, an excessive mismatch between assets and liabilities increases the vulnerability of banks to negative liquidity shocks. however, this is the first global regulation of liquidity, and our experience in this area is limited. recovery and resolution frameworks the last component of this regulatory overhaul is the treatment of the systemic institutions. much attention has been paid to the capital surcharge that will be imposed, as mentioned earlier, on the so - called global systemically important banks. however, key to dealing with problems posed by systemic – and non - systemic – banks will be the setting up of effective recovery and resolution frameworks as recommended by the financial stability board ( fsb ). in this connection, let me note that spain has just established a new resolution regime, strengthening the powers of our resolution agency, the fund for orderly bank restructuring ( frob ), which was set up in 2009. are further measures needed? summing up, on the whole, capital requirements have been considerably strengthened. the largest banks, for instance, will have to hold at least seven times as much capital as before the crisis. these measures have undoubtedly strengthened the whole banking system. bis central bankers ’ speeches however, it is to be noted, and regretted to some extent, that while basel iii capital requirements had been carefully planned to be implemented gradually until 2019, markets and, in some cases, regulators have accelerated this process. in europe, banks are generally already recording ratios of common equity tier 1 of 9 %. banks have achieved this not only by raising capital in the markets but also by contracting credit and deleveraging. this raises a concern about the impact the regulatory “ overhaul ” may be having on credit and growth. at the same time, however, we are engaging in the discussion of a possible “ structural reform ” of the banking sector which might come on top of all the regulatory changes. it is argued that the measures adopted so far do not deal with the risky trading activities of banks profiting from financing with favorable conditions on the basis of the implicit subsidy associated to deposit insurance. these concerns have led to different responses worldwide, such as the volcker rule in the united states, the proposals of sir john vickers in the united kingdom and, more recently, the draft banking reforms in france and in germany. at the european union level, a high - level group chaired by my colleague erkki liikanen has prepared a report on the convenience

with the republic of turkey one could go back to the proclamation of the new state as a republic, last century, and even more, centuries of ties between the romanian principalities and the ottoman empire. i also like to notice the connection between our two central banks. in the national bank of romania ’ s archives there are letters, exchanged between governor mitita constantinescu and governor salahattin cam, regarding the organization of a conference for the governors of the central banks in the balkanic coalition, in november 1937, in ankara. now, both central banks are members of the club of governors of the black sea area. regarding sweden i will grasp your attention with a historical moment that incidentally connects sweden with bucharest and the ottoman empire. one of bucharest ’ s landmarks, the coltei tower ( part of the coltei hospital which you can see across the boulevard ) has been built in the early xviii century by the swedish soldiers, during king charles xii retreat to adrianople after his failed campaign in russia. bis central bankers ’ speeches i will end now my brief journey into history, which has not been nor exhaustive, not even relevant, and get back to our conference topic. during the debate one should not forget that the size of the economies and the development level is different in these three countries. for example in a list compiled by the international monetary fund for the year 2012, turkey ranks 17th, with a nominal gdp of 795 billion dollars, while sweden ranks 22th, with a nominal gdp of 525 billion dollars ( romania is 56th, with 170 billion dollars ). gdp / capita is also rather different. i do hope that this conference will elicit a lively debate. i believe that we have much to learn from the swedish and turkish experience since they have been market economies for a longer period of time compared to romania. i kindly invite their excellences the ambassadors of turkey and sweden to address the audience and to introduce their speakers. the debate will be moderated by mr. valentin lazea, the national bank of romania chief economist. thank you for attending this conference, which i do hope will turn out to be a very successful one. bis central bankers ’ speeches