regard, if i may comment on some general lessons to be learned by most professional coming out of the global financial crisis, it is that codes of behaviour are important but minute regulation is almost impossible. for example, i am not sure that there is any particular rule that should say to a lender that it is inappropriate to require from a borrower monthly payments which exceed the monthly income of that borrower. this was happening in the sub - prime mortgage market. it was influenced by the fact that the lenders ’ compensation was based on the volume of credit he originated and not on the quality of the credit. it would seem that general codes of behaviour rather than explicit rules are important here since one cannot anticipate every situation, nor can we devise a rule for every possible eventuality. in the caribbean and in barbados in particular, generally speaking our commercial banks and finance companies have been quite compliant. banks and finance companies in barbados have tended to be well regulated and have observed the guidelines issued by the central bank. in addition the board of the central bank at the end of 2008 took the decision to position itself to extend some aspects of regulation and consequently access to liquidity support facilities to finance companies as well, so we have broadened our coverage. to conclude, the nexus between regulation and compliance is a mutually supportive one. regulations, guidelines, standards and codes must first be appropriate, relevant and up - todate but compliance with the guidelines is critical to the reliability, comparability and international acceptance of financial statements and for verifying the financial status of companies in the corporate world generally, but especially in the financial world. barbados has done relatively well in this regard. our recent challenges have originated from outside, but the overall level of compliance has been for the most part, exemplary. however, we must be vigilant, and it is important that this is so of the entire corporate world.

still generally believed that the idea of self - regulation is a useful one, but that it cannot be totally relied upon. many self - regulatory bodies began in an environment where they set the rules which governed them. in time it became clear that this was not enough and oversight bodies were established in most jurisdictions to oversee the implementation of the rules and to provide a forum for appeal to a higher body. regulation however requires a sensitivity to the stage of development of the market and to the norms of market behaviour, and emerging and embryonic markets may require that a balance be struck between the need for markets to achieve rapid development and the need for these markets to remain stable. most developed country markets did not have a highly controlled regulatory environment into which they launched themselves. emerging markets seem to be managing to achieve this balance as evident by the relative stability of markets in latin america and the caribbean. professional bodies have become very important contributors to the stability of the regulatory framework and guidelines issued by many professional bodies have tended to become the accepted norm. indeed the term “ generally accepted ” is a term used to describe gaap guidelines or principles. as the world became more globalised efforts have intensified to make guidelines and principles in each area of discipline internationally acceptable, since companies and institutions were now operating globally. the merging of accounting rules and ias, fasb and gaap into ifrs regulations are an example of this global trend. in this way self - regulatory organizations and professional organizations have had a tremendous impact on the regulatory world in promoting uniformity, reliability and comparability of information across the globe. today regulatory guidelines and guidance notes issued by professional bodies governing operations across the globe on a broad range of topics have been widely encouraged and accepted. however, compliance with guidelines can become an issue in itself – as i am sure this seminar has illustrated as entities and countries are at different stages of development. even the basel guidelines, particularly basel ii guidelines are a case in point. because of the wide differences in levels of development and sophistication, it was necessary to have 3 levels of basel ii, standardized and irb and advanced irb. generally, because compliance is voluntary, what has happened is that reputational risk is increasingly being used as an enforcement tool and has become very important, since a statement by an international organisation that an entity or even a country is not compliant is itself a damaging statement. this was taken to inordinate lengths at the time of the oecd saga in 1999 in respect of offshore