##ages between individual sectors of the economy and, even more so, between large financial institutions. there are some important areas of the financial sector where we lack complete statistical coverage, especially relating to what we call the “ shadow banking system ”. these areas include some complex market products and instruments. similarly, our new responsibilities in european banking supervision call for new data concepts and definitions, greatly extending the need for granular data. a successful start has been made, with a new set of legal acts. the collection of loan - by - loan data is already being implemented, but further improvements are possible. in particular, we need to make sure that the data we collect are of a high quality and comparable. bis central bankers ’ speeches effective data integration and cooperation but today ’ s conference is about more than just collecting additional data. the sharing of data by authorities is also critical. doing this effectively and efficiently, while maintaining data confidentiality, is a priority for policymakers. it requires action from policy institutions and lawmakers. putting in place the right architecture will permit a faster and more efficient response to requests across all our policy areas, greatly enhancing the usefulness of granular data. we have made some progress on the legal foundations for sharing granular data. council regulation 2533 / 98 has been amended to permit the ecb to ( re ) use confidential statistical information to perform its supervisory tasks. the information can also be shared with union institutions, including supervisory and resolution authorities, the european systemic risk board and the european stability mechanism for the purposes of prudential supervision and ensuring financial stability. this is a major achievement. the european system of central banks ( escb ) has also taken important steps to improve the harmonisation and standardisation of data. the current work on the banks ’ integrated reporting dictionary, a joint project involving seven national central banks and 26 commercial banks under the leadership of the ecb, is the best example. this process could and should ultimately enable us to organise the various reporting requirements into a single, comprehensive and harmonised european reporting framework. but the need for harmonisation and standardisation also extends beyond europe. finance is a global business, and both the regulation and the underlying data requirements for global institutions would benefit from more harmonisation worldwide. concrete steps towards standardisation include the establishment of mandatory requirements regarding the use of the international securities identification number and the global legal entity identifier. europe should retain its prominent role in the implementation of the second phase of the g20 data gaps initiative.

contribute to it. let me start my discussion by stressing the importance of securities markets and the particular interest of the ecb. securities trading, clearing and settlement are indeed at the core of our financial system and any inefficiencies in these processes are bound to have important negative implications. when trading, clearing and settlement are too costly or complex, financial transactions are discouraged. this in turn would have negative effects on the allocation of capital, risk sharing across agents, and economic growth. on its part, the ecb has a particular interest in integrated securities markets because all central bank credit operations need to be fully collateralised. the functioning of the payment system and the implementation of monetary policy therefore crucially depends on a smooth and efficient working of the securities clearing and settlement infrastructure. unfortunately, reality is quite different and substantial barriers continue to exist to efficient crossborder clearing and settlement, as identified by the group headed by alberto giovannini. the european securities infrastructure today remains highly fragmented with over 30 national exchanges, about 20 national clearing and settlement institutions, and an additional 20 other systems in acceding countries. in this period of transition, we have to cope with a substantial degree of fragmentation of our securities infrastructure, which adversely affects market liquidity, leads to redundant investments in different systems, and requires additional layers of intermediation. compared to, say the us, where the infrastructure has been over time highly consolidated, the costs of securities settlement are greater in europe. although it is very hard to calculate the benefit that we could gain from consolidation and therefore the opportunity cost of the remaining fragmentation, there can be no doubt that it is substantial. i am of the opinion that there are good reasons to believe that integration in the european securities markets will accelerate in the future. the european trading and post - trading infrastructure is now in a period of consolidation, with technological and regulatory changes supporting the removal of barriers to the cross - border provision of services. the proposed new investment services directive should simplify the regulatory framework and increase the uniformity of securities regulation. it will also lead to the effective adoption the single passport concept and contribute to safeguarding issuers and investors ’ interests. this would also be supported by the provisions of the market abuse and prospectuses directives. the adoption of an appropriate set of international accounting standards, as well as the proposed transparency directive, dealing with disclosure requirements of listed companies, should equally enhance investors ’ confidence and uphold the transparency of european equity markets. overall, i also observe that