. and this data needs to be comparable across the euro area ; we must be able to compare banks with their peers, be they irish, french, german, whatever. we therefore need a european approach to reporting. in this regard, it would lighten the load on banks if national regulators and supervisors were to adjust their own reporting requirements and processes to the new european reality. my second point is that rules may not only put a burden on banks but also offer them benefits. strong rules foster trust. would you get into a taxi if you knew the driver was not bound by traffic rules? would you do business with a bank that was not regulated? banks with a low level of capital and inadequate internal controls are viewed with suspicion : investors ask for higher risk premia and the banks thus face higher funding costs. banks need people ’ s trust to do business, but as a result of the crisis they have lost a lot of trust. they should bear this in mind when complaining about regulation. now, do bank rules harm the economy? this question mainly, but not only, focuses on capital requirements. usually, the argument goes like this : capital is expensive for banks and might prompt them to increase lending rates. and even worse, it might cause them to stop lending altogether for fear of not meeting their capital requirements. that in turn would choke credit growth and damage the economy. but consider the benefits. banks which are well capitalised are well prepared to withstand shocks. it is these banks that keep credit flowing to the economy even when the going gets tough. these banks can finance the economy throughout the entire business cycle. banks with low levels of capital, on the other hand, are more likely to face a crisis, and banking crises are costly. they inflict damage on the economy by hurting growth, destroying jobs and putting a burden on taxpayers. as a matter of fact, recessions that accompany a banking crisis are much more severe than “ normal ” recessions. 1 so, strong rules put a burden on banks. but at the same time, they do help the economy. only well - capitalised, well - managed banks do a good job of lending to the real economy over the short, medium and long term. the net benefit should be positive. empirical studies indicate that the benefits of higher capital are indeed greater than the costs. 2 to me, higher capital and strong rules in general seem to be a small price to pay for a more stable and prosperous economy. and the banks themselves also

recent visit to europe : “ … at a time when the european project is facing challenges, it ’ s especially important to show the benefits of economic integration. ” 6 i believe that the way europe addresses its current challenges does not only matters for our own future prosperity. it also holds lessons for the rest of the world. european integration translated european values into tangible benefits : eu citizens today have the right to live, work, study and do business anywhere in the union. they enjoy equal judicial protection, guaranteed by european courts of law. in fact, the establishment of a single european market was never solely about economic 1 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches efficiency. it was also about creating a free and open european society under a common rule of law. today, the european union is one of the world ’ s biggest economic blocs, alongside the united states and china. this will not last forever. at a time when several regional powers are increasingly assertive on the global stage, the single market and the single currency are essential assets. they enhance europe ’ s significance and influence worldwide. beyond its economic benefits, the euro indeed forges political bonds that have been repeatedly underestimated – not least by observers outside of europe. the crisis put those ties to the test and the commitment to the euro area ’ s integrity was strongly reaffirmed. one example of this was euro area leaders ’ commitment last year to secure the future of greece in the euro, provided that it undertakes the necessary reforms. it is also reflected in public opinion in europe : popular support for the euro has remained high throughout the crisis7. and indeed, the crisis showed that when europeans act together, they are stronger. but when uncertainty has the upper hand, attention turns inwards to national fragilities, fuelling economic selfishness and accentuating financial fragmentation. monetary policy as an example of acting together monetary policy is a clear example of where we did act together in a decisive manner. monetary policy undeniably played a key role in stabilising the economy in europe after the crisis. by deploying a range of conventional and unconventional monetary policy measures, the european central bank ( ecb ) avoided deflation, reduced financial fragmentation and supported the economic recovery. we ’ ve done it within the mandate given to us by the people of europe, namely price stability. and we are fully accountable to the european parliament and the european court of justice. but monetary policy alone cannot achieve sustainable growth. it needs to be complemented by