- looking and to continually ask ourselves : are all risks being captured, measured, and monitored? what is missing? are we focused on the right areas? so, here is another question : when we look back at this conference five years from now, what will we view as a major blind spot? i expect there will be issues that we will be surprised we missed, and part of the purpose of discussions like this is to lower the likelihood and impact of those inevitable blind spots. thanks for your attention, and i ’ m looking forward to hearing the discussion throughout the day. 3 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches

global risk forum over the past five years. given the acute trauma of the financial crisis and its systemic nature, that is not surprising. i did find it interesting to see how the discussions of systemic risk have shifted over these five years. initially, the discussions were primarily focused on defining systemic risk, including the underlying shocks and propagation channels. during these initial conversations, the concept of macroprudential supervision was introduced as a means of mitigating systemic risk, but the discussion largely centered on defining what macroprudential supervision might entail, and how it differs from more traditional microprudential supervision. more recently, the systemic risk discussions have become increasingly technical and practical in nature — focusing on the details of the resolution regime, monitoring shadow banking and considering implications of shifting activity, and on actual approaches for conducting macroprudential supervision. 1 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches second, governance has been a frequent topic. again, this is understandable given its central importance for private sector risk management and the official sector reform agenda. it is interesting that the assortment of discussion topics under the governance agenda item has been remarkably stable over the years. the agendas examined the appropriate roles of the board of directors and senior managers, the degree to which the official sector should prescribe risk management practices and principles, and the need to tailor such expectations depending on an institution ’ s business models and risk profiles. we should also think beyond the traditional governance topics to determine if other key risk types should be covered within these frameworks. i ’ ll return to this latter point. the third theme is the changing nature of the discussions around regulatory reform. in 2011 and 2012, much of the agenda focused on the “ what ” and the “ how ” of the reform package — what should be included in the reforms and how would these mechanisms work in practice. discussion questions were geared toward concerns about the feasibility of these new policies and regulations, and the need for global coordination and cooperation. in recent years, as you know, the global regulatory community has made significant progress on finalizing the post - crisis reforms and the conversation has naturally shifted to the impact of these regulatory reforms ; for example, a desire for consistency across firms, business models and jurisdictions and an assessment of factors driving changes in market liquidity. in raising these three frequently discussed topics – systemic risk, governance, and regulatory reform — i also wonder what topics have emerged that we are not discussing, but perhaps should be. since the financial crisis, i think