critically examine varied aspects of the electronic payments evolution and to embrace the enabling requirements for payments efficiency. the focus of these groups is as follows : the review of financial legislation & the regulatory framework this is aimed at adopting the level of regulation required to provide adequate oversight of unregulated entities that are growing in prominence and engaged in offering new fintech products. overhaul of the payments infrastructure to modernise the payment system to address the issue of persons wanting more immediate access to their money and reduced clearing times. this is inclusive of enhanced data imaging, cheque truncation, and retail and large - value payment settlement. given the need for a more analytical focus, we also need to collect more granular data on transactions to allow market participants and regulators to better understand customers ’ behaviour, so as to deepen the innovation in financial services. analytical framework for fintech the central bank ’ s main goal is to understand and assess the mechanics, limitations and possibilities of new technologies, especially as we review options for modernising our own payment system architecture. this framework is aimed at keeping the central bank abreast of developments and to leverage lessons that can be learnt from other emerging - market economies that have made greater progress in many respects. for example, india has biometric identification cards linked to e - accounts and in kenya, social security benefits are received on smart phones. what institutional agreements, access to consumer information and security protocols were required for these types of initiatives? should we envision a reality where countries migrate to a system where all citizens are issued with e - wallet accounts, to promote epayments for financial transaction involving government? how should these accounts be backed by central banks and should they accrue interest? for the central bank, other critically important questions to be explored include : how can this new technology enable the further digitalisation of our economy? what role does 2 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches government and regulators need to play? at this defining moment for innovation in financial services another very popular question is, “ do distributed ledgers represent an evolution or revolution? ” to frame our thinking, we need to also touch on two follow - on questions : is this change likely to be disruptive? what is yet to be determined about this new technology? advocates for distributed ledgers suggest that the technology could create disruption within the financial services industry by making processes more efficient, whether related to cross - border payments or digital identities, making it the next biggest innovation since the internet. from a regulatory perspective

– which, by the way, deviate from the basel capital framework. still another example concerns capital requirements across different investors. the proposed insurer securitisation capital requirements have been set using a spread risk approach calibrated to 99. 5 % value at risk. by contrast, the bank frameworks are based on a credit risk approach calibrated to 99. 9 % value at risk. finally, closer to home, the ecb, bank of england, and esma are all involved in loan - level data reporting requirements for abs, where there appears to be significant but not perfect overlap. one might reasonably respond that coordinating such an approach would be challenging, that deadlines are fixed by legislation, and that it is difficult to coordinate simultaneously at the global, eu, and national levels – especially given the different mandates and scope of the various parties involved in regulation. however, i believe all of the actors are present and pieces in place to go down this route. indeed, the european commission, the ecb, the bank of england, the three european supervisory agencies, and the european systemic risk board, cover the near totality of eu abs considerations under discussion at the moment. they also possess many legal powers to reframe the regulatory debate in a more holistic and sequentially - sensible manner. would it be too challenging to regularly align views at least at the eu level, and to speak with a common voice in global fora? this is already beginning, but much more could be done in my view. transparency and standardisation requirements my second proposal concerns transparency and standardisation requirements for abs products. i wholeheartedly support disclosure for abs. this is because abs will always have the potential to be highly complex, which implies much more room for opacity than other standard financial products. as i mentioned, much has already been achieved or envisaged in the area of abs transparency : the loan - level data requirements, the proposals by esma to have minimum common information for abs in a single portal, and reforms mandated in the prospectus directive. yet we could still streamline the reporting requirements : for example, abs investor reports could be standardised to allow a consistent set of information to be provided across transactions and across time. these same investor reports could also be aligned, in terms of data cut - off dates, with loan - level data submissions. this would provide greater means for market participants to verify the accuracy of data provided by issuers and exert market discipline