management of many market infrastructures. yet in such an interconnected and interdependent sector, the authorities must develop an appropriate framework geared both to reducing the incidence of cybernetic attacks and to increasing resilience in the face of such attacks. here, moreover, the principles of proportionality and graduality applied when managing other types of risks do not prevail ; any link in the chain, no matter how small it is, may act as a gateway for a cybernetic attack that compromises the security of the entire system. lastly, i should like to discuss an aspect which, i believe, will be pivotal in future discussions among financial authorities : coordination among the different regulators. as i mentioned, one of the strategic elements of digital transformation is the management of information. but the discussion goes beyond financial data and may also affect other sectors. moreover, digital transformation enables the supply of financial services to be extended, accommodating them to the individual needs of consumers, who see their choices and decision - making capacity increase. this means that aspects such as the privacy or protection of information, transparency towards consumers ( so they may take informed decisions ) and the effective level of competition between providers of specific technological services ( take, for example, the use of the cloud ) all gain in importance. however, these matters lie outside the typical remit of financial supervisors and thus make it necessary to promote a collaborative climate and more intense cross - disciplinary dialogue. conclusions by way of conclusion, i would assert that twenty years after the creation of the euro, major headway has been made in equipping emu with greater stability. however, the architecture of emu remains incomplete : there is a pressing need to complete banking union and make headway on the capital markets union. to do this, we must push through key aspects such as the common european deposit insurance scheme, and deepen financial integration. the internationalisation of the banking business would help bring about greater diversification, weakening thereby the link between sovereign and banking risk. further, harnessing synergies and economies of scale may contribute to improving profitability. that would provide for the investment needed to enable the ongoing adaptation to the change wrought by the digitalisation of the banking business. digitalisation promises major benefits, both for consumers ( in the form of better and tailored services ) and for those financial institutions able to seize this opportunity. our role as supervisors lies in ensuring a safe and stable transition for the good of all citizens. thank

withstand severe crisis situations such as that experienced between 2007 and 2009. moreover, the existence of contributions – tailored to the risk profile of each bank – to a european common deposit insurance fund could ensure that there was no systematic crosssubsidisation between countries. they could, at the same time, guarantee that appropriate treatment was given to risks associated with sovereign debt holdings on banks ’ balance sheets. in short, this third pillar would contribute to financial stability and would solve the problem of asymmetry that common supervision entails compared with the national banking systems ’ ultimate responsibility for deposit insurance. none of the above necessarily means that any losses stemming from decisions taken prior to the launch of the ssm in 2014 will have to be shared. but if there is to be mutual trust, europe ’ s leaders should decide to take joint responsibility for the banking risks assumed since single supervision came into force. hence the importance of the measures taken by credit institutions to reduce their impaired asset volume, in addition to the direct positive impact of such measures on their profitability and efficiency. towards pan - european banking it is essential that the public and institutional aspects of banking union are completed. however, to secure more stability for the euro area, it is also necessary to strengthen the private risk - mitigation and risk - sharing mechanisms i mentioned earlier. to do this, on the banking side, it is important to eliminate national barriers to european banking integration. 5 / 9 despite the challenges faced in recent years, with the emergence of new competitors and low levels of profitability, many european countries ’ banking systems remain oversized and still have surplus capacity. in addition, international consolidation processes have been few and far between, and this pattern has not changed since the launch of banking union. this situation contrasts, once again, with the consolidation process in the united states following the removal of certain regulatory hurdles that restricted mergers and acquisitions between banks from different us states. in comparison, here in europe barriers preventing a truly pan - european bank persist, especially in the retail business segment. these barriers are both explicit – different national regulations – and implicit. thus, the use of directives that provide for national exceptions and specificities have not been sufficient to harmonise and standardise european banking regulations. moreover, these regulations do not fully acknowledge the advantages of geographical diversification of banking activity. also, in some european countries, there are still broad segments of the banking industry that are either fully state - owned or are sheltered from competition by means of specific regulatory treatment.