hamper innovation and progress, maybe even of humanity, if you will. bigtech companies can ’ t be properly regulated at the national level. google and amazon are perfect examples of this ; and the issue only becomes more complicated when bigtech companies enter the arena of financial services. the regulatory issues associated with diem serve as just one example. regulators across the globe are struggling to get a grip on bigtech companies – be it in the eu, the united states, australia or even china. 2. cross - border regulation of digital innovation is in its infancy, but a start has been made. harmonisation within the eu is a good example. take the general data protection requirements, or gdpr – whether or not you are a fan – or the eu ’ s new digital operational resilience act ( dora ) – a legislative initiative which also addresses material ict third party risks for banks. 3 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches for the libra association ’ s diem project, the swiss regulator finma set up a college of supervisors from all over the globe. this is a good example of international cooperation in regulating digital innovation. 3. getting a grip on the risks of digital innovation will be difficult and complex. it will take continuous work and international cooperation. in tech, the big issue is of course : can regulation ever keep pace with digital innovation? we can see that legislators are trying to accompany the digital transformation in a forwardlooking manner, by providing legal certainty for innovative developments and by appropriately addressing risks. to do this, it is necessary to keep abreast of current developments, to actively seek out dialogue, and to accept that regulation has to evolve regularly. regulators need to be agile and proactive in order to swiftly implement the lessons learned from crises. that is true at a national and international level. that is no easy task for international cooperation, i am afraid. harmonisation should be our common goal. perhaps even a g7 or g20 mandated body could be an option to establish such standards and risk management ; we could call it a “ digital bcbs ”. 5 closing remarks ladies and gentlemen, let me recap the “ journey ” of my short presentation : first, international standard - setting by the bcbs works and is quite successful, but it is a marathon, not a sprint. second, international regulation brings a lot of benefits for supervised entities, supervisors and the financial system as a whole. but it also has its downsides. third, global

##vening a forum of financial stability. what is the philosophy behind that proposal? firstly, there is the conviction that sweeping institutional changes are not necessary. instead, a process to improve coordination between existing national and international authorities and groupings is important for improving the functioning of the market and, in doing so, promoting the stability of the financial system. secondly, a permanent body which brings together major experts on supervisory issues, either technical or political representatives, either at the national or at the international level has more potential to be a driving force for practical change than several ad - hoc - groups may have. how is the forum composed? members of the forum are : representatives of the ifis, the bis and the oecd, representatives of key international regulatory groupings, namely the basel committee on banking supervision, iosco, the international association of insurance supervisors, central bank experts concerned with market infrastructure from the committee on payment & settlement systems and the committee on the global financial system and — not least — representatives of the national authorities — the ministries of finance, central banks and senior supervisory authorities — initially of the g - 7 countries. what is the forum ’ s field of activity? the g - 7 report identifies three areas where improvement is necessary. the first potential area concerns the assessment of vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system. these kinds of information - pooling - and - processing activity must be clearly separated from normal macro - economic policy assessment. the forum should obviously not attempt the imf ’ s systematic surveillance of individual countries, although cases may arise where financial vulnerabilities in individual counties merit the forum ’ s attention. a second potential area of activity for the forum is identifying and overseeing actions needed to address the vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system, including encouraging the development or strengthening of international best practice and standards and defining priorities for addressing and implementing them. a third potential area of activity for the forum is improving mutual coordination and the exchange of information among the various authorities responsible for financial stability ( a sort of permanent round - table ). in this respect, the forum should be a vehicle for the regular in - depth exchange of information among the international financial institutions and the international regulatory groupings. how should the forum work? the forum should not duplicate work being undertaken elsewhere. the forum should, rather, work through its members, taking due account of their comparative advantages. specifically, the forum should bring together information about activities taking place in diverse groupings and coordinate overlapping activities. in