our homework on the taxation design side. my understanding is that countries experience different problems and come up with different “ recipes ” for solving them. so, today ’ s policy discussion on whether real estate taxation and macroprudential policies are complements or substitutes is highly relevant. we will also continue looking into country - specific experiences – successful and less so – with residential real estate related tax systems. in this respect, the experience of other countries can play a crucial role. thus, i look forward to hearing from our keynote speaker about the policy recipes chosen and implemented in the netherlands. to wrap up, this is the third macroprudential conference organized here in vilnius, and i am glad to see that the agenda is filled with interesting presentations by people from many different institutions. i ’ m excited to open the floor to the discussions. i believe that we have a good mix of policymakers, researchers and representatives of international institutions for this to happen. i wish us an interesting day and a fruitful exchange of views, hopefully leading to positive policy outcomes. and now, i gladly pass the microphone to our keynote speaker – professor klaas knot. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on the possible effects of the taxation of residential real estate, and the possible interlinkages with macroprudential policy. please, klaas, the floor is yours. 3 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches

vitas vasiliauskas : real estate taxation and macroprudential policy welcome remarks by mr vitas vasiliauskas, chairman of the board of the bank of lithuania, at the macroprudential policy conference " real estate taxation and macroprudential policy ", vilnius, 2 july 2019. * * * good morning, ladies and gentlemen : it is my pleasure to join you today at this already - traditional conference, and to thank you all – speakers, panellists and participants – for gathering to discuss this very timely topic. i would also like to express special thanks to our keynote speakers – professor klaas knot, president of de nederlandsche bank, and henrik braconier, chief economist at sweden ’ s finansinspektionen, who delivered the keynote speech yesterday. regretfully, i was not able to be here when you began discussing the interlinkages between real estate taxation and macroprudential policy instruments, and shared country experiences in residential real estate taxation. still, today ’ s agenda promises us another intensive day with engaging discussions and, hopefully, some helpful answers. dear colleagues : in welcoming you all today, i hardly need to list the benefits of macroprudential policy and its instruments. i am sure that macroprudential policy works – especially as a preventive tool. let ’ s take current lithuania as an example. the economy is growing, but we do not observe economic agents – creditors and borrowers – acting irresponsibly ( what we had prior to the financial crisis ). i believe that other countries experiences, the esrb framework and the policy instruments prove, if not the effectiveness, than at least their potential. it is worth noting that we still lack clear evidence on the interactions of various macroprudential measures with other policy areas. this is true, despite the fact that macroprudential policies have been gaining recognition and use among policymakers in many countries. in fact, data shows that the usage of macroprudential measures increased persistently in the immediate post - crisis years. this trend is evident in both advanced and emerging market economies, albeit to a different extent. in my opinion, measures directed at affecting crediting in the economy are effective tools with an impact on the economic cycle – especially in the low interest rate environment. we consider current timing to be appropriate to deepen our understanding of the links between macroprudential and other policies, as policy makers need to