urged accounting standard setters to develop a single set of high - quality accounting standards. a global set of accounting standards is desirable from the perspective of both investors and regulators since it improves the comparability and transparency on a global basis. this contributes towards sounder investment decisions and thus to a more efficient allocation of resources as well as overall functioning of capital markets. moreover, the financial crisis clearly revealed the shortcomings of different accounting rules on both sides of the atlantic, as differences in rules contributed towards a lower degree of confidence in financial reporting. for all these reasons, the ecb welcomes the ongoing efforts of the accounting standard setters to achieve fully compatible, high - quality accounting standards in a direct response to the g20 request. however, we are concerned to hear that the fasb and the iasb are still far from reaching a consensus on key accounting concepts, such as the classification and measurement of financial instruments. the iasb has confirmed a “ mixed measurement model ” that measures financial instruments both at amortised cost and fair value. in contrast, the us standard setter, the fasb, is determined to move towards a “ full fair value model ”, claiming that only fair value provides decision - useful information to investors. i have already mentioned in my intervention how the financial crisis has blatantly revealed the flaws with this measurement and how in certain circumstances, namely when markets are dislocated, applying full fair value accounting to the financial statements of the banking sector raises financial stability concerns and does not provide decision - useful information to investors. just to re - emphasise, the ecb strongly opposes a full fair value approach. in this context, convergence should not come at the expense of high - quality accounting standards. finally, with regard to recent assertions made by the iasb and fasb that convergence is on track, i would like to highlight that we are not so optimistic. in this regard, putting in place a reconciliation mechanism that simply discloses figures at amortised cost and fair value for each item on the balance sheet would certainly not achieve the aim of convergence. as regards governance, which improvements do you envisage in relation to the elaboration of accounting rules? first, i would like to stress that the ecb fully supports the concept of “ independent accounting standard setting ”. in their april 2009 declaration on strengthening the financial system, when identifying the main areas of concern in the accounting area, the leaders of the g20 never challenged this concept

lessons from the crisis was the need to make the shadow banking sector more transparent. this becomes more urgent as we tighten the regulatory net for the banking sector. otherwise we may simply shift risks to unregulated or more loosely regulated entities. in this respect let me mention the otc derivative markets. these markets should be subject to greater transparency by promoting the reporting of non - centralised trades to trade repositories. additionally, we should promote the clearing of eligible otc derivatives transactions through central counterparties, which should be themselves subject to high prudential and operational standards. finally, we need to effectively address the risks posed by systemically important financial institutions. in particular, we need to define a regulatory framework addressing the risks posed by large and complex financial institutions, and to discuss possible measures aimed to ensure a smooth winding - up of ailing systemically important financial institutions. it is crucial that a consistent framework is agreed at international level to avoid conflicting national regimes applied to multinational institutions and regulatory arbitrage. in this context, i strongly support the current work being carried out by the financial stability board and the basel committee.