cft ) regulations apply to fintech companies. we may argue that the eu has expanded the scope of its rules to include services that eu fintech companies offer to consumers. moreover, the european banking authority ( eba ) recognises the benefit in protecting consumers when they use financial services offered by firms outside the conventional financial services sector. it recommends defining consumers'rights in the fintech space, creating effective procedures for processing consumer complaints, improving the quality of disclosures to consumers in a digital environment, and increasing consumer financial literacy. in light of the potentially inconsistent regulatory regimes to which eu fintech companies are subject, the european commission published last year an action plan for the implementation of an eu - wide framework dedicated to fintech companies aimed at “ a more competitive and innovative european financial sector ”. the commission's action plan proposes 23 steps to enable innovative business models to scale up and support the uptake of new technologies, and to enhance cybersecurity and the integrity of the financial system, including an eu fintech laboratory where european and national authorities will engage with technology providers and an eu blockchain observatory and forum, which will report on the challenges and opportunities of crypto - assets. 5. 3 filling in the regulatory gap from the aforementioned regulatory frameworks, we all agree that risks related to regulation and compliance arise from fintech ’ s rapid growth and it is reasonable to expect that new or evolving risks will emerge for the system and for individual institutions. it appears that the main challenge is to implement legislation governing fintech companies in order to protect users and markets, while offering an environment favourable to growth. in the context of financial regulation, it is of utmost importance to strike a balance between the following three fundamental elements : 1. manage the trade - off between efficiency gains associated with technological innovation and the protection of stakeholders in the financial industry. on the one hand, regulation must not be too stringent to the point it preempts the creation and development of new technologies that generate efficiency and savings in transaction costs ; on the other hand, regulation must not be too lax, so as to make sure that investors and users of financial services are adequately protected and that regulatory frameworks are continuously adapting to technological advances, rather than falling behind the curve. 2. ensure an adequate regulatory level playing field for banks and fintechs, fundamental to achieve appropriate competition. first, activities involving the same risks in terms of financial stability, consumer protection and the integrity of the financial system should receive the same

if need be. insurance undertakings according to the new framework of solvency ii for insurance undertakings and with a view to increased transparency and consumer protection, as from 2017 greek insurance undertakings publish an annual report on their solvency and financial condition. the industry ’ s key financial indicators for 2017 remained stable, whereas solvency ratios are expected to improve. with a view, however, to mitigating the risks stemming from the low interest rate environment and the resulting search for yield, insurance undertakings have adjusted their investment strategies and modified their traditional life products by offering reduced interest rate guarantees and by focusing on promoting mostly unit - linked products. risks and sources of uncertainty despite the progress made so far, as reflected in key economic indicators, domestic and external risks remain, which could jeopardise the course of the greek economy. in the short term, the main risks relate to a delayed implementation of the measures agreed in 5 / 7 bis central bankers'speeches the third review, which would in turn delay the completion of the fourth and last review of the current programme, as well as to an underachievement of the fiscal targets. in addition, the absence of a timely specification of the debt relief measures could rekindle uncertainties. equally significant is the risk of a reversal of the so far downward trend of greek government bond yields. the recent upgrading of the country ’ s credit rating is a positive development towards a restoration of investment grade ratings for greek bonds ; also, 2017 saw a significant decline in the high yields of greek government bonds. the fact, however, that greece still has the lowest credit rating in the euro area, five notches below investment grade, means that, as soon as greece exits the programme, greek bonds will no longer be eligible as collateral for access to low - cost refinancing from the ecb. considering that the yield on the 10 - year greek government bond currently exceeds 4 %, compared with 2 % for the portuguese and italian counterparts, the risk to the debt dynamics is all too clear. this problem could be further exacerbated, as the factors behind the favourable conditions of 2017 appear to be reversing. there are also external risks, which give rise to concerns about the preservation of the very favourable global economic conjuncture and global stability. more specifically, some of the matters pending at the eu level that could hinder the smooth development of the eu economy are : the brexit preparations after the agreement of 15 december 2017 for