has become too strong – and is partly why european banks are so weak compared with their us peers. do you think that ’ s true? the profitable us banks are in any case leaving european banks further behind. i find that idea quite amusing. conversely, it means that the weaker the supervision, the stronger 1 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches the banks. the truth is that strict supervision leads to strong banks. institutions become more resilient when supervisors require them to hold adequate capital to cover their risks and insist on sufficient liquidity and better risk management. the us institutions received comprehensive state aid during the crisis. and now the united states is even rolling back regulation. both of these represent a disadvantage for domestic banks. up to now, the us authorities have generally only revoked rules that went beyond international standards. but you do have a point. it ’ s important that large international institutions meet the same standards, particularly in trading. that is why we need to have the new basel rules implemented in all major financial centres. moreover, let ’ s not forget that the united states managed to quickly return to a growth path. that has of course been of great benefit to the us banking system too. we were much slower in that regard, also in tackling structural problems. one outcome of the financial crisis was the ecb ’ s controversial asset purchase programme. the governing council has indeed decided to stop purchases, but only very slowly. meanwhile german social security funds have been suffering enormously from the negative interest rates for a long time. shouldn ’ t you be moving more quickly? ending the asset purchase programme is a major first step. but i agree that the side - effects of an extraordinarily loose monetary policy increase over time and i have pointed that out repeatedly. but after pursuing such an expansionary monetary policy, it would be wrong to now move abruptly in the other direction. that wouldn ’ t help either the economy or price stability. but rather? i am very much in favour of normalising monetary policy. that implies that we should gradually increase interest rates again. however, we can only do that if we are on a sustainable path towards price stability. moreover, we should not forget that the social security funds would be in a much weaker financial position today if economic growth had been held back by very tight monetary policy and higher unemployment. and german savers too sometimes forget that they can only save if they have a job. the trick therefore is to move steadily towards the exit without disrupting

sabine lautenschlager : interview with welt am sonntag interview by ms sabine lautenschlager, member of the executive board of the european central bank and vice - chair of the supervisory board of the european central bank, with welt am sonntag, conducted by ms anja ettel and ms anne kunz on 30 july 2018 and published on 5 august 2018. * * * 15 september marks the tenth anniversary of the collapse of the us investment bank lehman brothers. you were then the chief banking supervisor at the federal financial supervisory authority ( bafin ). do you remember that day? yes, i can remember it vividly. i was in the bafin that weekend and participated in the crisis calls with the international supervisors. i saw at first hand how things came to a head that weekend. in the night from sunday to monday, the us colleagues decided not to rescue lehman. three of us were holding the fort at the bafin that night. were you immediately aware of the magnitude of what was happening? we knew that the collapse of such a bank would not leave the financial world unscathed. nonetheless, we all underestimated the severity of the fallout. nobody foresaw a crisis of confidence that would bring whole markets to a standstill. would lehman still be possible today? i would never say that there will never be another crisis. but there ’ s no doubt that institutions and supervisors are now better prepared. banks hold much more capital and liquidity. their risk management and corporate governance are better too, albeit not yet good enough at every institution. one theory has it that the financial crisis would not have unfolded as it did if more women had been on the banks ’ boards. is there some truth in that? i don ’ t know about that – but there is good reason to believe that mixed teams come up with better results. unfortunately, women are still under - represented at board level. not in supervision though. there have always been more women in supervision. but i would resist any attempt to attribute certain behaviours solely to gender. people at the top need to have qualities such as assertiveness and decisiveness – that goes for men and women. and that applies in supervision too. for example? as a supervisor i have to state unpleasant truths and take tough decisions ; i have to fight my corner time and time again. and that leaves its mark. people are shaped by their profession. how do you react to the criticism that supervision