 Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to chair this panel. It's a special pleasure to see so many pioneers, architects, builders, and early supporters of the T2S project. Some participants told me over lunch, maybe it's better to be in the market infrastructure industry compared to the banking industry. This just shows that so much transformation is taking place in the financial sector, but the one cannot exist without the other. And it's my pleasure to welcome the panel members. It's first of all, Mark Bale, director general at the ECB, one of the architects. I would say together with Jean-Michel Godfraub, but also with the colleagues from the European center banks. Second speaker to my right is Liv Mostri. I would like to congratulate her on her new position as, I think, first female CEO of Euroclear and also of having successfully, I think, done the transition to T2S. Next is Mr. Maes, CEO of the European Banking Federation, to my left, Mater Mella, a very successful contributor to, I think, European regulation in the financial sector over many years and in different functions. And last but not least, a Christian Westerhaus from Deutsche Bank, who has also, I think, contributed a lot to the projects we are discussing today. I would like to start with Liv, maybe, asking her, what are the new opportunities you see now from the infrastructure coming to you? Well, first of all, I think I would like to witness on our successful migration to T2S. And I wish all the best to our colleagues that will have a very heavy weekend, not this weekend, but next week. And so we will be all together on the T2S platform. And I think that is a big step towards the integrated markets. And integrated markets are very important. This has been underscored even by the World Bank in order to facilitate trade across our continent to facilitate investment flows. And those trade and investment flows are basically extremely important to support economic growth, to support truly a single market in which we want to operate. Now, integration, as we have said and has been mentioned already today, that is more than just having a single IT platform. That is, for sure, just as importantly, as Mr. Merch was pointing out, a single rulebook, just as importantly, harmonization. And harmonization is indeed an area in which we have made big progress over the past few years by bringing T2S to the foreground, by having a collaboration of the private sector and the public sector to eliminate some of the barriers. And we believe that indeed the glass is half full. There is still a lot to be done, but I think we can capitalize on our experience of harmonization over the past few years and that we can address some of the topics that have been mentioned in your speech, Mr. Merch, together again, basically working together as private and public instances to also bring those areas to the next level of true integration for Europe. And that is where I see lots of opportunities. Thank you. Marc, what can we expect from the ECP in the months and years to come? Well, first, we expect success over the weekend with coming up, with the forced wave migration. We will move to 90%, as was reminded by Eve in his introductionary speech. And this is a key milestone in the integration, as also I believe just mentioned. I think it really brings together now a big part of the market. And we will see also the cross-border dimension taking dimension. Beyond this, we cannot just stay where we are. We have more to do. And as you know, we have launched different reflection, investigation, to further develop what we are doing in the field of market infrastructure. And how much our market infrastructure can continue to be more efficient, so to bring efficiency, but also to make sure that innovation can flow in Europe. So we believe that the stronger will be our market infrastructure, the better off will be all the actors of the financial sector in Europe to offer innovative solutions to the citizen. I think it was very interesting this morning to see in the panel the very important sign which we need to give to the true society, to the true economy, that we are doing things not just for the beauty of it, but really to bring capacity for investments to flow better in Europe. So we have three main projects. We will come back to some of them later. We are trying to make more efficient T2S and Target 2 by making synergies where we can on the role of technological level, in terms of network and communication level, in terms of operational setup to be stronger and more resilient, but at the same time, more efficient. That's one of them. As said by Eve, a big topic we will come back to is to help instant payment to become a true and European-reachable instrument for all actors at a very cheap price so that we can really have efficient functioning again of our economy. And third big investigation we are doing is a bit selfish this time. We are looking at us, Euro system. We are one of the biggest collateral taker, if not the biggest collateral taker in Europe. How much we can rationalize our procedures. So we have a project to integrate our collateral management, Euro system collateral management service, not very original name, but very concrete to make sure that we can do the best and it will be good also for the market participants in the way we manage our collateral. That's the three main access we are developing now. Now, as said by Eve in his introduction, we need to think further how we can help and thanks Eve for your words. The market also to further crack, I would say the last element, which will really unleash the potential for a stronger European market. So we are looking at how the issuance process could completely integrate indeed into the T2S context and help a quicker reach and pan-European reach for issuance directly into the whole European market. So that's also a field where we will be looking at. So a lot of projects, a lot of things and most importantly the way we will interact with you is very important for us. So these advisory market infrastructure groups that we are setting up, both for payment and securities and collateral are very important for us. We need to be able to hear from the professionals and from the market infrastructure the best way to achieve integration. We need to move to the third generation of innovation, the third resolution presented before lunch. Thank you. Christian, are these the right issues? The Euro system is addressing what can be done in the field of efficiency of liquidity management, collateral management? Firstly, I would like to say that the Euro system with its services is very relevant for us as a transaction bank. When you look at transaction banking, basically there is three products, cash or payments clearing, trade finance and the securities services business. In two out of these three we are impacted by the Euro system change agenda, that is securities, the cash management or cash area with regard to T2 and also with regard to instant payment settlements. So that's very relevant for us. And behind this is thousands of clients that are not just European, they are international and they bank on us that those services, the underlying settlement services function every day 100%. Maybe in the future instead of 12 hours or so per day, 24 hours in securities or in instant payments and even on the RTGS side. So this is absolutely relevant. And as you've got a very capable program management team in place, you've proven this since the 90s with the first target two system then with the amalgamation on a single shared platform. Now with T2S the question is, in my words, what will these project people do? There's always something next. So that will be very interesting to see what this capable team is doing and they have managed very big projects and I would wish to say that with every big project that we have it would be equally successful or being carried through like this. Obviously instant payments with the settlement is very important to us. Here the call for a much better and stronger public private partnership with regard to how many initiatives can we afford. As we are investing and it's always about resources, it's not so much about money that sounds a bit arrogant, it's about the resources that we can deploy and usually it's the same resources, the very best one that we have to deploy against those initiatives. Finally I would like to mention two other things which are attached to this transaction banking agenda are key to us and not that much visible, at least one of this all over the place. When someone asked me in correspondent banking, payments clearing what is the biggest challenge at the moment, it's all about anti-financial crime, anti-money laundering, no-year client, sometimes even no-year clients client. And in that area I think we need to connect the agendas of the CPMI, the Basel Group which deals with correspondent banking in the area of legal entity identifiers with what is being done on the market infrastructure side. So with regard to the LEI, it's being used in the securities services but very successfully I believe, not so much in the payment world yet. So that is the information about the client's client. At the moment we don't have standards on industry code where those clients come from. The LEI has this potential, it's not there yet so we need to combine these agendas, it's not just about data formats, let's do ISO 20.022, it's about the capacity and capability which data can we carry meaningfully and how does this remove many, many obstacles that we have at the moment in processing those international transactions. Last piece is liquidity management but I think we come to that later on. Thank you. I would like to turn to the audience now. There is a question on bringing aspect to T2S. Substantial integration has been achieved due to harmonization both from T2S directly and from the post-trade harmonization agenda. Question is how should the euro system use this momentum? Answer A is to extend harmonization to areas such as collateral management. Possibility two is to extend harmonization to non-T2S markets in the EU. Answer three, both of the above and the no extension of activities necessary. So it's... Looks like ACB is in business for some time. So there seems to be plenty of work ahead in this field. Mark, on the issue of collateral management. Yes, on collateral management. So it's one of the topics where we have done some work. I mean, first we have to do our homework. So we have to see within the euro system how much we can harmonize completely the practices we are using and standardizing our processes. But then we have to see how much this is well compatible with the functioning of the collateral services. So three-parted agents, we are looking at that, as you know. And I think we will have a stronger tool in the coming months to look at it as announced in the introduction of EVE. The advisory market infrastructure group we are setting up on securities and collateral will take up the agenda of harmonizing collateral practices. They were meeting even this week, I understand. I look at the chair of the HHG over there, which was looking at already those questions on collateral and we will advance on this agenda. So it's really a topic where we can deliver more. So the point which is also interesting is the question which came up besides the necessity to work on harmonization. So it is a way to go ahead. I think it has been a key factor for the success of T2S. The capacity we have to harmonize the way security settlements are organized around our platform because it's not enough to have the platform. You need also to use it in an integrated manner. These are the next steps that we have to do. So the methodology we have used for T2S will be rolled out as much as we can for other activities. So collateral management is one of them. But we can think of other era if necessary where we could also try to move the agenda of harmonization. So it's a topic going forward. And we don't forget the work on standardization as Christian mentioned earlier. I think it's a very important factor to see how much we can capitalize on international standards. ISO2022 is certainly a good base to work and all those key indicators that we have should be reused as much as possible as much as we develop them. Thank you. With both new services, would you like to get? Well, I must say some of the things that I've heard until now has been music to my ears because they touch and to be honest, I almost don't want to talk about innovation anymore after listening to Jeremy Rifkin because suddenly I don't know how is it with you but I feel incredibly second industrial revolution suddenly and I'm certainly not a millennial. But what is very much needed is what you see is very much customer driven. And that was said in the first panel today and you see when it's customer driven that people want it now and people want it free. This causes a lot of, this is opportunity but it is also, it causes a lot of problems. In my view, what needs to be done indeed as technology and regulatory environment is clearly linked. We need to work on the regulatory environment and that is why some of the things that I heard until now sounded like music to my ears because the only way to get there is indeed to look at the synergies, as was said, not only at the European Central Bank but also at the level of the European Commission. Look at the regulatory environment that is needed. Look at the barriers and in my view, the call for evidence is quite a possibility to have that on one hand but do this and that is the second thing that was music to my ears in close cooperation with the users, with industry, try to get them aboard because these are the people that will need to make investment and then indeed it is essential to keep the trust. So cyber security is one. Then know your customer is very important but indeed we also have to realize and again coming back to the customer, the moment you go to know your customers, customers, customers, customers, et cetera, you also get to the age of de-risking where you actually exclude certain categories of consumers from services. So in short, we need the technology. It is there and it will happen. We need the regulatory environment in which we have innovation and we need to realize that we need security on one hand but we shouldn't exclude. So this would be my wish list. Thank you. Martin. Instant payments are the talk of the day, so to say. If this service is not, let's say, taken up quickly enough, would you go for mandatory offering of this service? Well, first I'd like to say that the commission has always stood behind the SEPA project in general and that applies of course to instant payments now. We do believe that this project has a huge potential. The one question that we need to ask ourselves is whether instant payments will be made available to users. And we believe that this should happen. The scheme has been made available to all payment services providers earlier this year by the European Payments Council. It means that there is no barrier to adoption and that participation in the scheme remains a commercial decision of payment service providers and we are hopeful that they will seize this opportunity and bring this innovation to final consumers. Now, your question is whether we are in the same situation that we experienced when we decided that SEPA credit transfers and SEPA direct debits would need an end date regulation to make them really happen. I think it's a bit too early to cross that bridge for three reasons. First, because we see that Europe is equipped now with very efficient standards for credit transfers and for direct debits. So there is less of a crucial need to make things happen very quickly. Second, we are only at the beginning of the journey. We regulated credit transfers and direct debits after years of unsuccessful discussions and absence of take-up by the market. We are not there yet. And also, we are happy to see that the instant payment project benefits from a three-year exemption from the requirements of the SEPA regulation on minimum adherence and coverage. So that gives some breathing space and should allow the instant payments project to take off. Where are we going to be in three years? Nobody can answer this question. But if we see that there is a need for competitiveness in the EU payments market and that regulation is needed in order to accelerate things, of course, this is an option that we would consider in due course. But again, this would be premature for the moment, we think. Thank you. Let me really also underline what you just said. Without the support from the Commission, but also from the Banking Federation, neither T2S nor SEPA would have happened. Thank you for that. To women and mother, do you think the euro system should offer instant payment settlement services? Well, I very much agree with Martin, saying that no end date is necessary, because I come back to a thing that the market or the consumers very much pushing that they want everything now and they want it for free. So the discussion, of course, with legacy systems, you need to have slowly transfer. So there is no end date and no regulation necessary now. Now coming to tips, for instance. To be honest, I think it may be an instinct instrument, but there are a few questions that need to be answered. The calibration needs to be right. It needs to be really, really 24, 7, 365, completely accessible all the time. Indeed, very cost-conscious and interoperable and the interoperability. And to be honest, I think we missed a little bit of an opportunity because you see many countries already moving on. So if tips can help integrate and provide that, that will help. But in the end, to have a central system as such, I would need to examine a bit more. Thank you, Matt. Yeah, maybe. I can say very briefly on that. We strongly support the tips project. Mr. Merch has highlighted a number of benefits that should stem from this project, the main one perhaps being the European coverage. So we definitely stand behind the project. At the same time, we hope that other solutions will emerge in the marketplace. And we hope in particular that clearinghouses will be able as well to offer European coverage and compete with the tips solution so that we really have competitive pricing for payment services providers and for end users. Just to answer and compliment this, I think we should be careful with the word we are using here, just to be very clear. What is the most important for us, and that's the reason of why we are investigating to come into the instant payment field, so which are retail payments, is exactly to answer the three points you are mentioning. But I would just reward renamed the last one from interoperability to reachability. Tips is there as a settlement in central bank money service. It is not clearing. And we cannot speak of interoperability between clearing and settlement. When a payment is settled, it is settled. This is the end of the story. It cannot come back to the clearing level. It makes no sense in this context. So it's really the matter more to be complementary to make sure that the instant scheme will cover the entire your area. That there will be this full reachability. And it is a complementarity exactly that Martin is mentioning that we are seeking for here, is the fact that the clearing of retail instant payment will be done by clearinghouses. And where necessary are those clearing mechanism within a certain limited number of clearing members, the reachability can be extended through the usage of tips. And tips will allow to have this full reachability because it rely on the target to base, which is without limits in terms of reachability in Europe. So that's what is very important. It's a matter of complementarity and making sure that there is a full reachability in the instant scheme. Otherwise, you will not get it because SEH themselves alone cannot cover entirely the euro area. And that's the main point. So it's really a matter of making this articulation well. We are in a public consultation stage, as Eva mentioned in this introduction. We are welcoming feedback. So as this morning, I call for as much as possible comments for all the actors, both on the size of the market, which is a second consultation paper we issued a week ago, but as well on the scope of the service to make sure that we are covering that. And what we have seen by discussing with market participants over the last week is that the service we are offering in particular, giving the capacity to the tips accounts opener, the capacity to give the instruction parties the capacity to manage those accounts, give really the possibility to get this interoperable environment by using tips in an appropriate manner and get the full reachability that we are looking for in Europe. So look at the details, come back with comments and we will see where we are. I mean, we are really keen to deliver an efficient service to Europe. I would agree to that reachability is indeed a better word and covers more what I meant, indeed. May I add a point to that from the participants point of view? I believe that for the banks, it is not about competing in the execution of an instant payment. That should not be the place where we compete. So I'm nervous about the number of initiatives that in the, let's say, clearing and settlement space are ongoing at the moment, many on national level because I believe there will be a convergence of payments types. Instant will not just be incremental. So what has been achieved with very hard work for the so-called individual payments or high value payments with target two, for example, also with Euro one on the clearing and settlement side, what has been achieved with SEPA in terms of making it the standard, the instant payments will not just come as an addition. So there will be convergence and the competition is not about executing those transactions. And I think they are for the settlement side to forge this together with the ambition of full reachability across the Eurozone. I'm not speaking about Europe, just the Eurozone. I think that is a big task because those resources that we deploy against building this are really critical. I mean, I don't want to dig too much in the past, but if I remember that for how many years we have called for E-payments, mobile payments. And in the end, it took too long to get it offered by the banks and then PayPal got quite a considerable market share. So it's important also to be ready in the timing. But this brings me now to the future. What does digitalization mean for the integration of the financial markets? We would like first to ask the audience. So what impact will digitalization have on the financial market integration? Will it hamper integration? Will it accelerate it or it's still difficult to assess? That's interesting. Very interesting, yeah. So I hope we get some explanations, but let's also turn to our panel. What do you think? Well, I see that the audience is very optimistic. That's good, but we do see nevertheless a number of problems going forward. Digitalization and we have to be realistic about those in order to overcome them. Digitalization brings in new players into the market that base their services on SEPA credit transfers and SEPA direct debits, but they offer very specific services in order to respond to the needs of their customers. And with these services, we may see a refragmentation of the market. We have seen that within certain member states where competing solutions would not be interoperable. And we see that unfortunately also at European level, if you look at peer-to-peer mobile payments, we have something like 50 solutions across the EU and very few actually work cross borders and hardly any of them are interoperable. So fortunately, we have the National Central Banks, the ERPB, the ECB looking at that to identify the sources of refragmentation and find solutions to that problem, but we have to be mindful of that. Another issue is speed. With digitalization, the payment landscapes changes very quickly and it is quite difficult for legislation to cope with the pace of innovation if solutions are not specifically foreseen in our legislation. This can lead to differences in interpretation in the member states and also has the potential for refragmentation of the market. Another issue that we see is financial inclusion because digitalization is not always available to everybody and that can also be a source of fragmentation within our society, so we need to look at ways to cope with that. Thank you, Bim. Maybe, or Leif? Maybe I can add a little angle more in the wholesale market as opposed to the retail market that was discussed for the payment sphere. So when we think about innovation in our business, clearly we also think about blockchain, about distributed ledger technology. And I believe that we will find solutions in that sphere when we start thinking beyond just the technology. I believe that technology is the enabler, but you have to think in the same time on how business models will evolve because you just cannot copy technology on today's business model, on today's ways of functioning in the ecosystem. And then the third angle to look at it is from the regulatory angle, is from the legislative angle because there also, whilst you want to remain at the same safety, at the same risk reduction that has been the origin of all that regulation, you might require some adjustments to make sure that in the intersection of technology possibilities, of business model evolution, and then of regulatory requirements, you find a solution space that will then bring us future proof and that will be the true innovation. But I do believe you have to look at the three angles in a holistic way and not just thinking about technology on its own. Good point, yes. I very much believe that digital innovation accelerates integration and there is indeed a member of the European Parliament, Kora von Niemenhause, who has written a report on the possibility of how to help with regulatory environment because we need the right regulatory environment. And for that matter, I think that when the digital single market comes up for midterm review, I would say that it needs the extra chapter on what is needed in financial services because indeed there is a possibility which I don't see negative. Yes, there are challenges and one of the challenges is fragmentation which is a logical consequence from innovation because people with bright minds start developing schemes and that is the innovative nature. So this work on the regulatory sandbox or beehive or laboratory, whatever you call it, for me there is a role to play not only by the national central banks but maybe even for the ECB to create an environment in which innovators can work and then of course at the end of the sandbox, when the sandbox is finished, they immediately go to the grown-up world and then they will have to comply with regulation. And then on financial inclusion, I think financial inclusion and financial education is very important and I think that there is an opportunity for the commission and the ECB to show leadership on that because that will be a consequence because if you democratize payments through innovation, you will need to do something about inclusion and inclusion and education. Maybe a few words. To answer your question initially, I think yes, it is an accelerator. So it gives us the possibility to find solutions to challenges we have today, in particular for integration of our market which we didn't add yesterday and we can go quicker. It gives us also the possibility, we are working a lot, for instance, in the field of standardization in trying to harmonize and standardize different parameters. So we are doing a lot of work in CPMI Iosquot to identify the way we can have a unique transaction identifier, unique product identifier, for instance, in the field of OTC derivatives. And through those technology, we know that by doing this, we will be able also to build system which will allow to analyze this data in a much more efficient manner and delivering value to the regulators, to the overseers, but also to the practitioners. So to the person who have to take decision of investments to know exactly where they are. So these new technologies are really enabler to develop more. I mean, like Liv was saying, I think to be able to be more reactive and proactive for going forward. I think the challenge of digitalization we have not yet mastered and that we need to analyze is the one which was a bit hinted by the speech we had before lunch on the third revolution coming up, which is this network dimension that everything is not anymore based on centralized functioning, but on a decentralized nature of the relationship between everyone. So the flat organization, much more that we have of our society. And that is a challenge we need to think of and to analyze and to see how much it helps us to be more efficient and to have a society more dynamic. So an economic performance better, I would say. Otherwise, this innovation is useless. So before I think speaking of sandbox or this type of element, we rather should think of how much it can really service the way our efficiency in the financial market can be improved by using such type of technology. And then we have to see whether we need specific regulatory environment or context to accompany this. But first, we need to analyze our weaknesses and to see whether this technology can help us to remedy them. I believe that in this dialogue, also other participants or stakeholders should be included, like the bank's treasurer or the treasurer behind it. If I think, for example, about intraday liquidity management, at the moment there is an abundance of liquidity. I'm not speaking about a change of monetary policy, yet the whole usage of technology could lead to current parties that fund this whole process would be net liquidity takers. So in building up tomorrow's infrastructures, like a combined T2 or T2S, one should take into account the treasurer and what they need in terms of, say, dashboards or algorithms, et cetera, because it shouldn't be taken for granted that today's liquidity scenario would be the same one as the future. So there is the call, I believe, to include all those points. Would like to add on the regulatory side with regard to further integration. I believe the industry still needs to do its homework on better common understanding of regulation. For example, how can it be that we have an EU funds transfer regulation, which deadline 26 of June, and if I listen to the market, there might still be different interpretation of certain articles. So that would make our life easier as well. In the cyber security space, we don't need to look to the next big external event. For example, we could look at what Swift is doing with their customer security program in the cyber security space or in the cyber fraud space. So there are very relevant developments out there, and when we look at the financial market infrastructures, we need to bring those thoughts together. Maybe one point, I think, which is important to answer Christian point now. In our concept of T2-T2S, and more generally in the various projects we have ahead, exactly what you say, central liquidity management is at the center of this reform. So we are developing this concept to see how much we can make the most efficient possible the management of liquidity of the banks within our infrastructure context. So it's not simply merging services, it's really trying to be efficient. There is this kind of magic triangle in a certain way between securities that we can hold and settle for a market purpose, collateral that you need to generate liquidity and your cash. And we need to make sure that the interaction with these three are the most efficient possible for the good functioning of the system. And to have this central liquidity management function, which is well integrated, I think is very important in our functioning. And I hope we have the feedback of the market we are asking for, for all the development of those services. I mean, there will be more consultation coming on T2-T2S consolidation, in particular the new services that we want to develop for target two, which will ask those questions. And I hope we have the adequate feedback of the market to make sure that we get all this sensitivity around the table, in particular with a new advisory group on market infrastructure payment, where we have tried to gather those different sensitivities. Thank you. I would like to open the floor to the audience now. Maybe there's a question in, I mean, if you or your successors would be here in 10, 15 years for a similar meeting, would you be basically IT experts or still bankers, infrastructure people? So this is one part of my question. So how is the qualification changing in our industry? Second issue, there are huge security concerns. Christian has mentioned it. There's a huge investment done in the financial industry in making banking safer. We will hear in our next panel also about this issue. Does it lead to a re-regionalization of banking? So do banks reduce the number of correspondent banks? This would be a few of the questions I would like to pose to you. Any volunteers commenting on that? So on the changing of the expertise and qualification, much more digitalized, say, requirement or industry expertise and are we doing the right things to address security concerns? I basically like the reverse panel here. We are the audience and you are the panel. You prefer to ask questions. Yeah, the question is, would we all be here? Would a mill code is that bank? So I don't know whether in 15 years time we all should be able to code programs because I think digitalization is much more about business models, about the question about centralization or decentralization. So we are talking much more about business models than technology. For the technology deep down in blockchain and distributed technologies in cyber securities, there have to be special experts. But I think we in the banking industry should be more aware about networking models, business models, about the balance between centrality and decentrality. And that would be the crucial points, not so much whether I'm able to code in C++, Java, Python or any other language. I think that would be a little bit exaggerated. But nevertheless, that I have to say and I contradict a little bit. Jeremy Rifkin, I'm an educated nuclear physicist. So also that can help. Any other comments? Please. Thank you. Jochen Metzger, Deutsche Bundesbank. I would like to comment on the correspondent banking part of your question, Gertrud. In the correspondent banking, I would see, yes, we see more concentration. Number of correspondent banking channels, active channels going down. Respondent banks being squeezed out of the market. And the squeeze is, let's say, two-fold. Let's say enhanced due diligence is squeezing. De-risking is squeezing. And well, is there hope? Yes, maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel when we think about digitalization. Perhaps with some effort, digitalization, with a width of big data could bring down the cost of enhanced due diligence. That's maybe the hope we are striving for. But until we get there, we will see a decline. I'm sorry. Thank you. Please. Francesco Castro, European Investment Bank. In fact, pragmatically, what happened in the settlement today is that we really try to streamline all the processes. So basically, we really have a full STP mode. So basically, the back office will be empty of people. Not exactly empty, but there will be clearly a change of profile from people, basically, doing matching and settlement to people who will be more supportive and responding to compliance officers who are becoming experts, but also addressing the future change. So new infrastructure, for example. And we need more project manager or business analyst profile than people, experts in the matching. Because all these will be, and it is already today, automatic, almost. Any other comments on this? Maybe let's go to the panel in this order. Maybe if you have further comments on the future challenges. I would like to add a little bit to Jochen Metzger's point about these controls. Day many of the controls happen in filtering, so when the transaction is made and in monitoring when you screen the stuff, if I may say so afterwards. With the advent of instant payments, everything is very fast. So you need to know a lot of the stuff up front in order to be fast. And that, on the one hand, is the question about the business model that needs to be understood and the logic behind it. That in the first place, I believe, cannot come from technology and then to deploy the technology in order to still allow that those transactions then can be real time and safe and secure at the same time, including to take into account the principles of financial risk, that is the settlement piece, and the non-financial risk, which is all about anti-financial crime, fraud, et cetera. Is it sufficient to have the mobile number of the clients? That question I cannot answer. That question I cannot answer about all these alias services that are behind it. I would believe if there is good technology behind it which then can do the proper controls, yes, maybe, but I'm not really an expert on that question. I think what you do pre-the transactions, what you know already, and then you pick the wrong ones and avoid that these are being transacted that this could become the industry trend in order to avoid all this filtering stuff which is massive and this monitoring thereafter, so more configurable transaction controls. What keeps you awake at night? Well, as a regulator, we have two main problems. The first one is that the pace of change in the industry is constantly accelerating, which of course is a challenge for us if we want to regulate the market in an appropriate manner. So the answer to that, I suppose, is reaching out much more to industry players, being in constant interaction with the industry and with those who are behind innovation in order to understand the trends. And the second big challenge that we have is how we craft legislation and the detailed regulatory rules. Ideally, we would need regulation that is technology-economic that can cater for different types of new technologies coming into the market. But that is, of course, difficult to do and also difficult to reconcile with sound principles on financial stability and consumer protection. So we should aim at having legislation that is sufficiently broad to cater for different types of technological solutions that might emerge. But if we are not successful, we have to be able to change our legislation rapidly using probably more and more implementing measures as opposed to basic legislative act, which in Europe needs years to develop and to be adopted. Almost calls for a long fallucy committee, I would say. No, no, no. But I do agree with you, because indeed, this is the only way to do it. If you look at technology, you need to be indeed quite close to the industry to follow technological development. But indeed, then you need to try to create a regulatory framework that is as technology-neutral as possible, although it is not completely. Because if you remember the introduction movie for this panel, there was this energy-saving lamp. I still hate these things, because I thought, actually, that they were a step backwards. So it's always interlinked. And by monitoring developments closely, as you do, you will help. And that also puts a burden on the industry, because we need to get organized, because we need to be able to explain to you what we believe will be next day's development. And for that, we shouldn't be overburdened you, but we need to organize ourselves. And this is one of the things that we try to do. Maybe an additional question to you. I mean, there are countries in Europe where companies can lend to each other without involving a bank. Is this a concern to you? Well, lending to each other without a bank. And I'm the CEO of the European Bank Federation. Yes, it's a concern, to be honest. It's very bad. That is true. But yes, it is a concern, to be honest. Because, again, I'm very open in that sense to competition. But I very much believe in the stability and the security of the system. There is a reason why we've organized the banking and financing system, as we've done it with the central bank and central bank controls. So if you, indeed, cut this out and create a third way, you get instabilities in the economy. So yes, if it's, that is a concern. Lever? Maybe I would like to add another little dimension. We have talked a lot about how innovation can help us on the integration agenda. I think we should also be aware of threats against such integration agenda. And I see two big threats on which we will have to get our hands around, get to grips with it. The first one is clearly cybersecurity. Because when we are in a very integrated, interconnected, interoperable world, if we don't get cybersecurity right, this also means a huge contagion risk and a huge fast moving forward of the problem and a new potential for systemic risk. So I believe as a community, as an ecosystem, this is one that deserves our highest level of attention. The second topic of threats towards our integration agenda that I see is of a more political nature. I believe we see in many places what I call re-nationalized reflexes. We see also regulators taking more local views. And I believe, again, that can be of a big threat towards our integration agenda. And I think it would be a very sad thing if our generation would see our kids in a much less integrated Europe than what we have been building up. Maybe I finish on a more positive tone in a certain way. Well, cyber is certainly a big topic, and it is a topic coming afterwards. So I think indeed it's a key challenges. I think, however, that interconnectivity and interdependence of financial market is already there. We saw it in the last crisis. So digitalization should be a tool to help us to mitigate risk there by getting the necessary transparency. All the work we do in particular on standardization, again, and harmonization is very important in this context, because it gives us capacity to analyze data, to find those interdependence and to anticipate them eventually, so we do a lot of work on that. And we need to be there. Last point I want to say maybe to close this panel in particular on the title, I think, what is interesting with digitalization is that it somehow eats the whole world at the same time. So everyone is doing this type of reflection we have here all over the different financial markets. And so it is a time also to answer the challenges that we've just mentioned to speak together. And we in the CPMI in particular are coordinating with our colleagues of different central banks to see what are those challenges and how much we can make the best use of those international standards and harmonize practices at least so that we can understand each other. So this will help also to develop, I think, capacities for the banks, in particular, the global banks, as a Deutsche Bank can be, for instance, to have a better usage and a better visibility on the way they use a different market infrastructure all over the world. So we have to take this into account, I think, into our work. Thank you very much. Thanks to the panelists, thanks to the audience and remain ambitious, remain visionary. I think it's needed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to Trumfull-Gugliel and the panel members for a very interesting discussion. I think we can say that now that the euro system or the banking sector community will be unemployed in years ahead. So for that, I think maybe it's time for a coffee break before we assume with our...