 z nami počkati nekaj ljud in izgledač ni prist. Vojča iz predsetju dej v zemljenju je pri teško. Prost pred fakti, da sem razredala in izgledača pravoportov, izgledač, režim z zemljenju. Prejdoje je veliko vstupim, when we think and emerging from the some of the papers presented yesterday and especially when we think about the way we want to shape stress test in the future, which is an exercise that we are now starting in the EU, and is ongoing in the US as well, so these papers come at the very right moment. So I think the role of stress test has certainly changed over its relative short history, in particular after the big financial crisis shifting more from crisis management to crisis prevention. With various degrees of success in the different phases, as was recalled also yesterday. Perhaps in my view the most general and important point about stress testing is that, which makes it perhaps the second most important invention after the iPhone as Don Con yesterday said, is that it has helped establishing much more systematic and quantitatively based forward looking perspective, both in prudential policy and in banks risk management practices. And I believe both of these aspects are really important and need to be preserved in the future and foster in the future. And this is also bearing on the relative weight we want to give to top-down approach versus bottom-up approach. This is an issue that also emerged in the discussion. And here I believe that the weight of top-down approach will increase in the future because authorities are able to process more data, because our modeling techniques have improved. I also think we have to still keep the second objective in our mind and keeping banks engaged in the exercise, incentivize them to develop and test and check the risk management capabilities that should remain an important part of stress testing. Second, the role of stress testing in policy making. So while the function of the biggest stress test exercise in bank-by-bank micro prudential decision is relatively well established, the potential role in forming micro prudential action is less developed. In this respect, I think the Bank of England, yesterday Don Con explained their approach, is probably the institution that has gone further in this respect, linking very closely stress test and micro prudential policy decision, particularly regarding the setting of the counter-cyclical capital buff. And here I think announcing the effectiveness of counter-cyclical micro prudential policy remains a key objective to be further pursued, and very much unaddressed issue at the global level still. In this respect, it is my belief that we follow the post crisis reforms. We have certainly increased the resilience of the financial sector, in particular the banking sector, protecting more the taxpayer, but the problem of prosyklicality remains to a large extent unsolved incidentally. I would like to address here the researchers among us that I think understanding how the financial sector, how much the financial sector remains prosyklical even after all the reforms, the buzzer reforms post the crisis is of key importance and it's an area to investigate in the near term, hopefully before we gather hard evidence with another crisis. So now I think that the large micro prudential stress test exercise run nowadays by prudential authorities have clear limitations to provide a full basis for the calibration of micro prudential counter-cyclical measures. And this was also recognized yesterday. For example, they cannot capture behavioral responses, feedback loops with real economy, interconnectedness across different parts of the financial sector, this we know very well. Nevertheless, I think there are two points that are very important. First, the stress test can facilitate the coordination between micro and micro prudential action. For example, by helping to distinguish better between common idiosyncratic exposure to risk. Moreover, and this is very much our experience at DCB, the models that we have developed to assist the conduct of stress test exercise. So for example, those that we use in the EBA exercise to challenge the bank's own results in the end become the backbone of much more complex and flexible models, which now allow us to do a more photo cost-benefit analysis of alternative micro prudential measures. And I think this is crucial because it will greatly help us in also in communicating and explaining the measures we take to, in a sense, overcome what they call the cards of financial stability policy, which is to explain visible short-run costs against invisible longer-term benefits. Third and very last thought is about interconnectedness and truly impressed, I browsed all the papers, I couldn't assist at all the presentation, but I was really impressed by the progress that we've made in this field, which has been made possible by theoretical advances, but also especially by an increased availability of granular data. And the ability to use huge data set and also to merge different sources of information also thanks to very innovative techniques. So models of interconnectedness are becoming more and more useful to monitor and quantify systemic risk across the financial sector and to inform a policy assessment at DCB. For example, we made a big investment on really ground work on granular data, which has also been featured in, I think, in one of the papers presented by Giovanni Covey. This has been really a big investment, which is now starting to give some fruits. And a number of policy relevant applications are now possible, ranging from understanding the impact and orientating choices in banks' resolution, for example, informing the calibration of capital buffers for systemic institutions, assessing, more recently, financial institutions' exposures to the risks associated with climate change. So the advances in this field, I think, make us all hope that system-wide stress tests will become soon a standard instrument in the policy makers toolkit also to inform a macro potential action beyond banking, which is very urgent, I think, even the rapid transformation of the financial system. We are seeing it. So I will stop here. I think this has been a super useful conference, which, by the way, encourages us to repeat it in the future. So with a certain state touch, I wish to especially thank the organizers, Carmelo, Stephen, Hans and Cosimo. I think they deserve an applause. And I was forgetting, but really key to thank also Julia, Kassien Karla for all the logistic organization for this perfect event.