 So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us at today's presentation by Mr. Percent. This is sort of a series that combines European politics and European economics. We've had presentations already by the Presidents of the Court of Auditors by various other authorities. We will have presentations by the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, Sharon Donnery, and also by Bruno Le Mer, the French Finance Minister, very shortly. So you can see that the IIA is trying to present to all of its members a really well-rounded view of what's happening in Europe in economics and finance in a way that has so far turned out to be really quite accessible. The rule of the day is that Mr. Garcent will speak, and that's a recorded conversation, but that when we get to a discussion afterwards, it's chat-and-mouse rules, which means you may, of course, discuss the information on a non-attributable basis. And that is not to be non-transparent, it's just to allow people a chance to speak without having to organize their thoughts in an overly organized, exactly what they say in exactly the right form of words. I think we will have a very good conversation. Let me briefly say that Mr. Garcent is the Director General of the Director General in the EU, which controls things like the Banking Union, the Capital Markets Union, and so forth. For those of you who don't know in the European system, legislation is proposed by the Commission. So the Parliament, the Council are very much involved, of course. They may suggest that legislation might be required, but the drafting, the architecture of the legislation, the architecture of the regulatory system comes from the Commission. So we have with us today, in effect, the Chief Architect of the European, of the ongoing changes in the European Financial Regulatory Legislative System. It's a great privilege, therefore, to have the chance to hear what's being said. I think probably because of historical reasons, we are all very focused on banks still in Ireland, but there are many people in the room who are in non-banks or who service well beyond, who provide services well beyond the banking area into other parts of the financial system. And therefore, your views on the Capital Markets Union and how it might progress, and also on sustainable finance and so forth, will be very interesting to us. So thank you very much. I'll allow you to far away. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes, I had planned today to sometime my remarks on two topics that are future-oriented, which are innovation and sustainable finance. We can also discuss all the rest in the question time. It's not because there are a number of other things that are important. I mean, we need to finish Banking Union rather sooner than later. We need to put in place a true Capital Markets Union for many reasons. The first one being that because we've been relating the banks, the ability of the banks to deliver much more financing to the economy than what they are delivering now is limited because their leverage is more limited than it used to be. I remember instantly when I took over as head of staff at Pistor Barnier almost ten years ago, which is when we started the journey towards revamping the old regulatory framework in the European Union. We were working on the first steps of CRD-4, so the new Basel III framework. I was discussing with friends of mine that had been studying finance very long time ago, so very old, so like thirty years ago, and I was telling them that in CRD-4, so in the Basel III, the maximum leverage is three, so one to thirty-three, in effect. I was like, wow, that much? No, no, we reduced it to one to thirty-three, because that's true that in the good old days in the 80s when I was studying finance, when you had a leverage of one to ten, one to fifty, so I mean, that explained something, and the leverages pre-crisis had gone very, very high, and it was actually urgent to bring them down and a couple of other things, but the result of all this is that of course the ability of the banking system, all things equal to provide more financing to the economy, is therefore limited on the grounds of safety. And so the first reason why we need a capital market union is because therefore we need non-banking finance to complement that banking financing. We do not need less banking financing, we need more banking financing, we need more non-banking financing, and this is only not here in Ireland that I need to convince people about that, because one of the few member states that has a real expertise in that field. The second reason why we need a capital market union, so a well-functioning single market for capital if you prefer, is not so much quantitative, it's qualitative, and that is that not all of the industry needs are best served by bank services. Every company needs a bank, but if you're a small spin-off of a university active in biotech, you need risk capital. That's something your bank cannot provide to you. So even less in continental Europe, even in member states in which access to finance is very easy, it's still a challenge to get access to equity. Well, it's very easy to get access to loans, and this is of course favored by the tax buyers towards loans, but not only. This is also because we are a heavily bank-dominated system in continental Europe over 70%, and that in that bank-dominated system it's very difficult for non-banks to get access to the information you need to have if you want to effectively and actually economically serve the market. That's one of the issue we have. So the second issue is an issue of basically qualitative adequacy. If we don't want or more promising companies in terms of growth of job and innovation, and innovation will come to this in terms of financial services, but innovation is where really is the battlefield of the world competition. This is where we will lose or win the battle. This is where we will keep on being at the big table or relegated in the back seats. But that would mean that yes, we need to continue to finance research. Yes, we need to do a number of things that we are already doing. That's some point. We need to be able to provide our most promising companies with the type of financing they need, the right financing mix so that they don't have to cross the Atlantic to find it. That's as simple as that. That is a very big challenge. The third reason why we need a capital market union is that it is very obvious that from a political point of view there is a limit to the willingness of member states to accommodate or to cover for larger symmetric shocks in the eurozone. You may understand this. There have been some of the impression there will be always the one signing the check. Of course, private sharing is a lot more effective and bigger actually than any measure of public transfers. The best thing that could happen for the stability of the eurozone is that there is more Germans investing in Italy, investing in Greece, et cetera, et cetera. But for this you need to have effective means to select the business opportunities, benchmark, make your choice, et cetera. This doesn't exist. So there are a number of intermediations that are broken, needs to be restored, and this is what capital market union is about. That's why, although the names are similar, it's a project, the nature of which is completely different from banking union, because it's about trying to see where are the problems, where are the market failures, whether the market intermediation doesn't happen. Why? And try to restore the incentive so that it happens again. Once you have done this, then the market needs to understand it and sort of colonize this structure and make it work. So that's complicated, that has multiple aspects, and that will take a long time. And that's why it's a bit more difficult to get the politicians to be so excited. I mean, they're all praise, capital market union is great, but when you come to the actual hard things, the hundreds of small things you need to do, then they lose a bit of their interest. In particular, because there usually are reasons why this intermediation do not happen, and that is it protects niches, or it protects existing positions of national players that are not willing to give them away. So there is a tension here, and that's why it's long and it's difficult. We've had some success, but that's a project that we'll need to continue in the next commission, and probably in the one after next as well. All this is about the single market at the end of the day. The single market, as our British friends are discovering, is, I mean, we always say, it's our biggest asset. Sort of we say it without really thinking about what it means. I think what Brexit shows us more in other fields than in financial services, actually, is that this is really our biggest asset. I mean, the reason why Europe is still relevant in the world scene is because we are a single market of 500 consumers, 500 million, sorry, consumers, and on all what goes together with it, on all the business opportunities in terms of growing on scale, et cetera. How imperfect the single market is, as I just explained for the capital markets, for example, but still. And of course, what the crisis showed us is that there are ways of building a single market that are simply not sustainable, because they are not responding to the needs of the economy. And now I mean specifically in the field of financial services. And they are actually potentially even threatening our prosperity. And that's why, I mean, all the 50 or so regulations that have been taken since 2010, and that have actually redone the whole framework of financial services across the board, was necessary. I mean, what people from the industry used to say, why me? I mean, my sector was not at all involved in the crisis. And they were absolutely correct. But you know what, normally the typical answer to a crisis, to fix the root of that crisis. And what comes next, typically as well, is that next crisis has completely different roots. Because of course, you have plugged that hole. So it comes from somewhere else. So what we've been trying to do, without really succeeding, because you never succeed in this type of endeavor, was to actually cover not only the roots of the existing crisis, but the potential of the sources for the next crisis, which is why we regulated a number of activities that in all of you were not regulating the way that allowed a sufficient risk management, although there were indeed not involved in the 2008 crisis. And what we see now is that all this is not enough, is not enough for two reasons. The first one is complacency. I mean, as I said, I think the banking union was the project that needed to be decided. When member states were scared, it went very fast. As soon as it started to produce its effect of calming markets, all of a sudden it was not that urgent. Because it's never easy to make abandonments of sovereignty. It's never easy to explain, to have to explain to your people as a politician, that the choices we have made collectively, not only towards the euro, involve necessarily sharing sovereignty in a number of domains, which means you're not autonomously deciding on your own as you used to be. Because that's the rule, that's exactly the same as you were living in a house and you decided to move into a condominium. Well, you have to discuss with the other others. You have to agree. A number of things you cannot do. You cannot dig holes in the walls as you see best fit, etc. You cannot decide you will not pay your bill anymore. So, all these things have not really ever been explained. There is a natural reluctance to explain it and therefore that stole the process at political level. This is what explained that the banking union is still not finished. Although I have to say in the recent month, I have the impression that Michael may agree or disagree, I think he agrees, that the mindset has evolved more in the last six months than in the previous three years. So that good news or that not good news? I'm not so sure. Because the reason why the mindset evolved, maybe because politicians are to worry a little bit more than they used to do again. Growth is slowing. You see that risk is building outside of the banking sector. I mean, we have been pretty much tightening the regulation of banking. In Europe, we have been tightening many other regulations, as I just said, not elsewhere or not necessarily elsewhere. And in particular, I was saying over lunch that I'm checking with great interest the evolution of high-yield credits and leverage loans outside of the banking sector in other regions of the world. In particular, ever since I've read a study that explains that it has been greatly boosted by securitization. If you replace leverage loans by subprime, you have something that should remind you bad memories. So, and the only thing you learn when you're a regulator is that people, if there is money at stake, people usually have a very bad memory. So, but all this we need to do because our first duty is financial stability. I mean, for as much as you can, you may have a bit of additional and relatively artificial growth if you allow the building of risk in the system. The price to pay is you have quite severe recession in the coming when these risks actually explode. You're painfully aware in Ireland and the rest of Europe as well. But if we want to keep our role or place on the world scene, if we want to be able to continue to matter next to China and the U.S. mainly. We need first to be a little bit more joined up than we are currently. I have addressed this point, so I don't come back on it. We need also to do the right things in the right sector. So, there is not only the financial stability sort of repairing or caring for the risks aspect. There is also a proactive regulation developing our industry in the sectors that will matter in the future. And this is what I would like to mainly talk to you about today. And I have picked two topics, which are probably you could select others, but these ones in my view are the more pneumatic one and that is sustainable finance. And everything that has to do around the crossroad between finance and innovation with its threats, risks and its opportunities. If we are not able to be a significant players in these two fields, we will gradually matter less and less on planet finance and therefore on the planet at all. And we have a real opportunity there. We have a bit, in my view, behind the curve in innovation, but we are ahead of the curve in sustainable finance. And we have a real opportunity to become the world standard setter with all the, I mean, whether they believe or not in climate change, whether they believe or not it should be mitigated. Even if you don't believe in it, there are short-term side benefits for the industry because if Europe becomes the center for this, our industry will benefit from it. So what are we doing in sustainable finance? Well, first of all, let me comment on that. You have a stated ambition to become a hub for sustainable finance in Europe, which I think is good. Others have the same ambition, which I think is equally good. I've been dedicating 20 years of my life doing competition policies. So I believe, unlike most of my compatriots, that usually you're more competitive when you confront yourself with others that are as performing as you are, even more performing than you are, rather than making races of your own alone and therefore you win. Because one day or the other, you end up meeting others and then the sad reality comes to the surface. So it's good that there is a healthy competition between centers. That was partially prompted by Brexit. And I think the post-Brexit world in the EU-27 will probably be a world of multipolar financial centers. I don't think any of the competitors has the capacity to concentrate what the city has concentrated. And I don't think it is healthy either. But anyway, I told you about my competition background. I hate picking the winners as well. And maybe one will concentrate. And that would mean it's the most efficient way to do things. And it's great. But I don't think this is what will happen. Anyway, in the area of sustainable finance, I think there is room for everybody. It's a nascent business. It's a business in which there are equal opportunities. Ireland is doing great things. Luxembourg is trying also to do a lot of things quite successfully. Paris is not staying idle. That's all this is very good. The Dutch have a keen interest for very obvious reasons. They will be flooded if it doesn't work. So all this is excellent. What is it that we are trying to do at the EU level? Well, let me be simple. If we want collectively, as Europe, to meet our COP21 targets, we need to be carbon neutral in 2050. And I can tell you, if you have spare time, read the studies about what that means. The previous industrial revolutions are peanuts compared to what is ahead of us. And if we don't make it, the consequences are potentially dreadful. Because for as long as scientists can broadly explain to you how bad it will be up to three degree warming in 2100, above that, the problem is that you may start mechanisms that we have no idea what they will bring us through. Above three degree, at some point, nobody can tell you which one. Ocean may stop absorbing carbon or be too acid. And good luck to the Irish fishermen. Above three degree permafrost will be permanently defrozen, liberating hundreds of tons of methane in the atmosphere. And methane is 12 times more powerful than carbon, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So for an own sake, we'd better have a planet that is contained below three degrees. And if we want to have a planet that is still nice to live in below two, ideally below 1.5. But if you think that in the last 20 years we didn't manage to counter a warming of one degree, because we are currently at one degree higher than 30 years ago, there are ability to limit it to an additional 0.5. If you think what it would mean in terms of the way we live, I frankly don't think will happen. I would hope it will, but I don't think it will. But anyway, if we want to be carbon neutral in 2050, only for energy and transport, we need to find an additional, so incremental each year, 180 billion in investment. Now, if you add a couple of other policy dimensions, you are at 300 billion, incremental each year. And if you include energy, efficiency, renovation of buildings, et cetera, et cetera, all things which will be needed to be done, then you're much more than that. Another way to say it is that there is no measurement of public spending that can meet these targets. So we will need private funding. And that's very good, because it so happens that we have over 100 trillion of assets in the EU. One of the problems is that they have a huge appetite for short term, so no irrespective of sustainability. And that's more of capital market union problem. And that's also something that's difficult to understand, because why is it that we save more than we have ever saved in history? And there's that is because we are uncertain about the future. I mean, if you look at macroeconomic studies about the frequency of repetition of crisis, ever since the great crisis of 1930, it's very interesting, because the frequency double every 20 years. So that's why we, that's why the first reason why we save more. The second reason why we save more is that we are an aging continent. We save more because we know we're going to be old, and we have to care for that. So in that sense, at least for the second reason you should save long term. It's difficult to explain why savings are such an appetite for short term. And it's also difficult to see how you can restore the incentive towards long term. But that's a capital market union issue. But long term is not enough, it needs to be long term sustainable, because otherwise we will miss, we will miss our targets. At roughly over 100 trillion, we should be able to find 500 million to invest in long term sustainable investment, especially as these long term sustainable investments according to old studies do not have a lesser yield than any other. But still it doesn't happen. Well, we've been trying to understand why, and that's the result of an action plan that the commission has adopted a year ago, in March 2018. And we have launched the first measures very soon in May, and we hope to have the first legislation still adopted in this legislature. So what is this action plan about? Well, the first issue, the first reason why there is not enough investment in long term sustainable assets is that there is no common language. What you mean by sustainable is not necessarily what I mean by sustainable. If I'm a fund and I market myself on the full page in the financial time as sustainable, you don't actually really mean what it means. Or maybe the small part of the fund that I'm advertising is actually invested in sustainable assets, but the whole fund around is not and is maybe invested, you can benchmark at how many degrees a fund is invested. So some of the funds that market themselves are green are invested at six degrees in 2100. So that's all fine. I mean, you may invest in whatever you want, but it's simply if as an investor I have a preference, I need to have an information I can rely on. That information doesn't exist because we have no common language. So the thing we have decided to do is to create that common language. We call it a taxonomy. It's complicated because it's not about saying this is green and good and this is brown and bad. Others have tried this way and it didn't work. The Chinese have tried to put in place a taxonomy that was predicated on this basis and it didn't really work. And the reason for this is that don't tell that to my friend in NGOs, but you shouldn't really care whether it's green or brown. What you care about is is this investment saving emissions and how much? Because the business we're in is to save a maximum of emissions of carbon in the next 10 years. Because if we miss that we won't win the battle and we won't contain global warming to two to two degrees. It's as simple as that. So and that of course makes it more meaningful but that makes it more complicated. So take the producers of flat glass, I mean the glass in these windows. Are they green? Usually not. They are quite brown actually. Well trouble though is we cannot win the battle against global warming if we do not have massive plans for energy renovation. And we cannot do it if we do not have the very efficient technical glasses. So we need these guys to invest and we need them to get access to finance, to invest into these products and manufacture them. Of course we need also them to manufacture them in a less carbon emitting way than they do and that is also doable but that also involves huge investments. So it's not about them being green or not green. It's about what is it that they are saving as a mission first through the modification they're making in the manufacturing process and second through the products they are selling. Second example electric cars are electric cars green. Depends. I don't know if you know what is the lowest emission car in the world. It's a small Hyundai with a 900 cc engine that is sold only in Korea. That's not an electric car because when you measure the emission you should measure it in the full cycle what they call scope 3. So emission of building, emission while using, emission while recycling. And when you do this I can tell you my small Hyundai outbeats any Tesla by quite a distance. So that all depends on many things. You've probably noticed in the news that there is this French-German venture to build batteries in Europe. That's interesting in many ways but one of the ways is that if they succeed these batteries for use in cars in Europe will have a carbon outlook that will be five times less than the current ones that we procure from China. So all this is to be taken in question when you design the taxonomy and that's why it's technically complicated. So we have experts which fortunately are not commission experts that are trying to disentangle all this. We are keeping member states aware on a weekly basis. I mean this time we are just really something in which we need to move together. And if there is any issue we need to clear it immediately. And then we will need to have the political discussion. The technical discussion is difficult. The political is going to be very difficult. Nuclear. Green, not green. Definitely not green. But then if definitely indispensable if you want to win the battle against global warming. If you dismantle today nuclear produced electricity in Europe you cannot replace it by something that doesn't that emits less carbon. So you have a net hiring of your emission. So you like it nuclear. You don't like nuclear. I don't like nuclear. But we need it at the grand structure as a path towards a sustainable economy. And therefore making it uninvestable is probably not a good idea. Cold. Green, not green. Not green. But there are cold plants. So should you make uninvestable a carbon capture system in an existing cold plant? My private no. You should actually encourage that investment. You should certainly discourage investment in new cold plants. But the cold plant is there. There's no way it's going to be shut down. Therefore I prefer one with a carbon capture system than one without. So and we will have this type of political discussions and then they have a number of very deeply embedded idea that has nothing to do with science and that will rest and in the way of a reasonable debate. But anyway we are at the front worldwide in this exercise. The Chinese are interested. The Indians are interested. The Japanese are interested. So we have a chance to if we succeed because it's still very challenging to produce what could become a world standard. And we actually intend to offer it as a common good as soon as we have a sufficiently robust first product. Why? Well because I told you about the challenge we have in Europe. But you know what? Europe is 11% of total emissions. And not only it's 11% of total emissions but it's probably the area in the world that is doing much in terms of cutting emissions. For a good and a bad reason the good reason is that we are doing a lot of things to cut emissions and the bad reason is that our industries is flying away to other places in which they have less constraints. So that doesn't do any good to global emissions. They simply do their emissions elsewhere in the world. Secondly the bulk of the increment in emissions that we foresee will come of course from developing countries because the only way to develop today is to emit more gas in a carbon dominated society. You will tell me that there are technologies to do otherwise. That's true but they're a lot more expensive. That's why they're not in place here. So let alone in developing countries. So if we really want to win that battle we need to be able to help these countries to find the financing to jump over a number of technological generations and go straight to decarbonated development. That's a collective interest but that's a game theory thing. That's a collective interest that's not necessarily the individual interest of the industry in Europe because they will immediately become a very strong competitor. So that's the type of dilemma that we will have to solve. By the way what the commission has decided will power a very, very high level conference in 21 March this year is to level up our strategy in sustainable finance at world level, create a platform and offer the result of our work as open source product for developing countries and other international partners that are interested. So that's a big, big, big challenge and if you think about it once you have this common language especially if it broadens. I mean interestingly the largest Japanese pension firm GPIF has announced that as soon as there is a EU taxonomy in place they will start using it irrespective of what Japanese authorities will do. Another is following that path as well because that's the only way you can structure large international pools of liquidity that will be able to benchmark products on the basis of the yield but also on the basis of the other elements. That's also the only way you can develop a credible system of labels, benchmarks, indexes, etc. So this is everything that has taken this is why it matters not only for sustainability but also as a competitive advantage for our industry that Europe is at the forefront. I mean as you know in the industry one year's standard setter you usually derive a number of competitive advantages from that position. So that's the plan. There are a number of other things that go along with it clarifying the duty of asset manager and institutional investors to take sustainability into account. It's also the subject of one of our legislative proposals that will require financial market participants to disclose to their beneficiaries how they integrate environmental, social and governance factors, DESG factors into their investment and advisory process. And there I'm back to my example. Those investment managers whose products are marketed as sustainable so if you make it a marketed argument, a marketing argument then you will have to disclose how you achieve those objectives. So in other words you will have a general obligation of disclosure for everybody but if you choose to say well I'm green then you will have to positively prove it according to the taxonomy and the agreed method. We will require insurance and investment firms to advise clients and provide suitable products on the basis of their sustainability preferences for the time being it's not possible but in order to put that in place you need to have a command language. If you don't speak the command language you cannot do this. So there are a number of ensuing consequences of this taxonomy. And of course I should mention that this should not be seen in isolation. I mean the Europe as I said is at the forefront really of the fight against global warming. I think we are the only one that have met our targets so far. I actually exceeded our target. We are the only ones that have a clear legally binding target to reduce our emissions by a further 40% by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2050. If the whole of the planet would have the same we would make it to the two degrees. But there we are talking I mean I told you about basically a half trillion in Europe. When you go to developing countries you can multiply it by a significant number. It's an opportunity frankly. It's an opportunity for them it's an opportunity for the financial industry as well. And that's the way we should we should see it. Let me let me go now to innovation because that's the other big challenge in the future. And frankly for the time being Europe is not so well. I mean I could see that the US, Asia are quite ahead in terms of innovation. Maybe because the faster movement maybe because they are less sensitive to the risks that are involved. I don't know but that's that's the point I think. One of the problems we have in Europe is if we want to be at the forefront of innovation we need to be able to get this innovation to benefit from the single market. For the time being because fintechs and all the rest of them are not in any framework at European level. You may develop them however you want within one single country but that's it. So that's okay if that country is Germany or France because you can acquire size within the boundaries of your country. If it's Estonia or maybe Ireland it might be more complicated to get the critical mass that will allow you to move towards being able to cope with the mainstream regulation at European level because you're still too small for that. And then I think it's relatively disappointing that in all dealings with the national supervisors there seems to be no appetite for something that I would have thought is starting from first principles very obvious which is that they should all have a sandbox or an innovation lab. These sandboxes should all be built on the same principles and they should be interoperable and this should be coordinated somewhere in Esma or I don't know because that's a question of equity. I mean if you want the innovators in small member states to have the same opportunities as in the big ones without having to move which is in my view partly what Europe is about you need to be able to build a system like this one. You need to be able to reach out of your member states from your home relatively freely and if you want to do this in a system in which you don't go into mainstream regulation that means you have to be able to scale up your sandbox. That's not where we are and that's not where we are for many reasons which in my view are probably cultural. If supervisors were risk takers they would work in the private sector. I'm amazed as a regulator I mean very often I will not give names I see supervisors large supervisors sometimes come and see me and say well you know if there is this this thing in the regulation we don't know whether we should do like this or like that. Well yeah I mean because that's on purpose actually because I don't know either that all depends what's the problem what's the structure of your market what have you and the reason why it's like this is to give you freedom to interpret the regulation the way that suits best the consequences of the structure of your market. Oh yeah yeah yeah but I mean that's hugely complicated I mean we we have a huge legal risk we want you to clarify and occasionally we do clarify and then invariably I get the same supervisor coming back to me so you remove all my discretion. I don't know how to to combine the two frankly even you have a standard that is reasonable but sufficiently loose so that there is a discretion of a supervisor which is my model and I don't think regulators should try to do the job supervisors because that never works. Let me give you an example we have this equivalence with the US on CCP's in EMEA took four years to negotiate and after three years the only the only problem left was the level of margins and they had one day growth if I remember we had two days net we discussed we discussed we discussed and in the end of the day we would probably have settled on something. Accept that for the CFTC to change the margining policy it takes them to gather the commissioners and decide. For me to change the margining policy it takes me to make an amendment to EMEA send it to the council parliament and maybe two years after we have something different and that's what happens when you don't empower your supervisors you don't allow them to flexibly adapt to market situation not transpose this into the fintech world. One of the things we will need to do is we'll need to explain to the parliament and the council that they need to be a bit more empowering with the institutions that they have created and they actually are made of a collection of their own national supervisors rather than trying to prescribe in a very tightened way how they should act because we will invariably get it wrong or maybe you get it right at the time best case scenario you draft it but six months after the markets have moved and six months after you're still negotiating of course so later on two years after and your ability to change in any meaningful time frame is zero so there are a number of challenges for Europe to matter in terms of financial innovation and it's all about for everybody in the world it's all about a a thread off between allowing innovation to flourish which has a number of benefits in terms of efficiency cost cutting etc and of course controlling for your risk in the specific european setting this is specifically challenging and the more quickly things go and with innovation it goes very very quickly and the more inadapted the way we do business at regulatory and supervisory level is so this is something that we are preoccupied about in the commission this is something a number of member states the more flexible ones are preoccupied about as well but there are considerable risk-free sentences in the parliament and in a number of other member states so there is a huge advocacy work to be done we will do a bit but i think the sector should do this bit as well because the consequences of losing that battle are huge i mean because it's exactly like in sustainability the best innovation centers in the world will become the standard setter and we will become techers if we're happy with this we just have to continue as as we are so this is why we promote a number of things like innovation facilitators etc etc we're very happy with the work that the ESAS are doing in the area of cyber risk but we need to be at the same time a lot more joined up and a lot more empowering in the future if we want to matter in terms of innovation and private finance thank you thank you very much