 Second day of the third conference of the SRB. It's a tradition, I'm Francesco Vazzaferra, I'm the head of the SRB secretariat that I'm opening the second day, admittedly in the early morning, with a few remarks on the work seen from the side of the SRB secretariat. And it's also an occasion to thank my deputy, Thomas Pelton, and many, many colleagues for the great work done. How do we see macro-prudential policy from the secretariat at the present stage? I would say we see it as something which is alive and kicking. And by the way, it's interesting that everything which has been discussed yesterday is seen from our angle very often in operational terms. For example, we get notification of policies, a decision from member states, we discuss reciprocation, all issues which have to do with the policy making have their dimension also in terms of managing the decision process, making sure this is well understood, explained, and also recognized at the European level. Let me say there has been a lot of these activities. It was already mentioned by President Draghi and by Governor Laine yesterday that seven EU member states have announced an increase in their counter-seqical capital buffer since the start of the year. And I think, and I think we think in general the secretariat, it is the new normal. We will enter into a phase into which having the counter-seqical capital buffer in action, including having that 0%, which is also policy decision, will be part of policy making in our countries. All in all, the use of macro-prudential policy has been prudent. I would like to say this because for some years we were confronted with the argument coming very often from the industry that we would have not been taking into account their issues, their problems, the problems of the economy. I think the use of policy has been parsimonious, very much in line with cyclical conditions, very much also in line with the fact that we were not fully aware of the transmission mechanism. But now more and more authorities are getting more confident and they are making use of the tools. And the strengthening of the cycle in many countries, as has been, as played yesterday, has now justified the use of macro-prudential instruments in a few economies. Good news, the current review of the CRD-CRR, which is a bit of funding legislation of macro-prudential policy, might include, as from some months from now, new provisions which would aim us at having a more chirurgical use of the tools, facilitating the application of buffers to given sectors. We have been speaking a lot about the real estate yesterday. So it would be possible to use the counter-cyclical capital buffer or the systemic risk buffer for specific vulnerabilities. And this will certainly help authorities with cope with the areas of concern. Against this background, an important area of work at the Secretariat, but also jointly with all the institutions which are part of our network, has been to progress in identifying the concept of macro-prudential stance. We know about monetary policy stance. We know about fiscal policy stance. Macro-prudential stance, when we started to discuss about this, was considered a concept very, very difficult to identify. People told it would take some decades before we would be able to make an assessment of this. We have started not with the idea of having a judgment attitude. We are not speaking of macro-prudential stance because we want to solve or condemn authorities, but we want to help ESRB institutions to reflect on how to discuss the appropriateness of their assessment and policy action. We need to a certain extent to assess how and why and under which condition macro-prudential policy makers may intentionally wish to be tight, to be neutral, or to be lose in their policymaking. As a conscious stance choice. And on this, I'm very glad to announce that we will have a workshop to be held here in Frankfurt on the 31st of October together with the colleagues of the IMF and the ECB. The issue to which we have been devoting great attention, including yesterday as the general board, is the role insurance is playing in either absorbing or propagating risks. The role of insurance as a shock absorber is most known because of the inverted business cycle and the long profile of their abilities, insurance corporations are most protected than banks from sudden shocks. They can invest long term and take position in illiquid assets. This does not exclude, however, that insurance can also be part of the problem under certain conditions. And we have been looking at questions including the impact of insurance behavior on cyclical conditions and the possible prosyclical role of insurance activities, their systemicness, and even certain questions concerning liquidity. New tools in the area of insurance may be needed and to this aim, we think that two avenues could be followed and should in fact be followed in parallel. In some cases, I think we will need to have some monitoring based on data collection so that we could design instruments for the future. In other areas, it might be even more prudent to establish immediately a legal basis for new tools in occasion of the 2020 review of Solvency 2. Now let me go through very rapidly other areas of work also reflecting on the topics which will be discussed in the morning today. The first one is about the global aspects of macro prudential policy. Of course, here let me say that one of the questions which we will have to ask ourselves in the immediate future will be what does it mean to have the city close to the Euro area being one enormous huge financial center which is not anymore in the borders of the union but is becoming part of the international activity. Because this really gives a completely new dimension to the discussion on the global role of macro prudential policy. The second question on which we have been working a lot is the role of big data. We are hosting some of the largest ever financial data in the area of some markets. For example, EMEAR is one of when we started to get EMEAR. Now we don't do it anymore in this way. But when we started to get EMEAR, the first problem was how to use it without having basically part of the bank stuck simply because we were running the database. We are receiving very soon data from AFMD which is the data based on alternative investment funds. We will have access to information on securities financing transactions and on securitization. Other members of our network will have access to six to eight databases which are produced from MIFIID. So all of these, a part of the logistical issue of being able to work on this, apart from the statistical questions of being able to interpret this data appropriately, also raises the policy issue of how to making sure that in the future decision making will be completely based on evidence and on a capacity to analyze the data which have been collected from industry. We do it to industry itself because for industry it's a cost. We do it also to the democratic legislation which has provided us with this information. And so I think more and more we will have to reflect on how to be able to cross these sources of information with a more ordinary type of monitoring which we are doing on risks. But let me say that we are on the one hand extremely grateful to the ACB which is hosting us for the investment which is done on data. On the other hand we are also trying to innovate. We have been launching a new visitor program which is called Breach which is bringing data scientists in-house in order to better understand all these issues. Another area on which we have been advancing has been cyber risk. We have been trying to ask us questions which go beyond the valuable and very important activities which have already been performed by other institutions. In particular we have been asking ourselves when is cyber risk systemics? What does it mean that cyber attacks would make the financial sector unable to provide its services to the economy? What would be the role of public institutions? We are working on this. There is a working group which is chaired by the Bank of England. On this it will be discussed at the General Board in December and we hope to continue to work on this because it's a topic which is not certainly going away simply because we have been discussing and publishing a nice report. I could say much more and I will simply as a bullet point tell you that we are working on issues concerning branchification which is not so to speak a dirty work to use branches in the single market is completely right of the economic regions. Of course we have to make sure that there is improved exchange of information between micro and macro authorities. We want to understand how recognition of measures is taking place within Europe. We are now discussing some interesting cases. Of course measures become more and more innovative and recognition from other countries requires great attention and we are trying to understand also how to better assess the implementation of our past recommendation. But I would like to finish here. I have been already speaking very shortly about some of the topics which are due for discussion today, the global macro potential dimension, the big data, shadow banking and I would like now to give the floor to Claudia Boch, vice president of the Deutsche Bundesbank who will chair the next session. Thank you very much.