But I feel acutely the loss of working relationships and external stimuli – the chance conversations, listening to very different people with very different lived experiences, the exposure to new ideas and experiences. These losses will grow with time. At some point, they will offset the benefits of avoiding South-West trains. Although it is hard to measure, I feel home-working probably has reduced my capacity for creative thought. No modern-day classic novels lie unfinished in my office drawer – or at least not ones penned by me. And the past six months have certainly depleted my social capital: I do not feel I know anyone at work better than six months ago and most a little less well. Everyone I know would I think say the same. Conclusion Let me conclude. Covid has re-shaped our working lives, our economic contributions and our well-being, certainly in the short-term but probably in the longer-term too. Whether this change is for the better is one of the key questions of our time, as workers, businesses, policymakers and citizens. The evidence so far on these issues cannot at this stage be more than illustrative. There is a balance to be struck between events which distract and events which fire the imagination. For me, the 0-5 model of homeworking strikes this balance in the wrong place, as with hindsight did my pre-pandemic 5-0 model.
It is balanced and reasonable: the risk sensitivity of the prudential framework has been preserved thanks to a large-scale retention of the internal model approach, which was one of our main concerns. Moreover, trust in the internal models will be strengthened by greater oversight, while the increase in capital requirements will remain moderate and spread out until 2027. Banks were rightly calling for long-term strategic visibility for their regulatory framework: they now have it. The agreement that we have negotiated relies on a strong commitment to implementation by the main jurisdictions, including the United States. The European Union must of course keep its word with regard to implementation and the timetable. Additionally, we are confident about the rapid completion of the current discussions on the standardised approach to market risk. The first version of  Page 2 of 6 the text, published in 2016, would have entailed ex post an unjustified and excessive increase in the capital requirements for market activities. The ACPR has since then actively participated in the work of the technical Market Risk Group of the Basel Committee. The new rules proposed in the document currently submitted for consultation should permit a return to the impacts initially sought ex ante, i.e. an average increase of 20% to 30% in the minimum capital requirement for market risks. Beside regulation – thus clarified – and microprudential supervision, macroprudential policies now round off in many countries the financial stability trifecta.