One can even imagine that they want to point out some additional avenues, which, as we have been absorbed by more immediately pressing aspects of our work - we have not, as yet, been able to explore sufficiently. What next? Trying to answer the question of “what next” is a risky endeavor. No doubt with globalization unfolding its opportunities and risks, new priorities will promptly capture our attention and overtake our pre-established agendas. But it is always better to try to anticipate them, particularly when they reflect problems that should already have been addressed, be it: 2  As regards the latter, some follow-up actions are needed, including measures to discourage excessive reliance on short-term financing and strengthen countries’ capacity to withstand sudden shifts in market sentiment. In addition, the Interim Committee has requested the Fund to consider other ways to strengthen incentives for creditors to use available information to analyze risks appropriately and avoid excessive risktaking. Possibilities include introducing provisions in bond contracts regarding bondholder representation and voting in case of negotiations on bond restructuring; extending the Fund’s policy of providing financing to member countries in arrears to private creditors; encouraging strong bankruptcy systems for both domestic and international capital markets; and advising member countries to exercise greater caution in granting public guarantees. We also need to examine the possibility of closer contacts with creditors in order to explain Fund arrangements and, if needed, catalyze private sector financing so as to achieve more equitable burden sharing vis-à-vis the official sector and limit moral hazard.
Brexit  Nowhere has that been more obvious than Brexit. On June 24th 2016, we started contingency planning for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit. With our focus on making sure finance can serve the wider economy, our work has had two elements. First, checking that, whatever economic disruption arises as we leave the EU, major banks have the capacity to keep lending through it. We know from our stress tests that banks can withstand an economic scenario for the UK that is worse than the financial crisis. That stress test scenario encompasses even a Brexit scenario based on the very worst case – ‘disorderly’ – assumptions, including: severe disruption at the border, acute economic uncertainty and financial market instability, and sharp increases in inflation requiring interest rates to rise. On that basis, we’ve been able to judge the core of the UK banking system to be able to continue to serve through Brexit, whatever form Brexit takes. The second element of our work has been to ensure that households and businesses using services from EU financial companies can continue to draw on those services after Brexit. 70 branches of EEA banks operate in the UK and provide services to both EU and UK end users. UK households and businesses hold 16 million insurance policies with EU insurers.8 UK investors invest in funds based in the EU. And clearing houses based in the UK sit at the centre of EU and global derivatives markets, helping the financial system to manage and distribute risks.