Accordingly, should a bank find itself in resolution, it would be able to continue to perform its critical functions – essentially lending and holding deposits – without having to resort to public support and without jeopardising the financial stability of the system. Although the Resolution Directive entered into force on 1 January 2015, setting of the MREL requirements is still at a preliminary stage and there is as yet no specific date for compliance with the requirements. The Single Resolution Board, which is the European resolution authority, will set the MREL requirements for the institutions for which it is responsible, that is, those that are directly supervised by the SSM, at the end of the year. These requirements, for which the transition period for compliance therewith has still not been determined, are not expected to come into force before 1 January 2019. In the case of the less significant institutions, for which responsibility lies with the national resolution authorities, the time frame for adaptation to the new requirements will foreseeably be longer. The requirements set will fundamentally depend on two components: the loss absorption component, which in general will be common to all banks and will be equivalent to their capital requirements; and the recapitalisation component, the amount of which should depend on the resolution strategy deemed most appropriate for each institution.
Matters such as the privacy of personal information, security, the risk of cyberattacks or even the risk of exclusion, must 6/8  be monitored and, where appropriate, duly regulated. Regulation has to achieve a balance, protecting financial stability and confidence in the system, without unjustifiably hindering the exploitation of these technological innovations by industry and society in general. It is still too soon to gauge the impact of the technological revolution on the traditional banking sector. I believe that technological innovations will complement traditional banking activities, but to achieve this banks must be sufficiently flexible and dynamic to reap the benefits of technological innovation. There is no question that innovation is also favouring the proliferation of new fintech firms, of highly varying profiles and business models, which may conceivably compete with traditional banks in a specific part of the banking value chain, but are more likely to engage in new ancillary services. One example is joint financing through online platforms, known as “crowdfunding”. It is an alternative source of financing which may offer certain improvements over traditional banking in terms of convenience, speed and cost. But risks have also been identified, such as a potential increase in fraud or greater weaknesses in terms of investor confidence. There is a well-known case of a Swedish P2P platform which went bankrupt late last year after the detection of malpractices in credit extension, prompting a fall in the activity of the sector and closer regulatory attention.