For one, advances in technology, telecommunications, and markets have changed the way that banks collect, measure, and manage their risks. Having gained experience in quantifying exposures to market risk, leading banks today are quantifying and using increasingly reliable estimates of the credit risk associated with particular borrowers. Evolution in markets has furthermore provided banks with more tools for managing and transferring credit risk, such as through securitisation transactions and credit derivatives. Likewise, many banks seek to quantify in a more reliable manner their exposures to operational risk, or the risk of losses stemming from failures in internal processes or systems or from damage caused by an external disruption. As risk management becomes more sophisticated, the simple and static rules of the 1988 Accord are becoming less relevant. Leading banks increasingly view the old rules as a burden, constraining their abilities to administer their businesses relative to the best information and practices available today. Supervisors, for our part, have less confidence in the 1988 Accord’s measures of risk for banks that engage in the most sophisticated forms of risk taking and risk mitigation. By the late 1990s, it became clear to banks and supervisors that we needed a new capital framework. But the Basel Committee sought more than just a reworking of the minimum requirements. We wanted instead to create incentives for the industry to enhance the state of the art in risk management.
There is, however, still progress to be made; our monetary and economic union needs to be completed. Our European economic institutions are like a trimaran. Our vessel already has a robust central hull in the form of the ECB and the Eurosystem, with its credible single monetary policy. This boat must be completed with two floaters. On one side, we need a public float with a standing common fiscal capacity to better cope with macroeconomic shocks. This need not mean increasing permanently our yearly budget; rather we should construct a fiscal facility that could be activated in moments of crisis or recession. In this respect, the EUR 750 billion Next Generation EU programme – agreed in 2020 and now actively implemented – has been a major step forward. On the other side, we need a private float to foster a better capital allocation, which is just as important. The  Page 5 sur 9 Banking Union and Capital Markets Union, though somewhat “boring” and technical, should be absolute political priorities to enhance the free circulation of capital across the EU and build what I suggest to rebrand a “Financing Union for Investment and Innovation”. In the U.S., private capital flows are a major financial shock absorber between states. We can achieve the same in Europe, and make better use of the world’s largest pool of savings, including by fostering venture capital which is still underdeveloped.