I see at least two reasons for not going down that road. The first is that the technologies that allow these changes in scale carry progress. Technological revolutions, from the early stages of the internet to the boom in blockchain protocols to artificial intelligence, have given rise to, and can still continue to do so, new services, many daily improvements for consumers, in particular financial services including, and we are extremely attentive to that, better financial inclusion. Second, there is no reason to assume that the current framework for regulating financial  services is intangible and cannot be adjusted to respond to changes, including in scale, brought about by technological innovation to ensure that potential risks are properly managed. A simple example: the customer experience for opening a remote account in France, compared to other European countries, wasn’t sufficiently fluid. The players that we have met often mentioned as a potential impediment the French transposition of the 4th European antimoney laundering directive, which would not make it possible to fully capitalise on the advantages of technology. We have taken note of the problem and set up a working group, led by the ACPR Fintech – Innovation unit within the framework of the ACPR-AMF Fintech Forum, bringing together technology providers, financial institutions and public authorities. The aim was to co-construct proposals based on an objective assessment of regulations and technological state of the art, while ensuring the efficiency of AML/CFT frameworks.
These factors explain why French banks' CDS premiums remain lower on average than those of banks in the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. At the European level, the banking authority – the EBA with the SSM – will carry out new stress tests in 2023 on the resilience of EU financial institutions. The underlying scenarios will need to be sufficiently severe and credible in the current environment of uncertainty and volatility. But we see nothing at present that justifies an industry-wide restriction on dividend payouts, such as that imposed temporarily in 2020. There is,  2/4  BIS - Central bankers' speeches  however, a need for everyone to show prudence in terms of the future trajectory of capital, and in particular regarding share buybacks, which furthermore have to be explicitly authorised by the supervisor. 3. Are there any non-bank risks that could potentially trigger a crisis? The first area we need to pay close attention to is the less regulated players: while we have largely reinforced banks and insurers, we still have a long way to go on non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs). All episodes of financial instability in the last three years have been caused by the non-bank, non-insurance sector: from the money market fund "dash for cash" in March 2020 to UK pension funds in September. The vulnerabilities stem from excessive use of leverage, insufficiently controlled exposure to margin calls, or liquidity mismatch in open-ended funds which leaves them vulnerable to large and sudden capital outflows.