This is incredibly difficult to do, particularly to a broad and diverse audience who are more likely than before to be affected by policies that are directed at managing financial stability risks. The challenges are further compounded by the reality that the vast majority of the public prefer to receive information not through traditional channels but through secondary sources, including social media. Authorities are responding in a number of different ways. Some have increased the frequency of published financial stability reviews, while making them more readable and easy to understand. Others have taken their message directly to the masses by supplementing official financial stability communications with multi-faceted media campaigns. Authorities have also strengthened industry and inter-agency platforms for communicating information on financial stability developments. What is clear is that communications has become an integral part of the management of financial stability. And it goes beyond increasing the effectiveness of a particular policy response to emerging risks. It is essential to the integrity of financial stability policies over time, and to public confidence in the institutions that are responsible for implementing them. In a more globalised financial system, authorities also face increasing pressures to conform to global standards, many of which were not designed with institutions that have no or limited activities beyond their domestic borders in mind. Global standards are also often ill-equipped to respond to specific conditions in domestic financial systems that differ significantly in their stage of development and vulnerabilities to risks.
2/4  BIS central bankers' speeches  The need for surveillance to extend beyond traditional boundaries of financial services can make it harder for authorities to “stay within their lanes”. This can be further complicated when the primary responsibility for financial stability is not always clearly defined. More authorities today have acquired expanded powers to access information and respond to financial stability risks. Even where there is a single authority charged with the mandate for financial stability, such powers will tend to rely on a system of regulation and supervision over different actors in the financial system that is often discharged by different authorities, using different instruments and approaches. Ensuring effective coordination across such a system depends on a number of factors. Institutional set ups such as inter-agency arrangements – of which there are many good examples – are important and clearly even necessary. But they are not a sufficient condition for effective coordination. The most important factors for effective coordination are more likely to be internal ones – the submission of institutional agendas to a higher collective goal, an internal resolve to overcome inherent conflicts, and the organisational flexibility to move in a common direction with others. In increasing their agility to shift gears where required, authorities must also find ways to do so while preserving the credibility and predictability of policy. Shorter policy cycles and more frequent adjustments in response to developing risks can make this significantly more challenging. Communicating financial stability policies effectively will be key.