So we may feel that at a certain point we need to do something more, or we do not. But we can expect the effect to be relatively limited. Second, I think the framework we have set, results in something very different from what we had before. Having decided that we refinance at fixed rates for unlimited quantities, and with a large corridor between the deposit facility and lending rate means, the lending rate has become the ceiling and the deposit facility rate is the floor and markets tend to move the money market rates in between, with overnight rates at a very low level and the three month rate at a level which can be below the refinancing rate. As a consequence, the rates effectively paid by borrowers are much closer to the situation in the US or the UK than most people would imagine. FT: What does that mean in practice? That the main policy rate need not go any lower, or can’t go any lower? CN: I didn’t say that. FT: Or that the deposit facility rate can’t go any lower? CN: I didn’t say that either. But it is clear that the room for manoeuvre on the deposit facility is limited. What I mean is that if we keep the present framework, we cannot move much. That’s obvious. If we want to move more, we have to change the framework, which could cause inconvenience.
Public opinion shifts rapidly from criticising banks for their mistakes – frequently, for the mistakes “inherited” from banks that disappeared some time back – to criticising them for not sufficiently easing the way for  4/13  credit to reach economic agents; indeed, for the risk of financial exclusion stemming from potential branch closures. Like the song, it would seem we can’t live with or without them. But the truth is, with or without criticism, the role of banks remains as essential today for our economy as it was 20 or 30 years ago. However, debate has arisen over the future role of banks, set against the emergence on the scene of the so-called Fintech. This can be seen as a threat or as an opportunity. I believe it entails both. But in any event, banks must evidently adapt their business model to technological change, as Gonzalo so rightly said. If instead of looking at the small, innovative and nimble Fintech, we assess the potential effect that the irruption of one of the so-called Big Tech may have on the system as a whole, the debate takes on a systemic dimension. In this connection, the recent announcement of the launch of the “Libra” project, the virtual currency sponsored by Facebook, has potentially systemic implications. These are so serious that supervisors, central banks and credit institutions must all evaluate the possible consequences. Evidently, we must be sure that the project will not compromise the integrity of payment systems and the stability of the system as a whole.