Our challenge is to embed processes that will be relevant for crises into our everyday interactions: co-ordination is likely to be much easier amongst colleagues who are already familiar with each other and with each other’s views and approach, than with someone who is simply a name on a contact list. This is one positive feature of discussing these issues, just as some of the value of MoUs lies in the process of negotiation and the relationships that fosters. Second: information-sharing in a crisis. Interest groups would be a good forum to discuss in advance what information it might be appropriate to share on specific firms, and to ensure that it would in practice be readily available. And in doing so, we will better understand the information and therefore be able to assess it more quickly and more confidently in-crisis. Third: in-crisis systemic impact assessment. A key first step in deciding how to handle a crisis is in understanding the likely cost of not intervening in it – the likely systemic impact of it. The impact of a particular problem or failure of a particular firm will of course depend on the characteristics of that specific problem – and importantly on the resilience of the financial system, and the interlinkages amongst different elements of it at the time. However, there are common channels through which shocks propagate. And some of those channels will be more relevant for particular firms than others.
Nevertheless, crises create opportunities for fixing policies and addressing structural issues. Policy makers have an opportunity to enact all the necessary reforms in order to lay the foundations of a more stable and prosperous future in the presence of today's overlapping crises. 5/5  BIS - Central bankers' speeches