So far, I have been talking about what I refer to as “vertical” co-operation, in the sense it addresses the relationship between home and host supervisors in relation to specific institutions and groups. But there is also a horizontal aspect that will be crucial for the future. This is supervisory convergence - the fourth level. Greater consistency in supervision is essential in promoting consistent approaches across borders, and thereby a level playing field. My view is that without convergence of supervisory practices across the EU, the consolidated or lead supervision model seems likely only to lead to fragmentation, with different groups being supervised in potentially inconsistent ways. This is why the work of the new Committee of European Banking Supervisors, or CEBS, is so important. This is the first time that the EU has had a committee that is formally charged with promoting co-operation between supervisors and convergence in supervisory practices. Danièle Nouy, who will speak shortly from her perspective as Vice-Chair of CEBS, is, of course, much better placed than me to talk about the work of this committee. But I think that CEBS has already made excellent headway, and will undoubtedly be the driver of progress in the future. And I’m sure that the industry will keep up the pressure to ensure that this is the case.
4/6  BIS central bankers' speeches  As we continue to see the impact of technology and big data in other parts of financial services, one interesting question is how innovation and enhanced technology will support the measurement and management of culture. The potential of big data analytics to revolutionize approaches in many areas of business has been talked about for years, and is now beginning to become a reality. For example, we might see firms routinely leverage broader data to make stronger predictions about potential misconduct risk, which could be useful to help focus scarce compliance resources. Some may view the official sector as an impediment to the adoption of new technologies, but I don’t think that needs to be the case. In the context of compliance risk management in the U.S., the five federal banking agencies recently encouraged financial firms to explore innovative approaches to meet their compliance obligations related to money laundering and further strengthen the industry against illicit activity.15 Similarly, in the U.K., Rob Gruppetta, head of the Financial Crime Department at the Financial Conduct Authority, has spoken about the “balancing act” the FCA faces as a regulator trying to encourage progress and innovation while also mitigating danger and imprudent risk-taking. He points out that data from new technologies has also allowed the FCA to be more consistent, effective, and risk-based in its supervisory approach toward conduct risk.16 This leads to a question about how firms can use similar tools and techniques to mitigate misconduct risk and promote healthy cultures.