There is no doubt that even in a pure, selfish, domestic approach in each of the European countries, meeting the fiscal criteria would be welcome for the sake of the economy, for the sake of the appropriate financing of the competitive sector, for the sake of the credibility of the signature of the State, for the sake of the confidence in the currency and therefore for the sake of growth, job creation and the fight against unemployment. All European governments are saying that Maastricht or no Maastricht, they would pursue their sound fiscal policies and strategies. In the case of France, the proof is even easier. For it was in June 1982 that France adopted the 3 % rule, on the basis of a multipartisan consensus and for domestic reasons, ten years before the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. As regards the monetary side of the coin, shall I also say that we in the Banque de France would pursue exactly the same kind of monetary policy based on low inflation, exchange rate stability, a high level of credibility and confidence, and therefore a low level of long-term interest rates. Implementing what our law says, namely price stability, through exchange rate stability and the monitoring of our domestic monetary aggregates, the French independent central bank would meet spontaneously on pure domestic considerations the three Maastricht criteria that are in our monetary and financial domain, namely a low level of inflation, a low level of long-term market rates and exchange rate stability.
In fact, infrastructure (b) loans tend to be “unique” rather than “common”, and each can have its own risks and corresponding mitigation structures, which would pose challenges to the 2/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  structuring, rating and assessment processes; given such unique nature of infrastructure loans, originating and managing an (c) infrastructure loan portfolio require the asset manager to possess highly specialized skillsets and experience, and the track record of the asset manager is a key assessment criterion of rating agencies as well as prospective investors; the risk appetite of many long-term investors may need to adjust over time. Over the past few years, we have seen an increasing interest among conventional long-term investors like pension funds and insurance companies in infrastructure-related (d) assets, possibly because the conventional fixed income instruments have failed to provide a decent return amidst the long-depressed yield environment. However, the appetite of such investors tended to focus on the small set of prime quality, investment grade-tranche of infrastructure loan assets, whereas many infrastructure loans may fall in the sub-investment grade domain. 8. Ladies and gentlemen, the reputation of financial derivatives was badly damaged during the Global Financial Crisis. The mortgage-backed securities, CDO, CDO2 and CDO3, etc. all got a bad name, for good reasons.