On the other hand, the supervisory authorities will need to strengthen their macro-prudential risk assessment capacities, by focusing more on systemic behaviors of the financial institutions. The central bank is expected to take a larger responsibility in this area, particularly in those countries where it did not use to have a strong supervisory role. Whatever the approach in this direction, the supervisors will need stronger legal powers which will ensure their ability to act in a timely and flexible way. As mentioned also above, procedures for managing distressed financial institutions and for crisis management will need to be revised to ensure stronger and more effective inter-institutional and cross-border cooperation, and in general to better address the potential conflict between ex-ante supervision and ex-post intervention. This important process of financial regulatory reform is not without risks. I believe that the public authorities will pay particular attention to control the tendency for over-regulation, and to avoid a “blind” adoption of the regulatory changes as well as asymmetric/unilateral approach. Regulating more should mean regulating better. Undertaking risks is a natural thing for the financial industry in their valuable role of financial intermediation. Such undertaking of risk, when well identified and properly managed, is useful for increasing efficiency and returns of the activity, two important elements for a viable and solid on-going financial performance. Every country should certainly follow with particular attention the discussion and the changes that are being proposed for the financial regulatory reform, as this process will affect them for sure.
Governments showed a strong commitment to reduce systemic risk by saving important financial institutions, by providing guarantees for inter-bank lending, by raising the level of deposit guarantees for the public etc. Such measures, most of the times designed as temporary, appear to have been successful in restoring the market confidence and steering the world economy back in the gradual recovery path. Focusing on the financial markets and institutions in the aftermath of the crisis, a number of issues, previously known but many times neglected, have re-appeared forcefully to request a serious and thorough response by the authorities. Many of these issues relate to the financial activity itself, others are connected more with the surrounding economic environment. It can be said now that the supervisory authorities of the financial markets and institutions are partly responsible for what happened. Despite the rhetoric, they failed to properly and timely  BIS Review 139/2009  1  identify and control the risk in the financial industry. Here one can mention the soft-hand on bank wholesale borrowing that financed the foreign currency credit in a certain jurisdiction, the neglect for the special purpose entities that were created to by-pass balance sheet prudential requirements etc. There are many reasons for this weakness and a number of them, in my opinion, go beyond the legal and resource capabilities of the supervisory authorities to act. On their own, the supervisory authorities were wrong in basing their work on the misconception that strong individual financial institutions are sufficient for the entire financial system stability.