I remember that the last thing I did in this respect, before I went to the Bank for International Settlements in Basel to focus on other things, was to try to sell the system to a Russian audience that was considering pension reform in their own country. 2 On what was this view based? In order to answer that, I must first remind us of the attributes of a good pension system. Of course it is obvious that it must be a mechanism for saving for retirement. But in order to be an efficient such mechanism, it must take due account of the lifetime risks facing individuals, as well as the economic and financial risks facing society as a whole. These are, for instance, risks related to life expectancy, ability to work, demographics, the productivity of labour, and the rate of return on financial assets. Furthermore, some at least would make the demand that the system have a certain degree of income equalisation built into it, and most would accept that it should at least not be regressive. Then we would want the pension system to have some degree of flexibility and to provide scope for individual choice. Finally, we want the pension system to be designed so as to promote economic performance; that is, saving, growth, and financial sector development. This is a tall order, of course, and in practice there are bound to be trade-offs between these goals.
We have to closely monitor how fintech evolves and better understand its impact. Our workshop today serves that goal. It brings together fintechs, banks and supervisors, and it allows us all to share our ideas and experience. It helps us to shape our supervisory views and limit potential risks. And it helps the financial industry to provide modern and safe financial products. Such exchanges are vital. I therefore thank all those who are contributing to this event and all those who made it possible in the first place! Thank you for your attention. 3/3  BIS central bankers' speeches