I should add that the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), a fellow association of supervisors in the insurance area, is now discussing a supervisory framework that would apply to all insurance regulatory systems globally. Evolution in risk management and the reform of financial supervision should complement and reinforce each other, and the progress in each area will be influenced by the work underway globally to revise accounting guidelines. The Geneva Association has taken a great interest in this topic, so I will conclude my remarks with some brief thoughts from my perspective on the convergence of accounting standards, advances in risk management, and supervision. II. Trends across financial services sector  Allow me to begin with an overview of recent trends in risk management. Last year, a body representing major financial supervisory agencies conducted a study of 31 banks, securities firms, and insurance companies in 12 jurisdictions. This body - called the “Joint Forum” - consists of expert supervisors from member agencies of the Basel Committee, the International Organisation of  BIS Review 34/2004  1  Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), and the IAIS. The Joint Forum seeks to identify best practices and develop guidance for activities across the financial services sector. In its report, which was published in August 2003, the Joint Forum identified two important and recent trends among large, complex firms engaged in banking, securities, or insurance, or in some mix of these activities. A. Integration of the risk management function.
Their reactions provide economic incentives for banks to strengthen their management of risk and hold at least adequate levels of capital against their risks. One might say that Basel II seeks an “efficient frontier” of policy objectives through the three pillars. Each pillar provides something that the other two cannot. Each is essential to achieving our overall objective of financial stability. I realise that this analogy of the three pillars as a portfolio of policy options is an oversimplification. But it helps us to visualise why we think that the most “efficient frontier” involves a mixture of minimum rules, tempered by supervisory discretion, and supplemented by market-based incentives. IV. Consistency of accounting standards and a three-pillar system  Of course, our three-pillar supervisory system is highly dependent on a firm’s internal measures of risk exposures. “Basel II,” for example, looks at a bank’s own measures of risk in Pillar 1. Supervisors then engage bank managers in a dialogue on their interpretations of those measures - and the steps managers take in response - in Pillar 2. Finally, Pillar 3 is intended to give the market greater insight into those measures of risk exposures and what the bank may do to control them. Because the three pillars are so dependent on the internal measures, neither supervisors nor bankers can ignore the mechanics that define how financial data are recorded and reported. Those mechanics, as you know, are governed by national accounting standards, which is the last topic I would like to address.