I should add that there are other initiatives being developed, with the aim of positioning the banking system of Hong Kong to take advantage of further financial liberalisation in the Mainland. I hope they can be agreed, announced and introduced soon. Short-term risks However, the generally good news in recent months should not blind us to the problems that remain in our economy or to the risks that face us. While the economy has been recovering strongly, it has not been creating as many jobs as we all would like to see. It is also uncertain to what extent the budget deficit will be reduced, as government revenues recover along with the economy. To be sure, the difficult investment environment is not helping us in our attempt to meet the budgeted investment income for the fiscal reserves. Disappointments on these fronts may affect market sentiment in the short term, although the determination and ability on the part HKSAR government in tackling the remaining, structural components of these problems should not be in doubt. Furthermore, there is a risk that our financial markets could over-react to external developments, notably stronger than expected monetary tightening in the US, macro-economic adjustments in the Mainland and sharp increases in oil prices. Although it is unlikely that these external factors would derail our economy, and so this risk seems small, under extreme market conditions, short-term volatility in financial markets could have a bearing on monetary and financial stability in Hong Kong.
And any review mechanism must take careful account of the implementation costs incurred by banks when the rules change. But it is costly, too, to persist with regulatory standards where they are clearly out of line with market practice. Real effort has been made to tie the Accord to best market practice and thus to changes that banks will need to introduce anyway. Going forward, the guiding principle, difficult I know to achieve in practice, should be to keep to a minimum the difference between expenditure that banks would be incurring in any event and that required by regulators. Part of the trick is to ensure sufficient continuity of core aspects of the standards, so that changes to basic IT systems etc are minimised or at any rate can take place over time. Time is, after all, a major help in this respect. Implementing systems changed as part of the software obsolescence cycle may involve only modest marginal cost. More immediate and discrete changes are always going to be more costly. These issues will clearly need further discussion. In the EU context, however, it is particularly important that the arrangements for revising any Directive reflect, if not the letter, at least the spirit of Lamfalussy. It would be wholly inappropriate to try to hard code all the detail of the pillar one rules in an EU Directive, as if these can necessarily stand for a long period of time.