Poland is the key country of Central Europe. Without prosperity of Poland, the region will not prosper. It is both an opportunity and a kind of responsibility of Poland to the region.
10 years of experience
The best speakers from the sector
Pragmatic recommendations for the economy
Attractive and convenient location
If the authorities have to intervene every ten years to support the financial sector the public opinion will not accept it and the democracy will be at risk.
Inflation is getting closer to the target but wages are surprisingly low even though employment has been growing. That is something we do not quite understand. So there is a certain amount of uncertainty about how sustainable the inflation is.
Solidarity in the political world means that we stand together and help each other. If things get serious, if there is a common threat, we also fight for the security of each other. (…) It would be extremely irresponsible if we let the European Union break up. I see no alternative to the Union. But we have to properly respond to the needs of citizens.
We should continue to be interested in a good relationship with Russia but it cannot be based on illusions. International boundaries should not be redrawn by force. Why is the existence of the European Union a problem for Russia’s political ambitions? It is because the European Union is founded on values. (…) In what shape will the European Union be in ten years? Will it still exist? Of course, it will. Why? Because Europeans will understand that it is in their common interest. Surviving a number of crises does not make us weaker. On the contrary, it makes us stronger.
Regulations imposing restrictions on financial markets will not ensure stability. The markets will find a way around them anyway. What we have to strive for is better transparency of the markets. If we fail, this could possibly lead to another crisis. The world of finance lacks transparency so much that even investors have little understanding of today’s sophisticated investment instruments.
There are two areas where more progress is necessary for proper allocation of risk. Both concern the possibility to absorb economic shocks in the European Union. These shocks can be absorbed either by the markets, which requires better integration of financial markets, for example by way of establishing the banking union and the capital markets union, or through fiscal channels.
It will be essential for both investors and banks to have certainty on the overall level of capital requirements and the application of the new resolution framework. In this respect, consistent implementation of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities across the EU and implementation of total loss absorbing capacity in the common EU framework will both be of great importance.
Jan Krzysztof Bielecki,
The policy of inviting immigrants to Europe was not a demonstration of solidarity, but rather a classic instance of violating Europe's external borders and weakening control of those borders. How can we talk about Europe if we cannot talk about European borders? (…) Unfortunately there is another threat, even more dangerous, which is the idea of ever-closer Union. This is a recipe for disaster. Most Europeans do not support this idea.
One way of dealing with the threats stemming from the financial system is to raise capital requirements – for everyone, and especially for institutions that are systemically important. Having capital requirements which are too low is certainly partly the fault of those responsible for supervision. That mistake is slowly being corrected. (...) But it’s not only the amount of capital that counts, it’s also quality, perhaps above all quality. Various types of hybrid capital are like an airbag which always works except when there’s an accident. When losses are big, it turns out the capital doesn’t provide effective coverage.
Bank financing is quite good for catch-up growth. Start-up innovators need developed capital markets, they need funding that does not come only from the banking channel. Capital Markets Union’s agenda should find a right balance to serve these different needs.(…) Now you see a lot of lobbying by banks who say: We do not want competition from other channels of financing the real economy.
The fact that ECB’s active monetary policy was effective in bringing the European economy out of stagnation does not mean that it will be equally effective in future crises. (...) The next step in rendering the euro area more efficient should be the establishment of mechanisms of common fiscal policy and not merely avoidance of excessively lax policy by individual countries, but also creation of common policy that would be expansive in troubled times and restrictive in good times.
Geopolitics is back. We have to reduce our energy dependency on Russian gas and oil. We have to create a common European energy union. It would be the most powerful answer from the strategic point of view.
If we speak about Europe, there is also a national responsibility. We have to implement structural reforms at the national level. The macro-economic imbalances should be pursued much tougher than it has been done so far by the European Commission.
The Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Mechanism are sufficiently attractive for the noneuro EU member states and early entry into the Banking Union will be beneficial for the non-euro member states like Poland.
We seem to be coming out of that period of greatest recession in Europe.One of the things that are important is to have the self-discipline to rein back some of the investment projects (...) not piling on more and more.
Dato’ Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah,
The key pillar of our financial stability policy is development of robust market infrastructure for effective liquidity and credit allocation while promoting greater diversification of risks.
Introduction of two different regimes of supervision and ban resolution, one for the banks operating in the euro area and the other for banks operating outside the euro area, may tilt the playing field in favour of the banks in the euro area.
Private investors are finding it increasingly difficult to engage in long-term and large-scale projects. This is due to the risk profile of these projects. The "Polish Investments" programme has been launched to tackle such problems.
What we do in Brussels is sometimes regarded as excessive regulation of the economy. After what has happened since 2008, I do not think that we can still believe in self-regulation. Regulations must be in part imposed from the top.
The capital holders should contribute adequately to the cost of rescue or restructuring to limit the aid and the cost to taxpayer.
Paul H. Dembinski,
One of the errors that has been made was the financial promise that in the long term we can live on returns on capital that are higher than the average rate of growth.
We need fiscal consolidation. Fiscal consolidation is not an end in itself. While fiscal consolidation is a precondition of growth, it itself is not sufficient. The debate is not austerity vs growth. It is about austerity and growth. We need both.
The problem with Europe is that it is not just government debt, it is the intertwining of government and financial, banking and insurance companies, debt that actually causes the problem. And then it is the problem that it is not just the banks of the country [...] it is banks in other countries that are linked, notably including the European Central Bank itself. The Maastricht criteria were strictly faulty. They focused far too much on public sector debt, which in many cases [...] was not the problem [...], the problem was private sector debt, particularly banking debt, and the bubble within the private sector [...], and the current account deficit.
Policy makers did not really try to address the underlying causes. Instead, they sort of reacted to what the market had done and step by step put in more money, and it became a very unfortunate game for tax payers.