Maturity transformation plays a key role among NBFIs. The liabilities of investment funds often have a shorter duration than their assets, which in certain cases can lead to liquidity problems. Internationally active funds also face currency risks. Moreover, these funds tend to operate with leverage – typically provided by banks. So, when liquidity problems arise among NBFIs, they can spill over into the banking sector.

That varies from country to country. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) collects very detailed data on private funds, but these are not accessible to investors. The SEC only publishes aggregated information. In many European countries, by contrast, supervisory authorities do not have such granular data – and the same is true for most emerging markets. In general, there are data gaps when it comes to cross-border transactions. For example, there is no comprehensive picture of how much a country’s financing conditions are influenced by NBFIs abroad – a crucial factor for assessing how financial turbulence in one country might affect another.

I wouldn’t say so. NBFIs tend to have a strong focus on risk management, which means they do not pose an inherent threat to financial stability. But in certain situations, market stress can still occur.

I can’t comment on the current state of those discussions. What’s clear is that such a move would result in stricter capital requirements for some euro area banks. The debate in the US arises from the fact that, while the euro area is a monetary union, it still lacks a fully completed Banking Union. However, I have noticed growing motivation in Europe recently to advance the Banking Union project.

The IMF supports the operational independence of central banks. They should have a certain degree of freedom in how they achieve the objectives set for them by society – through parliaments or governments. But they must also communicate clearly why their actions are necessary to fulfill their mandate. In the US, the Federal Reserve continues to act in line with its dual mandate.

Regulation needs to take into account both the advantages and risks of stablecoins. Blockchain technology can make payments cheaper, more efficient, and more inclusive. Stablecoin issuers hold large amounts of US treasuries as collateral. While these are generally safe, they too can come under pressure. Another concern is that stablecoins could accelerate dollarisation in developing countries – something regulators there should be mindful of.