That said two points me in particular concern

What balance are you getting G20

First, the approach to global problems, and not just financial, which tends to show that the leaders of the G20 watch now beyond the crisis. It is not for all finite, including as long as unemployment is rising. Then, the fact of having a clear and square timetable for the reform of the financial regulation, with rules laid down by the end of the year, a calibration in 2010 and an application from 2011-2012, insofar as this will not impede the resumption of growth. It's quick. Finally, the new rules of the game apply almost all over the world. This is a first.

What commitments concern you the most

There was no surprise in Pittsburgh. That said, two points me in particular concern. Firstly, the leverage ratio (total capital balance report). The text of the g-20 refers to the "perspective" of integration of this ratio to the 1 of Basel II pillar, which is used in the determination of own funds of a bank. There is a real risk of telescoping between this ratio and the future "cushions" capital, intended to set aside capital top cycle. Because these two tools together, will have the effect of curbing the supply of credit to banks.

And the other point

The lack of progress on the accounts pane. I really wish that it be said that the "fair value" is not necessarily a market value for valuing all assets. Of course, American accounting body (FASB) and its international equivalent (IASB) are invited to find a convergence, but nothing says that they will arrive.

Systemic institutions will be specifically monitored in the new regulatory framework. Is this a good thing

Systemic risk was totally underestimated before the financial crisis, as many other risks, such as liquidity. It is therefore quite normal better to identify and monitor closely. That said, it will be difficult to say what institution is systemic or not. This will be the Basel Committee and the financial stability Board to define criteria: size, interconnection, etc.

Do you consider that the banks write "wills" to prepare for their eventual "orderly bankruptcy" and that they simplify their structures

I would give priority to the simplification of the structures. Some believe that should not be that banks are becoming too large and too complex. That said, the banks need to diversify to reduce their risk. Then, where stops in diversification and begins the complexity It is difficult to find assay. This will probably mean guidelines in pillar 2 of Basel II, advocating vouchers of own funds by type of activity. For a group like Credit Agricole, the question is not really, because we are already organized into subsidiaries for each activity.

In bonus, the g-20 mentioned the idea of a CAP if the amount of the bonus was not compatible with the basic capital of the institution...

It is a good thing, a bank cannot surrémunérer its traders when its capital base is insufficient. Finally, the principles retained on variable remuneration are very close to the system implemented in France. I only regret that the g-20 which appears-t - il, has extended the application of the rules of compensation to a large part of the employees of banks, is limited to financial criteria and not take into account criteria such as management, service customers or even the societal impact.

Overall, do you consider that the committed financial reform will change banks Is this the end of an era

The rules have clearly changed. We are inevitably going to lower the profile of the risks of global finance. With layers of additional capital which will be requested, capital yields will decrease. From there to say that it is the end of an era, it is perhaps an exaggeration! One thing is certain in any case, we are now more controlled profession in the world.