Mr. Donal Forde:

I think if I go back to an individual case and, so, you had a scenario typically, as I say, where a developer came with a piece of land, essentially, that had been purchased at X and was now worth 2X, okay? The bank regarded some proportion of the inherent value in that as equity, and had a position of security over it. So from a security viewpoint it's true to say that we would have relied on many occasions on non-cash assets. That is true. But in giving the loan, the proposition would be much more about what assets, essentially, were going to be created with that loan, and what they were going to sell for, and the bank would have, essentially, part of the loan agreement would be, that the proceeds of the sale, for example, of each residential development would come to the bank. So it's true to say that when things happened in the way they did, which is that office developments stopped selling, houses stopped selling, then the source of repayment for the banks, cash, that also stopped. Then the difficulty arose because the security that we held, which in many cases was equity, also began to devalue very quickly. So I think it's true to say that in the way things ultimately developed, we were left frequently where it wasn't cash that we had recourse to, but they were assets that were of much less value. But in the normal run, essentially if the assets that were produced off the back of that loan were sold, the bank would have collected the cash on those, all the time.