Mr. Michael Torpey:

I think, Deputy, I would characterise the difference as being driven by the difference in assumptions underlying the models. The assumed outcomes from the levels of changes in property prices were driven through whatever financial modelling tool was used in that exercise. I think what appears to explain to some extent the difference between what was seen in the stress tests that were conducted and the actual outcomes, is the severity of events and the pervasive nature of those events as they transpired over time. While stress tests will have looked at percentage changes in values that are here, and while the actual fallen values was materially greater than this, that will have had its own set of impacts. But I suggest also that the stress tests proved insufficient to capture the wider range of impacts, starting with the international crisis that happened at the same time, extending into the wider fiscal impacts of the downturn in activity in the economy. Such that it is fair to say that the stress tests, however diligently done, however honestly they were appraising the potential for a downturn in the economy, it is fair to say that the actual outcomes proved to be dramatically more severe than those stress tests.