Mr. Gerry Fitzpatrick:

No, I don't believe that. You use the value of collateral as you understand it to be. If you think the value is going to fall in relation to a future event because the market will fall further, you're not predicting that future event. I know that's quite difficult to do but you can't suddenly say, "Well, I think it will go down by 20%". If the directors said to me they think it'll go down by 50%, they would have been potentially misrepresenting the information, the financials because they wouldn't know what it was. It would be pure conjecture. And the idea of the standard was an evidenced, verifiable evidence-based standard. And we may believe there are flaws in that but a verifiable evidence-based standard is actually better than one that is purely based on conjecture. If a group of directors are saying to me, "We have looked at the valuations and actually yeah we think we'll hack off another 60%" , that would be misrepresenting because it would be based on conjecture. So it is a difficult thing I agree with you. I think we're in agreement that the standard does require you to look at what would be realised and to net present value it but you have to use the available data in terms of what you believe valuations are standing at the moment. Valuations can equally increase and decrease; it would be conjecture otherwise not to use the available data. Just like if you're holding a security, Deputy, like interest in a stock or share, it could go down in the future but you value it at the point in time even though you mightn't sell it, you mightn't sell it for ten years-----