Mr. John McDonnell:

No, Senator, it wasn't. That there was a difference between what NAMA paid for the assets and what the ... and the nominal amount of the loans that were issued ... it wasn't.

I'll just make a couple of comments around that, Senator. The first is that there was always going to be a difference between what NAMA paid for the loans and what the banks carry the loans at because they're calculated in two very different ways. Second point I'd make is that the 43% discount is a haircut against the amount that was lent. It is not a haircut against the carrying value in Bank of Ireland because the carrying value in Bank of Ireland would've included impairment provisions. Impairment provisions, as I indicated, are accounted for in accordance with the incurred loss model. And that means that you need, first off, an impairment indicator, so you need to have objective evidence of impairment. When you have objective evidence of impairment, you can book an impairment loss. Secondly, how you book an impairment loss is you take the expected cash flows from the loan, not taking into account future impairment indicators, and you discount them at the interest rate implicit in the loan. What was-----