Mr. Kevin Cardiff:

I don't think it mattered. We were dealing with the crisis we had, we weren't going around trying to compare this with someone else's crisis and say which was the most costly and which wasn't. That's simply the case. The more pertinent issue for us was that the first round ... the first tranche, was coming in at a discount of, I think, around 50%, certainly heading for that, maybe 47%, and the NAMA draft business plan which was only a short few months old at that stage, had been based around a 30% discount. So the more ... much more pertinent concern than whether it was better or worse than someone else's crisis was what this meant for our crisis. And what this meant, in fact, was more capital and that was a serious consideration - and it was a serious consideration from then on. More seriously still, the discounts got bigger as we went down to the smaller borrowers. Remember the first two tranches, I think it was, covered the first 30 borrowers. The tranches later had a great many more borrowers in smaller amounts and, as I recall it, when NAMA got to those borrowers, they were finding a lot of incomplete legal work, a lot of concern about title, a lot of those kinds of issues, which wouldn't have been evident at the time the NTMA was working on the NAMA business plan because they were working at that point, as was very explicit, on data from the banks themselves. Some other factors in the meanwhile would have been that the ... all this had to be cleared with the European state aid people and they were quite explicit that they wanted very strict adherence both to their guidelines but also to valuation procedures and so forth. So there was a serious issue; but the issue wasn't whether, you know, ours was the best crisis.