Mr. Michael Walsh:

I mean, the quick answer ... yes, it was entirely appropriate. The society actually had a very simple model. You know, it wasn't, you know, a complicated business like, you know, the high street banks - the pillar banks, as we describe them today. It, you know, was, for all practical purposes, a small building society. It wasn't trying to offer complicated products. It was focused on a particular area where it had its expertise. You know, it didn't have a whole series of, kind of, treasury risk issues, which would have been, you know, potentially, kind of, an issue in some situations. You know, it was not trying to develop an esoteric set of products to market to its members. You know, its mortgages were completely plain vanilla. It was very straightforward and very simple. I think the point that KPMG are actually making there, which is a completely valid point, is if the buyer who took over the society wanted to actually build, you know, the equivalent of, you know, a high street bank or a pillar bank, then they would obviously have to change the systems to cater for that. So, while the systems were appropriate for the society, you know, it was clearly recognised that, in the context of an organisation where somebody was going to develop the retail side as opposed to the commercial side, that investment would be required both in the systems and, indeed, in the branch system.