Mr. Michael Walsh:

Sorry, yes absolutely I disputed that because I think no matter how you actually do the figures, you can't get to that number. Now, you know, that means that ultimately there has to be a surplus, which actually comes back to the taxpayer. How that surplus comes back, whether it's part of the gain that the Central Bank has actually reported separately in terms of the promissory notes or what the situation is, I couldn't tell you, but I mean ... as I say, the society was very simple. It had two books - it had a commercial loan book and it had a residential loan book. We know precisely what happened to the commercial loan book, irrespective of how we actually argue or justify or believe in the NAMA transfers. So, that gives you a situation where, if you assume all the NAMA transfers are correct and NAMA made no money in relation to those loans after they were transferred, then you end up with a figure of around €3.8 billion plus, as Deputy O'Donnell said, whatever the losses were on the residential book. Now, I don't know what the losses were on that. I know some of the book was actually sold at a premium to Bank of Ireland. I am sure some of it was actually sold at a loss elsewhere. It'd depend on the timing of the sale of those books as to what would have actually happened. Equally well, as I indicated to Deputy O'Donnell, there was a liquidity management exercise which saved, roughly speaking, €0.3 billion and then whatever was made, if anything, on the sale of the deposit book.