Mr. Matt Moran:

It's not my conclusion, Deputy, but I can understand fully why you can ask that question in the context of what ultimately happened. I think others have come before the committee and explained that 2008 and the first three quarters of 2008 were very different to what ultimately happened. The fourth quarter of 2008 saw a significant downturn but that materialised later, and in '09 and '10 the collapse in the economies, in particular in Ireland, but also elsewhere where the bank was - they were all correlated if you will - led the bank to have a much worse position than the assumptions that were used to create this view. So, fundamentally, risk did not believe that the bank would suffer this level of losses, and the other elements of the bank's model were positive contributors. For example, it had a cost-to-income ratio that was very low, so it meant that for revenue generated in a period, a significant element of that would convert to profit, so it had some buffers. Now, nationalisation, from what I understand, occurred for numerous reasons, rather than implying it just to be the level of loss, but I understand your question obviously.