Ms Mary Farrell:

In the Deputy's documentation, he will find a number of financial statements and documents relating to this matter. He will see from the sample sent to the committee that, month after month over a period of two years, what I describe went on without any intervention. We would not consider that to be due diligence. It appears from more recent information that we are acquiring, which came through the Committee of Public Accounts, that there are issues concerning the investment committee and the expertise on it. That is now a matter for consideration. The risk management was very poor, or non-existent, particularly in one area, which I am sure we will address later. The area in question is the one we are most concerned with. There are four strands of investments, and there was one particular area that lost out heavily. In that case, the entire fund was invested in equities and bonds. There was no cash component on which to draw in times of stress in the market. That has changed. One of the strategies introduced in 2012 was that a cash holding would be provided, but it is like locking the stable door when the horse has bolted. It is a bit late when it has happened. Another risk-avoidance strategy, called a target volatility trigger, has been introduced. It would trigger a reaction in the fund if the value dropped below a certain level. That structure is now in place, but it was not in place during the period we are talking about. Does that answer the Deputy's question?