Mr. Peter Nyberg:

The report only offers the explanation that the authorities did not expect the situation to be so bad as it really was. Since they did not see the reality, it is understandable that they expected there would be time enough for things to improve gradually. The banks had the same problem. Why were the very obvious things not done? For instance, in regard to the apparent unwillingness of the Financial Regulator to do things, one thing that was mentioned was the risk of legal challenges. If the regulator were to have said to the bank do this, the bank could say it would take the regulator to court, as it is not his business to give this advice. The commission report concludes that it might have been a good thing, then at least it would have been clear what the remit of the supervisor actually was, now it remains unclear. It remained only within the supervision. There might have been a number of various reasons, but in effect I think that goes with the other conclusions of the commission, there really was no appreciation of the size of the problems that were there.