Mr. Peter Nyberg:

The methodology was pretty standard. They looked at the books and they used various stress assumptions to see how the book, meaning the assets of the bank, would change if the various stresses came through. If I remember correctly, there were three alternatives. There was a standard scenario, a better one and a worse one, in particular regarding the big real estate loans. The standard scenario gave the result that the banks were solvent. The more stressed scenario gave the result that there could be problems with the big real estate loans. That is the way one does it, because - to be frank - economic forecasts are usually wrong. To avoid nailing one's flag to the wrong assumptions, one takes different assumptions and shows between which extremes the results come out. The decision makers at the time decided that the central assumption was correct, or most likely, and assumed then that the banks were solvent. If one would have taken the worst possible assumption, the banks obviously would not have been solvent, but it is only afterwards now that we know how it turned out. The method was fairly standard.