Mr. Brian McEnery:

There are a few things around that. First, approximately 50% by value had been recently valued in the context of the year end position for December 2013 where it was not NAMA which was putting a valuation on them. Half of the portfolio by value had had recent valuations. Second, in respect of Deputy Kelly's point around the bundling, 19% of the portfolio was non-income generating. In fact, there was a cost associated with the holding of the assets. For instance, land or development, or partially developed housing estates, were non-income generating. One of the key considerations for the board was that we would not be left with that 19% as a rump, and that is why we looked at the bundling. That would be a common practice when one would be taking a loan sale.