Professor Philip Lane:

We put a lot of time and resources into this. Throughout our attitude has been, and we have said previously, that, number one, we want to make sure all customers that have been harmed are redressed and compensated and, number two, we want to take an expansive definition so that it is not just an issue of a narrow contractual interpretation. We want to ensure a broad range of documentation, a reasonable interpretation and so on. Even with that lens, we put a great deal of effort and expertise into this, but the conclusion was that these contracts are, indeed, different from the fixed margin tracker products and our analysis of them was that, at a systemic level, they would be priced by the banks at the prevailing funding conditions when the fixed rates expired. What happened at the end of 2008 is they just withdrew trackers. We do not think that was appropriate and that is why there is this conversation saying that even if they were going to offer a customer an expensive tracker, they should have offered it. However, the prevailing rate trackers, given the conditions at the time, would have been expensively priced. That is what we think.