Okay. I think I now understand it.
This will be my last question. Weren't there a number of what one might call red flags that popped up along the way and that should have served as a warning to somebody earlier? The fact that Canada was unique with these general market disruption clauses, the fact that only one of the rating agencies would rate the asset under these conditions, the fact that at least one major bank wouldn't participate--weren't these somewhat unusual developments that perhaps should have been noticed and acted upon earlier?
I know it's difficult—hindsight is 20/20—but it does seem to me that these are fairly self-evident warning signs that appeared along the way.