I can elaborate on that. My message was that when banks set up conduits, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, the theory was that they had transferred the risk completely to investors. When Coventree, an unregulated player, set up a conduit, the theory was that it had transferred risk completely to investors, so that the only thing investors had to look at was what was in the conduit, what mortgage loans or car loans were in the conduit. You didn't have to worry about who had set the conduit up. But what we've seen internationally is that if banks set up a conduit, you would be far better off if you had been investing in paper issued by a bank.
On June 16th, 2008. See this statement in context.