What is happening is that the market players have all moved to global-style liquidity. As the superintendent explained, there were different capital requirements for global-style versus general market, a disruption-style liquidity, and those are all being reviewed. She explained that the bank-sponsored conduits with general market disruption liquidity came in and, to the benefit of investors, backed their conduits and provided liquidity. Although legally they were separate and were under no obligation to do so, they did. What that has brought to the fore for the superintendent is reputational risk and the fact that they're likely to do this in any event. So the capital charge needs to reflect this.
On June 16th, 2008. See this statement in context.