The issue here is that you gave a triple-A credit rating, and a lot of people were seriously damaged by this credit rating. Others who weren't damaged, most notably the TD Bank and Ed Clark, said, “Well, I just didn't really understand the product. If I didn't understand the product, there's no way my bank was going to invest in it.”
The problem with the rating as you gave it is that you in effect induced people to do it. We've had people here who didn't really understand what the investment was, but because their financial adviser--some very senior financial advisers--said it was rated well by the DBRS, it was given a good rating, it must be a good product....
It seems that whether it's intentional or unintentional, it's based on a model whose validity has expired. It almost conjures up images of Ph.D. mathematicians going through their models in the basements of these buildings and producing a model that on the face of it appears to be perfectly sensible and warrants a rating, yet when exposed to the light of day, the reality of what credit is, it's absurd.
Square the circle for me, Mr. Bethlenfalvy. How is it that you could provide a triple-A rating to a product where very senior people say, “I don't get it, I don't understand it, so we're not investing in it”?