Thank you.
I'm just trying to get clarification of your opening comments, Mr. Stanton. You made some very strong statements about the fact that a regulatory framework would suppress innovation, reduce competition, and harm consumers. Those are very strong words.
I don't see any evidence that it would suppress innovation.
Then you talk about it hurting consumers. You talk about the Australian example and say that it forced a reduction in interchange revenues in Australia, which it was clearly intended to do. But then you were saying that interest rates, which had been subsidized by interchange revenues, had to be increased. In other words, you were saying that interchange revenue had been used to keep interest rates low—although most people have trouble seeing those rates as low—and had to be increased to compensate for that loss of revenue. Did I clearly understand that?
And grace periods had to be shortened as a result of the reduction in the interchange rate.