Here is one final question. There's obviously a lot of discussion, both in this country and around the world, about being too big to fail; if it's too big to fail, it's too big. Some of my friends, even on this committee, suggest that in the past policy decisions were rightly made by not allowing certain institutions to merge or grow larger. Yet my contention is that perhaps it's not the size of an institution like a bank; perhaps it has more to do with the capital requirements or the reserves.
I'm wondering whether you have a perspective with respect to how it's perhaps not the size of a financial institution but in fact the level of reserves or capital requirements that ensures the stability of the institution over time.