The small bank community is fully regulated. We comply or are subject to the exact same rules the largest of banks are subject to. The only issue for us is really when the law becomes too prescriptive, when it says you must do something, particularly when it's constructed in such a way that the drafter of the legislation had the largest institution in mind. That's what creates the extraordinary burden and what we're most concerned about.
There is one comment I wanted to make because I think it's relevant to what a lot of the other witnesses have said today. To put it in crass commercial terms, the institutions are interested. If we're spending a lot of money, we want to see the bang for the buck, if I can put it that way.
I think a lot of people have pointed out today that it's as if we constructed the front end without paying enough attention to the back end. By the “front end” I mean the institutions, the banks that are charged with collecting the information, with supervising the transactions, identifying the suspicious transactions, and providing that information into the system so that something can be done with it. The frustration that many of the banks feel is that they don't see enough being done with it. The cost burden is there, but we're not getting the results from the money that's being spent. If it's not providing a direct benefit to the institution—which it's not, other than avoiding reputational risk—if we could at least see more of a payoff in terms of the greater social good, then that would balance the equation better for the institutions that have subjected to the burden.