On a direct share basis, it of course depends on the company. If it's a public company, no, because most of those are so widely traded. If it's a private company we require a disclosure of the member's interest. We call them private, controlled companies, if they qualify for that definition, based on whether the member has control.
In all the work we do, we don't worry about size, in the sense that in our practical experience it's very unlikely that we're going to have someone who is that wealthy. Indeed, that's proven to be the case. However, for example, we insist on taking things to the next step. Mutual funds are an interesting example. People can say if they have 10,000 shares or if they have 1,000 shares, the difference is really inconsequential. My investment can't influence them and they can't influence me.
But if you have funds that are sector-specific, and if in our milieu you happen to be, for example, the minister of mines and all your mutual funds are in the mining industry, then that very easily takes you into the next step, as you can see. So we insist on having the names of every fund, and we'll Google it randomly and check.
I don't want to dismiss your point, which is a valid one, about does it matter if a person has a $100 million in a particular phase of the market and another person has a $100? Although those are two obviously wildly polarized examples, I think it's a slippery slope.
At some point, you have to decide, what the threshold is for that being important. Frankly I just don't know where that would be.