Is my interpretation correct? I am not a lawyer, but I have worked with people in the field of economics and competition in the private sector. I have the impression that there are so many constraints, so many loopholes in the act, that a company with deep pockets to defend itself will ultimately always be able to get around the act as it now stands.
That is the first part of my question. I will give you the rest of my time to answer my questions after.
The second part of my question relates to the 60% market share issue.
I asked Mr. Singh where he came up with the 60% figure. He answered that he had looked at regimes around the world. When asked which ones, he did not know. Ultimately, we see that there are really no 60% cases, 60% is an arbitrary percentage, and ultimately it is better to be consequentialist and try to look at what the effect of a merger would be on the price to consumers: how the efficiency gains would be redistributed.
I have the impression that this is still adding constraints that may again be going to further complicate the regulator's job. Am I right about that?