I think there will always be a bias to ex ante review rather than to ex post examination. I think that's for good reason, which is that the costs ex post of breaking something up are pretty significant, whereas the costs of stopping something from happening are going to be much lower.
That said, I personally would be open to more kinds of ex post review. I'll give you an example of a really thorny kind of problem. It sounds as though you've been looking at these a lot. There is the nascent competitor problem, when you have the acquisition of a small competitor. One of the things that I like about the changes in the BIA—I'm not sure about that process, but I will say—is the idea that there could be an abuse that's good for a competitor but harmful to the competition. That can now be covered by abuse of dominance. I think something like serial acquisitions of nascent competitors might be something that we have to look at ex post, and I would look at it as an abuse. We've done that before in Laidlaw, and then case law kind of made that impossible, but that's an example.
I'm sorry. That's a long-winded answer, but yes.