I particularly welcome your comments on Title II of Dodd-Frank. You have clearly stated that you are not too-big-to-fail.

Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank says that if it has a direct and significant connection with activities in or an effect on the commerce of the United States that you do have oversight.

anybody who is interested in breaking up some of these large institutions should sign on to H.R. 1489, which would reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act, which I voted against repealing in the first place.

So it could have been a $20 billion item, it could have been a $200 billion item, it could have been every other major large bank.

I would suggest very clearly that you are not wrong about competitiveness.

So if you really ended too-big-to-fail, then Members on the other side of the aisle over here would not state that one of their goals for the next Congress is, 'Let's end too-big-to-fail.'

I believe it is very important for an independent assessment of the value of those three resolution methods to be compared to each other, and to consider the risk associated to the FDIC and certainly the risk or potential damage or harm…

I need to hear it in English.

I think that is an important point to make.

Have you or Mr. Rymer or anyone else, have you done maybe a comparison, for the sake of discussion, take 200 of these exact same loans that maybe you did just spin them out right away, take the loss up front, versus the ones you have held?

But instead of calling these firms systemically important financial institutions or SIFIs, I think what we should call them is what we all know they are and what the market calls them as well, and that is too-big-to-fail institutions.