shifting the pricing practices to minimize losses is not acceptable.

It turned out that was not true.

In fact, it was increasing in size.

You had no reason to believe it until April 2012?

Which is a little different from what you said, which is that they 'get the information on those positions on a regular and recurring basis.'

Not to my knowledge about OCC.

it was Mr. Dimon who was responsible for directing the data cutoff.

Yes, absolutely. And it is important for us as the regulator to know what the actual market is and be informed on a timely basis.

the bank needs to provide true, accurate, independent marks every day.

Jamie Dimon testified to the Senate that the SCP was to protect against a financial crisis

But its general direction, its general theme is to lead to tougher risk controls, is it not?

Now, when the bank reviewed the new model for approval, at that time it said that implementation issues, certain issues, had to be worked out before the model was activated.

And when he testified that the SCP was to protect against Scenarios 2 and 4, you go all the way over to number 10 to try to find some scenario in which it might be helpful.

Is it common inside JPMorgan to change your pricing practices when the losses start piling up in order to minimize the losses?

Now, rather than identifying risks to be offset, are you also going to identify the assets to be offset?

We had a $157 billion high-risk derivatives portfolio here that OCC hardly knew existed, and that strikes me as being a hidden financial risk.

We have gone into the concerns which we have had about the whale trades all day long.

So that was just a failure at the OCC.

the Synthetic Credit Portfolio was not reducing the bank's risks but was increasing them?

Would you call that a high-risk approach?

the bank stopped sending the Investment Bank's daily profit and loss (P&L) data to the OCC.

We recommend that regulators finally issue the long-delayed final rule implementing Merkley-levin provisions of Dodd-Frank, which are known as the Volcker Rule.

I would have considered that is the wrong thing to do.

So you were very comfortable with the position you were in under those three central scenarios, showing you losing money under a New Financial Crisis--right?--of $250 million.

Regulators did not 'get the information' on those positions on a regular basis, did they?