So what you said is not exactly accurate on that day. Is that correct?
He was just pursuing a mathematical interest. He was not operating in furtherance of the bank's goals?
Well, I want you to look at Exhibit 1g.
That was the purpose?
I am not talking about what is on the tapes. I am talking about the shift in the way these marks are made.
it was Mr. Dimon who was responsible for directing the data cutoff.
And that a $660 million error is material.
A large jump in risk limit breaches is a worrisome pattern.
So there intention--was not an intention, you said, on an ongoing basis to optimize the book.
But it was a violation of the bank's policy.
Is it appropriate to set goals to achieve RWA reductions by affecting how the models calculate the results?