And then you mean that you would see where the review led to, but your first reaction would be this is a troublesome idea and we better look into it? Is that fair?
Well, I want you to look at Exhibit 1g.
That was the purpose?
What happened here is factually clear, and they acknowledge what happened here.
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.
A large jump in risk limit breaches is a worrisome pattern.
So that was just a failure at the OCC.
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?