I will correct myself again. I said it was the largest bank failure, and that apparently is true, thrift or otherwise.

What is audacious about the FDIC seeking access to--not in this case access--sitting down with a bank...

And helps the public.

Well, it took you long enough.

All right. The IG report... found that Option ARMs were 47 percent of the loans in WaMu's portfolio.

I think the American taxpayers and the American people expect a lot more from their regulators than what we have seen in this situation.

Well, Rome was burning. The economy was going to Hell in a hand basket.

But will you remind all the institutions?

Subject to that risk, it is important, though, that we be clear and prescriptive?

It was anathema to you.

You should know why.

That could come back again.

But they are serious enough that enforcement action was needed because management was not addressing it. Is that a fair conclusion?

They were ineffective.

Is that in your judgment adequate regulation?

They can point to them when they come to telling the folks they are supposed to regulate, Hey, this is the law, we are going to enforce it.

Loans were risky, were they? They had multiple risk factors layered on top of each other.

Just to make sure I understand that, that is why--what you just said is the access to their information was more critical.

No, but your people--this is the expression.

I cannot believe the continuing audacity of this woman.

From your perspectives, it was a turf battle. Protecting turf.

We cannot rely on the regulators. That is obvious from today's hearing, it seems to me.

Is that a fair comparison, given that WaMu's lending practices departed radically from historically safe products and practices?

This is far too cozy?

So what were you looking at that would not be inside that OTS 2 rating?