We really appreciate your focus on them today.

So to the extent, then, that we have a problem with the nature of the information to the public, you would say to me that it goes back to the OCC?

And you have no concern that should you, in a vigorous pursuit of this, according to what you believe the OCC's mandate is to you, that Bank of America, PNC, or Wells Fargo might not hire your firm in the future?

But by the same token, a baseline which you then go on to say does not override the independent judgment is not really a baseline.

I understand there is a whole team, but let me maybe hone in on my question.

When they approached us, they asked us if we were interested in doing the work...

I think there are a lot of questions, and so we are going to go through a second round.

the consent orders do not end dual track. They perpetuate it

The servicers are the ones who constructed these forms, which makes me concerned about whether or not the interest was to make it as clear and as useful as possible.

Having listened to Ms. Williams describe that the overwhelming universe that responded, responded in a narrative form about what they thought was happening to them, I thought very much that they provided all of the substantial information…

openness and transparency in this process is going to be critical to a belief that it was done

And you are not concerned that-- your company is not concerned that your vigorous pursuit of what the OCC's mandate here may cause them not to have the favor of JPMorgan in the future as it relates to other non-home ownership issues?