I think we should have, absolutely.

I just want to strongly urge you to reconsider the position that the SEC needs to adopt a new round of regulations now, for several reasons.

I think this is the wrong way to go.

I just feel strongly that the problems facing our economy are not monetary in nature.

Did it not occur to somebody to bring the financial institutions together and say, hey, you probably ought to consider a different way of establishing your floating rate resets because there is this integrity problem?

I am very disturbed about the destruction of what little confidence might remain in our financial system.

I know you fully appreciate the importance of this index, how widely used it is for all kinds of transactions and how the American financial system--I do not want to say it is dependent on it, but it is totally integrated into this.

How about the number of instances since the 2010--precisely how many of the 300 occurred after the new regulations were imposed in 2010?

So would it be fair to say that in many instances, these--many of the instances that she is citing are really manifestations of the strength of an industry rather than weakness?

If a fund is going to break the buck, it is going to break the buck, and capital support is there.

I will go out on a limb. It seems to me that there is a majority on the Commission that does not share your view on this.

Could you tell us what is the definition that you have used to define an instance of this voluntary support that gets you to this count of 300?