Yes. I want to, first, just express appreciation to President Yellen for the full account of their experience. I think it is useful for us to share notes on experiences like that. We had an experience with the OTS, and we found that their rating plus 1 was the rating we usually came to. We had the luxury of having someone on our staff who had experience with Countrywide, and we essentially treated them like an institution that we supervised and insisted on the full panoply of information, such as reports and financial reporting, to be able to make our own independent assessment. Our guys did a great job. I have to commend them—they did a lot of work. But it was a strain on our staff. I do think, if lending is going to play such a large role for us going forward, that we should build up the capability of developing our own independent assessment of institutions whose primary regulator is not us.
In this instance, I think it is outrageous that the OTS downgraded them and didn’t inform the San Francisco Fed. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the unacceptability of that sort of behavior is communicated at the highest levels to the OTS. This instance demonstrates the principle that lending on which we incur no loss doesn’t necessarily equal lending that is appropriate. I think it is a good thing, President Yellen, that you folks insisted on comfort from the FDIC that they were pursuing a least-cost strategy. But it will not necessarily be the case that lending to allow the chartering institution to delay closure will be the least-cost resolution. I am curious, President Yellen, whether there were uninsured claimants that were able to withdraw funds in the interim during your lending.