Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this has been a really good discussion that has raised a lot of interesting points. I agree with President Geithner that these are adjustments around the edges that were intended to make the facilities a little more useful in potential periods of stress. I, myself, was favorably disposed toward the options for the reasons you said, Mr. Chairman, of focusing our balance sheet. If we’re a little worried about our balance sheet, let’s focus on putting it to work where the stress points in the system are likely to be, which is quarter- end and year-end. I didn’t see it as promising a further extension. We would be voting on one through the end of January—that’s what it says, and that’s what it would be.
On the TAF extension, I do think that the financial system and the depository system, regional banks in particular, are coming under increasing pressure. I think we ought to keep the maximum flexibility to deal with these liquidity pressures. I would hesitate to go to just 84 days if I thought that meant there was going to be a material tightening of the standards that the Reserve Banks use to grant these loans because of nervousness about the shifting of a bank’s rating over the 84 days. So I would ask Bill to think again about whether we could run 28-day and 84-day auctions at the same time. I don’t think it’s that confusing, to tell the truth. We run schedule 1 and schedule 2 auctions for the dealers, so I think we ought to give that a little thought so that we’re not forcing the Reserve Banks to make even more difficult judgments about long-term viability than they do now.
So on balance, I’m favorably disposed, but I think we need to take on board the discussion we’ve heard here today and think carefully about whether we have these proposals adjusted in the right way.