trying to point out, not this? >> it would have led to it not happening. you would have derivatives which were part of this trade. these credential swaps that were used would be more transparent, which it's supposed to be. it's just that the delay has been very long in terms of getting a real exchange up and running and allowing that transparency there. that might have been one part of it. but it's still unclear whether this hedging activity would have been allowed or not under the vocal rule. even when we finally get it, the interpretation of the vocal rule is going to be left largely to the federal reserve. you know this, steve. at the end of the day, it's not clear they would have disallowed this kind of trading, especially if you're saying we're hedging for the overall bank. instead of actually making proprietary trades, as we know they really seem to be. >> my key point is that i think whatever happens now, as we finish the vocal rule, as we finish implementing dodd frank, we should be using a scalpel, not a meat ax. what i worry about here is that with jamie's loss of