Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Friday, June 7, 2013

SEC COMMISSIONER WALTER SPEAKS AT FINANCIAL REPORTING INSTITUTE CONFERENCE

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Keynote Luncheon Speech
by
Commissioner Elisse B. Walter
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
32nd Annual SEC and Financial Reporting Institute Conference
Pasadena, CA
May 30, 2013

Introduction


Good afternoon and thank you, Dean Bill (Holder) for your kind introduction, and thanks to Randy (Beatty) for inviting me to share my views at the 32nd Annual SEC and Financial Reporting Institute Conference here at USC. I am delighted to be here with all of you today.

You may not hear this too often from people outside your profession, but I have always had a passion for accounting and auditing. I think this has its roots in the time I spent with my father, who was a CPA and the CFO of a publicly-held company; he helped me begin to understand just how important accounting is to business and the financial system. Of course, in my more than two decades with the SEC, which included close to a decade in the Division of Corporation Finance, I have developed a deeper and more complete understanding of the critical role accounting and auditing professionals play in our capital markets.

And today, I am pleased to see that we are working to adapt and expand that role to serve investors and other stakeholders even more effectively in the years ahead, by addressing critical issues at a moment of great change and important progress in the worlds of finance and accounting.

Before I go on, I have a disclosure requirement of my own. I need to remind you that the views I express today are my own, and not those of the Commission, my fellow Commissioners or the Commission’s staff.
1

High-Quality Financial Reporting



Because financial information is the starting point for an investor’s decision-making process, high quality accounting standards are critical. Accurate and useful financial information creates the environment in which capital formation sprouts, grows and, sadly, sometimes withers. That is why, when developing accounting standards that will shape an increasingly complex financial environment, it is critical that they accurately reflect the underlying economics of the transactions they document.

Of course, as we know from the many standards-setting processes underway, there is often a diversity of views on how the economics of business transactions should be considered when developing accounting and disclosure requirements, and reconciling them is a primary task of any good standard setter — the development of high-quality accounting standards is certainly dependent upon it.

Reconciling diverse views on corporate finance issues is something I have spent a lot of time on as a Commissioner and regulator. And from my perspective, the most effective way to resolve these differences is to set a standard that expresses a transaction’s economics in a fashion that meaningfully informs investors and resonates with them as they study a company’s disclosures.

FASB / IASB Convergence Projects

We are seeing this dynamic play out in the FASB and IASB priority convergence projects. Earlier today, you discussed significant progress towards an alignment of accounting standards in four key areas — revenue, leases, financial instruments, and insurance.

This progress is a positive development, with both the FASB and the IASB showing great skill in working together to create common standards that will effectively serve investors the world over. However, as Paul [Beswick] noted this morning, publication of the standards is just the starting point. The challenge you face, as CPAs, is to successfully implement any new accounting standards, and thereby collectively protect investors in this evolving financial market.

And, finishing the convergence projects is, of course, not the end of the story for the United States and IFRS. I continue to look forward to a day when there is one set of global accounting standards, and we are taking a number of steps in that direction at the SEC, including soliciting views from U.S. publicly held companies regarding these issues. As Paul noted earlier, the IFRS already plays an important role in the U.S. capital markets. For example, today with US foreign private issuers already using IFRS, we have a significant public market — with approximately 450 companies with a market capitalization in the trillions — already trading on the basis of financial statements prepared in accordance with those standards.

I hope that, as these common standards come on line, you will work with accounting colleagues and corporate managers to ensure a successful transition resting on four pillars.

The first pillar of successful implementation is training, and these projects will require training across all constituents at all levels within the organization — from the staff accountant performing the filing review to the senior management. In addition, we all need to consider how we can make sure that investors understand the changes that are occurring. In order for that to happen, you and all of the other affected personnel at the entities you represent will first need to take as much time as necessary to fully understand the new standards yourselves.

The next pillar is resources. It is important that companies devote sufficient time and resources to updating their financial reporting systems in the wake of these changes. We can already see that the standard-setters understand the significance of the changes and the need for a sufficiently long implementation period. But companies themselves must also be sure to allot adequate time to amending processes and systems, and resources necessary to run parallel systems, until they feel fully comfortable reporting financial information using the new standards.

The third pillar is identification of interpretative issues. The standard-setters are spending a great deal of effort now to ensure that the new standards are as precise as possible. But there will always be areas that demand interpretation. It will be important to identify areas where there is diversity in application and address them through interpretative guidance so that investors are not harmed and financial statements are transparent. I expect the SEC staff will be fairly active in this space.

In addition, I commend the FASB for proactively addressing this area by bringing together a broad spectrum of representative constituents into an implementation group that will raise practice interpretation issues related to the proposed revenue standard. This is about timely communication that allows thoughtful deliberation, and the goal is to do this in an open and transparent manner. I also think is it a positive sign that the IASB has agreed to participate in this initiative and that we, through the SEC staff, will be an observer. Perhaps this could serve as a pilot for all of the new standards in development and a new tool for the profession.

The final pillar is a focus on investor understanding. When there is an accounting policy choice, we should select the accounting that best reflects the basic economics of the transaction. With more principles-based standards, it is of the utmost importance to consider the substance of the transaction and the economics. Disclosure that is transparent and communicates the critical judgments will allow the investor to see transactions through managements’ eyes, allowing them to better understand the motivations and the potential pitfalls or benefits of the transaction, and to make more informed decisions. Depending upon the transaction, this may mean going beyond the explicit disclosure requirements. Again, I encourage you to look beyond abstract accounting standards and disclosure checklists and think about what would be meaningful to an investor seeking to understand a transaction’s importance. A check-the-box mentality may not produce the best financial information.

Increase Outreach to Investors Related to Financial Reporting

Increased investor understanding should always be a primary goal of new standards. But to end up with standards which support that goal, we need to start the standard-setting process with investor outreach. Finding out what is on investors’ minds is a necessary step because this will improve the overall quality of the standards.

Recently, we have seen an increase in investor outreach, in large part thanks to a strong effort by FASB, but I believe there is still room for improvement. For example, the FASB, in its due process, should emphasize collecting feedback from users. We need to ask ourselves: "Do we really know what matters to an investor?" "What information is the investor looking for?" And "have we received feedback from a cross-section of the different types of investors?"

As the SEC looks to update its guidance as a result of final new accounting standards, we, too, will be seeking to understand the needs of investors in advance of any amendments.

Disclosures

One of the parts of my job that I enjoy most is the opportunity to interact with individuals who are devoted to providing investors with high-quality financial reporting. In these interactions, I get to hear all of the wonderful things that the Commission is doing well and, not surprisingly, what the Commission could do better. One issue that has been raised in these discussions is the level of required disclosures that are included in a company’s filings with the Commission.

When I hear this sort of comment, I think the natural inclination is to be somewhat skeptical of a company not wanting to be as transparent as possible with their investors. But increasingly, we hear that the level of disclosures is interfering with a registrant’s ability to communicate with investors. Of course, we need to investigate and evaluate that assertion. But, if for now, I accept this assumption to be a fact, then what are the appropriate next steps? In my view, there seem to be two potential next steps to research the issue and consider potential improvements. One path would be to rethink the entire regime. While this route may sound encouraging on first blush, it fails to acknowledge that our current disclosure regime has served investors well for decades. And, because of the enormity of the task, it runs the risk of taking too long while not being as impactful as it might otherwise be. A more targeted review of some of the areas where the information is not perceived to be as valuable has the advantage of being completed more quickly and therefore have a more immediate impact.

In addition to important areas of line item disclosure, I believe that the prime target for improvement is Management’s Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A"). As I have said many times before, these disclosures about where a company’s been and where it’s going "should be made in a way that communicates — truly speaks — to shareholders. . . . [that] truly enables the owners [of the company], the shareholders, to view the company and its prospects through the eyes of its insiders."

2 So I encourage you all to give us your thoughts on disclosure requirements; we really need to work together to ensure that disclosure truly serves to inform.

Role of the Auditor

Stepping back for a moment from front-line accounting, it is important that, as we shape the financial reporting structure of the future, we continue to emphasize and enhance the role of the auditors who serve as gatekeepers to the public securities markets. The integrity and reliability of the financial reporting system relies heavily on auditors having significant responsibility for the large volume of financial information that supports the Commission's full disclosure system.

Congress, in creating our system, granted the accounting profession an important public trust. This trust in auditors, combined with the vigilance of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB"), helps to form the foundation of the financial reporting process. We look to auditors not only to help detect problems, but, most importantly, to prevent problems from occurring in the first place, by deterring those who would fudge numbers, take shortcuts, or, more subtly, tolerate inappropriate biases that have the effect of making an otherwise reasonable estimate or judgment unreasonable.

Role of the PCAOB

Experience teaches us that there is value in auditing the auditors as well, and, since its creation 10 years ago, the PCAOB has grown into an important regulatory body with a significant investor protection role in this area.

The PCAOB is in a unique and fortunate position of having its standard setting, inspections, and enforcement all under one roof. The potential benefits of this structure are remarkable because they are all critical components of what some have called the "audit performance feedback loop" — the processes of, for example, leveraging the information gathered during inspections and enforcement actions to develop high quality standards.

More than 2,300 accounting firms are registered with the PCAOB, about 900 of them based overseas. As you know, one of the PCAOB’s most important mandates is to conduct inspections of accounting firms registered with the Board. And since 2002, it has conducted inspections of thousands of audits of U.S. public companies in the U.S. and abroad.

One area that has been nearest and dearest to my heart in overseeing the PCAOB is auditor performance standards.

As I have often said, I would like to see the PCAOB devote more attention to updating and maintaining their performance standards and quality control, which have the most direct effect on how audits are performed. High quality audit standards that set clear expectations for auditor performance are absolutely critical to our financial system.

I’m encouraged that standards regarding the auditing of related parties and significant unusual transactions, as well as auditing accounting estimates, including fair value measurements, are on the PCAOB’s current standard setting agenda. However, I think more can be done to enhance the development and maintenance of high quality auditing standards. There are also a number of very important auditing matters under consideration globally, such as the considerations for changes to the auditor’s reporting model. It is important that the PCAOB be a leader in advancing the continuing improvement of audit quality, including by sharing experiences, knowledge and views between regulators. This also includes monitoring the activities of other regulators, standard setters, and legislative bodies as they explore changes to the way audits are conducted or auditors are overseen.

A second priority is expanding the PCAOB’s ability to perform inspections in certain jurisdictions outside the U.S. The Board has made remarkable progress over the past year in advancing new cooperative agreements and developing relationships with non-U.S. regulators, enabling advancements of inspections of audits around the globe. A strong, global inspection program is critical to evaluating audit performance and provides important information necessary for the PCAOB to improve their auditing and quality control standards as well as for firms to improve their own quality controls.

Audits of Broker Dealers

The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Board explicit authority over the audits and auditors of broker-dealers’ financial statements. Currently, the Board has an interim broker/dealer inspection program in place, and it issued its first public progress report on that program last year. The initial results were concerning. The Board plans to continue inspections under the interim program until rules for a permanent program take effect. Its next progress report is expected later this year and will cover a much larger number of firms and audits. I will be very much interested in the results.

In addition, in June 2011, the Commission proposed amendments to Rule 17a-5, the rule that contains the financial reporting requirements for brokers and dealers. Among other things, the proposed amendments are intended to increase focus on certain financial and custodial requirements and facilitate the PCAOB’s implementation of its oversight of broker-dealer audits. In July 2011, the PCAOB proposed new auditing and attestation standards that would apply to the audits of broker and dealers. I am hopeful that the Commission will move forward to finalize its rules in the near future and that, once we do, the PCAOB will likewise move forward expeditiously.

PCAOB Inspection Reports — Enhancing Inspection Report Content

I understand that one of the PCAOB’s new near term priority projects is directed at improving the content and readability of inspection reports and that the Board is in the early stages of conducting outreach as part of this efforts. I’m encouraged by this development — higher quality inspection reports will promote better understanding of the issues and help to prevent similar problems going forward. In particular, I believe that PCAOB inspection reports should include citations to aspects of the relevant standards or rules and an evaluation of how the auditor’s performance compared to such requirements.

Conclusion

We are all charged with creating and implementing an accounting and audit foundation that will allow investors to make sense of the rapidly changing financial markets, and ensure that the results are not only timely and accurate, but also comprehensible and useful to investors. The new standards that are developed should be informed by thoughtful and robust analytical thinking and with the needs of investors uppermost in our minds. These new standards need to be clear, appropriately and consistently applied, and then effectively enforced. Timely communication between all players leading up to the effective date will be critical to help pave the road to success.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

 

FINAL JUDGEMENT: LAWYER TO REFRAME FROM VIOLATING CERTAIN ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS OF SECURITIES LAWS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC Obtains Final Judgment and Issues Administrative Orders Against John A. ("Jack") Grant

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on May 17, 2013, the Honorable George A. O’Toole Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a final judgment against defendant John A. ("Jack") Grant, a lawyer and former stockbroker living in Yarmouth Port, MA. Among other relief, the final judgment imposes a permanent injunction against future violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and orders Jack Grant to pay a total of $201,392.27.

The Commission also announced today the issuance of administrative orders barring Jack Grant from the securities industry and from practicing before the Commission.

In its federal court Complaint, the Commission alleged that Jack Grant violated a Commission bar from association with investment advisers by associating with his son Lee Grant’s investment advisory firm, Sage Advisory Group LLC ("Sage"), and by acting as an investment adviser himself. In 1988, the Commission filed a previous enforcement action against Jack Grant alleging that he sold $5,500,000 of unregistered securities and misappropriated investors’ funds. At that time, Jack Grant agreed to a settlement that resulted in a July 1988 order barring him from association with brokers, dealers, and investment advisers.

Jack Grant did not remove himself from the securities business, however, and instead continued to provide investment advice to individuals and small businesses. The Commission’s Complaint alleged that he retooled his service as the Law Offices of Jack Grant and used his son, Lee Grant, to help implement his investment advice. The Complaint further alleged that Jack Grant, Lee Grant, and Sage failed to inform their advisory clients that Jack Grant is barred from associating with investment advisers.

The final judgment permanently enjoins Jack Grant from violating Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In addition, the final judgment orders him to comply with the Commission’s 1988 bar order and orders him to undertake notification to his clients of the final judgment. Without admitting or denying the Commission’s allegations, Jack Grant consented to the entry of the final judgment.

Jack Grant also consented to the Commission’s entry in follow-on administrative proceedings of a permanent bar, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisors Act, prohibiting him from association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser, among other entities, and an order, pursuant to Rule 102(e), permanently suspending him from practicing before the Commission as an attorney. The Commission entered the administrative orders on May 30, 2013.

The Commission’s action against Lee Grant and Sage is still pending.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

SEC SAYS FINAL JUDGEMENTS ENTERED AGAINST PENNY STOCK SCHEMERS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that the Honorable James V. Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered final judgments against defendants Thomas Rubin, Christopher Scott, BGLR Enterprises, LLC and E-Info Solutions, LLC on May 22, 2013. The final judgments imposed on Rubin and Scott permanent injunctions against future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgments also imposed on BGLR Enterprises, LLC and E-Info Solutions, LLC permanent injunctions against future violations of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act. The court also entered ten-year penny stock bars against Rubin and BGLR Enterprises, along with five-year penny stock bars against Scott and E-Info Solutions as well as a five-year officer and director bar against Scott. Also, Scott was ordered to pay full disgorgement of approximately $112,000, prejudgment interest of approximately $12,000, and a civil penalty of $75,000, while the court will determine if and to what amount monetary relief will be ordered against Rubin.

The SEC's complaint, filed on September 22, 2011, charged Rubin, who was the Chief Executive Officer of a now-defunct broker-dealer named Westcap Securities, Inc., and Scott, Westcap's former Chief Compliance Officer, with engaging in a continuing series of schemes with others to conduct unlawful unregistered offerings and/or fraudulently manipulate the market for the common stock of four microcap companies. The complaint alleged that Rubin and Scott personally engaged in various manipulative activities including coordinated and matched trading activity and that the two took advantage of the manipulated markets for certain of the above-described issuers by selling shares they had received in these issuers for substantial profits. The complaint also alleged that Rubin and Scott, through their respective related entities, BGLR Enterprises, LLC and E-Info Solutions, LLC, violated the registration provisions of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act by selling stock in unlawful unregistered offerings.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO LYING TO SEC INVESTIGATORS

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., May 30, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that the subject of an enforcement inquiry in Florida has pled guilty to criminal charges for obstructing justice and lying to SEC investigators looking into his real estate securities offerings to investors.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida has filed criminal charges against former broker and securities fraud recidivist Robert J. Vitale, who lives in Lauderdale-by-the Sea. According to the criminal information filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the SEC issued subpoenas to Vitale and his investment company Realty Acquisitions & Trust in order to identify investor funds and assets related to the securities offerings. The SEC investigators subpoenaed Vitale for all related bank records and took his sworn testimony.

The criminal information alleges that Vitale lied about the existence of two separate bank accounts that he did not disclose to the SEC. Specifically, Vitale deposited $100,000 into a bank account in Fort Lauderdale under the name of "B.L. Inc." in the days preceding his testimony to SEC investigators in June 2012. Vitale then did not disclose the existence of the account to the SEC when asked under oath.

Vitale was
previously charged by the SEC several years ago for participating in a pump-and-dump market manipulation scheme. Vitale later settled the charges in federal district court and was barred from the brokerage industry.

"Lying to SEC investigators is a violation of the public trust placed in us by America’s investors as well as a violation of criminal law," said Andrew J. Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. "Those who obstruct SEC investigations should realize they will ultimately be held accountable by criminal authorities who work so closely with us to rid the markets of securities law violators, particularly repeat offenders like Vitale. The SEC greatly appreciates the persistence of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI in pursuing this case."

Vitale pled guilty to a two-count information charging him with obstructing the SEC investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621. The Honorable Joan A. Lenard will schedule a sentencing hearing in the coming weeks.

The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in this matter.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

SEC'S "OPERATION SHELL EXPEL" SHUTS DOWN TRADING IN 61 COMPANIES

FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C., June 3, 2013 —The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the second-largest trading suspension in agency history as it continues its "Operation Shell Expel" crackdown against the manipulation of microcap shell companies that are ripe for fraud as they lay dormant in the over-the-counter market.

The SEC suspended trading in the securities of 61 empty shell companies that are delinquent in their public filings and seemingly no longer in business based on an analysis by the SEC's Microcap Fraud Working Group. Since microcap companies are thinly-traded, once they become dormant they have great potential to be hijacked by fraudsters who falsely hype the stock to portray it as a thriving company and coerce investors into "pump-and-dump" schemes.

In this latest review of microcap stocks nationwide using enhanced intelligence technology in the Enforcement Division's Office of Market Intelligence, the SEC identified these clearly dormant shell companies in at least 17 states and one foreign country. By suspending trading in these companies, they're obligated to provide updated financial information to prove they're still operational, essentially rendering them useless to scam artists now that they are no longer flying under the radar.

"Stock manipulators crave empty shell companies that they can use to conduct pump-and-dump schemes and line their pockets with illicit trading profits by taking advantage of unsuspecting investors," said Andrew J. Ceresney, Co-Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "We will aggressively suspend trading in such empty shells to take away a tool of their trade and help rid our markets of fraud."

Pump-and-dump schemes are among the most common types of fraud involving empty shell companies. Perpetrators will tout a thinly-traded microcap stock through false and misleading statements about the company to the marketplace. They purchase the stock at a low price before pumping the stock price higher by creating the appearance of market activity and drawing investor interest. They dump the stock for significant profit by selling it into the market at the higher price once investors have bought in.

"Once a company ceases its filings and investors no longer have current information about it, there is no good reason for that empty shell to remain exposed in our public markets," said Christopher Ehrman, Co-National Coordinator of the SEC's Microcap Fraud Working Group. "In this initiative, we are committed to identifying unacceptable risks in the marketplace and removing them to safeguard investors."

The SEC's Operation Shell Expel initiative has been led by Mr. Ehrman, Margaret Cain, Robert Bernstein, Jessica P. Regan, Leigh Barrett, and Megan Alcorn in the Office of Market Intelligence. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Economic Crimes Unit.

Monday, June 3, 2013

FORMER CEO RECEIVES FINE AND SANCTIONS FROM FEDERAL COURT FOR FRAUD

FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Federal Court in New York Imposes a $1 Million Fine and other Sanctions against Kevin Cassidy, Former CEO of Optionable Inc.

Cassidy settles CFTC charges of defrauding the Bank of Montreal

Washington, DC
— The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it obtained a federal court order requiring Defendant Kevin Cassidy, formerly of Bedford Hills, New York, former CEO of Optionable Inc., to pay a $1 million civil monetary penalty for violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC Regulations. The order was entered on May 28, 2013, by the Honorable George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on November 18, 2008 (see CFTC Press Release
5571-08). The Complaint charged David P. Lee, a former trader for the Bank of Montreal (BMO), for mis-marking and mis-valuing BMO’s natural gas options book and deceiving BMO and charged Lee and Cassidy for deceiving BMO, from 2003 through April 2007, by fabricating purportedly independent broker quotes delivered to BMO’s back office for price and skew verification.

Previously, on April 30, 2012, Judge Daniels entered an Amended Partial Consent Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief finding that Cassidy violated Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2002), and CFTC Regulations 33.10 (a)-(c), 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (a)-(c) (2008). The Amended Partial Consent Order also imposed permanent trading and registration bans on Cassidy and prohibited him from violating the CEA, as charged.

In relation to the same underlying conduct, in August 2011 Cassidy entered a plea of guilty in the Southern District of New York to one criminal count of conspiracy. In April 2012, Cassidy was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.

Defendant Lee settled the CFTC action against him in November 2009 (see CFTC Press Release
5745-09, November 6, 2009). In November 2008, in the Southern District of New York, Lee entered a plea of guilty to four criminal counts: Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and to Make False Bank Entries, Wire Fraud, False Statements to a Bank, and Obstruction of Justice. Lee has not yet been sentenced.

Defendant Robert Moore settled the CFTC’s litigation on March 8, 2010 (see CFTC Press Release 5788-10).

The CFTC thanks the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for their assistance.

CFTC staff members are responsible for this case are Christine Ryall, Eugene Smith, Patricia Gomersall, Joan Manley, and Paul Hayeck.