the second thing is, where the thresholds are today on hart scott rhoden no the transactions that get caught in the nets are not interesting competitively. many are small purchases of equity, conversions of shares and this sort of thing so lowering the threshold gets a lot more deals being reviewed by the agency, a lot more transaction costs and time to close deals that aren't interesting. it's not clear it catches a lot of anti- -- new anti-competitive conduct. we do bring litigation to address anti-competitive transactions that aren't caught in our net we've always had that jurisdiction and had that before the clayton act, long before hart scott rhoden no we're litigating a case we didn't catch because it didn't come through hart scott and that's not our only tool what you get by lowering the threshold is a lot more work to accomplish a lot less. i'm not sure that's the answer i think right sizing and thinking about where we ought to focus better is a smart idea and that's precisely why we've got a study throughout looking at small deals in the tech sector. >> all right well, i'm su