ms. serwinski, according to your testimony? >> there was no regulatory deficiency that i was aware of until that sunday evening. but it sounds as though there was an insufficient level of communication between ms. ferber and yours, ms. serwinski, is that fair to say in the heat of everything that was going on? i would think that the top level at a firm like this, which is clearly -- you know, it's falling down around your ears, practically. you say -- your testimony, ms. ferber you were heavily involved in trying to sell mf global, would that not to an outside observer suggest that that you were endeavoring as vigorously as you could to make sure that the potential buyers at mf global were not alarmed by what would have been an overt violation of everything a firm like mf global should be doing on behalf of their customers? and indeed the law itself? >> let me be very clear i was never aware during the period you're describing or anytime up until very late sunday night or monday morning that there were any issues regarding our s

ms. serwinski? >> if i may for a moment.may i take an opportunity to -- segregation and secured funds. >> how about you just answer my question? judging on your other responses, since i sat down here some time ago, ms. o'brien's declaration of the fifth amendment was more helpful to this committee than any of your answers so i don't want you going off on any long explanation because based on everything else that is come out of your mouth come all three of you, there has been nothing there that is owned up to the responsibility for any of the stuff that is gone on here even though you are all in major positions of responsibility. soap please answer the question that i asked. how do you tag the firm's funds and keep them separate from these customer segregated funds in the same account? >> affirms collateral is deposited into the segregated or secured environment. they become co-mingled with the customer secured an segregated funds. >> so it's indistinguishable? >> on a dollar for dollar basis. >> so just the balance, you know

ms. serwinski, when we have a -- when we think we've dipped into those funds like the water poured out of that class and does not secure, it is there a requirement to notify someone? who would have to be notified? >> the regulators would have to be notified. >> nobody inside the institution? >> they would be notified, the requirement, the regulatory requirement -- >> you didn't have an internal process that would say we are just kind of messed up here, and the assistant treasurer i think is who we ascertained earlier could have made those calls. as we've got a couple of people may be days authorized the dipping into the sun was at that level plastic glass, and so who would they have to notify to put the funds out? >> it is a process whereby the situation would have been escalated at the very least the stocks committee to rectify what ever contributing factor existed that led to -- >> so there was somebody? >> yes. >> the firm was on regulatory compliance to the best of my so you're saying that there is no buildup over time? >> i am saying that the firm was on regulatory confinement to acc

ms. serwinski? >> could you are repeat the question sir? >> ms. ferber. >> obviously there was a terrible failure here of some kind but what it was i don't know since the trustee has controlled the investigation and all the information since october 31. >> a good analogy is a gamblers at a casino and if the casino does not provide more credit once a gamblers chips are gone yes to stop playing. he can't just return the table and take somebody else's chips. if he did, he would be in handcuffs quicker than you could say segregated accounts. isn't that however in essence what happened at mf global? >> i don't know what happened, sir. >> ms. suransky? >> i don't know. >> ms. ferber? >> i don't know. >> to be the experts that a company decides mf lovell, the scope of an f. global there is sure a hell of a lot that you guys don't know.