great deal of tailoring of our supervisory approach to make sure that it is appropriate to the size, riskexity, and systemic proposed by a particular firm. we are looking at further ways in which we can tailor our supervisory approach. particularly, the process we were discussing. we have ideas about how we might to apply, particularly to smaller firms. we have indicated that there are some constraints on our ability to tailor our supervisory firms,h for the smaller subject to the 165 requirements. in particular dodd frank requires that we administer the stress test and receive plans.ion our experience and thus far is that the safety and soundness value of those requirements or the smaller of those firms probably is not sufficient to justify the cost imposed on them. and if so, we would value for the firms on the smaller end of the spectrum, being able to relieve them of those requirements. i do want to make clear that we do tailor our supervisory approach according to the complexity of the firm. >> i am so pleased to hear that because what we heard constantly yesterday was that you do not. so