tell you that the decisions that the IASB has made to date for financial liabilities post the publication of IFRS 9 in fact would not result in an increase in the use of fair value in the measurement of financial liabilities. Second, and related to concern about financial liabilities, EU institutions have raised concerns regarding our decision to prohibit the bifurcation of certain embedded derivatives on the asset side of the balance sheet. We did so with the support of the great majority of stakeholders, who viewed the bifurcation as unduly costly and complex. We also know that if we made the same decision on the liability side, it may increase the use of fair value, particularly as it relates to deposit instruments. In February, the IASB voted unanimously to retain the bifurcation of embedded derivatives for liabilities. The IASB also did this to address the contentious issue of the effects of changes in a company's own credit standing. Third, the new standard does not allow for recycling of realised gains and losses relating to strategic investments when an entity chooses to recognise changes in fair value in Other Comprehensive Income. Both the ECB and the Basel Committee would have preferred the IASB to permit these gains and losses to be recycled to the profit and loss account. We decided not to allow recycling for two main reasons. First, recycling distorts current year profits. If you have held an investment for 30 years, is it right to recognise a one-off