mean almost by definition this question of state escrow interest isn't related to lending regulation associated with federal  and loans held by federal statements and loans it's just an effort to impose interest on escrow monies owed by national banks so that this admission in this case is that the application market that would have to be accounted for his way by reselling by reselling these these loans right i mean obviously if you have a wall where you don't have to collect interest you have to resell it or they have to pay interest they're not going to pay as much for that i think that's precisely regular order and i think it's worth remembering that part of the purpose of the homeowners lending act or the homeowners one dollar act was to establish federal savings interest on loans that we purchase from here on federal threats but the mere fact that we have to pay interest on escrow accounts for long that we purchased in the past might in the future make it more difficult for federal thrifts to sell future bombs so it's an odd it's an odd kind of historical question i think the question is when she's acquired these lines in two thousand  going forward escrow balances that customers kept with you so i don't think there was a dispute well in the district court as to whether there was no isn't for chase to pay interest on escrow for loans during the time b a the early statutory antecedent it was already established that abates power to sell loans was a necessarily implied corollary of the power to originally and that states to the planters bank  mississippi versus start an eight hundred and forty eight supreme court case it seems to me that that is sort of the key here if if it's true that the ability to sell rely on deference to the regulation but just a standard theory that if you have the power to originate you also have the power to to transfer and it is impinges on and out by the in the best position it seems to me to determine what was the purpose of this action and i mean that nest of banking act was adopted in the eighty thousand eight hundred and sixty eight i was like it was eight years before there was even a looking at an incidental standard where is middling funding was looking at a quote prevents well i think that all of them would be under i i take your honors when i think i see you say being it is an incidental standard if you're going to find that this is within the realm of feel so if you're going to find that the fuel included how can we as a let me push back on that how can we not find that it's within the within the context field of what it pre amps even though it was conflict and not feel preemption whereas under the whole of the even though it's still preemption the field is narrower is that what you're arguing i think that's one way of looking at it and is trying to to give your honour's some some some basis for saying that even with the you know preemption analysis even if you found that this that this was when it went slow not be preempted if it only i sixty applies to have a national bank for exam conduct and there is none so why are you those letters as effectively an amicus brief of sorts is that the proper way we should look at it to the extent or persuasive to the extent they got it right we can conduct i would say you know sure and then it would depend on how well reasoned they were whether ordered to deviate and sees definitive determination and cetera et cetera here and in both of those letters it was really an afterthought and neither of them said anything about sell so the question here is i think the court put in capital rio i was the court you know certainly recognized in that is the ability of the relevant federally regulated national institution to sell this loan