began to grow again but the ten percent capital goal was simply the leverage ratio input and determine how much growth citizens would have had absent the bridge it was irrelevant to growth that citizens would have had  wonder lower levels that is the minimum growth that citizens would have had by could simply continuing on his past history of rose and that of its peers five to seven percent and let's look at another just within there's a variety of areas in which the trial court halted your analysis another one was theirs and your expert mr morris assumed a seven percent growth rate when in fact you achieved somewhere between one and four percent whereas the seven percent come from the professor corbett says model was based not on a growth rate per se it was based upon using the capital of ten percent  tangible assets being used to record the figures that the court is still assumed the seven percent growth rate with with with comparing the commercial banks which are very different entities the seven percent base that was those were the local competitors peers during the down just period that was sponsored by the government's own experts so there's no dispute that five percent is a minimum rate let me get a little bit of background citizens was a traditional mutual breath based northwest and again i was right but the same key managers for decades had a long history of never part of the point though is that those managers were so conservative they wouldn't have been that this money any way they  they had a press a record of steady profits and they were conservative in terms of credit risk and capital they invested essentially in two types of assets single family residential mortgage loans and mortgages related securities and similar investments but they had a long history of growth as i mentioned they grew in a seventy nine they prefer a business plans call for them to lease but grow by that same five percent over the next several years and then the breach came along it was a massive disruption to their business taking away seven percent of its regulatory capital it was well documented the massive breach directly caused citizens to adopt the following no broach strategy instead of growing at the very least in accord with the past plan to performance and the gro visual product or a specific identified investment opportunity the entire business is affected by the by the grocery stores businesses operations are restricted so to have many sales between customers are california federal b two categories or later clearly that appendix to one thousand seven hundred seventy four simply citizens would have expanded those two categories this is not the case of a cal that or other high flying bread the question is whether wh that would roll over and you would have an automatic expansion and that's in the record a point zero zero one four one one one six eight five in fact the citizens could have simply purchased larger quantities of the same investment securities how did you prove that that looking at the district court of federal claims opinion and they're saying over and over again they fail for lack of the trial court big credibility determination in this regard to it did not find the testimony of top of the chairman of the board of assistants to be credible in terms of his concern that the regulators were going to shut them down for lack of gaps in fact the core credit of the testimony of government regulators with said citizens was an excellent threat and in fact it required very little supervision and by ninety ninety one and ninety nine to two actually citizens had retimed the amount of capital required the court made a factual findings in this case as to citizens claims of the ten percent capital now citizens would like to minimize the effect in fact they claim that well we were trying to obtain a ten percent level of regulatory apple and that when fire it took the goodwill way we couldn't grow again and so we're back to that and present regulatory capture the drop were made of actual that no such capital exists it did so because there was not a single contemporaneous document in any of the evidence admitted trot to indicate such a goal existed in fact the only goals that that the drop work impose some sort of heavy burden on it in order to demonstrate that causation that certainly is not the case the court was making reference to this court's decisions in glendale to count that which it indicated that l raising capital on five different occasions and the crowd for family members of that those categories at least in part was to make up for the lost goodwill and in fact were at the core of its costs associated with those fedorov which was that they needed to raise capital replaceable lawsuit wise and good will not believe in that did they were awarded twenty three and a half million dollars for the transaction costs associated with raising that example that was not the case assets in fact their own documents admitted in evidence indicating this was in one thousand nine hundred two but they were having difficulty finding investments so the normal spread as was in one of their board of directors means other documents also normal internal order five percent growth there was nothing the court never found that citizens would have stopped growing absent the breach this was a massive disruption and citizens business and house the regulatory environment where thirty percent of the industry could just fail at for my citizen's post breach capital lines all of that is irrelevant and under him say this because the decision to maintain a capital cushion absent the problem of the breach is not an independent business decision and that's what citizens did in fact during