I understand that the scope of S.37.01 is consistent with the population of S.32.01 for those entities subject to group supervision. Is the intention of S.37.01 to capture collective investment undertakings and their underlying asset exposures as well as operational entities of the group in the context of counterparty default risk, given that the insurance entities of the group are exposed to the funds ability to settle its published redemption value regardless of whether the group owns >20% or not. If the intention is definitely to capture collective investments within the scope of the group for this purpose, is it to be understood that the exposure reported is intended to be for the collective investment undertaking as a whole simply because it appears on S.32.01, regardless of the group's ownership? Alternatively, is the intention to capture the group's share of the fund's exposure. For example, if an insurance undertaking has a 500m reporting threshold and has a 450m bond holding directly on its balance sheet and holds 25% of a fund which itself has a 100m holding with the same ultimate parent, does the group exposure breach the threshold as being 450m + 100m or does it not because it's limited to 450m + (100m * 25%) = 475m. If the former, this would appear to give an inflated view of the group's exposure but is the answer logically reached if each entity reported on S.32.01 must be considered as a whole.