You're right. First of all, the fact that you can only go up and down by a certain amount provides some welcome certainty and limits any kind of pro-cyclical damage. At the same time, as Andrew Jackson mentioned earlier, as we were going through a period of extended economic growth, the estimates of what was needed to break even tended to lead to another surplus every year. You'd made a conservative analysis. The result was that if we had been at arm's-length a decade ago, we'd have a pretty healthy surplus by now. I think my expectation would be that an arm's-length rate-setting body is going to make that sort of conservative calculation, and over time, you would build up what the board considered to be an adequate surplus to deal with the cyclical issue.
I think there is a legitimate discussion here in terms of what the necessary seed capital is, if I can put it that way, in order to ensure that we don't immediately have to get into making decisions about raising premiums right away just to kind of—