I have two very quick points.
Argentina has suffered an investment chill in the last 10 or 15 years, not because of the regulatory changes but because it got into a dispute over ownership of the intellectual property. The new rules may or may not improve the transfer of technology.
But more broadly, people have been asking if there is truly a chill in investment as markets get somewhat restricted through regulatory systems, and I think there's compelling evidence that it does.
Fifteen years ago, the industry--every one of the major actors, and there were six or seven of them at that point--said they were working in 12 or 14 different trade categories in up to 20 different species. There are now three main actors, partly because of the consolidation driven by the costs of regulatory compliance, and they say they're working in four crop lines, maybe only three crop lines, and in two or three trades. They only will do anything if they can make money in one market: the United States. Anything else is gravy. That means that anything that isn't attached to the U.S. production system is at risk of never getting that form of capital.
That's what we've seen as the regulatory system has tightened up and slowed down the commercialization of technology. It's not the cost; it's the time.