I would start out by saying that a farmer doesn't wish to draw catastrophe, but certainly if something like that happens, whether it's market driven or weather driven, they want to know that they have coverage. They want to know what the parameters are of that coverage so they can fill it into their business line to get lines of credit at the bank and so on. We're doing that. We're trying to keep things as bankable as we possibly can so that the lending institutions understand that this farmer has coverage to this level and the line of credit can be applied to it.
The most significant change that was made to agri-stability was farmers coming to us and saying they are using this global average where the high and the low year are left out of the five year and then the middle term is the average. The folks that need this year after year have hailstorms two years in a row and are losing out. What we did we made the adjustment to draw down the overall coverage of agri-stability from 85% coverage to 70% and at the same time bring up the negative margin coverage into that same vein. The people that needed it more got coverage and those that weren't claiming it didn't lose anything, because whether they got 70% or 85% of a non-claim didn't really matter.