Yes, thank you.
I was in the process of explaining that nothing, in fact, moved in relation to the designation of New York as our principal office for the purposes of the asset management business. That asset management business was launched close to 30 years ago, and we grew it within Brookfield Corporation for close to 25 years. We launched it in Canada, but as I think the committee is well aware, it has become a global alternative asset manager.
The scale of that has been driven in large part by the clients we have and the jurisdictions in which we've had those opportunities. The United States, being one of the principal capitals of the world in investment flows, drew a lot of our business into the U.S. organically as the business evolved. When we decided to launch Brookfield Asset Management as its own separate publicly traded company, at the same time, the S&P, which regulates which companies are in or out of various indices, changed its rules and made it easier for Canadian companies like ours to possibly qualify for inclusion in U.S. indices.
We were already in possession of a company—we were already a company at Brookfield Asset Management—with significant girth and presence in the United States, and we designated our New York office, which already existed, as that principal office, which perhaps is something we should have done beforehand, but certainly the change in rules made that beneficial to us. Nothing moved. We changed the designation of our principal office. No people moved. No assets moved. No investments changed.