Thank you.
This market disruption clause is one of the more obvious things. As soon as there's a claim on the package, the insurer immediately heads to the hills and looks for market disruption, whether it's a Thai bhat or a Mexican peso or whatever, and says, “Look, we have a market disruption clause”. It just seems to be a very bizarre way of having the illusion of insurance, because even if you don't have “market disruption”, if your insurer happens to be AIG, for example, you have no insurance at all.
I'm kind of surprised that it took such a long time to realize that this market disruption clause is a bogus clause. It's a non-insurance clause. Is that a fair observation?