History is useful here, the history of these contracts becoming increasingly binding over the decades. It's an important piece of the background to this thing.
If we look at this today, we see that the question all the way through has been the fact that through the 1980s and 1990s, the sponsors of these defined benefit plans took on a fair amount of investment risk. There was money in the funds, and the returns on those funds in the 1980s and 1990s were quite substantial. An unwarranted rule of thumb developed, which went something like this: the more risk you take, the more return you're going to get. So we built this model of defined benefit plans that assumed that if we put in a fair amount of money, taking risks with the money, the risks would in fact make the whole situation come out okay.
Well, then we got to the last decade, the early 2000 period, and then the more recent 2008 period, and it turned out that risk really is risk. It does eventually come to bite you. So now what's happening is that the old model that used to drive defined benefit plans, the rule of thumb that risk taking creates enough extra return to make the whole thing work, is now dead.
What I'm saying is that going forward we now need to look at the reality of not assuming that the next decade and the decade after that will again look like the 1980s and the 1990s, where risk would put everything back onside again. What we have to do is—