Thank you very much for the question.
As you said in the question quite rightly, all of these schemes that have been established have faced immediate problems. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in the U.S. was set up in the mid-1970s and was already in deficit a couple of years later because of problems with steel companies and the airlines and so on.
The U.K. has tried to address the issue of the moral hazard question by attempting to risk-rate the premiums for the pension protection fund established in the U.K. Again I think there is a problem there where the recent financial crisis has just made the holes in the balance sheets very much larger. Most countries with significant defined benefit schemes--Canada, Ireland, the U.K., the U.S. or even the Netherlands--were in pretty similar situations of being about 25% underfunded immediately after the crisis. And there's a risk, such as in the case of the lady from Nortel, that when a company goes bankrupt it will leave behind a scheme in significant deficit.
I am greatly concerned that these funds do face problems in their design, and I don't think any one country has been able to have a protection fund that avoids the moral hazard problem and doesn't become a drag on the public finances.