If I understand your question correctly, it's why we decided now to drop the forward guidance, particularly when at the same time we're saying there's some uncertainty.
We're of the view that the forward guidance we had in there—and that we were neutral with in respect to the future direction and timing of interest rate changes—was implicit in everything else we were saying. If we weren't saying anything new, or that people didn't know, then it really wasn't worthwhile to say it again.
What was underlying that was a view that the most important form of transparency that a central bank could give is about the models we're using, how we're thinking about the data as it evolves, and how we're thinking about the different risks and the quantitative impacts those risks might have. For example, what would happen if oil prices were higher or lower? Those are the kinds of things we've put an emphasis on in the last year and increased in our monetary policy report, including the ranges around the forecast.
From the point of view of helping market participants and people understand where we're coming from, and being transparent in terms of what's underlying our decision, we think we've increased our transparency.
We also said there may be a time when we think uncertainty is particularly high, like it was during the crisis when we did have a forward-looking statement that was fairly precise, or when we're constrained by interest rates that can't go below zero, when we find that useful. We don't think that markets need that kind of guidance today.