Maybe I could provide more specificity around that category, which is the first one I mentioned, to be a little bit more concrete in terms of what that looks like.
The regulations are very clear, but they're also applied consistently—that would be one of the first elements out of that category. Another is that there is a very low risk of abrupt policy changes. We've seen that around the world. We buy something, we have a base case, we've calculated what the rate of return will be over a 10-year period, and then there's a change and the entire base case flies out the window.
There are independent regulators. If you have clear regulations and they're applied and administered by a regulator, and they're subjected to a level of political interference, you can't really count on the clarity if they are applied differently.
The fourth one is respect for contracts and property rights. The risk of appropriation can be high. If you've negotiated a contract with a third party, it should be respected—or a contract with the government, for example, if it's the client.
Those are the things we look for.