I just want to echo my colleague's comments.
The problematic feature here is that it potentially violates our convention obligations with respect to munitions.
The fact that it's going from 5% to 2%, I believe, is immaterial, because it's really the principle of whether any portion of investments can have munitions. I think in this particular case it allows for that.
I worry about whether this will breach our obligations internationally and about the impact it'll have on our reputation overall.