Yes. I hesitate to attribute too much motive, but you see these things very often in situations where it's very convenient for the cost to appear low. Under those circumstances, you don't want to be moving the rate around a lot because it raises questions in people's minds. It causes the plan to look volatile, so typically you'll find a lot of smoothing and high discount rates going together. The argument for using no smoothing—the argument for showing the value of the assets at what it is at a moment in time, and the value of the liabilities at what it is at a point in time at the discount rates I'm arguing for—is that it exposes something important about these plans. They are risky. There's a lot of volatility in these plans. I think that's a virtue on its own.
The two things can be considered separately. The Public Sector Accounting Board is consulting separately on timing of recognition—should there be smoothing versus immediate recognition, and on discount rates? When you look at the things that make pension accounting opaque, and make it difficult for us to get our minds around what's going with the federal pension plans, I think the two of them are equally problematic. It's hard for a non-expert to look at those financial statements and understand what's going on.