That is a bit of a loaded question the way you posed it. I'm never going to say that it's inappropriate to carry out a proper study. What I can say to you—our substantive point—is that in practice I think there is sufficient understanding of the net benefit standard to allow us to advise clients on a day-to-day basis. I appreciate that the threshold change from $300 million to $1 billion has not yet been implemented. I think, as a practical matter, that is due to challenges in coming up with some defined terms and regulations that the government and, frankly, the private sector have been struggling with and trying to identify.
Those are certainly issues that need further reflection and consideration, but they're not having a chilling effect in the way that people may believe they could have. What we're saying today is that there ought to be more transparency with respect to national security reviews in the form of aggregated data. We welcome the government's move to increase transparency with respect to the outcome of individual transactions, and we think that's a good and positive step. We think that could be supplemented, however, by more statistical data about the number of national security reviews that have happened to allow us to provide greater guidance to our clients.
We understand that it's early days in the national security review process and that the administrators are going to go through teething issues that have to be worked through, but we do believe that the time has come for that increased transparency and disclosure of data.