I'll start and J.-F. might want to add something at the end.
One of the things that is really important to always remember about PSP is that our investments mirror the risk appetite that is given to us from TBS, and it's reflected in the reference portfolio that Jean-François referred to earlier. Our reference portfolio is comprised of 59% equities and 41% fixed income. It's a theoretical mix of equities and fixed income on a passive basis.
The other organization that uses a similar approach is the Canada pension plan, which has an 85% equity and 15% fixed-income asset mix. That is fully reflective of the risk appetite that our sponsor, the Government of Canada, Treasury Board, is willing to take.
What it means is that to do a direct comparison between our results and that of CPPIB, or even one of the other pension funds that have different mandates, different liability profiles, different maturities, is an apples-to-oranges comparison. It's the reason we use measures such as the reference portfolio to say, if we were totally passive, maintaining the risk appetite that's given to us—a very similar process to what your own broker would do when they ask you about your own risk appetite—how do we do relative to that? In other words, what's our return while maintaining our diligence on the risk appetite that we're given?
Notwithstanding that, we do some benchmarking. J.-F. might want to get into that a bit, but just a little bit for time's sake.