No, that's not my point. All I'm saying is that in.... I'm not criticizing; I'm just dealing with the facts of the matter.
In there, you've captured the earnings loss benefit as it would carry on through to the age of 65. What isn't captured in there, and probably should be, is the growth or the potential growth of that lump-sum payout until 65, because you can't really say that they took it and didn't do anything with it. I mean, that's 40 years or 50 years; it would have grown.