So how much guidance do you think it would be prudent for us to give in this case?

I do think that it would be helpful to suggest some parameters for what the meaningful benchmark here, the meaningful comparator needs to be.

I think the easiest way to do that is to assess it within the confines of what we're doing with the duty of prudence.

Prudence is about process and not about performance, and so the plaintiff does have to connect the dots back from the performance to the process.

In a case like this, that's going to mean that the plaintiff is essentially alleging that, uh, if its fiduciaries were acting prudently, they would have selected the better performing fund.

But again, in order for that to be the correct inference, you have to hold constant the things that go into that decision that the petitioners are not challenging as imprudent themselves.

And here, that is the goals, the objectives, the aims, sometimes it's been called the strategy, um, of the funds to, uh, to mitigate against potential downs- down- downturns in the market.

H- how do you respond to petitioner's, um, reading of the opinion as isolating the underperformance allegations and treating them in a certain way before dealing with the others, or however he characterized it? Do you, does the, do you agree with that view?