I might need to review this.

So I'd say they should be thinking about it relative to their objectives.

So if you're on the DB side, then obviously you can kind of be measuring your objectives in very concrete terms relative to your liabilities.

And trustees and schemes will often have kind of glide paths that they're aiming for towards a surplus of a certain level.

And the market environment of the last couple of years, with both equities doing extremely well, with bond yields rising, will have undoubtedly put almost all of them on a path which is even better than the path that they had baked in.

So if you think about it from the kind of objectives perspective and using that as the rationale for taking risk off the table, rather than trying to kind of second guess where the market is going to be in 12 months time, I think that makes way more sense.

From the DC perspective, I guess it's a bit different because you don't have the same concrete liabilities.

So I'm just thinking, what is that potential lag? Especially as those things are getting more and more powerful.

What did you make of what Scott Besant did and its eventual chances of success? So I think it's helpful to go back

a year to a speech that Scott Besson gave in 2025, where he described himself as the country's top bond salesman.

And he said that keeping treasury yields low was integral to the Make America Affordable Again agenda.

So what he's doing here is inherently conservative.

It's a very, very political statement, not just about trying to massage the bond markets, about trying to do things which will further the agenda of the administration.

And it doesn't feel like it's a coincidence that the midterms are around the corner.

As you say, there is a kind of long history of governments intervening in the bond markets.

Is there a chance, do you think, that this could turn out quite badly for one of these developed economies?