 advantages of monetary unit sampling, M-U-S, when the auditor expects a minimal misstatement, M-U-S usually results in a smaller sample size than classical variable sampling. So when we are considering the advantages, we are comparing and contrasting to another method that can be used classical variable sampling as a compare and contrast, the M-U-S will result in a smaller sample size, that being a benefit, because it results in less testing for us. So if we can get results that we need with a smaller sample, that's typically what we want to do. When monetary unit sampling is applied using the probability proportional to size procedure, it automatically results in a stratified sample. So we already have that within the process. Does not require the user to make assumptions about the distribution of misstatements. So we're eliminating an assumption, which is nice as well, because anytime we have the assumptions, there's room for errors to be made. Monetary unit sampling disadvantages include, the selection of zero or negative balances also often requires special design considerations. So given the way we're setting this up in terms of the monetary unit type calculations, and in essence a zero or negative balance can throw things off. And so that therefore can mess things up, the selection of a zero or negative balance then often requires some kind of special consideration. When more than a small amount of misstatements are detected, the sample calculations may overstate the allowance for sampling risk. So one more time, when more than a small amount of misstatements are detected, so we have over a small amount of misstatements, the sample calculations can overstate the allowance for sampling risk.