 This year, the IMF governance was supposed to be more reflective of the shifts in global power that have taken place in the last decade, certainly over the last 40 or 50 years, when emerging markets have become very central actors. The IMF governance structure was not created in that context. So what was supposed to happen at this meeting was a shift in quota. Quota is how the IMF is voted, how members vote, it's basically your equity or your shareholding in the IMF, and in the seats on the board, those 24 board members that represent basically every country in the world. It was supposed to be a shift of two seats away from Europe, which has a dominant role, to the dynamic emerging markets, and it was supposed to reflect a 6% shift in quota from advanced economies to emerging economies. It's not going to happen. Now it's not going to happen because the United States has failed to ratify what needs to be ratified to actually get those changes over the hump. That's ironic. It's ironic because the U.S. was the principal driver to try and get countries, particularly Europe, to give up some of its voting share and its board seats, but the U.S., for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to seek congressional approval to ratify what needs to be ratified, which means you will see potentially a theme of Europeans and emerging markets pointing a finger at the United States for its failure to implement what it promised to implement. It won't result in gridlock. It will result in subtle but very important policy shifts as the U.S. dominant role becomes a little less dominant. When it comes to specific loan programs, Egypt, Spain, others, it's unlikely that you'll see any outcome in these meetings that will have a direct impact on those countries and those loans. There will be conversations. There will be political interaction. But the purpose of the annual meetings is more broadly the policy issues of the institution and of the global economy broadly as opposed to country-specific. Having said that, it is inevitable that the bilateral and multilateral communications between global leaders on those very sensitive issues, countries like Greece, countries like Spain, countries like Egypt, will come up. And you will see some, it's not horse trading, at least some political deals being struck, which you'll never be able to point a finger, you'll never be able to see fingerprints, but you will see subtle shifts that will result in IMF board decisions over time that will result perhaps in Egypt getting a loan or not, in Greece being given some forgiveness or not, in the IMF playing an actual financing role on Spain or not. You can look for those to manifest themselves over the coming weeks, but you won't see a direct link.