Yes. You got a bunch of things going through there, Greg, and I'm going to try to hit each of them, but actually pull it up. First, we've got a very strong, combined -- or underlying combined ratio of the 92%. Matt pointed out that in Florida, there were positive trends, underlying loss trends related to their reform items that we expected we would take into account in some of our pricing to become a little bit more competitive there. We tempered that a little bit as we were watching and digesting the effects of tariffs. I'd be surprised if the net result of what we did in Florida wasn't becoming somewhat more competitive to reflect the net of those items, and I'd expect we do that. Texas, we made our changes that were largely a class plan implementation, so that may have pockets of competitive impact. It wasn't like we -- it wasn't, I mean with the base rate up or down. It was a segmented pricing change. So we'll have that there. And then the balance of the comments really come back to how we've talked about loss trend before. We spent a couple of years where people want to talk about the Manheim Used Car Index, and we repeatedly come back and say, "That is one minor component of total loss cost trend." We price to total loss cost trend, which is frequency and severity combined on a forward-looking basis. We've taken what we see as normal trend. We've taken tariffs into account. We -- to be abundantly clear we do not believe tariffs to be a material earnings impact for us. We think they're going to be within our normal view of what loss cost trend could be and will be handled with normal, ordinary course rate changes and rate filings. We had provided some level of guidance early last year that we said our combined ratio would gradually rise to a more traditional, long-term number, probably in the 93.5%, 94.5% range. We're still at a 92%. That gradual rise, it was later than we thought it might have been. It will still likely come at some point and work its way back to that more long-term trend, and that's still our expectation. We'd still expect it would be 3 or 4 quarters, we were just wrong about when it started. So that's good news. We'll expect that general drift and will price accordingly to all loss cost trends wherever they are and whatever the tariff impact is. But again, to be really clear because a lot of folks have been nervous about this, given all of the attributes of our book and our starting points, we just don't see the tariffs to be a material earnings impact. I mean when you take the nature of 6-month policies, the ability to reprice the timeliness of that, we're very confident in our ability to navigate the economic environment and have a highly durable growth number.