of course, that was the gfc, more than 20. yeah, that's on the next -- yeah.nly four times in 33 years have we lost money at all. and, indeed, if we were to show this another way, 21 of these 33 years we've actually made double-digit returns. if we could go back to the previous chart for a second, you'll see here that compared to a normal distribution, again, the green bell-shaped curve is returns if returns had been normally distributed, you would have expected us to have lost money almost seven times in 33 years, but we've lost money only four of these 33 years. that's good. >> which loss, versus zero or the assumed rate? >> versus zero. >> but assuming 7% average.

of course, that was the gfc, more than 20. yeah, that's on the next -- yeah. only four times in 33 years have we lost money at all. and, indeed, if we were to show this another way, 21 of these 33 years we've actually made double-digit returns. if we could go back to the previous chart for a second, you'll see here that compared to a normal distribution, again, the green bell-shaped curve is returns if returns had been normally distributed, you would have expected us to have lost money almost seven times in 33 years, but we've lost money only four of these 33 years. that's good. >> which loss, versus zero or the assumed rate? >> versus zero. >> but assuming 7% average. quickly on page 12, what we've done here, we now wanted to take a look at the longer term. not the annual returns, but the annualized returns. of course, we don't have enough data, so we did have to use rolling data, and that's using kind of monthly step or monthly rolling. so we have 277 observations. yes, they are related, so we do see the distribution is not normal, but you will see that 60%