Question: In the year with largest amount of Interest rate what's the sum of Equity and Credit derivatives for Notional amounts? (in billion)

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    equity = 458
    credit_derivatives = 2241

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = equity + credit_derivatives

    return answer

Management’s discussion and analysis JPMorgan Chase & Co The following table summarizes the aggregate notional amounts and the reported derivative receivables (i. e. , the MTM or fair value of the derivative contracts after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements) at each of the dates indicated: Notional amounts and derivative receivables marked to market (“MTM”)

|As of December 31,|Notional amounts(a)|Derivative receivables MTM|
|(in billions)| 2005|2004|2005|2004|
|Interest rate|$38,493|$37,022|$30|$46|
|Foreign exchange|2,136|1,886|3|8|
|Equity|458|434|6|6|
|Credit derivatives|2,241|1,071|4|3|
|Commodity|265|101|7|3|
|Total|$43,593|$40,514|50|66|
|Collateral held againstderivative receivables| NA|NA|-6|-9|
|Exposure net of collateral| NA|NA|$44(b)|$57(c)|

(a) The notional amounts represent the gross sum of long and short third-party notional derivative contracts, excluding written options and foreign exchange spot contracts, which significantly exceed the possible credit losses that could arise from such transactions.

For most derivative transactions, the notional principal amount does not change hands; it is used simply as a reference to calculate payments.

(b) The Firm held $33 billion of collateral against derivative receivables as of December 31, 2005, consisting of $27 billion in net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements, and $6 billion of other liquid securities collateral.

The benefit of the $27 billion is reflected within the $50 billion of derivative receivables MTM.

Excluded from the $33 billion of collateral is $10 billion of collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions; this collateral secures exposure that could arise in the derivatives portfolio should the MTM of the client’s transactions move in the Firm’s favor.

Also excluded are credit enhancements in the form of letters of credit and surety receivables.

(c) The Firm held $41 billion of collateral against derivative receivables as of December 31, 2004, consisting of $32 billion in net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements, and $9 billion of other liquid securities collateral.

The benefit of the $32 billion is reflected within the $66 billion of derivative receivables MTM.

Excluded from the $41 billion of collateral is $10 billion of collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions; this collateral secures exposure that could arise in the derivatives portfolio should the MTM of the client’s transactions move in the Firm’s favor.

Also excluded are credit enhancements in the form of letters of credit and surety receivables.

The MTM of derivative receivables contracts represents the cost to replace the contracts at current market rates should the counterparty default.

When JPMorgan Chase has more than one transaction outstanding with a counterparty, and a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists with that counterparty, the netted MTM exposure, less collateral held, represents, in the Firm’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk.

While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net MTM value of the derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure.

To capture the potential future variability of credit exposure, the Firm calculates, on a client-by-client basis, three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss: Peak, Derivative Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) and Average exposure (“AVG”).

These measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits, where applicable.

Peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of exposure calculated at a 97.5% confidence level.

However, the total potential future credit risk embedded in the Firm’s derivatives portfolio is not the simple sum of all Peak client credit risks.

This is because, at the portfolio level, credit risk is reduced by the fact that when offsetting transactions are done with separate counterparties, only one of the two trades can generate a credit loss, even if both counterparties were to default simultaneously.

The Firm refers to this effect as market diversification, and the Market-Diversified Peak (“MDP”) measure is a portfolio aggregation of counterparty Peak measures, representing the maximum losses at the 97.5% confidence level that would occur if all counterparties defaulted under any one given market scenario and time frame.

Derivative Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) exposure is a measure that expresses the riskiness of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the riskiness of loan exposures.

The measurement is done by equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty exposure (which takes into consideration both the loss volatility and the credit rating of the counterparty) with the unexpected loss in a loan exposure (which takes into consideration only the credit rating of the counterparty).

DRE is a less extreme measure of potential credit loss than Peak and is the primary measure used by the Firm for credit approval of derivative transactions.

Finally, Average exposure (“AVG”) is a measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables at future time periods, including the benefit of collateral.

AVG exposure over the total life of the derivative contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes and is used to calculate credit capital and the Credit Valuation Adjustment (“CVA”), as further described below.

Average exposure was $36 billion and $38 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, compared with derivative receivables MTM net of other highly liquid collateral of $44 billion and $57 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The graph below shows exposure profiles to derivatives over the next 10 years as calculated by the MDP, DRE and AVG metrics.

All three measures generally show declining exposure after the first year, if no new trades were added to the portfolio.

Notes to consolidated financial statements 210 JPMorgan Chase & Co. /2010 Annual Report Estimated future benefit payments The following table presents benefit payments expected to be paid, which include the effect of expected future service, for the years indicated.

The OPEB medical and life insurance payments are net of expected retiree contributions.

Note 10 – Employee stock-based incentives Employee stock-based awards In 2010, 2009, and 2008, JPMorgan Chase granted long-term stock-based awards to certain key employees under the 2005 LongTerm Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”).

The 2005 Plan became effective on May 17, 2005, and was amended in May 2008.

Under the terms of the amended 2005 plan, as of December 31, 2010, 113 million shares of common stock are available for issuance through May 2013.

The amended 2005 Plan is the only active plan under which the Firm is currently granting stock-based incentive awards.

In the following discussion, the 2005 Plan, plus prior Firm plans and plans assumed as the result of acquisitions, are referred to collectively as the “LTI Plans,” and such plans constitute the Firm’s stock-based incentive plans.

Restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are awarded at no cost to the recipient upon their grant.

RSUs are generally granted annually and generally vest at a rate of 50% after two years and 50% after three years and convert into shares of common stock at the vesting date.

In addition, RSUs typically include full-career eligibility provisions, which allow employees to continue to vest upon voluntary termination, subject to post-employment and other restrictions based on age or service-related requirements.

All of these awards are subject to forfeiture until vested.

An RSU entitles the recipient to receive cash payments equivalent to any dividends paid on the underlying common stock during the period the RSU is outstanding and, as such, are considered participating securities as discussed in Note 25 on page 269 of this Annual Report.

Under the LTI Plans, stock options and stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) have generally been granted with an exercise price equal to the fair value of JPMorgan Chase’s common stock on the grant date.

The Firm typically awards SARs to certain key employees once per year, and it also periodically grants discretionary stock-based incentive awards to individual employees, primarily in the form of both employee stock options and SARs.

The 2010, 2009 and 2008 grants of SARs to key employees vest ratably over five years (i. e. , 20% per year).

The 2010 grants of SARs contain full-career eligibility provisions; the 2009 and 2008 grants of SARs do not include any full-career eligibility provisions.

SARs generally expire 10 years after the grant date.

The Firm separately recognizes compensation expense for each tranche of each award as if it were a separate award with its own vesting date.

Generally, for each tranche granted, compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis from the grant date until the vesting date of the respective tranche, provided that the employees will not become full-career eligible during the vesting period.

For awards with full-career eligibility provisions and awards granted with no future substantive service requirement, the Firm accrues the estimated value of awards expected to be awarded to employees as of the grant date without giving consideration to the impact of post-employment restrictions.

For each tranche granted to employees who will become full-career eligible during the vesting period, compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis from the grant date until the earlier of the employee’s fullcareer eligibility date or the vesting date of the respective tranche.

The Firm’s policy for issuing shares upon settlement of employee stock-based incentive awards is to issue either new shares of common stock or treasury shares.

During 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Firm settled all of its employee stock-based awards by issuing treasury shares.

In January 2008, the Firm awarded to its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer up to 2 million SARs.

The terms of this award are distinct from, and more restrictive than, other equity grants regularly awarded by the Firm.

The SARs, which have a 10-year term, will become exercisable no earlier than January 22, 2013, and have an exercise price of $39.83.

The number of SARs that will become exercisable (ranging from none to the full 2 million) and their exercise date or dates may be determined by the Board of Directors based on an annual assessment of the performance of both the CEO and JPMorgan Chase.

The Firm recognizes this award ratably over an assumed five-year service period, subject to a requirement to recognize changes in the fair value of the award through the grant date.

The Firm recognized $4 million, $9 million and $1 million in compensation expense in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, for this award.

Other-than-temporary impairment The following table presents credit losses that are included in the securities gains and losses table above.

|Year ended December 31, (in millions)|2010|2009|
| Debt securities the Firm does not intend tosell that have credit losses|||
|Total other-than-temporary impairmentlosses(a)|$-94|$-946|
|Losses recorded in/(reclassified from)other comprehensive income|-6|368|
| Credit losses recognized in income(b)(c)|$-100|$-578|

a) For initial OTTI, represents the excess of the amortized cost over the fair value of AFS debt securities.

For subsequent OTTI of the same security, represents additional declines in fair value subsequent to the previously recorded OTTI, if applicable.

(b) Represents the credit loss component of certain prime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U. S.  states and municipalities for 2010, and certain prime and subprime mortgage-backed securities and obligations of U. S.  states and municipalities for 2009 that the Firm does not intend to sell.

Subsequent credit losses may be recorded on securities without a corresponding further decline in fair value if there has been a decline in expected cash flows.

(c) Excluded from this table are OTTI losses of $7 million that were recognized in income in 2009, related to subprime mortgage-backed debt securities the Firm intended to sell.

These securities were sold in 2009, resulting in the recognition of a recovery of $1 million.

Changes in the credit loss component of credit-impaired debt securities The following table presents a rollforward for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, of the credit loss component of OTTI losses that were recognized in income related to debt securities that the Firm does not intend to sell.

|Year ended December 31, (in millions)|2010|2009|
|Balance, beginning of period|$578|$—|
|Additions:|||
|Newly credit-impaired securities|—|578|
|Increase in losses on previously credit-impairedsecurities|94|—|
|Losses reclassified from other comprehensiveincome on previously credit-impaired securities|6|—|
|Reductions:|||
|Sales of credit-impaired securities|-31|—|
|Impact of new accounting guidance relatedto VIEs|-15|—|
| Balance, end of period|$632|$578|

Gross unrealized losses Gross unrealized losses have generally decreased since December 31, 2009, due primarily to market spread improvement and increased liquidity, driving asset prices higher.

However, gross unrealized losses on certain securities have increased, including on certain corporate debt securities, which are primarily government-guaranteed positions that experienced credit spread widening.

As of December 31, 2010, the Firm does not intend to sell the securities with a loss position in AOCI, and it is not likely that the Firm will be required to sell these securities before recovery of their amortized cost basis.

Except for the securities reported in the table above for which credit losses have been recognized in income, the Firm believes that the securities with an unrealized loss in AOCI are not other-than-temporarily impaired as of December 31, 2010.

Following is a description of the Firm’s principal security investments with the most significant unrealized losses as of December 31, 2010, and the key assumptions used in the Firm’s estimate of the present value of the cash flows most likely to be collected from these investments.

Mortgage-backed securities – Prime and Alt-A nonagency As of December 31, 2010, gross unrealized losses related to prime and Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities issued by private issuers were $250 million, all of which have been in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or more.

Approximately 70% of the total portfolio (by amortized cost) are currently rated below investment-grade; the Firm has recorded other-than-temporary impairment losses on 55% of the below investment-grade positions.

In analyzing prime and Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities for potential credit losses, the Firm utilizes a methodology that focuses on loan-level detail to estimate future cash flows, which are then allocated to the various tranches of the securities.

The loanlevel analysis primarily considers current home value, loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio, loan type and geographical location of the underlying property to forecast prepayment, home price, default rate and loss severity.

The forecasted weighted average underlying default rate on the positions was 21% and the related weighted average loss severity was 50%.

Based on this analysis, an OTTI loss of $6 million was recognized in 2010 related to securities that experienced increased delinquency rates associated with specific collateral types and origination dates.

Overall losses have decreased since December 31, 2009, with the recovery in security prices resulting from increased demand for higher-yielding asset classes and a deceleration in the pace of home price declines due in part to the U. S.  government programs to facilitate financing and to spur home purchases.

The unrealized loss of $250 million is considered temporary, based on management’s assessment that the estimated future cash flows together with the credit enhancement levels for those securities remain sufficient to support the Firm’s investment.

The credit enhancements associated with the below investment-grade and investment-grade positions are 9% and 24%, respectively.

Asset-backed securities – Collateralized loan obligations As of December 31, 2010, gross unrealized losses related to CLOs were $210 million, of which $200 million related to securities that were in an unrealized loss position for 12 months or more.

Overall losses have decreased since December 31, 2009, mainly as a result of lower default forecasts and spread tightening across various asset classes.

Substantially all of these securities are rated “AAA,” “AA” and “A” and have an average credit enhancement of 30%.

Credit enhancement in CLOs is primarily in the form of subordination, which is a form of structural credit enhancement where realized losses associated with assets held by an issuing vehicle are allocated to issued tranches considering their relative seniority.

The key assumptions considered in analyzing potential credit losses were underlying loan and debt security defaults and loss severity.

Based on current default trends, the Firm assumed collateral default rates of 2.1% for 2010 and 5% thereafter.

Further, loss severities were assumed to be 48% for loans and 78% for debt securities.

Losses on collateral were estimated to occur approximately 18 months after default.

Pledged assets At December 31, 2010, assets were pledged to collateralize repurchase agreements, other securities financing agreements, derivative transactions and for other purposes, including to secure borrowings and public deposits.

Certain of these pledged assets may be sold or repledged by the secured parties and are identified as financial instruments owned (pledged to various parties) on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In addition, at December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Firm had pledged $288.7 billion and $344.6 billion, respectively, of financial instruments it owns that may not be sold or repledged by the secured parties.

The significant components of the Firm’s pledged assets were as follows.

Answer: 2699.0


Question: What's the increasing rate of Goodwill in 2016? (in million)

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    goodwill_end_2016 = 6876
    goodwill_start_2016 = 6876

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = ((goodwill_end_2016 - goodwill_start_2016) / goodwill_start_2016) * 100

    return answer

ANALOG DEVICES, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) The total intrinsic value of options exercised (i. e.  the difference between the market price at exercise and the price paid by the employee to exercise the options) during fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $96.5 million, $29.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively.

The total amount of proceeds received by the Company from exercise of these options during fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $217.4 million, $240.4 million and $15.1 million, respectively.

Proceeds from stock option exercises pursuant to employee stock plans in the Company’s statement of cash flows of $217.2 million, $216.1 million and $12.4 million for fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, are net of the value of shares surrendered by employees in certain limited circumstances to satisfy the exercise price of options, and to satisfy employee tax obligations upon vesting of restricted stock or restricted stock units and in connection with the exercise of stock options granted to the Company’s employees under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

The withholding amount is based on the Company’s minimum statutory withholding requirement.

A summary of the Company’s restricted stock unit award activity as of October 29, 2011 and changes during the year then ended is presented below:

||Restricted Stock Units Outstanding|Weighted-   Average Grant-   Date Fair Value   Per Share|
|Restricted stock units outstanding at October 30, 2010|1,265|$28.21|
|Units granted|898|$34.93|
|Restrictions lapsed|-33|$24.28|
|Units forfeited|-42|$31.39|
|Restricted stock units outstanding at October 29, 2011|2,088|$31.10|

As of October 29, 2011, there was $88.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based awards comprised of stock options and restricted stock units.

That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.3 years.

The total grant-date fair value of shares that vested during fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009 was approximately $49.6 million, $67.7 million and $74.4 million, respectively.

Common Stock Repurchase Program The Company’s common stock repurchase program has been in place since August 2004.

In the aggregate, the Board of Directors has authorized the Company to repurchase $5 billion of the Company’s common stock under the program.

Under the program, the Company may repurchase outstanding shares of its common stock from time to time in the open market and through privately negotiated transactions.

Unless terminated earlier by resolution of the Company’s Board of Directors, the repurchase program will expire when the Company has repurchased all shares authorized under the program.

As of October 29, 2011, the Company had repurchased a total of approximately 125.0 million shares of its common stock for approximately $4,278.5 million under this program.

An additional $721.5 million remains available for repurchase of shares under the current authorized program.

The repurchased shares are held as authorized but unissued shares of common stock.

Any future common stock repurchases will be dependent upon several factors, including the amount of cash available to the Company in the United States and the Company’s financial performance, outlook and liquidity.

The Company also from time to time repurchases shares in settlement of employee tax withholding obligations due upon the vesting of restricted stock units, or in certain limited circumstances to satisfy the exercise price of options granted to the Company’s employees under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

(1) Third quarter 2016 noninterest income included $67 million of pre-tax notable items consisting of a $72 million gain on mortgage/home equity TDR transaction, partially offset by $5 million related to asset finance repositioning.

(2) Third quarter 2016 noninterest expense included $36 million of pre-tax notable items consisting of $17 million of TOP III efficiency initiatives, $11 million related to asset finance repositioning and $8 million of home equity operational items.

(3) Third quarter 2016 net income included $19 million of after-tax notable items consisting of a $45 million gain on mortgage/home equity TDR transaction, partially offset by $11 million of TOP III efficiency initiatives, $10 million related to asset finance repositioning and $5 million of home equity operational items.

(4) Third quarter 2016 net income per average common share, basic and diluted, included $0.04 related to notable items consisting of $0.09 attributable to the gain on mortgage/home equity TDR transaction, partially offset by a $0.02 impact from TOP III efficiency initiatives, $0.02 impact related to asset finance repositioning and a $0.01 impact from home equity operational items.

(5) Second quarter 2015 noninterest expense included $40 million of pre-tax restructuring charges and special items consisting of $25 million of restructuring charges, $1 million of CCAR and regulatory expenses and $14 million related to separation and rebranding.

(6) Second quarter 2015 net income included $25 million of after-tax restructuring charges and special items consisting of $15 million of restructuring charges, $1 million of CCAR and regulatory expenses and $9 million related to separation and rebranding.

(7) Second quarter 2015 net income per average common share, basic and diluted, included $0.05 attributed to restructuring and special items.

(8) First quarter 2015 noninterest expense included $10 million of pre-tax restructuring charges and special items consisting of $1 million of restructuring charges, $1 million of CCAR and regulatory expenses and $8 million related to separation and rebranding.

(9) First quarter 2015 net income included $6 million of after-tax restructuring charges and special items consisting of $1 million of restructuring charges and $5 million related to separation and rebranding.

(10) First quarter 2015 net income per average common share, basic and diluted, included $0.01 attributed to restructuring and special items.

(11) “Return on average common equity” is defined as net income available to common stockholders divided by average common equity.

Average common equity represents average total stockholders’ equity less average preferred stock.

(12) “Return on average tangible common equity” is defined as net income (loss) available to common stockholders divided by average common equity excluding average goodwill (net of related deferred tax liability) and average other intangibles.

(13) “Return on average total assets” is defined as net income (loss) divided by average total assets.

(14) “Return on average total tangible assets” is defined as net income (loss) divided by average total assets excluding average goodwill (net of related deferred tax liability) and average other intangibles.

(15) “Efficiency ratio is defined as the ratio of our total noninterest expense to the sum of net interest income and total noninterest income.

(16) “Net interest margin” is defined as net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.

(17) Ratios for the periods above are presented on an annualized basis.

(18) Excludes loans held for sale of $625 million, $526 million, $850 million, $751 million, $365 million, $420 million, $697 million, and $376 million as of December 31, 2016, September 30, 2016, June 30, 2016, March 31, 2016, December 31, 2015, September 30, 2015, June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, respectively.

(19) Basel III transitional rules for institutions applying the Standardized approach to calculating risk-weighted assets became effective January 1, 2015.

The capital ratios and associated components are prepared using the Basel III Standardized transitional approach.

(20) “Common equity tier 1 capital ratio” represents CET1 capital divided by total risk-weighted assets as defined under Basel III Standardized approach.

(21) “Tier 1 capital ratio” is tier 1 capital, which includes CET1 capital plus non-cumulative perpetual preferred equity that qualifies as additional tier 1 capital, divided by total risk-weighted assets as defined under Basel III Standardized approach.

(22) “Total capital ratio” is total capital divided by total risk-weighted assets as defined under Basel III Standardized approach.

(23) “Tier 1 leverage ratio” is tier 1 capital divided by quarterly average total assets as defined under Basel III Standardized approach.

In Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.  (FCX) and its consolidated subsidiaries.

The results of operations reported and summarized below are not necessarily indicative of future operating results (refer to “Cautionary Statement” for further discussion).

In particular, the financial results for the year ended 2013 include the results of FCX Oil & Gas Inc.  (FM O&G) only since June 1, 2013.

References to “Notes” are Notes included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Throughout Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, all references to earnings or losses per share are on a diluted basis, unless otherwise noted.

OVERVIEW In 2013, we completed the acquisitions of Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) and McMoRan Exploration Co.  (MMR).

Refer to Note 2 for further discussion of these acquisitions, including a summary of the preliminary purchase price allocations.

With these acquisitions, we are a premier United States-based natural resources company with an industry-leading global portfolio of mineral assets, significant oil and natural gas resources, and a growing production profile.

We are the world’s largest publicly traded copper producer.

Our portfolio of assets includes the Grasberg minerals district in Indonesia, one of the world’s largest copper and gold deposits, significant mining operations in North and South America, the Tenke Fungurume (Tenke) minerals district in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in Africa and significant oil and natural gas assets in North America, including reserves in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM), onshore and offshore California, in the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas, in the Haynesville shale play in Louisiana, in the Madden area in central Wyoming, and an industry-leading position in the emerging shallow-water Inboard Lower Tertiary/Cretaceous natural gas trend on the Shelf of the GOM and onshore in South Louisiana (previously referred to as the ultra-deep gas trend).

We have significant mineral reserves, resources and future development opportunities within our portfolio of mining assets.

At December 31, 2013, our estimated consolidated recoverable proven and probable mineral reserves totaled 111.2 billion pounds of copper, 31.3 million ounces of gold and 3.26 billion pounds of molybdenum, which were determined using long-term average prices of $2.00 per pound for copper, $1,000 per ounce for gold and $10 per pound for molybdenum.

Refer to “Critical Accounting Estimates — Mineral Reserves” for further discussion.

A summary of the sources of our consolidated copper, gold and molybdenum production for the year 2013 by geographic location follows:

For 2013, 60 percent of our consolidated molybdenum production in North America was from the Henderson and Climax primary molybdenum mines.

Copper production from the Grasberg, Morenci and Cerro Verde mines totaled 49 percent of our consolidated copper production in 2013.

During 2013, we completed our second phase expansion project at Tenke.

We also advanced construction on the Morenci mill expansion, with startup expected in the first half of 2014, and commenced construction on the Cerro Verde mill expansion, with completion expected in 2016.

These projects are expected to significantly increase our minerals production in future periods.

Refer to “Operations” for further discussion of our mining operations.

Our oil and gas business has significant proved, probable and possible reserves with financially attractive organic growth opportunities.

Our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 2013, totaled 464 million barrels of oil equivalents (MMBOE), with 80 percent comprised of oil (including natural gas liquids, or NGLs).

Our portfolio includes a broad range of development opportunities and high-potential exploration prospects.

For the seven-month period following the acquisition date, our oil and gas sales volumes totaled 38.1 MMBOE, including 26.6 million barrels (MMBbls) of crude oil, 54.2 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas and 2.4 MMBbls of NGLs.

Refer to “Operations” for further discussion of our oil and gas operations and to “Critical Accounting Estimates — Oil and Natural Gas Reserves” for further discussion of our reserves.

Our results for 2013, compared with 2012, primarily benefited from higher copper and gold sales volumes, partly offset by lower metals price realizations, and include the results of FM O&G beginning June 1, 2013.

Refer to “Consolidated Results” for discussion of items impacting our consolidated results for the three years ended December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2013, we had $2.0 billion in consolidated cash and cash equivalents and $20.7 billion in total debt, including $10.5 billion of acquisition-related debt and $6.7 billion of debt assumed in connection with the oil and gas acquisitions.

Refer to Note 8 and “Capital Resources and Liquidity” for further discussion.

At current copper and crude oil prices, we expect to produce significant operating cash flows, and to use our cash to invest in our development projects, reduce debt and return cash to shareholders through dividends on our common stock.

Answer: 0.0


Question: what was the percentage change in revenues for investments in 50% ( 50 % ) or less owned investments accounted for using the equity method between 2000 and 2001?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    revenues_2001 = 6147
    revenues_2000 = 6241

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    change_in_revenues = revenues_2001 - revenues_2000
    percentage_change_in_revenues = (change_in_revenues / revenues_2000) * 100

    return percentage_change_in_revenues

The loss recorded on the sale was approximately $14 million and is recorded as a loss on sale of assets and asset impairment expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

In the second quarter of 2002, the Company recorded an impairment charge of approximately $40 million, after income taxes, on an equity method investment in a telecommunications company in Latin America held by EDC.

The impairment charge resulted from sustained poor operating performance coupled with recent funding problems at the invested company.

During 2001, the Company lost operational control of Central Electricity Supply Corporation (‘‘CESCO’’), a distribution company located in the state of Orissa, India.

CESCO is accounted for as a cost method investment.

In May 2000, the Company completed the acquisition of 100% of Tractebel Power Ltd (‘‘TPL’’) for approximately $67 million and assumed liabilities of approximately $200 million.

The Company also acquired an additional 6% interest in Nigen from minority stockholders during the year ended December 31, 2000 through the issuance of approximately 99,000 common shares of AES stock valued at approximately $4.9 million.

With the completion of these transactions, the Company owns approximately 98% of Nigen’s common stock and began consolidating its financial results beginning May 12, 2000.

Approximately $100 million of the purchase price was allocated to excess of costs over net assets acquired and was amortized through January 1, 2002 at which time the Company adopted SFAS No.142 and ceased amortization of goodwill.

In August 2000, a subsidiary of the Company acquired a 49% interest in Songas Limited (‘‘Songas’’) for approximately $40 million.

The Company acquired an additional 16.79% of Songas for approximately $12.5 million, and the Company began consolidating this entity in 2002.

Songas owns the Songo Songo Gas-to-Electricity Project in Tanzania.

In December 2002, the Company signed a Sales Purchase Agreement to sell Songas.

The sale is expected to close in early 2003.

See Note 4 for further discussion of the transaction.

The following table presents summarized comparative financial information (in millions) for the Company’s investments in 50% or less owned investments accounted for using the equity method.

In 2002, 2001 and 2000, the results of operations and the financial position of CEMIG were negatively impacted by the devaluation of the Brazilian Real and the impairment charge recorded in 2002.

The Brazilian Real devalued 32%, 19% and 8% for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

The Company recorded $83 million, $210 million, and $64 million of pre-tax non-cash foreign currency transaction losses on its investments in Brazilian equity method affiliates during 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

Consumers purchases the balance of its required gas supply under incremental firm transportation contracts, firm city gate contracts and, as needed, interruptible transportation contracts.

The amount of interruptible transportation service and its use vary primarily with the price for such service and the availability and price of the spot supplies being purchased and transported.

Consumers’ use of interruptible transportation is generally in off-peak summer months and after Consumers has fully utilized the services under the firm transportation agreements.

Enterprises Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, is engaged primarily in domestic independent power production.

Enterprises’ operating revenue included in Continuing Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $383 million in 2007, $438 million in 2006, and $693 million in 2005.

Operating revenue included in Discontinued Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $235 million in 2007, $684 million in 2006, and $409 million in 2005.

In 2007, Enterprises made a significant change in business strategy by exiting the international marketplace and refocusing its business strategy to concentrate on its independent power business in the United States.

Independent Power Production CMS Generation was formed in 1986.

It invested in and operated non-utility power generation plants in the United States and abroad.

The independent power production business segment’s operating revenue included in Continuing Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $41 million in 2007, $103 million in 2006, and $104 million in 2005.

Operating revenue included in Discontinued Operations in our consolidated financial statements was $124 million in 2007, $437 million in 2006, and $211 million in 2005.

In 2007, Enterprises sold CMS Generation and all of its international assets and power production facilities and transferred its domestic independent power plant operations to its subsidiary, Hydra-Co.  For more information on the asset sales, see ITEM 8.

CMS ENERGY’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA — NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — NOTE 2.

ASSET SALES, DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND IMPAIRMENT CHARGES — ASSET SALES.

IndependentPowerProductionProperties: AtDecember 31,2007,CMSEnergyhadownershipinterestsin independent power plants totaling 1,199 gross MW or 1,078 net MW (net MW reflects that portion of the gross capacity in relation to CMS Energy’s ownership interest).

The following table details CMS Energy’s interest in independent power plants at December 31, 2007:

| Location| Fuel Type| Ownership Interest   (%)| Gross Capacity   (MW)| Percentage of   Gross Capacity   Under Long-Term   Contract   (%)|
|California|Wood|37.8|36|100|
|Connecticut|Scrap tire|100|31|0|
|Michigan|Coal|50|70|100|
|Michigan|Natural gas|100|710|61|
|Michigan|Natural gas|100|224|0|
|Michigan|Wood|50|40|100|
|Michigan|Wood|50|38|100|
|North Carolina|Wood|50|50|0|
| Total|||1,199||

For information on capital expenditures, see ITEM 7.

CMS ENERGY’S MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS — CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY.

CMS ENERGY CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) December 24, 2008.

The settlement includes a $20 million decrease in depreciation rates and requires that we not request a new gas general rate increase prior to May 1, 2009.

OTHER CONTINGENCIES — INDEMNIFICATIONS Equatorial Guinea Tax Claim: In 2004, we received a request for indemnification from the purchaser of CMS Oil and Gas.

The indemnification claim relates to the sale of our oil, gas and methanol projects in Equatorial Guinea and the claim of the government of Equatorial Guinea that we owe $142 million in taxes in connection with that sale.

CMS Energy concluded that the government’s tax claim is without merit and the purchaser of CMS Oil and Gas submitted a response to the government rejecting the claim.

The government of Equatorial Guinea has indicated that it still intends to pursue its claim.

We cannot predict the financial impact or outcome of this matter.

Moroccan Tax Claim: In May 2007, we sold our 50 percent interest in Jorf Lasfar.

As part of the sale agreement, we agreed to indemnify the purchaser for 50 percent of any tax assessments on Jorf Lasfar attributable to tax years prior to the sale.

In December 2007, the Moroccan tax authority concluded its audit of Jorf Lasfar for tax years 2003 through 2005.

The audit asserted deficiencies in certain corporate and withholding taxes.

In January 2009, we paid $18 million, which was charged against a tax indemnification liability established when we recorded the sale of Jorf Lasfar, and accordingly it did not affect earnings.

Marathon Indemnity Claim regarding F. T.  Barr Claim: On December 3, 2001, F.  T.  Barr, an individual with an overriding royalty interest in production from the Alba field, filed a lawsuit in Harris County District Court in Texas against CMS Energy, CMS Oil and Gas and other defendants alleging that his overriding royalty payments related to Alba field production were improperly calculated.

CMS Oil and Gas believes that Barr was paid properly on gas sales and that he was not entitled to the additional overriding royalty payment sought.

All parties signed a confidential settlement agreement on April 26, 2004.

The settlement resolved claims between Barr and the defendants, and the involved CMS Energy entities reserved all defenses to any indemnity claim relating to the settlement.

There is disagreement between Marathon and certain current or former CMS Energy entities as to the existence and scope of any indemnity obligations to Marathon in connection with the settlement.

Between April 2005 and April 2008, there were no further communications between Marathon and CMS Energy entities regarding this matter.

In April 2008, Marathon indicated its intent to pursue the indemnity claim.

Present and former CMS Energy entities and Marathon entered into an agreement tolling the statute of limitations on any claim by Marathon under the indemnity.

CMS Energy entities dispute Marathon’s claim, and will vigorously oppose it if raised in any legal proceeding.

CMS Energy entities also will assert that Marathon has suffered minimal, if any, damages.

CMS Energy cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

If Marathon’s claim were sustained, it would have a material effect on CMS Energy’s future earnings and cash flow.

Guarantees and Indemnifications: FIN 45 requires a guarantor, upon issuance of a guarantee, to recognize a liability for the fair value of the obligation it undertakes in issuing the guarantee.

To measure the fair value of a guarantee liability, we recognize a liability for any premium received or receivable in exchange for the guarantee.

For a guarantee issued as part of a larger transaction, such as in association with an asset sale or executory contract, we recognize a liability for any premium that we would have received had we issued the guarantee as a single item.

The following table describes our guarantees at December 31, 2008:

| Guarantee Description| Issue Date| Expiration Date| Maximum   Obligation| FIN 45   Carrying   Amount|
|| In Millions|
|Indemnifications from asset sales and other agreements|Various|Indefinite|$1,445(a)|$84(b)|
|Surety bonds and other indemnifications|Various|Indefinite|35|1|
|Guarantees and put options|Various|Various through September 2027|89(c)|1|

ratings, and general information on market movements for investment grade state and municipal securities normally considered by market participants when pricing such debt securities.

Foreign Corporate Bonds: Foreign corporate debt securities were valued based on quoted market prices, when available, or on yields available on comparable securities of issuers with similar credit ratings.

Common Stocks: Common stocks in the OPEB Plan consist of equity securities with low transaction costs that were actively managed and tracked by the S&P 500 Index.

These securities were valued at their quoted closing prices.

Mutual Funds: Mutual funds represent shares in registered investment companies that are priced based on the daily quoted NAVs that are publicly available and are the basis for transactions to buy or sell shares in the funds.

Pooled Funds: Pooled funds include both common and collective trust funds as well as special funds that contain only employee benefit plan assets from two or more unrelated benefit plans.

Presented in the following table are the investment components of these funds:

Answer: -1.506168883191796


Question: What is the proportion of Asset Management to the total Mortgage and other loans receivable, net of allowance in 2006?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    asset_management = 4884
    total_mortgage_and_other_loans_receivable = 28418

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = (asset_management / total_mortgage_and_other_loans_receivable) * 100

    return answer

American International Group, Inc.  and Subsidiaries Financial Services Operations AlG's Financial Services subsidiaries engage in diversified activi- ties including aircraft and equipment leasing, capital markets, consumer finance and insurance premium finance.

Financial Services Results Financial Services results for 2006,2005 and 2004 were as follows:

(a) Includes the effect of hedging activities that did not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under FAS 133, including the related foreign exchange gains and osses.

For 2006,2005 and 2004, respectively, the effect was $(1.8) billion,$2.0 billion and $(122) million in both revenues and operating income for Capital Markets.

These amounts result primarily from interest rate and foreign currency derivatives that are economicaly hedging available for sale securities and borrowings.

For 2004, the effect was $(27) million in operating income for Aircrat Leasing.

During 2006 and 2005, Aircraft Leasing derivative gains and losses were reported as part of AlG's Other category, and were not reported in Aircraft Leasing operating income.

(b) Revenues are primarily aircraft lease rentals from ILFC.

(cC) Revenues, shown net of interest expense of $3.2 bilion,$3.0 bilion and $2.3 bilion, in 2006,2005 and 2004, respectively, were primarily from hedged financial positions entered into in connection with counterparty transactions and the effect of hedging activities that did not quality for hedge accounting treatment under FAS 133 described n (a) above.

(d) Certain transactions entered into by AIGFP generate tax credits and benefits which are included in income taxes in the consolidated statement of income.

The amounts of such tax credits and benefits fod the years ended December 31,2006,2005 and 2004, respectively.

are $50 million,$67 milion and $107 million.

(e) Revenues are primarily fimance charges.

() includes catastrophe-related losses of $62 milion recorded in the third quarter of 2005 resulting from hurricane Katrina, which were reduced by $35 milion in 2006 due to the reevaluation of the remaining estimated los ses.

(g) Includes specific reserves recorded during 2006 in the amount of $42 millon related to two commercial lending trans actions.

Financial Services operating income decreased in 2006 com- pared to 2005 and increased in 2005 compared to 2004, due primarily to the effect of hedging activities that did not qualify for hedge accounting under FAS 133.

AIG is reinstituting hedge accounting in the first quarter of 2007 for AlGFP and later in 2007 for the balance of the Financial Services operations.

Aircraft Leasing AlG's Aircraft Leasing operations represent the operations of ILFC, which generates its revenues primarily from leasing new and used commercial jet aircraft to foreign and domestic airlines.

Revenues also result from the remarketing of commercial jets for ILFC's own account, and remarketing and fleet management services for airlines and financial institutions.

ILFC finances its purchases of aircraft primarily through the issuance of a variety of debt instruments.

The composite borrowing rates at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were 5.17 percent and 4.61 percent, respec- tively.

The composite borrowing rates did not reflect the benefit of economically hedging ILFC's floating rate and foreign currency denominated debt using interest rate and foreign currency deriva tives.

These derivatives are effective economic hedges; however, since hedge accounting under FAS 133 was not applied, the benefits of using derivatives to hedge these exposures were not reflected in ILFC's borrowing rates.

ILFC's sources of revenue are principally from scheduled and charter airlines and companies associated with the airline indus- try.

The airline industry is sensitive to changes in economic conditions and is cyclical and highly competitive.

Airlines and related companies may be affected by political or economic instability, terrorist activities, changes in national policy, competi- tive pressures on certain air carriers, fuel prices and shortages, labor stoppages, insurance costs, recessions, world health issues and other political or economic events adversely affecting world or regonal trading markets.

ILFC is exposed to operating loss and liquidity strain through nonperformance of aircraft lessees, through owning aircraft which it would be unable to sell or re-lease at acceptable rates at lease expiration and, in part, through committing to purchase aircraft which it would be unable to lease.

ILFC’s revenues and operating income may be adversely affected by the volatile competitive environment in which its customers operate.

ILFC manages the risk of nonperformance by its lessees with security deposit requirements, repossession rights, overhaul requirements and close monitoring of industry conditions through its marketing force.

However, there can be no assurance that ILFC would be able to successfully manage the risks relating to the effect of possible future deterioration in the airline industry.

Approximately 90 percent of ILFC’s ?eet is leased to non-U.

S.  carriers, and the ?eet, comprised of the most ef?cient aircraft in the airline industry, continues to be in high demand from such carriers.

ILFC typically contracts to re-lease aircraft before the end of the existing lease term.

For aircraft returned before the end of the lease term, ILFC has generally been able to re-lease such aircraft within two to six months of its return.

As a lessor, ILFC considers an aircraft ‘‘idle’’ or ‘‘off lease’’ when the aircraft is not subject to a signed lease agreement or signed letter of intent.

ILFC had one aircraft off lease at December 31, 2006, and all new aircraft scheduled for delivery through 2007 have been leased.

Management formally reviews regularly, and no less frequently than quarterly, issues affecting ILFC’s ?eet, including events and circumstances that may cause impairment of aircraft values.

Management evaluates aircraft in the ?eet as necessary based on

American International Group, Inc.  and Subsidiaries Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Continued

||Life Insurance &||
||General|Retirement|Financial|Asset||
|(in millions)|Insurance|Services|Services|Management|Other|Total|
|2006|||||||
|Fixed maturities:|||||||
|Bonds available for sale, at fair value|$67,994|$288,018|$1,357|$29,500|$—|$386,869|
|Bonds held to maturity, at amortized cost|21,437|—|—|—|—|21,437|
|Bond trading securities, at fair value|1|10,835|—|—|—|10,836|
|Equity securities:|||||||
|Common stocks available for sale, at fair value|4,245|8,705|—|226|80|13,256|
|Common stocks trading, at fair value|350|14,505|—|—|—|14,855|
|Preferred stocks available for sale, at fair value|1,884|650|5|—|—|2,539|
|Mortgage and other loans receivable, net of allowance|17|21,043|2,398|4,884|76|28,418|
|Financial services assets:|||||||
|Flight equipment primarily under operating leases, net of accumulated depreciation|—|—|39,875|—|—|39,875|
|Securities available for sale, at fair value|—|—|47,205|—|—|47,205|
|Trading securities, at fair value|—|—|5,031|—|—|5,031|
|Spot commodities|—|—|220|—|—|220|
|Unrealized gain on swaps, options and forward transactions|—|—|19,607|—|-355|19,252|
|Trade receivables|—|—|4,317|—|—|4,317|
|Securities purchased under agreements to resell, at contract value|—|—|30,291|—|—|30,291|
|Finance receivables, net of allowance|—|—|29,573|—|—|29,573|
|Securities lending invested collateral, at fair value|5,376|50,099|76|13,755|—|69,306|
|Other invested assets|9,207|13,962|2,212|13,198|3,532|42,111|
|Short-term investments, at cost|3,281|15,192|2,807|6,198|5|27,483|
|Total investments and financial services assets as shown on the balance sheet|113,792|423,009|184,974|67,761|3,338|792,874|
|Cash|334|740|390|118|8|1,590|
|Investment income due and accrued|1,363|4,378|23|326|1|6,091|
|Real estate, net of accumulated depreciation|570|698|17|75|26|1,386|
|Total invested assets(a)(b)|$116,059|$428,825|$185,404|$68,280|$3,373|$801,941|

(a) Certain reclassifications and format changes have been made to prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation.

(b) At December 31, 2006, approximately 68 percent and 32 percent of invested assets were held in domestic and foreign investments, respectively.

Investment Strategy AIG’s investment strategies are tailored to the speci?c business needs of each operating unit.

The investment objectives are driven by the business model for each of the businesses: General Insurance, Life Insurance, Retirement Services and Asset Manage-ment’s Spread-Based Investment business.

The primary objectives are in terms of preservation of capital, growth of surplus and generation of investment income to support the insurance products.

At the local operating unit level, the strategies are based on considerations that include the local market, liability duration and cash ?ow characteristics, rating agency and regula- tory capital considerations, legal investment limitations, tax optimization and diversi?cation.

In addition to local risk manage-ment considerations, AIG’s corporate risk management guidelines impose limitations on concentrations to promote diversi?cation by industry, asset class and geographic sector.

American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries resulted in a benefit to the surplus of the domestic and foreign General Insurance companies of $114 million and $859 million, respectively, and did not affect compliance with minimum regulatory capital requirements.

Legal Proceedings, various regulators have commenced investigations into certain insurance business practices.

In addition, the OTS and other regulators routinely conduct examinations of AIG and its subsidiaries, including AIG’s consumer finance operations.

AIG cannot predict the ultimate effect that these investigations and examinations, or any additional regulation arising therefrom, might have on its business.

Federal, state or local legislation may affect AIG’s ability to operate and expand its various financial services businesses, and changes in the current laws, regulations or interpretations thereof may have a material adverse effect on these businesses.

AIG’s U. S.  operations are negatively affected under guarantee fund assessment laws which exist in most states.

As a result of operating in a state which has guarantee fund assessment laws, a solvent insurance company may be assessed for certain obligations arising from the insolvencies of other insurance companies which operated in that state.

AIG generally records these assessments upon notice.

Additionally, certain states permit at least a portion of the assessed amount to be used as a credit against a company’s future premium tax liabilities.

Therefore, the ultimate net assessment cannot reasonably be estimated.

The guarantee fund assessments net of credits recognized in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively, were $8 million, $87 million and $97 million.

AIG is also required to participate in various involuntary pools (principally workers’ compensation business) which provide insurance coverage for those not able to obtain such coverage in the voluntary markets.

This participation is also recorded upon notification, as these amounts cannot reasonably be estimated.

A substantial portion of AIG’s General Insurance business and a majority of its Life Insurance & Retirement Services business are conducted in foreign countries.

The degree of regulation and supervision in foreign jurisdictions varies.

Generally, AIG, as well as the underwriting companies operating in such jurisdictions, must satisfy local regulatory requirements.

Licenses issued by foreign authorities to AIG subsidiaries are subject to modification and revocation.

Thus, AIG’s insurance subsidiaries could be prevented from conducting future business in certain of the jurisdictions where they currently operate.

AIG’s international operations include operations in various developing nations.

Both current and future foreign operations could be adversely affected by unfavorable political developments up to and including nationalization of AIG’s operations without compensation.

Adverse effects resulting from any one country may affect AIG’s results of operations, liquidity and financial condition depending on the magnitude of the event and AIG’s net financial exposure at that time in that country.

Foreign insurance operations are individually subject to local solvency margin requirements that require maintenance of adequate capitalization, which AIG complies with by country.

In addition, certain foreign locations, notably Japan, have established regulations that can result in guarantee fund assessments.

These have not had a material effect on AIG’s financial condition or results of operations.

Investments Investments by Segment The following tables summarize the composition of AIG’s investments by segment:

|| General   Insurance| Life   Insurance &   Retirement   Services| Financial   Services| Asset   Management| Other| Total|
|| (In millions)|
| At December 31, 2008|||||||
|Fixed maturity securities:|||||||
|Bonds available for sale, at fair value|$85,791|$262,824|$1,971|$12,284|$172|$363,042|
|Bond trading securities, at fair value|—|6,296|26,848|5|4,099|37,248|
|Securities lending invested collateral, at fair value|790|3,054|—|—|—|3,844|

Business Separation Costs On 16 September 2015, the Company announced that it intends to separate its Materials Technologies business via a spin-off.

During the fourth quarter, we incurred legal and other advisory fees of $7.5 ($.03 per share).

Gain on Previously Held Equity Interest On 30 December 2014, we acquired our partner’s equity ownership interest in a liquefied atmospheric industrial gases production joint venture in North America for $22.6 which increased our ownership from 50% to 100%.

The transaction was accounted for as a business combination, and subsequent to the acquisition, the results are consolidated within our Industrial Gases – Americas segment.

The assets acquired, primarily plant and equipment, were recorded at their fair value as of the acquisition date.

The acquisition date fair value of the previously held equity interest was determined using a discounted cash flow analysis under the income approach.

During the first quarter of 2015, we recorded a gain of $17.9 ($11.2 after-tax, or $.05 per share) as a result of revaluing our previously held equity interest to fair value as of the acquisition date.

Advisory Costs During the fourth quarter of 2013, we incurred legal and other advisory fees of $10.1 ($6.4 after-tax, or $.03 per share) in connection with our response to the rapid acquisition of a large position in shares of our common stock by Pershing Square Capital Management LLC and its affiliates.

Other Income (Expense), Net Items recorded to other income (expense), net arise from transactions and events not directly related to our principal income earning activities.

The detail of other income (expense), net is presented in Note 24, Supplemental Information, to the consolidated financial statements.2015 vs.  2014 Other income (expense), net of $47.3 decreased $5.5.

The current year includes a gain of $33.6 ($28.3 after-tax, or $.13 per share) resulting from the sale of two parcels of land.

The gain was partially offset by unfavorable foreign exchange impacts and lower gains on other sales of assets and emissions credits.

No other individual items were significant in comparison to the prior year.2014 vs.  2013 Other income (expense), net of $52.8 decreased $17.4, primarily due to higher gains from the sale of a number of small assets and investments, higher government grants, and a favorable commercial contract settlement in 2013.

Otherwise, no individual items were significant in comparison to 2013.

Answer: 17.18629037933704


Question: What was the total amount of Foreign govt./govt. agencies, Municipal, RMBS and U.S. Treasuries for Fair of 12 Months or More ?

def solution():
    # Define variables
    foreign_govt_12months = 68
    municipal_12months = 863
    RMBS_12months = 1147
    US_treasury_12months = 119

    # Calculate the total amount
    answer = foreign_govt_12months + municipal_12months + RMBS_12months + US_treasury_12months

    return answer

solution()

Commercial Paper and Revolving Credit Facility The table below details the Company’s short-term debt programs and the applicable balances outstanding

|| Effective| Expiration| Maximum Available As of  December 31,| Outstanding As of  December 31,|
| Description| Date| Date| 2011| 2010| 2011| 2010|
| Commercial Paper|||||||||
|The Hartford|11/10/86|N/A|$2,000|$2,000||$—||$—|
| Revolving Credit Facility|||||||||
|5-year revolving credit facility [1]|8/9/07|8/9/12|1,900|1,900||—||—|
| Total Commercial Paper and RevolvingCredit Facility|||$3,900|$3,900| $| —| $|—|

[1] Terminated in January 2012, see discussion that follows.

While The Hartford’s maximum borrowings available under its commercial paper program are $2.0 billion, the Company is dependent upon market conditions to access short-term financing through the issuance of commercial paper to investors.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company has no commercial paper outstanding.

In January 2012, the Company entered into a senior unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) that provides for borrowing capacity up to $1.75 billion (which is available in U. S.  dollars, and in Euro, Sterling, Canadian dollars and Japanese Yen) through January 6, 2016 and terminated its $1.9 billion unsecured revolving credit facility due August 9, 2012.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company was in compliance with all financial covenants under the terminated credit facility.

Of the total availability under the Credit Facility, up to $250 is available to support letters of credit issued on behalf of the Company or subsidiaries of the Company.

Under the Credit Facility, the Company must maintain a minimum level of consolidated net worth of $16 billion.

The minimum level of consolidated net worth, as defined, will be adjusted in the first quarter of 2012 upon the adoption of a new DAC accounting standard, see Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, by the lesser of approximately $1.0 billion, after-tax representing 70% of the adoption-related estimated DAC charge, or $1.7 billion.

The definition of consolidated net worth under the terms of the credit facility excludes AOCI and includes the Company’s outstanding junior subordinated debentures and perpetual preferred securities, net of discount.

In addition, the Company’s maximum ratio of consolidated total debt to consolidated total capitalization is 35%, and the ratio of consolidated total debt of subsidiaries to consolidated total capitalization is limited to 10%.

The Company will certify compliance with the financial covenants for the syndicate of participating financial institutions on a quarterly basis.

The Hartford’s Japan operations also maintain two lines of credit in support of operations.

Both lines of credit are in the amount of $65, or ￥5 billion, and individually have expiration dates of September 30, 2012 and January 3, 2013.

Derivative Commitments Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement as set by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies.

If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and in certain instances demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement.

The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement.

If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity.

The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of December 31, 2011, is $725.

Of this $725 the legal entities have posted collateral of $716 in the normal course of business.

Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2011, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could require approximately an additional $37 to be posted as collateral.

Based on derivative market values as of December 31, 2011, a downgrade by either Moody’s or S&P of two levels below the legal entities’ current financial strength ratings could require approximately an additional $48 of assets to be posted as collateral.

These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated.

The nature of the collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U. S.  Treasury bills and U. S.  Treasury notes.

The aggregate notional amount of derivative relationships that could be subject to immediate termination in the event of rating agency downgrades to either BBB+ or Baa1 as of December 31, 2011 was $14.5 billion with a corresponding fair value of $418.

The notional and fair value amounts include a customized GMWB derivative with a notional amount of $4.2 billion and a fair value of $207, for which the Company has a contractual right to make a collateral payment in the amount of approximately $45 to prevent its termination.

This customized GMWB derivative contains an early termination trigger such that if the unsecured, unsubordinated debt of the counterparty’s related party guarantor is downgraded two levels or more below the current ratings by Moody’s and one or more levels by S&P, the counterparty could terminate all transactions under the applicable International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement.

As of December 31, 2011, the gross fair value of the affected derivative contracts is $223, which would approximate the settlement value.

THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) 5.

Investments and Derivative Instruments (continued) Security Unrealized Loss Aging The following tables present the Company’s unrealized loss aging for AFS securities by type and length of time the security was in a continuous unrealized loss position.

[1] Unrealized losses exclude the change in fair value of bifurcated embedded derivative features of certain securities.

Subsequent changes in fair value are recorded in net realized capital gains (losses).

As of December 31, 2011, AFS securities in an unrealized loss position, comprised of 2,549 securities, primarily related to corporate securities within the financial services sector, CMBS, and RMBS which have experienced significant price deterioration.

As of December 31, 2011, 75% of these securities were depressed less than 20% of cost or amortized cost.

The decline in unrealized losses during 2011 was primarily attributable to a decline in interest rates, partially offset by credit spread widening.

Most of the securities depressed for twelve months or more relate to structured securities with exposure to commercial and residential real estate, as well as certain floating rate corporate securities or those securities with greater than 10 years to maturity, concentrated in the financial services sector.

Current market spreads continue to be significantly wider for structured securities with exposure to commercial and residential real estate, as compared to spreads at the security’s respective purchase date, largely due to the economic and market uncertainties regarding future performance of commercial and residential real estate.

In addition, the majority of securities have a floating-rate coupon referenced to a market index where rates have declined substantially.

The Company neither has an intention to sell nor does it expect to be required to sell the securities outlined above.

THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) F-40 5.

Investments and Derivative Instruments (continued) Variable Interest Entities The Company is involved with various special purpose entities and other entities that are deemed to be VIEs primarily as a collateral manager and as an investor through normal investment activities, as well as a means of accessing capital.

A VIE is an entity that either has investors that lack certain essential characteristics of a controlling financial interest or lacks sufficient funds to finance its own activities without financial support provided by other entities.

The Company performs ongoing qualitative assessments of its VIEs to determine whether the Company has a controlling financial interest in the VIE and therefore is the primary beneficiary.

The Company is deemed to have a controlling financial interest when it has both the ability to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIE and the obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.

Based on the Company’s assessment, if it determines it is the primary beneficiary, the Company consolidates the VIE in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

Consolidated VIEs The following table presents the carrying value of assets and liabilities, and the maximum exposure to loss relating to the VIEs for which the Company is the primary beneficiary.

Creditors have no recourse against the Company in the event of default by these VIEs nor does the Company have any implied or unfunded commitments to these VIEs.

The Company’s financial or other support provided to these VIEs is limited to its investment management services and original investment.

|| December 31, 2011| December 31, 2010|
|| Total  Assets| Total  Liabilities [1]| Maximum  Exposure  to Loss [2]| Total  Assets| Total  Liabilities [1]| Maximum  Exposure  to Loss [2]|
|CDOs [3]|$491|$471|$29|$729|$393|$289|
|Limited partnerships|7|—|7|14|1|13|
| Total|$498|$471|$36|$743|$394|$302|

[1] Included in other liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

[2] The maximum exposure to loss represents the maximum loss amount that the Company could recognize as a reduction in net investment income or as a realized capital loss and is the cost basis of the Company’s investment.

[3] Total assets included in fixed maturities, AFS, and fixed maturities, FVO, in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CDOs represent structured investment vehicles for which the Company has a controlling financial interest as it provides collateral management services, earns a fee for those services and also holds investments in the securities issued by these vehicles.

Limited partnerships represent one hedge fund for which the Company holds a majority interest in the fund as an investment.

Non-Consolidated VIEs The Company holds a significant variable interest for one VIE for which it is not the primary beneficiary and, therefore, was not consolidated on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

This VIE represents a contingent capital facility (“facility”) that has been held by the Company since February 2007 for which the Company has no implied or unfunded commitments.

Assets and liabilities recorded for the facility were $28 as of December 31, 2011 and $32 as of December 31, 2010.

Additionally, the Company has a maximum exposure to loss of $3 as of December 31, 2011 and $4 as of December 31, 2010, which represents the issuance costs that were incurred to establish the facility.

The Company does not have a controlling financial interest as it does not manage the assets of the facility nor does it have the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the facility, as the asset manager has significant variable interest in the vehicle.

The Company’s financial or other support provided to the facility is limited to providing ongoing support to cover the facility’s operating expenses.

For further information on the facility, see Note 14.

In addition, the Company, through normal investment activities, makes passive investments in structured securities issued by VIEs for which the Company is not the manager which are included in ABS, CDOs, CMBS and RMBS in the Available-for-Sale Securities table and fixed maturities, FVO, in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company has not provided financial or other support with respect to these investments other than its original investment.

For these investments, the Company determined it is not the primary beneficiary due to the relative size of the Company’s investment in comparison to the principal amount of the structured securities issued by the VIEs, the level of credit subordination which reduces the Company’s obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits and the Company’s inability to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIEs.

The Company’s maximum exposure to loss on these investments is limited to the amount of the Company’s investment.

In reporting environmental results, the Company classifies its gross exposure into Direct, Assumed Reinsurance, and London Market.

The following table displays gross environmental reserves and other statistics by category as of December 31, 2011.

Summary of Environmental Reserves As of December 31, 2011

||Total Reserves|
|Gross [1] [2]||
|Direct|$271|
|Assumed Reinsurance|39|
|London Market|57|
|Total|367|
|Ceded|-47|
|Net|$320|

[1] The one year gross paid amount for total environmental claims is $58, resulting in a one year gross survival ratio of 6.4.

[2] The three year average gross paid amount for total environmental claims is $58, resulting in a three year gross survival ratio of 6.4.

During the second quarters of 2011, 2010 and 2009, the Company completed its annual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluations.

As part of these evaluations, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well as assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance.

Based on this evaluation, the Company strengthened its net asbestos reserves by $290 in second quarter 2011.

During 2011, for certain direct policyholders, the Company experienced increases in claim frequency, severity and expense which were driven by mesothelioma claims, particularly against certain smaller, more peripheral insureds.

The Company also experienced unfavorable development on its assumed reinsurance accounts driven largely by the same factors experienced by the direct policyholders.

During 2010 and 2009, for certain direct policyholders, the Company experienced increases in claim severity and expense.

Increases in severity and expense were driven by litigation in certain jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, development on primarily peripheral accounts.

The net effect of these changes in 2010 and 2009 resulted in $169 and $138 increases in net asbestos reserves, respectively.

The Company currently expects to continue to perform an evaluation of its asbestos liabilities annually.

The Company divides its gross asbestos exposures into Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and London Market.

The Company further divides its direct asbestos exposures into the following categories: Major Asbestos Defendants (the “Top 70” accounts in Tillinghast’s published Tiers 1 and 2 and Wellington accounts), which are subdivided further as: Structured Settlements, Wellington, Other Major Asbestos Defendants, Accounts with Future Expected Exposures greater than $2.5, Accounts with Future Expected Exposures less than $2.5, and Unallocated.  ?

Structured Settlements are those accounts where the Company has reached an agreement with the insured as to the amount and timing of the claim payments to be made to the insured.  ?

The Wellington subcategory includes insureds that entered into the “Wellington Agreement” dated June 19, 1985.

The Wellington Agreement provided terms and conditions for how the signatory asbestos producers would access their coverage from the signatory insurers.  ?

The Other Major Asbestos Defendants subcategory represents insureds included in Tiers 1 and 2, as defined by Tillinghast that are not Wellington signatories and have not entered into structured settlements with The Hartford.

The Tier 1 and 2 classifications are meant to capture the insureds for which there is expected to be significant exposure to asbestos claims.  ?

Accounts with future expected exposures greater or less than $2.5 include accounts that are not major asbestos defendants.  ?

The Unallocated category includes an estimate of the reserves necessary for asbestos claims related to direct insureds that have not previously tendered asbestos claims to the Company and exposures related to liability claims that may not be subject to an aggregate limit under the applicable policies.

An account may move between categories from one evaluation to the next.

For example, an account with future expected exposure of greater than $2.5 in one evaluation may be reevaluated due to changing conditions and recategorized as less than $2.5 in a subsequent evaluation or vice versa.

Answer: 2197.0


Question: What's the growth rate of Swaps in terms of Interest rate contracts with Contract/ Notional in 2005?

def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    swaps_2005 = 11597813
    swaps_2004 = 14401577

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    difference = swaps_2004 - swaps_2005
    growth_rate = (difference / swaps_2005) * 100

    return growth_rate

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued) A portion of the derivative activity involves exchange-traded instruments.

Exchange-traded instruments conform to standard terms and are subject to policies set by the exchange involved, including margin and security deposit requirements.

Management believes the credit risk associated with these types of instruments is minimal.

The average fair value of Derivative Assets for 2005 and 2004 was $25.9 billion and $28.0 billion.

The average fair value of Derivative Liabilities for 2005 and 2004 was $16.8 billion and $15.7 billion.

The following table presents the contract/notional amounts and credit risk amounts at December 31, 2005 and 2004 of all the Corporation’s derivative positions.

These derivative positions are primarily executed in the over-the-counter market.

The credit risk amounts take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements, and on an aggregate basis have been reduced by the cash collateral applied against Derivative Assets.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the cash collateral applied against Derivative Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet was $9.3 billion and $9.4 billion.

In addition, at December 31, 2005 and 2004, the cash collateral placed against Derivative Liabilities was $7.6 billion and $6.0 billion.

(1) Includes long and short derivative positions.

(2) The increase in credit derivatives notional amounts reflects structured basket transactions and customer-driven activity.

ALM Process Interest rate contracts and foreign exchange contracts are utilized in the Corporation’s ALM process.

The Corporation maintains an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of interest rate contracts to minimize significant fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate volatility.

The Corporation’s goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity so that movements in interest rates do not significantly adversely affect Net Interest Income.

As a result of interest rate fluctuations, hedged fixed-rate assets and liabilities appreciate or depreciate in market value.

Gains or losses on the derivative instruments that are linked to the hedged fixed-rate assets and liabilities are expected to substantially offset this unrealized appreciation or depreciation.

Interest Income and Interest Expense on hedged variable-rate assets and liabilities increase or decrease as a result of interest rate fluctuations.

Gains and losses on the derivative instruments that are linked to these hedged assets and liabilities are expected to substantially offset this variability in earnings.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued) (dollar and share amounts in thousands, unless otherwise specified) The following table reflects the assumptions utilized to value the 2007 stock option awards granted, the 2006 stock option awards granted, option modifications in 2006, the SARs conversion upon the initial public offering and to value the SARs as of December 31, 2005 using the Black-Scholes valuation model.

In accordance with FAS 123(R), upon conversion to options in conjunction with the initial public offering, the SARs were revalued using the assumptions as of that date.

In addition, the SARs were revalued as of December 31, 2005 using the assumptions effective as of that date which are also noted above.

The risk-free interest rate is based upon U. S.  Treasury Rates for instruments with similar terms.

The expected life of the 2007 and 2006 granted options was derived utilizing the short-cut method allowed for a vanilla option grant under Staff Accounting Bulletin No.107, in which the expected life is assumed to be the average of the vesting period and the contractual life of the option.

The Company has not paid dividends to date and does not plan to pay dividends in the near future.

The volatility assumptions were derived from the Company’s actual and implied volatilities and historical volatilities of competitors whose shares are traded in the public markets and are adjusted to reflect anticipated behavior specific to the Company.

In 2005, the Company’s annual independent stock valuations were also considered in the calculation of volatility.

Employee Benefit Plans In October 2006, effective upon consummation of the Disposition, the Company adopted the Chipotle Mexican Grill 401(k) plan (the “401(k) plan”).

Prior to October 2006, eligible Chipotle employees were participants of a 401(k) plan sponsored by McDonald’s.

The Company matches 100% of the first 3% of pay contributed by each eligible employee and 50% on the next 2% of pay contributed.

Employees become eligible to receive matching contributions after one year of service with the Company.

For the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, Company matching contributions totaled approximately $1,234, $1,070 and $828, respectively.

As a result of the Disposition, the Company adopted the Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Supplemental Deferred Investment Plan (the “Deferred Plan”) which covers eligible employees of the Company.

The Deferred Plan is a non-qualified, unfunded plan that allows participants to make tax-deferred contributions that cannot be made under the 401(k) plan because of Internal Revenue Service limitations.

Participants’ earnings on contributions made to the Deferred Plan fluctuate with the actual earnings and losses of a variety of available investment choices selected by the participant.

Total liabilities under the Deferred Plan as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $800 and $111, respectively, and are included in other long-term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.

The Company matches 100% of the first 3% of pay contributed by each eligible employee and 50% on the next 2% of pay contributed once the 401(k) contribution limits are reached.

For the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the Company made deferred compensation matches of $137 and $25, respectively, to the Deferred Plan.

Prior to October 2006, eligible Chipotle employees were participants of a deferred compensation plan sponsored by McDonald’s.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements – (continued) (Amounts in Millions, Except per Share Amounts) In 2012, amounts reversed to costs and expenses primarily relate to the net reversal of valuation allowances in the Asia Pacific and Continental Europe regions, based on positive evidence in the form of a sustained pattern of profitability.

Amounts reversed to gross tax assets and other accounts relate primarily to the reversal of valuation allowance on foreign tax credits.

In 2011, amounts reversed to costs and expenses primarily relate to the utilization of capital loss carryforwards and the expiration of foreign tax credits on which 100% valuation allowances had been established, and the net reversal of valuation allowances based on positive evidence in the form of a sustained pattern of profitability.

These reversals were partially offset by the establishment of an additional deferred tax asset and a corresponding valuation allowance for a Luxembourg tax loss carryforward.

In 2010, amounts charged to costs and expenses primarily relate to the establishment of a deferred tax asset and a corresponding valuation allowance for a Luxembourg tax loss carryforward, which were first available for effective utilization in 2011.

This resulted from restructuring due to a tax law change in Luxembourg.

Amounts reversed to gross tax assets and other accounts relate primarily to the effect of foreign currency translation.

As of December 31, 2012, there are $1,356.6 of loss carryforwards, of which $15.1 are U. S.  tax loss carryforwards that expire in the years 2026 through 2029.

S.  tax loss carryforwards, of which $1,091.1 have unlimited carryforward periods and $250.4 have expiration periods from 2013 through 2031.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had $2,110.0 and $1,766.7, respectively, of undistributed earnings attributable to foreign subsidiaries.

It is our intention to permanently reinvest undistributed earnings of our foreign subsidiaries.

We have not provided deferred U. S.  income taxes or foreign withholding taxes on temporary differences resulting from earnings for certain foreign subsidiaries which are permanently reinvested outside the U. S.  It is not practicable to determine the amount of unrecognized deferred tax liability associated with these temporary differences.

The table below summarizes the activity related to our unrecognized tax benefits.

||December 31,|
||2012|2011|2010|
|Balance at beginning of period|$161.0|$146.7|$160.5|
|Increases as a result of tax positions taken during a prior year|28.2|5.3|4.6|
|Decreases as a result of tax positions taken during a prior year|-6.8|-18.1|-28.1|
|Settlements with taxing authorities|-0.7|-5.0|-10.2|
|Lapse of statutes of limitation|-1.1|-0.2|-0.6|
|Increases as a result of tax positions taken during the current year|14.0|32.3|20.5|
|Balance at end of period|$194.6|$161.0|$146.7|

Included in the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits of $194.6 as of December 31, 2012, is $193.5 of tax benefits that, if recognized, would impact the effective income tax rate.

The total amount of accrued interest and penalties as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 is $13.5 and $12.1, respectively, of which a detriment of $1.4 and $0.2 is included in our 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Statements of Operations, respectively.

In accordance with our accounting policy, interest and penalties accrued on unrecognized tax benefits are classified as income taxes in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In 2011, we effectively settled the 2007-2008 IRS audit cycle.

The settlement resulted in no cash payment and our effective income tax rate was positively impacted by the recognition of previously unrecognized tax benefits.

We have various tax years under examination by tax authorities in various countries, and in various states, such as New York, in which we have significant business operations.

It is not yet known whether these examinations will, in the aggregate, result in our paying additional taxes.

We believe our tax reserves are adequate in relation to the potential for additional assessments in each of the jurisdictions in which we are subject to taxation.

We regularly assess the likelihood of additional tax assessments in those jurisdictions and, if necessary, adjust our reserves as additional information or events require.

NIKE, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) such agreements in place.

However, based on the Company’s historical experience and the estimated probability of future loss, the Company has determined that the fair value of such indemnifications is not material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings involving contractual and employment relationships, product liability claims, trademark rights, and a variety of other matters.

The Company does not believe there are any pending legal proceedings that will have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Note 16 — Restructuring Charges During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company took necessary steps to streamline its management structure, enhance consumer focus, drive innovation more quickly to market and establish a more scalable, long-term cost structure.

As a result, the Company reduced its global workforce by approximately 5% and incurred pre-tax restructuring charges of $195 million, primarily consisting of severance costs related to the workforce reduction.

As nearly all of the restructuring activities were completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, the Company does not expect to recognize additional costs in future periods relating to these actions.

The restructuring charge is reflected in the corporate expense line in the segment presentation of pre-tax income in Note 19 — Operating Segments and Related Information.

The activity in the restructuring accrual for the year ended May 31, 2009 is as follows (in millions):

Answer: 24.174937119610394