Answer: 10497.0

Question: What is the average amount of Earnings from operations of 2015, and Pension and other postretirement cash requirements of After 5years ?

Context:
Revenues N&SS revenues decreased 1% in 2008 and 2% in 2007. The decrease of $137 million in 2008 is primarily due to decreased revenues in FCS, Proprietary and satellite programs partially offset by increased revenues in the SBInet program. The decrease of $292 million in 2007 was primarily due to the exclusion of government Delta volume, now a component of our equity investment in ULA and lower FCS volume, partially offset by increased volume on SBInet and several satellite programs. Delta launch and new-build satellite deliveries were as follows:

Years ended December 31,	 2008	2007	2006

Delta II Commercial	 2	3

Delta II Government			2

Delta IV Government			3

Satellites	 1	4	4

 Delta government launches are excluded from our deliveries after December 1, 2006 due to the formation of ULA. Operating Earnings N&SS operating earnings increased by $171 million in 2008 was primarily due to increased earnings from our investment in ULA. The decrease in 2007 was due to lower earnings on FCS and several satellite programs. These decreases were partially offset by higher award fees on GMD and a $44 million gain on sale of a property in Anaheim. N&SS operating earnings include equity earnings of $73 million, $85 million and $71 million from the United Space Alliance joint venture in 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively and equity earnings of $105 million, a loss of $11 million and equity earnings of $5 million from the ULA joint venture in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The ULA equity earnings and loss amounts are net of the basis difference amortization. Research and Development The N&SS research and development funding remains focused on the development of communications, command and control, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems (C4ISR); communications and command and control (C3) capabilities that support a network-enabled architecture approach for our various government customers. We are investing in communications capabilities to enable connectivity between existing air/ground platforms, increase communications availability and bandwidth through more robust space systems, and leverage innovative communications concepts. Key programs in this area include JTRS, FCS, Global Positioning System, Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, Ares 1 Crew Launch Vehicle and GMD. Investments were also made to support concepts that may lead to the development of next-generation space intelligence systems. Along with increased funding to support these areas of architecture and network-enabled capabilities development, we also maintained our investment levels in global missile defense and advanced missile defense concepts and technologies. Backlog N&SS total backlog decreased by 12% in 2008 compared with 2007 primarily due to revenues recognized on multi-year orders received in prior years on FCS, GMD and C3 programs, partially offset by an increase in the International Space Station program. Total backlog decreased by 7% in 2007 compared with 2006 due to revenues recognized on FCS and Proprietary programs, partially offset by an increase in Space Exploration programs. Additional Considerations Items which could have a future impact on N&SS operations include the following: United Launch Alliance On December 1, 2006, we completed the transaction with Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) to create a 50/50 joint venture named United Launch Alliance L. L. C.  (ULA). ULA combines the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U. S.  government launches of Boeing Delta and Lockheed Atlas rockets. In connection with the transaction, billion of unused borrowing on revolving credit line agreements. We anticipate that these credit lines will primarily serve as backup liquidity to support our general corporate borrowing needs. Financing commitments totaled $18.1 billion and $15.9 billion as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. We anticipate that we will not be required to fund a significant portion of our financing commitments as we continue to work with third party financiers to provide alternative financing to customers. Historically, we have not been required to fund significant amounts of outstanding commitments. However, there can be no assurances that we will not be required to fund greater amounts than historically required. In the event we require additional funding to support strategic business opportunities, our commercial aircraft financing commitments, unfavorable resolution of litigation or other loss contingencies, or other business requirements, we expect to meet increased funding requirements by issuing commercial paper or term debt. We believe our ability to access external capital resources should be sufficient to satisfy existing short-term and long-term commitments and plans, and also to provide adequate financial flexibility to take advantage of potential strategic business opportunities should they arise within the next year. However, there can be no assurance of the cost or availability of future borrowings, if any, under our commercial paper program, in the debt markets or our credit facilities. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, our pension plans were $19.7 billion and $16.6 billion underfunded as measured under GAAP. On an ERISA basis our plans are more than 100% funded at December 31, 2012 with minimal required contributions in 2013. We expect to make discretionary contributions to our plans of approximately $1.5 billion in 2013. We may be required to make higher contributions to our pension plans in future years. As of December 31, 2012, we were in compliance with the covenants for our debt and credit facilities. The most restrictive covenants include a limitation on mortgage debt and sale and leaseback transactions as a percentage of consolidated net tangible assets (as defined in the credit agreements), and a limitation on consolidated debt as a percentage of total capital (as defined). When considering debt covenants, we continue to have substantial borrowing capacity. Contractual Obligations The following table summarizes our known obligations to make future payments pursuant to certain contracts as of December 31, 2012, and the estimated timing thereof.

(Dollars in millions)	Total	Lessthan 1year	1-3years	3-5years	After 5years

Long-term debt (including current portion)	$10,251	$1,340	$2,147	$1,095	$5,669

Interest on debt-1	6,177	510	864	749	4,054

Pension and other postretirement cash requirements	25,558	579	1,244	7,025	16,710

Capital lease obligations	184	102	78	4

Operating lease obligations	1,405	218	334	209	644

Purchase obligations not recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position	118,002	44,472	41,838	18,956	12,736

Purchase obligations recorded on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position	15,981	14,664	1,307	1	9

Total contractual obligations	$177,558	$61,885	$47,812	$28,039	$39,822

 (1) Includes interest on variable rate debt calculated based on interest rates at December 31, 2012. Variable rate debt was less than 1% of our total debt at December 31, 2012. Industry Competitiveness The commercial jet airplane market and the airline industry remain extremely competitive. Market liberalization in Europe, the Middle East and Asia is enabling low-cost airlines to continue gaining market share. These airlines are increasing the pressure on airfares. This results in continued cost pressures for all airlines and price pressure on our products. Major productivity gains are essential to ensure a favorable market position at acceptable profit margins. Continued access to global markets remains vital to our ability to fully realize our sales potential and longterm investment returns. Approximately 91% of Commercial Airplanes’ total backlog, in dollar terms, is with non-U. S.  airlines. We face aggressive international competitors who are intent on increasing their market share. They offer competitive products and have access to most of the same customers and suppliers. With government support,Airbus has historically invested heavily to create a family of products to compete with ours. Regional jet makers Embraer and Bombardier continue to develop and market larger and increasingly more capable airplanes, including Embraer’s E-195 in the regional jet market and Bombardier’s C Series in the 100-150 seat transcontinental market. Additionally, other competitors from Russia, China and Japan are developing commercial jet aircraft. Some of these competitors have historically enjoyed access to governmentprovided financial support, including “launch aid,” which greatly reduces the cost and commercial risks associated with airplane development activities. This has enabled the development of airplanes without commercial viability; others to be brought to market more quickly than otherwise possible; and many offered for sale below market-based prices. Many competitors have continued to make improvements in efficiency, which may result in funding product development, gaining market share and improving earnings. This market environment has resulted in intense pressures on pricing and other competitive factors, and we expect these pressures to continue or intensify in the coming years. We are focused on improving our products and services and continuing our cost-reduction efforts, which enhances our ability to compete. We are also focused on taking actions to ensure that Boeing is not harmed by unfair subsidization of competitors. Results of Operations

Years ended December 31,	2017	2016	2015

Revenues	$56,729	$58,012	$59,399

% of total company revenues	61%	61%	62%

Earnings from operations	$5,432	$1,995	$4,284

Operating margins	9.6%	3.4%	7.2%

Research and development	$2,247	$3,706	$2,311

 Revenues Commercial Airplanes revenues decreased by $1,283 million or 2% in 2017 compared with 2016 due to delivery mix, with fewer twin aisle deliveries more than offsetting the impact of higher single aisle deliveries. Commercial Airplanes revenues decreased by $1,387 million or 2% in 2016 compared with 2015 primarily due to fewer deliveries. Through February 25, 2016, we repurchased approximately $415.0 million of shares of our common stock, which includes the $250.0 million of shares that we repurchased from certain selling stockholders on February 10, 2016. In order to achieve operational synergies, we expect cash outlays related to our integration plans to be approximately $290.0 million in 2016. These cash outlays are necessary to achieve our integration goals of net annual pre-tax operating profit synergies of $350.0 million by the end of the third year post-Closing Date. Also as discussed in Note 20 to our consolidated financial statements, as of December 31, 2015, a short-term liability of $50.0 million and long-term liability of $264.6 million related to Durom Cup product liability claims was recorded on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to continue paying these claims over the next few years. We expect to be reimbursed a portion of these payments for product liability claims from insurance carriers. As of December 31, 2015, we have received a portion of the insurance proceeds we estimate we will recover. We have a long-term receivable of $95.3 million remaining for future expected reimbursements from our insurance carriers. We also had a short-term liability of $33.4 million related to Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims. At December 31, 2015, we had ten tranches of senior notes outstanding as follows (dollars in millions):


Answer: 0.03302

Question: what percentage of the aggregate consideration for the greenline acquisition was paid to the sellers in 2009 based on the 2008 earn-out target?

Context:
MARKETAXESS HOLDINGS INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) (in thousands, except share and per share amounts) Had compensation expense for employee stock-based awards been determined based on the fair value at grant date consistent with SFAS No.123(R), the Company’s Net income (loss) for the year would have been increased or decreased to the pro forma amounts indicated below:

	Year Ended December 31,

	 2005	 2004	2003

Net income

As reported	$8,142	$57,587	$4,212

Compensation expense	1,366	1,965	1,646

Pro forma	$6,776	$55,622	$2,566

Basic net income (loss) per common share	$0.29	$6.76	$-2.20

Diluted net income (loss) per common share	$0.23	$1.88	$-2.20

Basic net income (loss) per common share — pro forma	$0.24	$6.48	$-2.70

Diluted net income (loss) per common share — pro forma	$0.19	$1.82	$-2.70

 Basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) in 2003 includes the effect of dividends accrued on our redeemable convertible preferred stock. In 2003, securities that could potentially dilute basic EPS in the future were not included in the computation of diluted EPS, because to do so would have been anti-dilutive. See Note 12, “Earnings Per Share”. Revenue Recognition The majority of the Company’s revenues are derived from commissions for trades executed on the electronic trading platform that are billed to its broker-dealer clients on a monthly basis. The Company also derives revenues from information and user access fees, license fees, interest and other income. Commissions are generally calculated as a percentage of the notional dollar volume of bonds traded on the electronic trading platform and vary based on the type and maturity of the bond traded. Under the transaction fee plans, bonds that are more actively traded or that have shorter maturities are generally charged lower commissions, while bonds that are less actively traded or that have longer maturities generally command higher commissions. Commissions are recorded on a trade date basis. The Company’s standard fee schedule for U. S.  high-grade corporate bonds was revised in August 2003 to provide lower average transaction commissions for dealers who transacted higher U. S.  high-grade volumes through the platform, while at the same time providing an element of fixed commissions over the two-year term of the plans. One of the revised plans that was suited for the Company’s most active broker-dealer clients included a fee cap that limited the potential growth in U. S.  high-grade revenue. The fee caps were set to take effect at volume levels significantly above those being transacted at the time the revised transaction fee plans were introduced. Most broker-dealer clients entered into fee arrangements with respect to the trading of U. S.  high-grade corporate bonds that included both a fixed component and a variable component. These agreements had been scheduled to expire during the third quarter of 2005. On June 1, 2005, the Company introduced a new fee plan primarily for secondary market transactions in U. S.  high-grade corporate bonds executed on its electronic trading platform. As of December 31, 2005, 17 of the Company’s U. S.  high-grade broker-dealer clients have signed new two-year agreements that supersede the fee arrangements that were entered into with many of its broker-dealer clients during the third quarter of 2003. The new plan incorporates higher fixed monthly fees and lower variable fees for brokerdealer clients than the previous U. S.  high-grade corporate transaction fee plans described above, and incorporates volume incentives to broker-dealer clients that are designed to increase the volume of transactions effected on the Company’s The U. S.  high-grade average variable transaction fee per million increased from $84 per million for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $121 per million for the year ended December 31, 2008 due to the longer maturity of trades executed on the platform, for which we charge higher commissions. The Eurobond average variable transaction fee per million decreased from $138 per million for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $112 per million for the year ended December 31, 2008, principally from the introduction of the new European high-grade fee plan. Other average variable transaction fee per million increased from $121 per million for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $158 per million for the year ended December 31, 2008 primarily due to a higher percentage of volume in products that carry higher fees per million, principally high-yield. Technology Products and Services. Technology products and services revenues increased by $7.8 million to $8.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $0.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. The increase was primarily a result of the Greenline acquisition. Information and User Access Fees. Information and user access fees increased by $0.1 million or 2.5% to $6.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. Investment Income. Investment income decreased by $1.8 million or 33.7% to $3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $5.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. This decrease was primarily due to lower interest rates. Other. Other revenues decreased by $0.1 million or 4.4% to $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. Expenses Our expenses for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the resulting dollar and percentage changes, were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31,

	2008	2007

		% of		% of	$	%

	 $	Revenues	 $	Revenues	Change	Change

	($ in thousands)

 Expenses

Employee compensation and benefits	$43,810	47.1%	$43,051	46.0%	$759	1.8%

Depreciation and amortization	7,879	8.5	7,170	7.7	709	9.9

Technology and communications	8,311	8.9	7,463	8.0	848	11.4

Professional and consulting fees	8,171	8.8	7,639	8.2	532	7.0

Occupancy	2,891	3.1	3,275	3.5	-384	-11.7

Marketing and advertising	3,032	3.3	1,905	2.0	1,127	59.2

General and administrative	6,157	6.6	5,889	6.3	268	4.6

Total expenses	$80,251	86.2%	$76,392	81.6%	$3,859	5.1%

 $43.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $43.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. This increase was primarily attributable to higher wages of $2.4 million, severance costs of $1.0 million and stockbased compensation expense of $1.4 million, offset by reduced incentive compensation of $3.6 million. The higher wages were primarily a result of the Greenline acquisition. The total number of employees increased to 185 as of December 31, 2008 from 182 as of December 31, 2007. As a percentage of total revenues, employee compensation and benefits expense increased to 47.1% for the year ended December 31, 2008 from 46.0% for the year ended December 31, 2007. Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $0.7 million or 9.9% to $7.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 from $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. An increase in amortization of intangible assets of $1.3 million and the TWS impairment charge of $0.7 million were offset by a decline in depreciation and amortization of hardware and software development costs of $1.3 million. MARKETAXESS HOLDINGS INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) of this standard had no material effect on the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and Consolidated Statements of Operations. Reclassifications Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior years’ financial statements in order to conform to the current year presentation. Such reclassifications had no effect on previously reported net income. On March 5, 2008, the Company acquired all of the outstanding capital stock of Greenline Financial Technologies, Inc.  (“Greenline”), an Illinois-based provider of integration, testing and management solutions for FIX-related products and services designed to optimize electronic trading of fixed-income, equity and other exchange-based products, and approximately ten percent of the outstanding capital stock of TradeHelm, Inc. , a Delaware corporation that was spun-out from Greenline immediately prior to the acquisition. The acquisition of Greenline broadens the range of technology services that the Company offers to institutional financial markets, provides an expansion of the Company’s client base, including global exchanges and hedge funds, and further diversifies the Company’s revenues beyond the core electronic credit trading products. The results of operations of Greenline are included in the Consolidated Financial Statements from the date of the acquisition. The aggregate consideration for the Greenline acquisition was $41.1 million, comprised of $34.7 million in cash, 725,923 shares of common stock valued at $5.8 million and $0.6 million of acquisition-related costs. In addition, the sellers were eligible to receive up to an aggregate of $3.0 million in cash, subject to Greenline attaining certain earnout targets in 2008 and 2009. A total of $1.4 million was paid to the sellers in 2009 based on the 2008 earn-out target, bringing the aggregate consideration to $42.4 million. The 2009 earn-out target was not met. A total of $2.0 million of the purchase price, which had been deposited into escrow accounts to satisfy potential indemnity claims, was distributed to the sellers in March 2009. The shares of common stock issued to each selling shareholder of Greenline were released in two equal installments on December 20, 2008 and December 20, 2009, respectively. The value ascribed to the shares was discounted from the market value to reflect the non-marketability of such shares during the restriction period. The purchase price allocation is as follows (in thousands):

Cash	$6,406

Accounts receivable	2,139

Amortizable intangibles	8,330

Goodwill	29,405

Deferred tax assets, net	3,410

Other assets, including investment in TradeHelm	1,429

Accounts payable, accrued expenses and deferred revenue	-8,701

Total purchase price	$42,418

 The amortizable intangibles include $3.2 million of acquired technology, $3.3 million of customer relationships, $1.3 million of non-competition agreements and $0.5 million of tradenames. Useful lives of ten years and five years have been assigned to the customer relationships intangible and all other amortizable intangibles, respectively. The identifiable intangible assets and goodwill are not deductible for tax purposes. The following unaudited pro forma consolidated financial information reflects the results of operations of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, as if the acquisition of Greenline had occurred as of the beginning of the period presented, after giving effect to certain purchase accounting adjustments. These pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of what the Company’s operating results would have been had the acquisition actually taken place as of the beginning of the earliest period presented. The pro forma financial information


Answer: 8138.0

Question: What is the sum of Asset-backed in 2016? (in million)

Context:
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – (Continued) CNA applies the same impairment model as described above for the majority of its non-redeemable preferred stock securities on the basis that these securities possess characteristics similar to debt securities and that the issuers maintain their ability to pay dividends. For all other equity securities, in determining whether the security is otherthan-temporarily impaired, the Impairment Committee considers a number of factors including, but not limited to: (i) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than amortized cost, (ii) the financial condition and near term prospects of the issuer, (iii) the intent and ability of CNA to retain its investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for an anticipated recovery in value and (iv) general market conditions and industry or sector specific outlook. Joint venture investments – The Company has 20% to 50% interests in operating joint ventures related to hotel properties and had joint venture interests in the former Bluegrass Project, as discussed in Note 2, that are accounted for under the equity method. The Company’s investment in these entities was $217 million and $234 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and reported in Other assets on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Equity income (loss) for these investments was $41 million, $43 million and $(62) million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and reported in Other operating expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income. Some of these investments are variable interest entities (“VIE”) as defined in the accounting guidance because the entities will require additional funding from each equity owner throughout the development and construction phase and are accounted for under the equity method since the Company is not the primary beneficiary. The maximum exposure to loss for the VIE investments is $337 million, consisting of the amount of the investment and debt guarantees. The following tables present summarized financial information for these joint ventures:

 Year Ended December 31		 2016	2015

 (In millions)

Total assets		$1,749	$1,577

Total liabilities		1,444	1,231

 Year Ended December 31	 2016	2015	2014

Revenues	$693	$606	$491

Net income	80	71	32

 Hedging – The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk-management objective and strategy for undertaking various hedging transactions. The Company also formally assesses (both at the hedge’s inception and on an ongoing basis) whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions have been highly effective in offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows of hedged items and whether those derivatives may be expected to remain highly effective in future periods. When it is determined that a derivative for which hedge accounting has been designated is not (or ceases to be) highly effective, the Company discontinues hedge accounting prospectively. See Note 3 for additional information on the Company’s use of derivatives. Securities lending activities – The Company lends securities for the purpose of enhancing income or to finance positions to unrelated parties who have been designated as primary dealers by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Borrowers of these securities must deposit and maintain collateral with the Company of no less than 100% of the fair value of the securities loaned. U. S.  Government securities and cash are accepted as collateral. The Company maintains effective control over loaned securities and, therefore, continues to report such securities as investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Securities lending is typically done on a matched-book basis where the collateral is invested to substantially match the term of the loan. This matching of terms tends to limit risk. In accordance with the Company’s lending agreements, securities on loan are returned immediately to the Company upon notice. Collateral is not reflected as an asset of the Company. There was no collateral held at December 31, 2016 and 2015. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 4. Fair Value – (Continued) x Level 2 – Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs are observable in active markets. x Level 3 – Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs are not observable. Prices may fall within Level 1, 2 or 3 depending upon the methodology and inputs used to estimate fair value for each specific security. In general, the Company seeks to price securities using third party pricing services. Securities not priced by pricing services are submitted to independent brokers for valuation and, if those are not available, internally developed pricing models are used to value assets using a methodology and inputs the Company believes market participants would use to value the assets. Prices obtained from third-party pricing services or brokers are not adjusted by the Company. The Company performs control procedures over information obtained from pricing services and brokers to ensure prices received represent a reasonable estimate of fair value and to confirm representations regarding whether inputs are observable or unobservable. Procedures may include: (i) the review of pricing service methodologies or broker pricing qualifications, (ii) back-testing, where past fair value estimates are compared to actual transactions executed in the market on similar dates, (iii) exception reporting, where period-over-period changes in price are reviewed and challenged with the pricing service or broker based on exception criteria, (iv) detailed analysis, where the Company performs an independent analysis of the inputs and assumptions used to price individual securities and (v) pricing validation, where prices received are compared to prices independently estimated by the Company. The fair values of CNA’s life settlement contracts are included in Other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Equity options purchased are included in Equity securities, and all other derivative assets are included in Receivables. Derivative liabilities are included in Payable to brokers. Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized in the tables below:

 December 31, 2016	Level 1	 Level 2	 Level 3	 Total

 (In millions)

 Fixed maturity securities:

 Corporate and other bonds		$18,828	$130	$18,958

 States, municipalities and political subdivisions		13,239	1	13,240

 Asset-backed:

 Residential mortgage-backed		4,944	129	5,073

 Commercial mortgage-backed		2,027	13	2,040

 Other asset-backed		968	57	1,025

 Total asset-backed		7,939	199	8,138

 U.S. Treasury and obligations of government-sponsored enterprises	$93			93

 Foreign government		445		445

 Redeemable preferred stock	19			19

 Fixed maturitiesavailable-for-sale	112	40,451	330	40,893

 Fixed maturities trading		595	6	601

 Total fixed maturities	$112	$41,046	$336	$41,494

 Equity securitiesavailable-for-sale	$91		$19	$110

 Equity securities trading	438		1	439

 Total equity securities	$529	$-	$20	$549

 Short term investments	$3,833	$853		$4,686

 Other invested assets	55	5		60

 Receivables	1			1

 Life settlement contracts			$58	58

 Payable to brokers	-44			-44

 Item 5. Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities The following graph compares annual total return of our Common Stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Index (“S&P 500 Index”) and our Peer Group (“Loews Peer Group”) for the five years ended December 31, 2016. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our Common Stock, the S&P 500 Index and the Loews Peer Group was $100 on December 31, 2011 and that all dividends were reinvested.

	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Loews Common Stock	100.0	108.91	129.64	113.59	104.47	128.19

S&P 500 Index	100.0	116.00	153.57	174.60	177.01	198.18

Loews Peer Group (a)	100.0	113.39	142.85	150.44	142.44	165.34

 (a) The Loews Peer Group consists of the following companies that are industry competitors of our principal operating subsidiaries: Chubb Limited (name change from ACE Limited after it acquired The Chubb Corporation on January 15, 2016), W. R.  Berkley Corporation, The Chubb Corporation (included through January 15, 2016 when it was acquired by ACE Limited), Energy Transfer Partners L. P. , Ensco plc, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. , Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L. P.  (included through November 26, 2014 when it was acquired by Kinder Morgan Inc. ), Noble Corporation, Spectra Energy Corp, Transocean Ltd.  and The Travelers Companies, Inc.  Dividend Information We have paid quarterly cash dividends in each year since 1967. Regular dividends of $0.0625 per share of Loews common stock were paid in each calendar quarter of 2016 and 2015.


Answer: 91189.0

Question: What is the average amount of Client deposits of Average Balance Year Ended December 31, 2014, and U.S. of As of December 31, 2014 ?

Context:
countries which totaled between .75% and 1% of our consolidated total assets at December 31, 2009 amounted to $1.26 billion (Italy). Aggregate cross-border outstandings to countries which totaled between .75% and 1% of our consolidated total assets at December 31, 2008 amounted to $3.45 billion (Canada and Germany). There were no cross-border outstandings to countries which totaled between .75% and 1% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2007. Capital The management of regulatory and economic capital both involve key metrics evaluated by management to assess whether our actual level of capital is commensurate with our risk profile, is in compliance with all regulatory requirements, and is sufficient to provide us with the financial flexibility to undertake future strategic business initiatives. Regulatory Capital Our objective with respect to regulatory capital management is to maintain a strong capital base in order to provide financial flexibility for our business needs, including funding corporate growth and supporting customers’ cash management needs, and to provide protection against loss to depositors and creditors. We strive to maintain an optimal level of capital, commensurate with our risk profile, on which an attractive return to shareholders is expected to be realized over both the short and long term, while protecting our obligations to depositors and creditors and satisfying regulatory capital adequacy requirements. Our capital management process focuses on our risk exposures, our regulatory capital requirements, the evaluations of the major independent credit rating agencies that assign ratings to our public debt and our capital position relative to our peers. Our Capital Committee, working in conjunction with our Asset and Liability Committee, referred to as ALCO, oversees the management of regulatory capital, and is responsible for ensuring capital adequacy with respect to regulatory requirements, internal targets and the expectations of the major independent credit rating agencies. The primary regulator of both State Street and State Street Bank for regulatory capital purposes is the Federal Reserve. Both State Street and State Street Bank are subject to the minimum capital requirements established by the Federal Reserve and defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. State Street Bank must meet the regulatory capital thresholds for “well capitalized” in order for the parent company to maintain its status as a financial holding company. Regulatory capital ratios and related regulatory guidelines for State Street and State Street Bank were as follows as of December 31:

	REGULATORY GUIDELINES	STATE STREET	 STATE  STREET  BANK

	Minimum	Well Capitalized	2009	2008 -2	2009	 2008-2

Regulatory capital ratios:

Tier 1 risk-based capital	4%	6%	17.7%	20.3%	17.3%	19.8%

Total risk-based capital	8	10	19.1	21.6	19.0	21.3

Tier 1 leverage ratio-1	4	5	8.5	7.8	8.2	7.6

 (1) Regulatory guideline for well capitalized applies only to State Street Bank. (2) Tier 1 and total risk-based capital and tier 1 leverage ratios exclude the impact, where applicable, of the asset-backed commercial paper purchased under the Federal Reserve’s AMLF, as permitted by the AMLF’s terms and conditions. At December 31, 2009, State Street’s and State Street Bank’s tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios decreased compared to year-end 2008. With respect to State Street, the loss associated with the May 2009 conduit consolidation and the June 2009 redemption of the equity received from the U. S.  Treasury in connection with the TARP Capital Purchase Program, partly offset by the aggregate impact of the May 2009 public offering MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued) on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the level of housing prices and the timing of defaults. To the extent that such factors differ significantly from management's current expectations, resulting loss estimates may differ materially from those stated. Excluding other-than-temporary impairment recorded in 2014, management considers the aggregate decline in fair value of the remaining investment securities and the resulting gross unrealized losses as of December 31, 2014 to be temporary and not the result of any material changes in the credit characteristics of the securities. Additional information about these gross unrealized losses is provided in note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.  Loans and Leases TABLE 26: U. S.  AND NON- U. S.  LOANS AND LEASES

	As of December 31,

(In millions)	2014	2013	2012	2011	2010

Institutional:

U.S.	$14,908	$10,623	$9,645	$7,115	$7,001

Non-U.S.	3,263	2,654	2,251	2,478	4,192

Commercial real estate:

U.S.	28	209	411	460	764

Total loans and leases	$18,199	$13,486	$12,307	$10,053	$11,957

Average loans and leases	$15,912	$13,781	$11,610	$12,180	$12,094

 The increase in loans in the institutional segment as of December 31, 2014 as compared to December 31, 2013 was primarily driven by higher levels of short-duration advances and increased investment in the non-investment-grade lending market through participations in loan syndications, specifically senior secured bank loans. Short-duration advances to our clients included in the institutional segment were $3.54 billion and $2.45 billion as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These short-duration advances provide liquidity to fund clients in support of their transaction flows associated with securities settlement activities. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, our investment in senior secured bank loans totaled approximately $2.07 billion and $724 million, respectively. In addition, we had binding unfunded commitments as of December 31, 2014 totaling $337 million to participate in such syndications. These senior secured bank loans, which we have rated “speculative” under our internal risk-rating framework (refer to note 4 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K), are externally rated “BBB,” “BB” or “B,” with approximately 95% of the loans rated “BB” or “B” as of December 31, 2014, compared to 94% as of December 31, 2013. Our investment strategy involves limiting our investment to larger, more liquid credits underwritten by major global financial institutions, applying our internal credit analysis process to each potential investment, and diversifying our exposure by counterparty and industry segment. However, these loans have significant exposure to credit losses relative to higher-rated loans. As of December 31, 2014, our allowance for loan losses included approximately $26 million related to these senior secured bank loans. As this portfolio grows and becomes more seasoned, our allowance for loan losses related to these loans may increase through additional provisions for credit losses. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, unearned income deducted from our investment in leveraged lease financing was $109 million and $121 million, respectively, for U. S.  leases and $261 million and $298 million, respectively, for non-U. S.  leases. The commercial real estate, or CRE, loans are composed of the loans acquired in 2008 pursuant to indemnified repurchase agreements with an affiliate of Lehman as a result of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. Additional information about all of our loan-and-lease segments, as well as underlying classes, is provided in note 4 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Form 10-K. The decrease in the CRE loans as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 resulted from one of the loans, acquired in 2008 pursuant to indemnified repurchase agreement with an affiliate of Lehman as a result of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy being repaid. As of December 31, 2014 no CRE loans were modified in troubled debt restructurings. As of December 31, 2013, we held a CRE loan for approximately $130 million which had previously been modified in a troubled debt restructuring. No loans were modified in troubled debt restructurings in 2014 or 2013. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Continued) Funding Deposits: We provide products and services including custody, accounting, administration, daily pricing, foreign exchange services, cash management, financial asset management, securities finance and investment advisory services. As a provider of these products and services, we generate client deposits, which have generally provided a stable, low-cost source of funds. As a global custodian, clients place deposits with State Street entities in various currencies. We invest these client deposits in a combination of investment securities and shortduration financial instruments whose mix is determined by the characteristics of the deposits. For the past several years, we have experienced higher client deposit inflows toward the end of the quarter or the end of the year. As a result, we believe average client deposit balances are more reflective of ongoing funding than period-end balances. TABLE 33: CLIENT DEPOSITS

	December 31,	Average Balance Year Ended December 31,

(In millions)	2014	2013	2014	2013

Client deposits-1	$195,276	$182,268	$167,470	$143,043

 (1) Balance as of December 31, 2014 excluded term wholesale certificates of deposit, or CDs, of $13.76 billion; average balances for the year ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 excluded average CDs of $6.87 billion and $2.50 billion, respectively. Short-Term Funding: Our corporate commercial paper program, under which we can issue up to $3.0 billion of commercial paper with original maturities of up to 270 days from the date of issuance, had $2.48 billion and $1.82 billion of commercial paper outstanding as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Our on-balance sheet liquid assets are also an integral component of our liquidity management strategy. These assets provide liquidity through maturities of the assets, but more importantly, they provide us with the ability to raise funds by pledging the securities as collateral for borrowings or through outright sales. In addition, our access to the global capital markets gives us the ability to source incremental funding at reasonable rates of interest from wholesale investors. As discussed earlier under “Asset Liquidity,” State Street Bank's membership in the FHLB allows for advances of liquidity with varying terms against high-quality collateral. Short-term secured funding also comes in the form of securities lent or sold under agreements to repurchase. These transactions are short-term in nature, generally overnight, and are collateralized by high-quality investment securities. These balances were $8.93 billion and $7.95 billion as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. State Street Bank currently maintains a line of credit with a financial institution of CAD $800 million, or approximately $690 million as of December 31, 2014, to support its Canadian securities processing operations. The line of credit has no stated termination date and is cancelable by either party with prior notice. As of December 31, 2014, there was no balance outstanding on this line of credit. Long-Term Funding: As of December 31, 2014, State Street Bank had Board authority to issue unsecured senior debt securities from time to time, provided that the aggregate principal amount of such unsecured senior debt outstanding at any one time does not exceed $5 billion. As of December 31, 2014, $4.1 billion was available for issuance pursuant to this authority. As of December 31, 2014, State Street Bank also had Board authority to issue an additional $500 million of subordinated debt. We maintain an effective universal shelf registration that allows for the public offering and sale of debt securities, capital securities, common stock, depositary shares and preferred stock, and warrants to purchase such securities, including any shares into which the preferred stock and depositary shares may be convertible, or any combination thereof. We have issued in the past, and we may issue in the future, securities pursuant to our shelf registration. The issuance of debt or equity securities will depend on future market conditions, funding needs and other factors. Agency Credit Ratings Our ability to maintain consistent access to liquidity is fostered by the maintenance of high investment-grade ratings as measured by the major independent credit rating agencies. Factors essential to maintaining high credit ratings include diverse and stable core earnings; relative market position; strong risk management; strong capital ratios; diverse liquidity sources, including the global capital markets and client deposits; strong liquidity monitoring procedures; and preparedness for current or future regulatory developments. High ratings limit borrowing costs and enhance our liquidity by providing assurance for unsecured funding and depositors, increasing the potential market for our debt and improving our ability to offer products, serve markets, and engage in transactions in which clients value high credit ratings. A downgrade or reduction of our credit ratings could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity by restricting our ability to access the capital


Answer: 1019.0

Question: what is the highest total amount of Other? (in million)

Context:
PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES Our Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MA”. At February 8, 2019, we had 73 stockholders of record for our Class A common stock. We believe that the number of beneficial owners is substantially greater than the number of record holders because a large portion of our Class A common stock is held in “street name” by brokers. There is currently no established public trading market for our Class B common stock. There were approximately 287 holders of record of our non-voting Class B common stock as of February 8, 2019, constituting approximately 1.1% of our total outstanding equity. Stock Performance Graph The graph and table below compare the cumulative total stockholder return of Mastercard’s Class A common stock, the S&P 500 Financials and the S&P 500 Index for the five-year period ended December 31, 2018. The graph assumes a $100 investment in our Class A common stock and both of the indices and the reinvestment of dividends. Mastercard’s Class B common stock is not publicly traded or listed on any exchange or dealer quotation system.

	Base period	Indexed Returns For the Years Ended December 31,

Company/Index	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018

Mastercard	$100.00	$103.73	$118.05	$126.20	$186.37	$233.56

S&P 500 Financials	100.00	115.20	113.44	139.31	170.21	148.03

S&P 500 Index	100.00	113.69	115.26	129.05	157.22	150.33

 Total returns to stockholders for each of the years presented were as follows: General and Administrative The significant components of our general and administrative expenses were as follows:

	For the Years Ended December 31,	Percent Increase (Decrease)

	2018	2017	2016	2018	2017

	($ in millions)

Personnel	$3,214	$2,687	$2,225	20%	21%

Professional fees	377	355	337	6%	5%

Data processing and telecommunications	600	504	420	19%	20%

Foreign exchange activity1	-36	106	34	**	**

Other	1,019	1,001	811	2%	23%

General and administrative expenses	5,174	4,653	3,827	11%	22%

Special Item2	—	-167	—	**	**

Adjusted general and administrative expenses (excluding Special Item)2	$5,174	$4,486	$3,827	15%	17%

 Note: Table may not sum due to rounding. ** Not meaningful 1 Foreign exchange activity includes gains and losses on foreign exchange derivative contracts and the impact of remeasurement of assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies. See Note 22 (Foreign Exchange Risk Management) to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8 for further discussion.2 See “Non-GAAP Financial Information” for further information on Special Items. The primary drivers of general and administrative expenses in 2018 and 2017, versus the prior year, were as follows: ? Personnel expenses increased 20% and 21%, or 19% and 20% on a currency-neutral basis, respectively. The 2018 and 2017 increases were driven by a higher number of employees to support our continued investment in the areas of real-time account-based payments, digital, services, data analytics and geographic expansion. The impact of acquisitions contributed 2 and 6 percentage points of growth for 2018 and 2017, respectively.  ? Data processing and telecommunication expenses increased 19% and 20%, respectively, both as reported and on a currency-neutral basis, due to capacity growth of our business. Acquisitions contributed 3 and 8 percentage points, respectively.  ? Foreign exchange activity contributed a benefit of 3 percentage points in 2018 related to gains from our foreign exchange activity for derivative contracts primarily due to the strengthening of the U. S.  dollar, partially offset by balance sheet remeasurement losses. In 2017, foreign exchange activity had a negative impact of 2 percentage points due to greater losses from foreign exchange derivative contracts.  ? Other expenses increased 2% and 23%, or 2% and 25% on a currency-neutral basis, respectively. In 2018, other expenses increased primarily due to the $100 million contribution to the Mastercard Impact Fund. The remaining increase was due to costs to support our strategic development efforts. These increases were primarily offset by the non-recurring Venezuela charge of $167 million recorded in 2017 which was the primary driver of growth for that period. Other expenses include costs to provide loyalty and rewards solutions, travel and meeting expenses and rental expense for our facilities and other costs associated with our business. Advertising and Marketing In 2018, advertising and marketing expenses increased 18% both as reported and on a currency-neutral basis versus 2017, primarily due to a change in accounting for certain marketing fund arrangements as a result of our adoption of the new revenue guidance, partially offset by a net decrease in spending on certain marketing campaigns. For a more detailed discussion on the impact of the new revenue guidance, refer to Note 1 (Summary of Significant Accounting Policies). In 2017, advertising and marketing expenses increased 11%, or 10% on a currency-neutral basis versus 2016, mainly due to higher marketing spend primarily related to certain marketing campaigns. The table below shows a summary of select balance sheet data at December 31:

	2018	2017

	(in millions)

Balance Sheet Data:

Current assets	$16,171	$13,797

Current liabilities	11,593	8,793

Long-term liabilities	7,778	6,968

Equity	5,418	5,497

 We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investment securities balances, our cash flow generating capabilities, our borrowing capacity and our access to capital resources are sufficient to satisfy our future operating cash needs, capital asset purchases, outstanding commitments and other liquidity requirements associated with our existing operations and potential obligations. Debt and Credit Availability In February 2018, we issued $500 million principal amount of notes due in 2028 and an additional $500 million principal amount of notes due in 2048. Our total debt outstanding (including the current portion) was $6.3 billion and $5.4 billion at December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, with the earliest maturity of $500 million of principal occurring in April 2019. As of December 31, 2018, we have a commercial paper program (the “Commercial Paper Program”), under which we are authorized to issue up to $4.5 billion in outstanding notes, with maturities up to 397 days from the date of issuance. In conjunction with the Commercial Paper Program, we have a committed unsecured $4.5 billion revolving credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) which expires in November 2023. Borrowings under the Commercial Paper Program and the Credit Facility are to provide liquidity for general corporate purposes, including providing liquidity in the event of one or more settlement failures by our customers. In addition, we may borrow and repay amounts under these facilities for business continuity purposes. We had no borrowings outstanding under the Commercial Paper Program or the Credit Facility at December 31, 2018 and 2017. In March 2018, we filed a universal shelf registration statement (replacing a previously filed shelf registration statement that was set to expire) to provide additional access to capital, if needed. Pursuant to the shelf registration statement, we may from time to time offer to sell debt securities, guarantees of debt securities, preferred stock, Class A common stock, depository shares, purchase contracts, units or warrants in one or more offerings. See Note 14 (Debt) to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8 for further discussion on our debt, the Commercial Paper Program and the Credit Facility. Dividends and Share Repurchases We have historically paid quarterly dividends on our outstanding Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Subject to legally available funds, we intend to continue to pay a quarterly cash dividend. However, the declaration and payment of future dividends is at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors after taking into account various factors, including our financial condition, operating results, available cash and current and anticipated cash needs. The following table summarizes the annual, per share dividends paid in the years reflected:


Answer: 165.0

Question: What was the average value of Service cost, Interest cost, Employer contributions in 2015 for Pension Benefits? (in million)

Context:
The funded status of the Company's plans as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, was as follows

	Pension Benefits December 31	Other Benefits December 31

($ in millions)	2015	2014	2015	2014

Change in Benefit Obligation

Benefit obligation at beginning of year	$5,671	$4,730	$650	$616

Service cost	150	136	13	13

Interest cost	242	253	27	30

Plan participants' contributions	11	26	6	7

Actuarial loss (gain)	-254	714	-91	24

Benefits paid	-185	-168	-39	-40

Curtailments	—	-20	—	—

Benefit obligation at end of year	5,635	5,671	566	650

Change in Plan Assets

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year	4,731	4,310	—	—

Actual return on plan assets	-47	437	—	—

Employer contributions	103	126	33	33

Plan participants' contributions	11	26	6	7

Benefits paid	-185	-168	-39	-40

Fair value of plan assets at end of year	4,613	4,731	—	—

Funded status	$-1,022	$-940	$-566	$-650

Amounts Recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position:

Pension plan assets	$—	$17	$—	$—

Current liability-1	-21	-18	-143	-143

Non-current liability-2	-1,001	-939	-423	-507

Accumulated other comprehensive loss (income) (pre-tax) related to:

Prior service costs (credits)	86	105	-105	-125

Net actuarial loss (gain)	1,433	1,374	-21	73

 (1) Included in other current liabilities and current portion of postretirement plan liabilities, respectively. (2) Included in pension plan liabilities and other postretirement plan liabilities, respectively. The Projected Benefit Obligation ("PBO"), Accumulated Benefit Obligation ("ABO"), and asset values for the Company's qualified pension plans were $5,490 million, $5,146 million, and $4,613 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2015, and $5,529 million, $5,124 million, and $4,731 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014. The PBO represents the present value of pension benefits earned through the end of the year, with allowance for future salary increases. The ABO is similar to the PBO, but does not provide for future salary increases. The PBO and fair value of plan assets for all qualified and non-qualified pension plans with PBOs in excess of plan assets were $5,635 million and $4,613 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2015, and $4,394 million and $3,438 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014. The ABO and fair value of plan assets for all qualified and non-qualified pension plans with ABOs in excess of plan assets were $4,051 million and $3,391 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2015, and $3,981 million and $3,438 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014. The ABO for all pension plans was $5,273 million and $5,244 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The changes in amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were as follows: FAS/CAS Adjustment The FAS/CAS Adjustment represents the difference between our pension and postretirement plan expense under FAS and under CAS.

	Year Ended December 31	2015 over 2014	2014 over 2013

($ in millions)	2015	2014	2013	Dollars	Percent	Dollars	Percent

FAS expense	$-168	$-155	$-257	$-13	-8%	$102	40%

CAS cost	272	227	196	45	20%	31	16%

FAS/CAS Adjustment	$104	$72	$-61	$32	44%	$133	218%

 2015 - The FAS/CAS Adjustment in 2015 was a net benefit of $104 million, compared to a net benefit of $72 million in 2014. The favorable change was driven by the phase-in of Harmonization and better than expected 2014 asset returns, partially offset by higher FAS expense primarily due to lower discount rates at the end of 2014.2014 - The FAS/CAS Adjustment in 2014 was a net benefit of $72 million, compared to a net expense of $61 million in 2013. The favorable change was driven by lower FAS expense, due primarily to higher discount rates and plan assets at the end of 2013, the full year effect of the 2013 postretirement benefits amendment, and the phase-in of Harmonization. We expect the FAS/CAS Adjustment in 2016 to be a net benefit of approximately $137 million ($161 million FAS and $298 million CAS), primarily driven by the continued phase-in of Harmonization and higher FAS discount rates, partially offset by lower than expected 2015 asset returns. The expected FAS/CAS Adjustment is subject to change during 2016, when we remeasure our actuarial estimate of the unfunded benefit obligation for CAS with updated census data and other items. Deferred State Income Taxes Deferred state income taxes reflect the change in deferred state tax assets and liabilities in the relevant period. These amounts are recorded within operating income, while the current period state income tax expense is charged to contract costs and included in cost of sales and service revenues in segment operating income.2015 - The deferred state income tax expense remained constant at $2 million in 2015 and 2014. Deferred state tax expense in 2015 was primarily attributable to changes in the timing of contract taxable income and pension related adjustments, partially offset by a reduction in the valuation allowance for state tax credit carryforwards.2014 - The deferred state income tax expense in 2014 was $2 million, compared to a benefit of $6 million in 2013. This change was primarily attributable to non-recurring adjustments related to establishing a valuation allowance for a state tax loss carryforward and the true-up of 2013 deferred taxes. These increases were partially offset by changes in the timing of contract taxable income and reserves that are not currently deductible for tax purposes. Interest Expense 2015 - Interest expense in 2015 was $137 million, compared to $149 million in 2014. The decrease was primarily a result of refinancing 6.875% senior notes with 5.000% senior notes and repayment in full of the term loans, partially offset by loss on early extinguishment of debt. See Note 14: Debt in Item 8.2014 - Interest expense in 2014 was $149 million, compared to $118 million in 2013. The increase was primarily a result of a loss on the early extinguishment of debt in the fourth quarter of 2014. See Note 14: Debt in Item 8. Federal Income Taxes 2015 - Our effective tax rate on earnings from continuing operations was 36.1% in 2015, compared to 33.3% in 2014. The increase in our effective tax rate for 2015 was primarily attributable to adjustments to the domestic manufacturing deduction and an increase in the goodwill impairment that is not amortizable for tax purposes. Advance Payments and Billings in Excess of Revenues - Payments received in excess of inventoried costs and revenues are recorded as advance payment liabilities. Property, Plant, and Equipment - Depreciable properties owned by the Company are recorded at cost and depreciated over the estimated useful lives of individual assets. Major improvements are capitalized while expenditures for maintenance, repairs, and minor improvements are expensed. Costs incurred for computer software developed or obtained for internal use are capitalized and amortized over the expected useful life of the software, not to exceed nine years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of their useful lives or the term of the lease. The remaining assets are depreciated using the straight-line method, with the following lives:

	Years

Land improvements	3	-	40

Buildings and improvements	3	-	60

Capitalized software costs	3	-	9

Machinery and other equipment	2	-	45

 The Company evaluates the recoverability of its property, plant, and equipment when there are changes in economic circumstances or business objectives that indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. The Company's evaluations include estimated future cash flows, profitability, and other factors affecting fair value. As these assumptions and estimates may change over time, it may or may not be necessary to record impairment charges. Leases - The Company uses its incremental borrowing rate in the assessment of lease classification as capital or operating and defines the initial lease term to include renewal options determined to be reasonably assured. The Company conducts operations primarily under operating leases. Many of the Company's real property lease agreements contain incentives for tenant improvements, rent holidays, or rent escalation clauses. For incentives for tenant improvements, the Company records a deferred rent liability and amortizes the deferred rent over the term of the lease as a reduction to rent expense. For rent holidays and rent escalation clauses during the lease term, the Company records minimum rental expenses on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. For purposes of recognizing lease incentives, the Company uses the date of initial possession as the commencement date, which is generally the date on which the Company is given the right of access to the space and begins to make improvements in preparation for the intended use. Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets - The Company performs impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30 of each year and between annual impairment tests if evidence of potential impairment exists, by first comparing the carrying value of net assets to the fair value of the related operations. If the fair value is determined to be less than the carrying value, a second step is performed to determine if goodwill is impaired, by comparing the estimated fair value of goodwill to its carrying value. Purchased intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis or a method based on the pattern of benefits over their estimated useful lives, and the carrying value of these assets is reviewed for impairment when events indicate that a potential impairment may have occurred. Equity Method Investments - Investments in which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence over the investee but does not own a majority interest or otherwise control are accounted for under the equity method of accounting and included in other assets in its consolidated statements of financial position. The Company's equity investments align strategically and are integrated with the Company's operations, and therefore the Company's share of the net earnings or losses of the investee is included in operating income (loss). The Company evaluates its equity investments for other than temporary impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such investments may not be fully recoverable. If a decline in the value of an equity method investment is determined to be other than temporary, a loss is recorded in earnings in the current period. Self-Insured Group Medical Insurance - The Company maintains a self-insured group medical insurance plan. The plan is designed to provide a specified level of coverage for employees and their dependents. Estimated liabilities


Answer: 0.0

Question: What is the growing rate of Planned generation (TWh) in the year with the most Average contracted price per MWh?

Context:
System Energy Resources, Inc.  Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 269 Operating Activities Cash flow from operations increased by $232.1 million in 2004 primarily due to income tax refunds of $70.6 million in 2004 compared to income tax payments of $230.9 million in 2003. The increase was partially offset by money pool activity, as discussed below. In 2003, the domestic utility companies and System Energy filed, with the IRS, a change in tax accounting method notification for their respective calculations of cost of goods sold. The adjustment implemented a simplified method of allocation of overhead to the production of electricity, which is provided under the IRS capitalization regulations. The cumulative adjustment placing these companies on the new methodology resulted in a $430 million deduction for System Energy on Entergy's 2003 income tax return. There was no cash benefit from the method change in 2003. In 2004 System Energy realized $144 million in cash tax benefit from the method change. This tax accounting method change is an issue across the utility industry and will likely be challenged by the IRS on audit. Cash flow from operations decreased by $124.8 million in 2003 primarily due to the following: ? an increase in federal income taxes paid of $74.0 million in 2003 compared to 2002; ? the cessation of the Entergy Mississippi GGART. System Energy collected $21.7 million in 2003 and $40.8 million in 2002 from Entergy Mississippi in conjunction with the GGART, which provided for the acceleration of Entergy Mississippi's Grand Gulf purchased power obligation. The MPSC authorized cessation of the GGART effective July 1, 2003. See Note 2 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements for further discussion of the GGART; and ? money pool activity, as discussed below. System Energy's receivables from the money pool were as follows as of December 31 for each of the following years:

2004	2003	2002	2001

(In Thousands)

$61,592	$19,064	$7,046	$13,853

 Money pool activity used $42.5 million of System Energy's operating cash flows in 2004, used $12.0 million in 2003, and provided $6.8 million in 2002. See Note 4 to the domestic utility companies and System Energy financial statements for a description of the money pool. Investing Activities Net cash used for investing activities was practically unchanged in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily because an increase in construction expenditures caused by a reclassification of inventory items to capital was significantly offset by the maturity of $6.5 million of other temporary investments that had been made in 2003, which provided cash in 2004. The increase of $16.2 million in net cash used in investing activities in 2003 was primarily due to the following: ? the maturity in 2002 of $22.4 million of other temporary investments that had been made in 2001, which provided cash in 2002; ? an increase in decommissioning trust contributions and realized change in trust assets of $8.2 million in 2003 compared to 2002; and ? other temporary investments of $6.5 million made in 2003. Partially offsetting the increases in net cash used in investing activities was a decrease in construction expenditures of $22.1 million in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to the power uprate project in 2002. Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 25 proposed in the Initial Decision are arbitrary and are so complex that they would be difficult to implement; the Initial Decision improperly rejected Entergy's resource planning remedy; the Initial Decision erroneously determined that the full costs of the Vidalia project should be included in Entergy Louisiana's production costs for purposes of calculating relative production costs; and the Initial Decision erroneously adopted a new method of calculating reserve sharing costs rather than the current method. If the FERC grants the relief requested by the LPSC in the proceeding, the relief may result in a material increase in the total production costs the FERC allocates to companies whose costs currently are projected to be less than the Entergy System average, and a material decrease in the total production costs the FERC allocates to companies whose costs currently are projected to exceed that average. If the FERC adopts the ALJ's Initial Decision, the amount of production costs that would be reallocated among the domestic utility companies would be determined through consideration of each domestic utility company's relative total production cost expressed as a percentage of Entergy System average total production cost. The ALJ's Initial Decision would reallocate production costs of the domestic utility companies whose percent of Entergy System average production cost are outside an upper or lower bandwidth. This would be accomplished by payments from domestic utility companies whose production costs are below Entergy System average production cost to domestic utility companies whose production costs are above Entergy System average production cost. An assessment of the potential effects of the ALJ's Initial Decision requires assumptions regarding the future total production cost of each domestic utility company, which assumptions include the mix of solid fuel and gas-fired generation available to each company and the costs of natural gas and purchased power. Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States are more dependent upon gas-fired generation than Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, or Entergy New Orleans. Of these, Entergy Arkansas is the least dependent upon gas-fired generation. Therefore, increases in natural gas prices likely will increase the amount by which Entergy Arkansas' total production costs are below the average production costs of the domestic utility companies. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future gas prices. Annual average Henry Hub gas prices have varied significantly over recent years, ranging from $1.72/mmBtu to $5.85/mmBtu for the 1995-2004 period, and averaging $3.43/mmBtu during the ten-year period 1995-2004 and $4.58/mmBtu during the five-year period 2000-2004. Recent market conditions have resulted in gas prices that have averaged $5.85/mmBtu for the twelve months ended December 2004. Based upon analyses considering the effect on future production costs if the FERC adopts the ALJ's Initial Decision, the following potential annual production cost reallocations among the domestic utility companies could result assuming annual average gas prices range from $6.39/mmBtu in 2005 declining to $4.97/mmBtu by 2009:

	Range of Annual Paymentsor (Receipts)	Average AnnualPayments or (Receipts)for 2005-2009 Period

	(In Millions)	(In Millions)

Entergy Arkansas	$154 to $281	$215

Entergy Gulf States	-$130 to ($15)	-$63

Entergy Louisiana	-$199 to ($98)	-$141

Entergy Mississippi	-$16 to $8	$1

Entergy New Orleans	-$17 to ($5)	-$12

 Management believes that any changes in the allocation of production costs resulting from a FERC decision and related retail proceedings should result in similar rate changes for retail customers. The timing of recovery of these costs in rates could be the subject of additional proceedings at the APSC and elsewhere, however, and a delay in full recovery of any increased allocation of production costs could result in additional financing requirements. Although the outcome and timing of the FERC, APSC, and other proceedings cannot be predicted at this time, Entergy does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operation. In February 2004, the APSC issued an "Order of Investigation," in which it discusses the negative effect that implementation of the FERC ALJ's Initial Decision would have on Entergy Arkansas' customers. The APSC order establishes an investigation into whether Entergy Arkansas' continued participation in the System Agreement Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Management's Financial Discussion and Analysis 30 whether other procedural steps are necessary. The FERC has not yet ruled on the Emergency Interim Request for Rehearing submitted by Entergy. Entergy believes that it has complied with the provisions of its open access transmission tariff, including the provisions addressing the implementation of the AFC methodology; however, the ultimate scope of this proceeding cannot be predicted at this time. A hearing in the AFC proceeding is currently scheduled to commence in August 2005. Federal Legislation Federal legislation intended to facilitate wholesale competition in the electric power industry has been seriously considered by the United States Congress for the past several years. In the last Congress, both the House and Senate passed separate versions of comprehensive energy legislation, negotiated a conference package, and fell two votes short of bringing the conferenced bill up for a vote in the Senate. The bill contained electricity provisions that would, among other things, allow for participant funding of transmission interconnections and upgrades, repeal PUHCA, repeal or modify PURPA, enact a mechanism for establishing enforceable reliability standards, provide the FERC with new authority over utility mergers and acquisitions, and codify the FERC's authority over market- based rates. It is expected that the United States House and Senate will again craft and consider energy legislation in the 109th Congress. Market and Credit Risks Market risk is the risk of changes in the value of commodity and financial instruments, or in future operating results or cash flows, in response to changing market conditions. Entergy is exposed to the following significant market risks: ? The commodity price risk associated with Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear and Energy Commodity Services segments.  ? The foreign currency exchange rate risk associated with certain of Entergy's contractual obligations.  ? The interest rate and equity price risk associated with Entergy's investments in decommissioning trust funds. Entergy is also exposed to credit risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss from nonperformance by suppliers, customers, or financial counterparties to a contract or agreement. Where it is a significant consideration, counterparty credit risk is addressed in the discussions that follow. Commodity Price Risk Power Generation The sale of electricity from the power generation plants owned by Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business and Energy Commodity Services, unless otherwise contracted, is subject to the fluctuation of market power prices. Entergy's Non-Utility Nuclear business has entered into PPAs and other contracts to sell the power produced by its power plants at prices established in the PPAs. Entergy continues to pursue opportunities to extend the existing PPAs and to enter into new PPAs with other parties. Following is a summary of the amount of the Non-Utility Nuclear business' output that is currently sold forward under physical or financial contracts at fixed prices:

	 2005	 2006	 2007	 2008	 2009

 Non-Utility Nuclear:

Percent of planned generation sold forward:

Unit-contingent	36%	20%	17%	1%	0%

Unit-contingent with availability guarantees	54%	52%	38%	25%	0%

Firm liquidated damages	4%	4%	2%	0%	0%

Total	94%	76%	57%	26%	0%

Planned generation (TWh)	34	35	34	34	35

Average contracted price per MWh	$39	$41	$42	$44	N/A

 Entergy Corporation Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 82 Upon implementation of SFAS 143 in 2003, assets and liabilities increased $1.1 billion for the U. S.  Utility segment as a result of recording the asset retirement obligations at their fair values of $1.1 billion as determined under SFAS 143, increasing utility plant by $287 million, reducing accumulated depreciation by $361 million, and recording the related regulatory assets of $422 million. The implementation of SFAS 143 for the portion of River Bend not subject to cost-based ratemaking decreased earnings by $21 million net-of-tax as a result of a one-time cumulative effect of accounting change. In accordance with ratemaking treatment and as required by SFAS 71, the depreciation provisions for the domestic utility companies and System Energy include a component for removal costs that are not asset retirement obligations under SFAS 143. In accordance with regulatory accounting principles, Entergy has recorded a regulatory asset for certain of its domestic utility companies and System Energy of $86.9 million as of December 31, 2004 and $72.4 million as of December 31, 2003 to reflect an estimate of incurred but uncollected removal costs previously recorded as a component of accumulated depreciation. The decommissioning and retirement cost liability for certain of the domestic utility companies and System Energy includes a regulatory liability of $34.6 million as of December 31, 2004 and $26.8 million as of December 31, 2003 representing an estimate of collected but not yet incurred removal costs. For the Non-Utility Nuclear business, the implementation of SFAS 143 resulted in a decrease in liabilities of $595 million due to reductions in decommissioning liabilities, a decrease in assets of $340 million, including a decrease in electric plant in service of $315 million, and an increase in earnings in 2003 of $155 million net-of-tax as a result of a one-time cumulative effect of accounting change. The cumulative decommissioning liabilities and expenses recorded in 2004 by Entergy were as follows:


Answer: 2014.0

Question: Which year is Benefit obligation at beginning of year for Con Edison the least?

Context:
	Year Ended December 31,

	2011	2010	2009

Risk-free interest rate	1.2%	1.4%	1.7%

Expected life (in years)	3.8	3.4	3.8

Dividend yield	—%	—%	—%

Expected volatility	38%	37%	47%

 Our computation of expected volatility for 2011 , 2010 and 2009 was based on a combination of historical and market-based implied volatility from traded options on our stock. Our computation of expected life was determined based on historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of the stock-based awards, vesting schedules and expectations of future employee behavior. The interest rate for periods within the contractual life of the award was based on the U. S.  Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The estimation of awards that will ultimately vest requires judgment, and to the extent actual results or updated estimates differ from our current estimates, such amounts will be recorded as a cumulative adjustment in the period estimates are revised. We consider many factors when estimating forfeitures, including employee class and historical experience. Recent Accounting Pronouncements See “Note 1 - The Company and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to the consolidated financial statements included in this report, regarding the impact of certain recent accounting pronouncements on our consolidated financial statements. Item 7A: Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Foreign Currency Exposure We have significant operations internationally that are denominated in foreign currencies, primarily the Euro, British pound, Korean won, Australian dollar and Canadian dollar, subjecting us to foreign currency risk which may adversely impact our financial results. We transact business in various foreign currencies and have significant international revenues as well as costs. In addition, we charge our international subsidiaries for their use of intellectual property and technology and for certain corporate services provided by eBay and by PayPal. Our cash flow, results of operations and certain of our intercompany balances that are exposed to foreign exchange rate fluctuations may differ materially from expectations and we may record significant gains or losses due to foreign currency fluctuations and related hedging activities. We have a foreign exchange exposure management program that aims to identify material foreign currency exposures, to manage these exposures, and to minimize the potential effects of currency fluctuations on our reported consolidated cash flows and results of operations through the purchase of foreign currency exchange contracts. These foreign currency exchange contracts are accounted for as derivative instruments. For additional details related to our derivative instruments, please see “Note 9 - Derivative Instruments” to the consolidated financial statements included in this report. Interest Rate Risk The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while at the same time maximizing yields without significantly increasing risk. To achieve this objective, we maintain our portfolio of cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments in a variety of available for sale securities, including money market funds and government and corporate securities. As of December 31, 2011 , approximately 56% of our total cash and investment portfolio was held in bank deposits and money market funds. As such, changes in interest rates will impact our interest income. In addition, we regularly issue new commercial paper notes to repay outstanding commercial paper notes as they mature, and those new commercial paper notes bear interest at rates prevailing at the time of issuance. Accordingly, changes in interest rates will impact interest expense or cost of net revenues. As of December 31, 2011 , we held no direct investments in auction rate securities, collateralized debt obligations, structured investment vehicles or mortgage-backed securities. For additional details related to our investment activities, please see "Note 7 - Investments" to the consolidated financial statements included in this report. Investments in both fixed-rate and floating-rate interest-earning instruments carry varying degrees of interest rate risk. The fair market value of our fixed-rate securities may be adversely impacted due to a rise in interest rates. In general, securities with longer maturities are subject to greater interest-rate risk than those with shorter maturities. While floating rate securities generally are subject to less interest-rate risk than fixedrate securities, floating-rate securities may produce less income than expected if interest rates decrease. Due in part to these factors, our investment income may fall short of expectations or we may suffer losses in principal if securities are sold that have declined in market value due to changes in interest rates. As of

	Con Edison	CECONY

(Millions of Dollars)	2015	2014	2013	2015	2014	2013

CHANGE IN BENEFIT OBLIGATION

Benefit obligation at beginning of year	$1,411	$1,395	$1,454	$1,203	$1,198	$1,238

Service cost	20	19	23	15	15	18

Interest cost on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation	51	60	54	43	52	46

Amendments	—	-12	—	—	—	—

Net actuarial loss/(gain)	-103	47	-42	-85	28	-20

Benefits paid and administrative expenses	-127	-134	-136	-117	-125	-126

Participant contributions	35	36	38	34	35	38

Medicare prescription subsidy	—	—	4	—	—	4

BENEFIT OBLIGATION AT END OF YEAR	$1,287	$1,411	$1,395	$1,093	$1,203	$1,198

CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year	$1,084	$1,113	$1,047	$950	$977	$922

Actual return on plan assets	-6	59	153	-4	54	134

Employer contributions	6	7	9	6	7	9

EGWP payments	28	12	8	26	11	7

Participant contributions	35	36	38	34	35	38

Benefits paid	-153	-143	-142	-142	-134	-133

FAIR VALUE OF PLAN ASSETS AT END OF YEAR	$994	$1,084	$1,113	$870	$950	$977

FUNDED STATUS	$-293	$-327	$-282	$-223	$-253	$-221

Unrecognized net loss	$28	$78	$70	$4	$45	$54

Unrecognized prior service costs	-51	-71	-78	-32	-46	-61

 The decrease in the other postretirement benefit plan obligation (due primarily to increased discount rates) was the primary cause of the decreased liability for other postretirement benefits at Con Edison and CECONY of $34 million and $30 million, respectively, compared with December 31, 2014. For Con Edison, this decreased liability corresponds with an increase to regulatory liabilities of $30 million for unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the Utilities consistent with the accounting rules for regulated operations, and an immaterial change to OCI (net of taxes) for the unrecognized net losses and a credit to OCI of $1 million (net of taxes) for the unrecognized prior service costs associated with the competitive energy businesses and O&R’s New Jersey subsidiary. For CECONY, the decrease in liability corresponds with an increase to regulatory liabilities of $27 million for unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the company consistent with the accounting rules for regulated operations, and an immaterial change to OCI (net of taxes) for the unrecognized net losses and unrecognized prior service costs associated with the competitive energy businesses. A portion of the unrecognized net losses and prior service costs for the other postretirement benefits, equal to $12 million and $(20) million, respectively, will be recognized from accumulated OCI and the regulatory asset into net periodic benefit cost over the next year for Con Edison. Included in these amounts are $10 million and $(14) million, respectively, for CECONY. Assumptions The actuarial assumptions were as follows: FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) Future minimum operating lease payments for leases with remaining terms greater than one year for each of the years in the five years ending December 31, 2015, and thereafter in the aggregate, are as follows (in millions):

2011	$65.1

2012	47.6

2013	35.7

2014	27.8

2015	24.3

Thereafter	78.1

Total	$278.6

 In addition, the Company has operating lease commitments relating to office equipment and computer hardware with annual lease payments of approximately $16.3 million per year which renew on a short-term basis. Rent expense incurred under all operating leases during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $116.1 million, $100.2 million and $117.0 million, respectively. Included in discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings was rent expense of $2.0 million, $1.8 million and $17.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Data Processing and Maintenance Services Agreements. The Company has agreements with various vendors, which expire between 2011 and 2017, for portions of its computer data processing operations and related functions. The Company’s estimated aggregate contractual obligation remaining under these agreements was approximately $554.3 million as of December 31, 2010. However, this amount could be more or less depending on various factors such as the inflation rate, foreign exchange rates, the introduction of significant new technologies, or changes in the Company’s data processing needs. (16) Employee Benefit Plans Stock Purchase Plan FIS employees participate in an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). Eligible employees may voluntarily purchase, at current market prices, shares of FIS’ common stock through payroll deductions. Pursuant to the ESPP, employees may contribute an amount between 3% and 15% of their base salary and certain commissions. Shares purchased are allocated to employees based upon their contributions. The Company contributes varying matching amounts as specified in the ESPP. The Company recorded an expense of $14.3 million, $12.4 million and $14.3 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, relating to the participation of FIS employees in the ESPP. Included in discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings was expense of $0.1 million and $3.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.401(k) Profit Sharing Plan The Company’s employees are covered by a qualified 401(k) plan. Eligible employees may contribute up to 40% of their pretax annual compensation, up to the amount allowed pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. The Company generally matches 50% of each dollar of employee contribution up to 6% of the employee’s total eligible compensation. The Company recorded expense of $23.1 million, $16.6 million and $18.5 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, relating to the participation of FIS employees in the 401(k) plan. Included in discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings was expense of $0.1 million and $3.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively The following table presents a reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities to free cash flow available to News Corporation:


Answer: 2008.0

Question: Which year is Average contracted price per MWh the most?