Table of Contents 42 currency fluctuations (primarily the Mexican peso), lower selling, general and administrative expenses and higher equity, royalty and interest income from investees.
Major components of EBIT and related changes to segment EBIT and EBIT as a percentage of sales were as follows
## Table 0 ##
"NM" - not meaningful information (1) See respective sections of Results of Operations for additional information.
The decrease in gross margin versus 2014 was primarily due to lower volumes and unfavorable mix, partially offset by lower material and commodity costs and favorable foreign currency fluctuations.
The decrease in selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to lower compensation expenses and lower consulting expenses.
The increase in equity, royalty and interest income from investees was primarily due to increased earnings at Beijing Foton Cummins Engine Co. , Ltd.  as the joint venture continued to increase market share with the new heavy-duty engine platform introduced in 2014, partially offset by lower earnings at Dongfeng Cummins Engine Company, Ltd.  and an asset impairment of $12 million.
Distribution Segment Results Financial data for the Distribution segment was as follows:
## Table 1 ##
"NM" - not meaningful information (1)  See Restructuring Actions and Other Charges section of "Results of Operations" for additional information.
(2)  Segment EBIT for 2016, 2015 and 2014 included gains of $15 million ,  $18 million and $73 million, respectively, resulting from acquisitions of controlling interests in North American distributors.
See Note 18, "ACQUISITIONS," to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
(3)  North American distributor acquisitions are dilutive to segment EBIT as a percentage of sales.
Table of Contents 58 actuarial gains in accumulated other comprehensive income in the same period.
Based on the historical returns and forwardlooking return expectations, we believe an investment return assumption of 7.25 percent per year in 2017 for U. S.  pension assets is reasonable.
The methodology used to determine the rate of return on pension plan assets in the U. K.  was based on establishing an equityrisk premium over current long-term bond yields adjusted based on target asset allocations.
At December 31, 2016, based upon our target asset allocations, it is anticipated that our U. K.  investment policy will generate an average annual return over the 20- year projection period equal to or in excess of 3.9 percent approximately 50 percent of the time while returns of 4.6 percent or greater are anticipated 25 percent of the time.
We expect additional positive returns from active investment management.
The one-year return for our U. K.  plan was 25.5 percent for 2016, and similar to our U. S.  plan, the strong returns since 2010 have resulted in approximately $544 million of actuarial gains in accumulated other comprehensive income.
Our strategy with respect to our investments in pension plan assets is to be invested with a long-term outlook.
Therefore, the risk and return balance of our asset portfolio should reflect a long-term horizon.
Based on the historical returns and forward-looking return expectations, we believe an investment return assumption of 4.5 percent in 2017 for U. K.  pension assets is reasonable.
Our pension plan asset allocations at December 31, 2016 and 2015 and target allocation for 2017 are as follows:
## Table 2 ##
The differences between the actual return on plan assets and expected long-term return on plan assets are recognized in the asset value used to calculate net periodic cost over five years.
The table below sets forth the expected return assumptions used to develop our pension cost for the period 2014-2016 and our expected rate of return for 2017.
## Table 3 ##
A lower expected rate of return will increase our net periodic pension cost and reduce profitability.
GAAP for pensions offers various acceptable alternatives to account for the differences that eventually arise between the estimates used in the actuarial valuations and the actual results.
It is acceptable to delay or immediately recognize these differences.
Under the delayed recognition alternative, changes in pension obligation (including those resulting from plan amendments) and changes in the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations are not recognized in net periodic pension cost as they occur but are recognized initially in accumulated other comprehensive loss and subsequently amortized as components of net periodic pension cost systematically and gradually over future periods.
In addition to this approach, GAAP also allows immediate recognition of actuarial gains or losses.
Immediate recognition introduces volatility in financial results.
We have chosen to delay recognition and amortize actuarial differences over future periods.
If we adopted the immediate recognition approach, we would record a loss of $951 million ($634 million after-tax) from cumulative actuarial net losses for our U. S.  and U. K.  pension plans.
The difference between the expected return and the actual return on plan assets is deferred from recognition in our results of operations and, under certain circumstances such as when the difference exceeds 10 percent of the market value of plan assets or the projected benefit obligation, amortized over future years of service.
This is also true of changes to actuarial assumptions.
Under GAAP, the actuarial gains and losses are recognized and recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss.
At December 31, 2016, we had net pension actuarial losses of $770 million and $172 million for the U. S.  and U. K.  pension plans, respectively.
As these amounts exceed 10 percent of their respective plan assets, the excess is amortized over the average remaining service lives of participating employees.
Net actuarial losses decreased our shareholders' equity by $65 million aftertax in 2016.
The loss is due to lower discount rates in the U. S.  and U. K.  and unfavorable foreign currency, partially offset by strong asset performance in the U. K.
During the year ended December?31, 2012, when compared to the year ended December?31, 2011, we used cash for the following financing activities (in thousands):

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014 Favorable/(Unfavorable) Change</td></tr><tr><td>In millions</td><td>Amount</td><td>Percent</td><td>Percentage point changeas a percent of sales</td></tr><tr><td>Gross margin</td><td>$-184</td><td>-10%</td><td>-1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Selling, general and administrative expenses</td><td>37</td><td>6%</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Research, development and engineering expenses</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Equity, royalty and interest income from investees</td><td>28</td><td>24%</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Impairment of light-duty diesel assets<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-202</td><td>NM</td><td>-2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Restructuring actions and other charges<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-17</td><td>NM</td><td>-0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Loss contingency charge<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-60</td><td>NM</td><td>-0.7</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="4">Favorable/(Unfavorable)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years ended December 31,</td><td colspan="2">2016 vs. 2015</td><td colspan="2">2015 vs. 2014</td></tr><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>Amount</td><td>Percent</td><td>Amount</td><td>Percent</td></tr><tr><td>External sales</td><td>$6,157</td><td>$6,198</td><td>$5,135</td><td>$-41</td><td>-1%</td><td>$1,063</td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td>Intersegment sales</td><td>24</td><td>31</td><td>39</td><td>-7</td><td>-23%</td><td>-8</td><td>-21%</td></tr><tr><td>Total sales</td><td>6,181</td><td>6,229</td><td>5,174</td><td>-48</td><td>-1%</td><td>1,055</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>116</td><td>105</td><td>86</td><td>-11</td><td>-10%</td><td>-19</td><td>-22%</td></tr><tr><td>Research, development and engineering expenses</td><td>13</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>-3</td><td>-30%</td><td>-1</td><td>-11%</td></tr><tr><td>Equity, royalty and interest income from investees</td><td>70</td><td>78</td><td>148</td><td>-8</td><td>-10%</td><td>-70</td><td>-47%</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>—</td><td>—%</td><td>—</td><td>—%</td></tr><tr><td>Restructuring actions and other charges<sup>-1</sup></td><td>—</td><td>23</td><td>—</td><td>23</td><td>NM</td><td>-23</td><td>NM</td></tr><tr><td>Segment EBIT<sup>-2</sup></td><td>392</td><td>412</td><td>491</td><td>-20</td><td>-5%</td><td>-79</td><td>-16%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">Percentage Points</td><td colspan="2">Percentage Points</td></tr><tr><td>Segment EBIT as a percentage of total sales<sup>-3</sup></td><td>6.3%</td><td>6.6%</td><td>9.5%</td><td></td><td>-0.3</td><td></td><td>-2.9</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">U.S. Plans</td><td colspan="3">U.K. Plans</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Target Allocation</td><td colspan="2">Percentage of Plan Assets at December 31,</td><td>Target Allocation</td><td colspan="2">Percentage of Plan Assets at December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>Investment description</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td>57.0%</td><td>57.8%</td><td>65.9%</td><td>64.0%</td><td>60.7%</td><td>53.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities</td><td>24.0%</td><td>29.0%</td><td>21.5%</td><td>23.0%</td><td>30.4%</td><td>39.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate/other</td><td>19.0%</td><td>13.2%</td><td>12.6%</td><td>13.0%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>8.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Long-term Expected Return Assumptions</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. plans</td><td>7.25%</td><td>7.50%</td><td>7.50%</td><td>7.50%</td></tr><tr><td>U.K. plans</td><td>4.50%</td><td>4.70%</td><td>5.80%</td><td>5.80%</td></tr></table>

Question: What will Depreciation and amortization be like in 2017 if it develops with the same increasing rate as current? (in dollars in millions)