The breakdown of AES’s gross margin for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, based on the geographic region in which they were earned, is set forth below.
## Table 0 ##
* Includes Venezuela and Colombia.
Selling, general and administrative expenses Selling, general and administrative expenses increased $11 million, or 15%, to $82 million in 2000 from $71 million in 1999.
Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues remained constant at 1% in both 2000 and 1999.
The increase is due to an increase in business development activities.
Interest expense, net Net interest expense increased $506 million, or 80%, to $1.1 billion in 2000 from $632 million in 1999.
Interest expense as a percentage of revenues remained constant at 15% in both 2000 and 1999.
Interest expense increased primarily due to the interest at new businesses, including Drax, Tiete, CILCORP and EDC, as well as additional corporate interest costs resulting from the senior debt and convertible securities issued within the past two years.
Other income, net Other income increased $16 million, or 107%, to $31 million in 2000 from $15 million in 1999.
Other income includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses as well as other non-operating income.
The increase in other income is due primarily to a favorable legal judgment and the sale of development projects.
Severance and transaction costs During the fourth quarter of 2000, the Company incurred approximately $79 million of transaction and contractual severance costs related to the acquisition of IPALCO.
Gain on sale of assets During 2000, IPALCO sold certain assets (‘‘Thermal Assets’’) for approximately $162 million.
The transaction resulted in a gain to the Company of approximately $31 million.
Of the net proceeds, $88 million was used to retire debt specifically assignable to the Thermal Assets.
During 1999, the Company recorded a $29 million gain (before extraordinary loss) from the buyout of its long-term power sales agreement at Placerita.
The Company received gross proceeds of $110 million which were offset by transaction related costs of $19 million and an impairment loss of $62 million to reduce the carrying value of the electric generation assets to their estimated fair value after termination of the contract.
The estimated fair value was determined by an independent appraisal.
Concurrent with the buyout of the power sales agreement, the Company repaid the related non-recourse debt prior to its scheduled maturity and recorded an extraordinary loss of $11 million, net of income taxes.
Item 7.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Results of Operations – Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.  and subsidiaries (“Diamond Offshore”).
Diamond Offshore is a 54% owned subsidiary.
The following table summarizes the results of operations for Diamond Offshore for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 as presented in Note 24 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8:
## Table 1 ##
Diamond Offshore’s revenues vary based upon demand, which affects the number of days the fleet is utilized and the dayrates earned.
When a rig is idle, generally no dayrate is earned and revenues will decrease.
Revenues can also be affected as a result of the acquisition or disposal of rigs, required surveys and shipyard upgrades.
In order to improve utilization or realize higher dayrates, Diamond Offshore may mobilize its rigs from one market to another.
However, during periods of unpaid mobilization, revenues may be adversely affected.
In response to changes in demand, Diamond Offshore may withdraw a rig from the market by cold stacking it or may reactivate a rig stacked previously, which may decrease or increase revenues, respectively.
The two most significant variables affecting revenues are dayrates for rigs and rig utilization rates, each of which is ultimately a function of rig supply and demand in the marketplace.
As utilization rates increase, dayrates tend to increase as well, reflecting the lower supply of available rigs, and vice versa.
The demand for drilling services is dependent upon the level of expenditures set by oil and gas companies for offshore exploration and development as well as a variety of political and economic factors.
The availability of rigs in a particular geographical region also affects both dayrates and utilization rates.
These factors are not within Diamond Offshore’s control and are difficult to predict.
Revenue from dayrate drilling contracts is recognized as services are performed.
In connection with such drilling contracts, Diamond Offshore may receive lump-sum fees for the mobilization of equipment.
These fees are earned as services are performed over the initial term of the related drilling contracts.
In April 2003, Diamond Offshore commissioned a study to evaluate the economic lives of its drilling rigs because several of its rigs had reached or were approaching the end of their depreciable lives, yet were still operating and were expected to operate for many more years.
As a result of this study, effective April 1, 2003, Diamond Offshore recorded changes in accounting estimates by increasing the estimated service lives to 25 years for jack-ups and 30 years for semisubmersibles and its drillship and by increasing salvage values to 5% for most of its drilling rigs.
Diamond Offshore made the change in estimate to better reflect the remaining economic lives and salvage values of its fleet.
The effect of this change in accounting estimate resulted in an increase in net income for the year ended December 31, 2005 of $8.5 million, after tax and minority interest, and a reduction of Diamond Offshore’s net loss for the year ended December 31, 2004 of $10.7 million, after tax and minority interest.
Item 7A.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk Monetary Unit.
The sensitivity analysis assumes an instantaneous 20% decrease in the foreign currency exchange rates versus the U. S.  dollar from their levels at December 31, 2005 and 2004, with all other variables held constant.
Commodity Price Risk – We have exposure to commodity price risk as a result of our investments in gold options.
Commodity price risk results from changes in the level or volatility of commodity prices that impact instruments which derive their value from such commodities.
Commodity price risk was measured assuming an instantaneous decrease of 20% from their levels at December 31, 2005 and 2004.  Credit Risk – We are exposed to credit risk which relates to the risk of loss resulting from the nonperformance by a customer of its contractual obligations.
Boardwalk Pipeline has exposure related to receivables for services provided, as well as volumes owed by customers for imbalances or gas lent by Boardwalk Pipeline to them generally under parking and lending services and no-notice services.
Boardwalk Pipeline maintains credit policies intended to minimize this risk and actively monitors these policies.
Average natural gas prices have increased dramatically in recent years.
This rise in gas prices has materially increased Boardwalk Pipeline’s credit risk related to gas loaned to its customers.
The amount of gas loaned out at any one time by Boardwalk Pipeline over the past 24 months at any one time to its customers has ranged from a high of approximately 38.0 Bcf at April 30, 2005 to a low of approximately 4.0 Bcf at December 31, 2005.
Assuming an average market price during December of 2005 of $12.34 per MMBtu, the fair value of gas loaned out at December 31, 2005 would have been approximately $49.4 million.
As of February 28, 2006, the amount of gas loaned out was approximately 18.0 Bcf and, assuming an average market price during February of 2006 of $7.30 per MMBtu, the fair value of gas loaned out would be approximately $131.4 million.
If any significant customer should have credit or financial problems resulting in a delay or failure to repay the gas it owes Boardwalk Pipeline, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The following tables present our market risk by category (equity markets, interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and commodity prices) on the basis of those entered into for trading purposes and other than trading purposes.
Trading portfolio:
## Table 2 ##
Note: The calculation of estimated market risk exposure is based on assumed adverse changes in the underlying reference price or index of (1) a decrease in equity prices of 25%, (2) a decrease in interest rates of 100 basis points and (3) a decrease in gold prices of 20%.
Adverse changes on options which differ from those presented above would not necessarily result in a proportionate change to the estimated market risk exposure.

<table><tr><td></td><td>2000</td><td>% of Revenue</td><td>1999</td><td>% of Revenue</td><td>% change</td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>$844 million</td><td>25%</td><td>$649 million</td><td>32%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>South America</td><td>$416 million</td><td>36%</td><td>$232 million</td><td>28%</td><td>79%</td></tr><tr><td>Caribbean*</td><td>$226 million</td><td>21%</td><td>$75 million</td><td>24%</td><td>201%</td></tr><tr><td>Europe/Africa</td><td>$371 million</td><td>29%</td><td>$124 million</td><td>29%</td><td>199%</td></tr><tr><td>Asia</td><td>$138 million</td><td>22%</td><td>$183 million</td><td>37%</td><td>-26%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year Ended December 31</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td>(In millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Revenues:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating</td><td>$1,268.1</td><td>$823.4</td><td>$682.9</td></tr><tr><td>Net investment income</td><td>26.0</td><td>12.2</td><td>12.0</td></tr><tr><td>Investment gains (losses)</td><td>-1.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>-6.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1,292.9</td><td>835.9</td><td>688.0</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Operating</td><td>901.3</td><td>815.2</td><td>724.2</td></tr><tr><td>Interest</td><td>41.8</td><td>30.2</td><td>23.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>943.1</td><td>845.4</td><td>748.1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>349.8</td><td>-9.5</td><td>-60.1</td></tr><tr><td>Income tax expense (benefit)</td><td>104.3</td><td>3.0</td><td>-8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Minority interest</td><td>118.6</td><td>-3.3</td><td>-22.4</td></tr><tr><td>Net income (loss)</td><td>$126.9</td><td>$-9.2</td><td>$-29.6</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Category of risk exposure:</td><td colspan="2">Fair Value Asset (Liability)</td><td colspan="2">Market Risk</td></tr><tr><td>December 31</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>(Amounts in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity markets -1:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity securities (a)</td><td>$441.8</td><td>$233.1</td><td>$-110.0</td><td>$-59.0</td></tr><tr><td>Options- purchased</td><td>33.5</td><td>19.9</td><td>-1.0</td><td>-2.0</td></tr><tr><td>- written</td><td>-9.1</td><td>-2.6</td><td>2.0</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Warrants</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Short sales</td><td>-67.3</td><td>-77.6</td><td>17.0</td><td>19.0</td></tr><tr><td>Limited partnership investments</td><td>371.7</td><td>427.7</td><td>-25.0</td><td>-30.0</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate -2:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Treasury - short</td><td>-78.6</td><td></td><td>-7.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Futures - short</td><td></td><td></td><td>-10.0</td><td>-10.0</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate swaps-short</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-5.5</td><td>-2.0</td><td>-46.0</td></tr><tr><td>Short sales-foreign</td><td>-19.9</td><td></td><td>-2.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fixed maturities</td><td>415.7</td><td>390.0</td><td>3.0</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term investments</td><td>367.7</td><td>459.2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other derivatives</td><td>0.1</td><td>2.1</td><td>-3.0</td><td>-6.0</td></tr><tr><td>Gold -3:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Options- purchased</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>10.0</td><td>11.0</td></tr><tr><td>- written</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-14.0</td><td>-15.0</td></tr></table>

Question: Which year is the Options- purchased for Market Risk in terms of Gold higher?