The Government segment’s SG&A expense ratio was 13.5% for 2002, increasing 70 basis points compared to 12.8% in 2001.
This increase resulted from the items discussed above and a change in the mix of revenues.
A higher proportion of revenues was generated from administrative services fees, primarily from the TRICARE Regions 2 and 5 acquisition and the implementation of the TRICARE for Life benefit programs effective October 1, 2001.
ASO business carries a much higher SG&A ratio than fully insured business.
Depreciation and amortization was $120.7 million in 2002, a decrease of $40.8 million, or 25.3%, from $161.5 million in 2001.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, we ceased amortizing goodwill on January 1, 2002 in accordance with adopting a new accounting standard.
This decreased goodwill amortization by $55 million.
On a comparable basis, depreciation and amortization was $106.5 million in 2001, excluding goodwill amortization expense.
The $14.2 million increase in 2002 compared to 2001, as adjusted, resulted from capital expenditures primarily related to our technology initiatives and a full year of amortization of other intangible assets related to the acquisition of TRICARE Regions 2 and 5 on May 31, 2001.
Interest Expense Interest expense was $17.3 million in 2002, a decrease of $8.0 million from $25.3 million in 2001.
This decrease primarily resulted from lower interest rates.
Income Taxes Our effective tax rate in 2002 of 32% decreased 4% compared to the 36% effective tax rate in 2001.
The lower effective tax rate in 2002 primarily resulted from the cessation of non-deductible goodwill amortization on January 1, 2002, partially offset by higher state income taxes and a lower proportion of tax-exempt investment income to pretax income.
In addition, during 2002, the Internal Revenue Service completed their audit of all open years prior to 2000, which resulted in a favorable adjustment to the estimated accrual for income taxes of approximately $32.6 million.
This was offset by an increase of approximately $24.5 million in the capital loss valuation allowance after we reevaluated probable capital gain realization in the allowable carryforward period based upon our capital gain experience beginning in 2000 and consideration of alternative tax planning strategies.
See Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements for a complete reconciliation to the federal statutory rate.
Liquidity Our consolidated liquidity continued to strengthen in 2003, with cash and cash equivalents increasing to $931.4 million at December 31, 2003 from $721.4 million at December 31, 2002.
Because we operate as a holding company, our parent company is dependent upon dividends and administrative expense reimbursements from our subsidiaries, most of which are subject to regulatory restrictions.
Our parent company liquidity also improved during 2003.
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments at our parent company amounted to $399.4 million at December 31, 2003, increasing $212.4 million from $187.0 million at December 31, 2002.
The primary source for the increase in cash and cash equivalents has been the increase in our net income.
The change in cash and cash equivalents for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 is summarized as follows:
## Table 0 ##
Approximately 94% of our debt securities were investment-grade quality, with a weighted average credit rating of AA- by S&P at December 31, 2012.
Most of the debt securities that were below investment-grade were rated BB, the higher end of the below investment-grade rating scale.
Our investment policy limits investments in a single issuer and requires diversification among various asset types.
Tax-exempt municipal securities included pre-refunded bonds of $311 million at December 31, 2012 and $332 million at December 31, 2011.
These pre-refunded bonds were secured by an escrow fund consisting of U. S.  government obligations sufficient to pay off all amounts outstanding at maturity.
The ratings of these prerefunded bonds generally assume the rating of the government obligations at the time the fund is established.
Tax-exempt municipal securities that were not pre-refunded were diversified among general obligation bonds of U. S.  states and local municipalities as well as special revenue bonds.
General obligation bonds, which are backed by the taxing power and full faith of the issuer, accounted for $1.1 billion of these municipals in the portfolio.
Special revenue bonds, issued by a municipality to finance a specific public works project such as utilities, water and sewer, transportation, or education, and supported by the revenues of that project, accounted for $1.7 billion of these municipals.
Our general obligation bonds are diversified across the U. S.  with no individual state exceeding 11%.
In addition, certain monoline insurers guarantee the timely repayment of bond principal and interest when a bond issuer defaults and generally provide credit enhancement for bond issues related to our tax-exempt municipal securities.
We have no direct exposure to these monoline insurers.
We owned $627 million and $634 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, of tax-exempt securities guaranteed by monoline insurers.
The equivalent weighted average S&P credit rating of these tax-exempt securities without the guarantee from the monoline insurer was AA-.
Our direct exposure to subprime mortgage lending is limited to investment in residential mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities backed by home equity loans.
The fair value of securities backed by Alt-A and subprime loans was $2 million at December 31, 2012 and $3 million at December 31, 2011.
There are no collateralized debt obligations or structured investment vehicles in our investment portfolio.
The percentage of corporate securities associated with the financial services industry was 22.8% at December 31, 2012 and 19.3% at December 31, 2011.
Gross unrealized losses and fair values aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position were as follows at December 31, 2012:
## Table 1 ##
Under the other-than-temporary impairment model for debt securities held, we recognize an impairment loss in income in an amount equal to the full difference between the amortized cost basis and the fair value when we
Stock Total Return Performance The following graph compares our total return to stockholders with the returns of the Standard & Poor’s Composite 500 Index (“S&P 500”) and the Dow Jones US Select Health Care Providers Index (“Peer Group”) for the five years ended December 31, 2017.
The graph assumes an investment of $100 in each of our common stock, the S&P 500, and the Peer Group on December 31, 2012, and that dividends were reinvested when paid.
## Table 2 ##
The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

<table><tr><td></td><td>2003</td><td>2002</td><td>2001</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(in thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by operating activities</td><td>$413,140</td><td>$321,408</td><td>$148,958</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash used in investing activities</td><td>-373,163</td><td>-128,157</td><td>-118,807</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities</td><td>170,070</td><td>-123,314</td><td>-36,293</td></tr><tr><td>Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents</td><td>$210,047</td><td>$69,937</td><td>$-6,142</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Less than 12 months</td><td colspan="2">12 months or more</td><td colspan="2">Total</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Fair Value</td><td>Gross Unrealized Losses</td><td> Fair Value</td><td>Gross Unrealized Losses</td><td> Fair Value</td><td>Gross Unrealized Losses</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="6">(in millions)</td></tr><tr><td> December 31, 2012</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Treasury and other U.S. government corporations and agencies:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Treasury and agency obligations</td><td>$56</td><td>$0</td><td>$2</td><td>$0</td><td>$58</td><td>$0</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage-backed securities</td><td>38</td><td>0</td><td>25</td><td>-1</td><td>63</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Tax-exempt municipal securities</td><td>233</td><td>-3</td><td>27</td><td>-1</td><td>260</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage-backed securities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residential</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>-1</td><td>4</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>94</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>94</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Asset-backed securities</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt securities</td><td>104</td><td>-2</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>108</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Total debt securities</td><td>$527</td><td>$-5</td><td>$66</td><td>$-3</td><td>$593</td><td>$-8</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>12/31/2012</td><td>12/31/2013</td><td>12/31/2014</td><td>12/31/2015</td><td>12/31/2016</td><td>12/31/2017</td></tr><tr><td>HUM</td><td>$100</td><td>$152</td><td>$214</td><td>$267</td><td>$307</td><td>$377</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500</td><td>$100</td><td>$132</td><td>$150</td><td>$153</td><td>$171</td><td>$208</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Group</td><td>$100</td><td>$137</td><td>$175</td><td>$186</td><td>$188</td><td>$238</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the increase observed in the return of the second year of the investment for peer group?
Answer: 0.27737