THE AES CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued) DECEMBER 31, 2016, 2015, AND 2014 179 The following is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending amounts of unrecognized tax benefits for the periods indicated (in millions):
## Table 0 ##
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are currently under examination by the relevant taxing authorities for various tax years.
The Company regularly assesses the potential outcome of these examinations in each of the taxing jurisdictions when determining the adequacy of the amount of unrecognized tax benefit recorded.
While it is often difficult to predict the final outcome or the timing of resolution of any particular uncertain tax position, we believe we have appropriately accrued for our uncertain tax benefits.
However, audit outcomes and the timing of audit settlements and future events that would impact our previously recorded unrecognized tax benefits and the range of anticipated increases or decreases in unrecognized tax benefits are subject to significant uncertainty.
It is possible that the ultimate outcome of current or future examinations may exceed our provision for current unrecognized tax benefits in amounts that could be material, but cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2016.
Our effective tax rate and net income in any given future period could therefore be materially impacted.22.
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS Brazil Distribution — Due to a portfolio evaluation in the first half of 2016, management has decided to pursue a strategic shift of its distribution companies in Brazil, AES Sul and Eletropaulo.
The disposal of Sul was completed in October 2016.
In December 2016, Eletropaulo underwent a corporate restructuring which is expected to, among other things, provide more liquidity of its shares.
AES is continuing to pursue strategic options for Eletropaulo in order to complete its strategic shift to reduce AES’ exposure to the Brazilian distribution business, including preparation for listing its shares into the Novo Mercado, which is a listing segment of the Brazilian stock exchange with the highest standards of corporate governance.
The Company executed an agreement for the sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary AES Sul in June 2016.
We have reported the results of operations and financial position of AES Sul as discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented.
Upon meeting the held-for-sale criteria, the Company recognized an after tax loss of $382 million comprised of a pretax impairment charge of $783 million, offset by a tax benefit of $266 million related to the impairment of the Sul long lived assets and a tax benefit of $135 million for deferred taxes related to the investment in AES Sul.
Prior to the impairment charge in the second quarter, the carrying value of the AES Sul asset group of $1.6 billion was greater than its approximate fair value less costs to sell.
However, the impairment charge was limited to the carrying value of the long lived assets of the AES Sul disposal group.
On October 31, 2016, the Company completed the sale of AES Sul and received final proceeds less costs to sell of $484 million, excluding contingent consideration.
Upon disposal of AES Sul, we incurred an additional aftertax loss on sale of $737 million.
The cumulative impact to earnings of the impairment and loss on sale was $1.1 billion.
This includes the reclassification of approximately $1 billion of cumulative translation losses, resulting in a net reduction to the Company’s stockholders’ equity of $92 million.
Sul’s pretax loss attributable to AES for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 was $1.4 billion and $32 million, respectively.
Sul’s pretax gain attributable to AES for the year ended December 31, 2014 was $133 million.
Prior to its classification as discontinued operations, Sul was reported in the Brazil SBU reportable segment.
As discussed in Note 1—General and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, effective July 1, 2014, the Company prospectively adopted ASU No.2014-08.
Discontinued operations prior to adoption of ASU No.2014-08 include the results of Cameroon, Saurashtra and various U. S.  wind projects which were each sold in the first half of 2014.
Cameroon — In September 2013, the Company executed agreements for the sale of its 56% equity interests in businesses in Cameroon: Sonel, an integrated utility, Kribi, a gas and light fuel oil plant, and Dibamba, a heavy
Management’s Discussion and Analysis The tables below present our assets under supervision, including assets under management by asset class and other client assets, as well as a summary of the changes in our assets under supervision.
## Table 1 ##
1.
Primarily includes hedge funds, credit funds, private equity, real estate, currencies, commodities and asset allocation strategies.
## Table 2 ##
1.
Includes $34 billion of fixed income asset inflows in connection with our acquisition of Dwight Asset Management, including $17 billion in assets under management and $17 billion in other client assets, and $5 billion of fixed income and equity asset outflows in connection with our liquidation of Goldman Sachs Asset Management Korea, all related to assets under management.2.
Includes $6 billion of asset inflows across all asset classes in connection with our acquisitions of Goldman Sachs Australia Pty Ltd and Benchmark Asset Management Company Private Limited.2012 versus 2011.
Net revenues in Investment Management were $5.22 billion for 2012, 4% higher than 2011, due to significantly higher incentive fees, partially offset by lower transaction revenues and slightly lower management and other fees.
During the year, assets under supervision increased $70 billion to $965 billion.
Assets under management increased $26 billion to $854 billion, reflecting net market appreciation of $44 billion, primarily in fixed income and equity assets, partially offset by net outflows of $18 billion.
Net outflows in assets under management included outflows in equity, alternative investment and money market assets, partially offset by inflows in fixed income assets.
Other client assets increased $44 billion to $111 billion, primarily due to net inflows, principally in client assets invested with third-party managers and assets related to advisory relationships.
During 2012, Investment Management operated in an environment generally characterized by improved asset prices, resulting in appreciation in the value of client assets.
However, the mix of assets under supervision has shifted slightly from asset classes that typically generate higher fees to asset classes that typically generate lower fees compared with 2011.
In the future, if asset prices were to decline, or investors continue to favor asset classes that typically generate lower fees or investors continue to withdraw their assets, net revenues in Investment Management would likely be negatively impacted.
In addition, continued concerns about the global economic outlook could result in downward pressure on assets under supervision.
Operating expenses were $4.29 billion for 2012, 7% higher than 2011, due to increased compensation and benefits expenses.
Pre-tax earnings were $928 million in 2012, 8% lower than 2011.2011 versus 2010.
Net revenues in Investment Management were $5.03 billion for 2011, essentially unchanged compared with 2010, primarily due to higher management and other fees, reflecting favorable changes in the mix of assets under management, offset by lower incentive fees.
During 2011, assets under supervision decreased $22 billion to $895 billion.
Assets under management decreased $12 billion to $828 billion, reflecting net outflows of $17 billion, partially offset by net market appreciation of $5 billion.
Net outflows in assets under management primarily reflected outflows in fixed income and equity assets, partially offset by inflows in money market assets.
Other client assets decreased $10 billion to $67 billion, primarily due to net outflows, principally in client assets invested with third-party managers in money market funds.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis Deposits.
As part of our efforts to diversify our funding base, deposits have become a more meaningful share of our funding activities.
GS Bank USA has been actively growing its deposit base with an emphasis on issuance of long-term certificates of deposit and on expanding our deposit sweep program, which involves long-term contractual agreements with several U. S.  broker-dealers who sweep client cash to FDIC-insured deposits.
We utilize deposits to finance activities in our bank subsidiaries.
The table below presents the sourcing of our deposits.
## Table 3 ##
1.
Represents deposits with no stated maturity.2.
Weighted average maturity in excess of three years.3.
Substantially all were from overnight deposit sweep programs related to private wealth management clients.4.
Deposits insured by the FDIC as of December 2012 were approximately $42.77 billion.
Unsecured Short-Term Borrowings.
A significant portion of our short-term borrowings was originally long-term debt that is scheduled to mature within one year of the reporting date.
We use short-term borrowings to finance liquid assets and for other cash management purposes.
We primarily issue commercial paper, promissory notes, and other hybrid instruments.
As of December 2012, our unsecured short-term borrowings, including the current portion of unsecured long-term borrowings, were $44.30 billion.
See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements for further information about our unsecured short-term borrowings.
Equity Capital Capital adequacy is of critical importance to us.
Our objective is to be conservatively capitalized in terms of the amount and composition of our equity base.
Accordingly, we have in place a comprehensive capital management policy that serves as a guide to determine the amount and composition of equity capital we maintain.
The level and composition of our equity capital are determined by multiple factors including our current and future consolidated regulatory capital requirements, our ICAAP, CCAR and results of stress tests, and may also be influenced by other factors such as rating agency guidelines, subsidiary capital requirements, the business environment, conditions in the financial markets and assessments of potential future losses due to adverse changes in our business and market environments.
In addition, we maintain a capital plan which projects sources and uses of capital given a range of business environments, and a contingency capital plan which provides a framework for analyzing and responding to an actual or perceived capital shortfall.
As part of the Federal Reserve Board’s annual CCAR, U. S.  bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or greater are required to submit annual capital plans for review by the Federal Reserve Board.
The purpose of the Federal Reserve Board’s review is to ensure that these institutions have robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for their unique risks and that permit continued operations during times of economic and financial stress.
The Federal Reserve Board will evaluate a bank holding company based on whether it has the capital necessary to continue operating under the baseline and stressed scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve.
As part of the capital plan review, the Federal Reserve Board evaluates an institution’s plan to make capital distributions, such as increasing dividend payments or repurchasing or redeeming stock, across a range of macro-economic and firm-specific assumptions.
In addition, the rules adopted by the Federal Reserve Board under the Dodd-Frank Act, require us to conduct stress tests on a semi-annual basis and publish a summary of certain results, beginning in March 2013.
The Federal Reserve Board will conduct its own annual stress tests and is expected to publish a summary of certain results in March 2013.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis RWAs for market risk are comprised of modeled and non-modeled risk requirements.
Modeled risk requirements are determined by reference to the firm’s Value-at-Risk (VaR) model.
VaR is the potential loss in value of inventory positions due to adverse market movements over a defined time horizon with a specified confidence level.
We use a single VaR model which captures risks including interest rates, equity prices, currency rates and commodity prices.
For certain portfolios of debt and equity positions, the modeled RWAs also reflect requirements for specific risk, which is the risk of loss on a position that could result from changes in risk factors unique to that position.
Regulatory VaR used for capital requirements will differ from risk management VaR, due to different time horizons (10-day vs.  1-day), confidence levels (99% vs.  95%), as well as other factors.
Non-modeled risk requirements reflect specific risk for other debt and equity positions.
The standardized measurement method is used to determine non-modeled risk by applying supervisory defined risk-weighting factors to positions after applicable netting is performed.
The table below presents information on the components of RWAs within our consolidated regulatory capital ratios.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>December 31,</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at January 1</td><td>$373</td><td>$394</td><td>$392</td></tr><tr><td>Additions for current year tax positions</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Additions for tax positions of prior years</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Reductions for tax positions of prior years</td><td>-1</td><td>-7</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of foreign currency translation</td><td>2</td><td>-7</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Settlements</td><td>-13</td><td>-19</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Lapse of statute of limitations</td><td>-1</td><td>-7</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31</td><td>$369</td><td>$373</td><td>$394</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">As of December 31,</td></tr><tr><td><i>in billions</i></td><td> 2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative investments<sup>1</sup></td><td> $133</td><td>$142</td><td>$148</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td> 133</td><td>126</td><td>144</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td> 370</td><td>340</td><td>340</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-money market assets</td><td> 636</td><td>608</td><td>632</td></tr><tr><td>Money markets</td><td> 218</td><td>220</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td> Total assets under management (AUM)</td><td> 854</td><td>828</td><td>840</td></tr><tr><td> Other client assets</td><td> 111</td><td>67</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td> Total assets under supervision (AUS)</td><td> $965</td><td>$895</td><td>$917</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td><i>in billions</i></td><td> </td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td> </td><td>$895</td><td>$917</td><td>$955</td></tr><tr><td>Net inflows/(outflows) Alternative investments</td><td> </td><td>-11</td><td>-5</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td> </td><td>-13</td><td>-9</td><td>-21</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed income</td><td> </td><td>8</td><td>-15</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-money market net inflows/(outflows)</td><td> </td><td>-16</td><td>-29</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>Money markets</td><td> </td><td>-2</td><td>12</td><td>-56</td></tr><tr><td>Total AUM net inflows/(outflows)</td><td> </td><td>-18</td><td>-17 2</td><td>-71</td></tr><tr><td>Other client assets net inflows/(outflows)</td><td> </td><td>39</td><td>-10</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td> Total AUS net inflows/(outflows)</td><td> <sup></sup><sup></sup><sup>  </sup> </td><td>211</td><td>-27</td><td>-78</td></tr><tr><td>Net market appreciation/(depreciation) AUM</td><td> </td><td>44</td><td>5</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Other client assets</td><td> </td><td>5</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> Total AUS net market appreciation/(depreciation)</td><td> </td><td>49</td><td>5</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td> Balance, end of year</td><td> </td><td>$965</td><td>$895</td><td>$917</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">As of December 2012 Type of Deposit</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>in millions</i></td><td><sup></sup></td><td>Savings and Demand<sup></sup></td><td><sup>1</sup></td><td>Time<sup></sup></td><td><sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Private bank deposits<sup>3</sup></td><td> </td><td> $30,460</td><td> </td><td> $ —</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Certificates of deposit</td><td> </td><td> —</td><td> </td><td> 21,507</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Deposit sweep programs</td><td> </td><td> 15,998</td><td> </td><td> —</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td> </td><td> 51</td><td> </td><td> 2,108</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> Total<sup>4</sup></td><td> </td><td> $46,509</td><td> </td><td> $23,615</td><td> </td></tr></table>

Question: Does the proportion of equity in total larger than that of fixed income in 2012?
Answer: -0.2069
Reasoning program: divide(-9,-29), divide(-15,-29), subtract(#0,#1)