Investment Management Fees Investment management fees are generally calculated under contractual arrangements with our SIPs and the products for which we provide sub-advisory services as a percentage of the market value of AUM.
Annual rates vary by investment objective and type of services provided.
Rates for products sold outside of the U. S.  are generally higher than for U. S.  products because they are structured to compensate for certain distribution costs.
Investment management fees decreased $112.5 million in fiscal year 2017 primarily due to a 2% decrease in average AUM and the impact of a lower effective fee rate, partially offset by higher performance fees.
Investment management fees decreased $856.1 million in fiscal year 2016 primarily due to a 14% decrease in average AUM and the impact of a lower effective fee rate.
The decrease in average AUM in fiscal year 2017 occurred primarily in the global/international fixed income investment objective, and across all sales regions except Asia-Pacific.
The decrease in average AUM in fiscal year 2016 occurred in all sales regions and primarily in the global/international and multi-asset/balanced investment objectives.
Our effective investment management fee rate (investment management fees divided by average AUM) was 59.2, 59.7 and 61.3 basis points for fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015.
The rate decrease in fiscal year 2017 was primarily due to higher weightings of AUM in lower fee products in the global/international fixed income investment objective in the Europe, Middle East and Africa and Asia-Pacific sales regions, partially offset by higher performance fees.
The rate decrease in fiscal year 2016 was primarily due to higher weightings of AUM in U. S.  products and in lower fee products in global/international investment objectives in the Europe, Middle East and Africa and Asia-Pacific sales regions, partially offset by higher performance fees.
Performance-based investment management fees were $35.5 million, $26.5 million and $19.8 million for fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015.
The increases in fiscal years 2017 and 2016 were primarily due to performance fees earned from separately-managed accounts.
U. S.  industry asset-weighted average management fee rates were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
1 U. S.  industry asset-weighted average management fee rates were calculated using information available from Lipper, a Thomson Reuters Company, as of September 30, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and include all U. S. -registered open-end funds that reported expense data to Lipper as of the funds’most recent annual report date, and for which expenses were equal to or greater than zero.
As defined by Lipper, management fees include fees from providing advisory and fund administration services.
The averages combine retail and institutional funds data and include all share classes and distribution channels, without exception.
Variable annuity and fund of fund products are not included.2 The decreases in the average rate in fiscal years 2017 and 2016 reflect higher weightings of two large low fee funds.3 The decreases in the average rate in fiscal years 2017 and 2016 reflect higher weightings of a large low fee fund and lower weightings of two large higher fee funds.
Our actual effective investment management fee rates are generally higher than the U. S.  industry average rates as we actively manage our products and have a higher level of international AUM, both of which generate higher fees.
Our effective investment management fee rates in the U. S.  decreased during fiscal years 2017 and 2016, but to a lesser extent than the average industry rates.
Gas Peak Demand The gas peak demand for firm sales customers in CECONY’s service area occurs during the winter heating season.
The peak day demand during the winter 2016/2017 (through January 31, 2017) occurred on January 9, 2017 when the demand reached 1,155 MDt.
The 2016/2017 peak day demand included 606 MDt for CECONY’s full-service customers and 549 MDt for customers participating in its gas retail choice program.
“Design weather” for the gas system is a standard to which the actual peak demand is adjusted for evaluation and planning purposes.
The company estimates that, under design weather conditions, the 2017/2018 service area peak day demand will be 1,509 MDt, including an estimated 792 MDt for its full-service customers and 717 MDt for its gas retail choice customers.
The forecasted peak day demand at design conditions does not include gas used by interruptible gas customers including electric and steam generating stations.
The company forecasts an average annual growth of the gas peak demand over the next five years at design conditions to be approximately 2.3 percent in its service area.
Gas Supply CECONY and O&R have combined their gas requirements, and contracts to meet those requirements, into a single portfolio.
The combined portfolio is administered by, and related management services are provided by, CECONY (for itself and as agent for O&R) and costs are allocated between the Utilities in accordance with provisions approved by the NYSPSC.
See Note S to the financial statements in Item 8.
Charges from suppliers for the firm purchase of gas, which are based on formulas or indexes or are subject to negotiation, are generally designed to approximate market prices.
The Utilities have contracts with interstate pipeline companies for the purchase of firm transportation from upstream points where gas has been purchased to the Utilities’ distribution systems, and for upstream storage services.
Charges under these transportation and storage contracts are approved by the FERC.
The Utilities are required to pay certain fixed charges under the supply, transportation and storage contracts whether or not the contracted capacity is actually used.
These fixed charges amounted to approximately $301 million in 2016, including $263 million for CECONY.
See “Contractual Obligations” below.
At December 31, 2016, the contracts were for various terms extending to 2020 for supply and 2038 for transportation and storage.
During 2016, CECONY entered into four new transportation and storage contracts.
In addition, the Utilities purchase gas on the spot market and contract for interruptible gas transportation.
See “Recoverable Energy Costs” in Note A and Note P to the financial statements in Item 8.
Steam Operations Steam Facilities CECONY’s capitalized costs for utility plant, net of accumulated depreciation, for steam facilities, including steam's portion of the steam-electric generation facilities, were $1,882 million and $1,849 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
See "CECONY – Electric Operations – Electric Facilities," above.
CECONY generates steam at one steam-electric generating station and five steam-only generating stations and distributes steam to its customers through approximately 104 miles of transmission, distribution and service piping.
Steam Sales and Deliveries CECONY’s steam sales and deliveries for the last five years were
## Table 1 ##
5.
Commitments and Contingencies Rental expense related to office, warehouse space and real estate amounted to $608, $324, and $281 for the years ended December 25, 2004, December 27, 2003, and December 28, 2002, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments are as follows:
## Table 2 ##
At December 25, 2004, the Company expects future costs of approximately $900 for the completion of its facility expansion in Olathe, Kansas.
Certain cash balances of GEL are held as collateral by a bank securing payment of the United Kingdom value-added tax requirements.
These amounted to $1,457 and $1,602 at December 25, 2004 and December 27, 2003, respectively, and are reported as restricted cash.
In the normal course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to various legal claims, actions, and complaints, including matters involving patent infringement and other intellectual property claims and various other risks.
It is not possible to predict with certainty whether or not the Company and its subsidiaries will ultimately be successful in any of these legal matters, or if not, what the impact might be.
However, the Company’s management does not expect that the results in any of these legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.6.
Employee Benefit Plans GII sponsors an employee retirement plan under which its employees may contribute up to 50% of their annual compensation subject to Internal Revenue Code maximum limitations and to which GII contributes a specified percentage of each participant’s annual compensation up to certain limits as defined in the Plan.
Additionally, GEL has a defined contribution plan under which its employees may contribute up to 5% of their annual compensation.
Both GII and GEL contribute an amount determined annually at the discretion of the Board of Directors.
During the years ended December 25, 2004, December 27, 2003, and December 28, 2002, expense related to these plans of $5,183, $4,197, and $2,728, respectively, was charged to operations.
Certain of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries participate in local defined benefit pension plans.
Contributions are calculated by formulas that consider final pensionable salaries.
Neither obligations nor contributions for the years ended December 25, 2004, December 27, 2003, and December 28, 2002 were significant.
The Company uses credit derivatives to purchase credit protection and to assume credit risk with respect to a single entity, referenced index, or asset pool.
The Company purchases credit protection through credit default swaps to economically hedge and manage credit risk of certain fixed maturity investments across multiple sectors of the investment portfolio.
The Company also enters into credit default swaps that assume credit risk as part of replication transactions.
Replication transactions are used as an economical means to synthetically replicate the characteristics and performance of assets that are permissible investments under the Company’s investment policies.
These swaps reference investment grade single corporate issuers and baskets, which include customized diversified portfolios of corporate issuers, which are established within sector concentration limits and may be divided into tranches which possess different credit ratings.
As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the notional amount related to credit derivatives that purchase credit protection was $0.4 billion and $0.6 billion, respectively, while the fair value was $18 and $(6), respectively.
As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the notional amount related to credit derivatives that assume credit risk was $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively, while the fair value was $(13) and $3, respectively.
For further information on credit derivatives, see Note 6 Investments and Derivative Instruments of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Investment Portfolio Risks and Risk Management Investment Portfolio Composition The following table presents the Company’s fixed maturities, AFS, by credit quality.
The following average credit ratings referenced throughout this section are based on availability, and are the midpoint of the applicable ratings among Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and Morningstar.
If no rating is available from a rating agency, then an internally developed rating is used.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>(in basis points)</td><td colspan="3">Industry Average<sup>1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>for the fiscal years ended September 30,</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Global/international<sup>2</sup></td><td>50</td><td>53</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td>35</td><td>37</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-Asset/Balanced</td><td>49</td><td>50</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed Income</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tax-free</td><td>33</td><td>35</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Taxable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Global/international<sup>3</sup></td><td>39</td><td>43</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td>31</td><td>33</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Cash Management</td><td>15</td><td>10</td><td>9</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Steam Sold(MMlb)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>425</td><td>547</td><td>594</td><td>538</td><td>465</td></tr><tr><td>Apartment house</td><td>5,240</td><td>6,181</td><td>6,574</td><td>6,272</td><td>5,792</td></tr><tr><td>Annual power</td><td>14,076</td><td>15,195</td><td>15,848</td><td>15,109</td><td>13,722</td></tr><tr><td>Total Steam Delivered to CECONY Customers</td><td>19,741</td><td>21,923</td><td>23,016</td><td>21,919</td><td>19,979</td></tr><tr><td>Steam Sold($ in millions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>General</td><td>$25</td><td>$31</td><td>$30</td><td>$29</td><td>$23</td></tr><tr><td>Apartment house</td><td>158</td><td>187</td><td>180</td><td>176</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Annual power</td><td>429</td><td>491</td><td>469</td><td>453</td><td>378</td></tr><tr><td>Other operating revenues</td><td>-16</td><td>-26</td><td>-51</td><td>-29</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total Steam Delivered to CECONY Customers</td><td>$596</td><td>$683</td><td>$628</td><td>$629</td><td>$551</td></tr><tr><td>Average Revenue per MMlb Sold</td><td>$31.00</td><td>$32.34</td><td>$29.50</td><td>$30.02</td><td>$27.48</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year</td><td>Amount</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>$512</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>493</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>493</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>474</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>474</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>3,452</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the percentual increase expense related to these plans during 2002 and 2003?
Answer: 0.53849
Reasoning program: divide(4197,2728), subtract(#0,const_1)