Noninterest Expense (This section should be read in conjunction with Significant Item 6. )
Noninterest expense increased $40.4 million, or 9%, from the year-ago quarter.
Table 49 - Noninterest Expense - 2012 Fourth Quarter vs.  2011 Fourth Quarter
## Table 0 ##
The $40.4 million increase reflected: x $25.9 million, or 11%, increase in personnel costs, reflecting an increase in the number of full-time equivalent employees as well as increased salaries and benefits.
x $9.7 million decrease in gain on the early extinguishment of debt related to the exchange of certain trust preferred securities in the year ago quarter.
x $6.3 million, or 38%, increase in professional services, reflecting increased temporary regulatory related expense.
Partially offset by: x $5.2 million, or 10%, decline in outside data processing and other services as the year ago quarter included costs associated with the conversion to a new debit card processor.
Provision for Income Taxes The provision for income taxes in the 2012 fourth quarter was $54.3 million and $42.0 million in the 2011 fourth quarter.
The effective tax rate in the 2012 fourth quarter was 24.5% compared to 24.9% in the 2011 fourth quarter.
At December 31, 2012 and 2011 we had a net deferred tax asset of $203.9 million and $364.8 million, respectively.
Based on both positive and negative evidence and our level of forecasted future taxable income, we determined that no impairment existed to the net deferred tax asset at December 31, 2012 and 2011.
For regulatory capital purposes, there is no net disallowed deferred tax asset at December 31, 2012 compared to $39.1 million at December 31, 2011.  Credit Quality Credit quality performance in the 2012 fourth quarter reflected continued improvement in the overall loan portfolio relating to NCO activity, as well as in key credit quality metrics, including a 25% decline in NPAs and a 25% decline in the level of Criticized commercial loans compared to the year-ago quarter.
INCOME SIMULATION AND ECONOMIC VALUE ANALYSIS Interest rate risk measurement is calculated and reported to the ALCO monthly and ROC at least quarterly.
The information reported includes period-end results and identifies any policy limits exceeded, along with an assessment of the policy limit breach and the action plan and timeline for resolution, mitigation, or assumption of the risk.
Huntington uses two approaches to model interest rate risk: Interest Sensitive Earnings at Risk (ISE analysis) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE analysis).
Under ISE analysis, net interest income is modeled utilizing various assumptions for assets, liabilities, and derivative positions under various interest rate scenarios over a one-year time horizon.
Market implied forward rates and various likely and extreme interest rate scenarios are used for ISE analysis.
These likely and extreme scenarios include rapid and gradual interest rate ramps, rate shocks, and yield curve twists.
EVE analysis measures the market value of assets minus the market value of liabilities and the change in this value as rates change.
Table 20 - Interest Sensitive Earnings at Risk
## Table 1 ##
The ISE results included in the table above reflect the analysis used monthly by management.
It models gradual -25, +100 and +200 basis point parallel shifts in market interest rates over the next one-year period, beyond the interest rate change implied by the forward yield curve.
Due to the current low level of short-term interest rates, the analysis reflects a declining interest rate scenario of 25 basis points, the point at which many assets and liabilities reach zero percent.
Huntington is within Board policy limits for the +100 and +200 basis point scenarios.
There is no policy limit for the -25 basis point scenario.
The ISE analysis reported at December 31, 2013, shows that Huntington’s earnings are not significantly sensitive to changes in interest rates.
Due to an increase in the amount of fixed rate assets, consisting primarily of indirect auto loans and fixed rate securities, the amount of asset sensitivity declined through the year.
The scenarios above also include the impact of market rate changes on the duration of fixed-rate mortgage-related assets, which extend as rates rise and reduce asset sensitivity.
As interest rates rise, the net earnings from our interest rate swaps declines faster under the +200 than +100 basis point scenario resulting in lower asset sensitivity as shown above.
Table 21 - Economic Value of Equity at Risk
## Table 2 ##
The EVE results included in the table above reflect the analysis used monthly by management.
It models immediate -25, +100 and +200 basis point parallel shifts in market interest rates.
Due to the current low level of short-term interest rates, the analysis reflects a declining interest rate scenario of 25 basis points, the point at which many assets and liabilities reach zero percent.
Huntington is within Board policy limits for the +100 and +200 basis point scenarios.
There is no policy limit for the -25 basis point scenario.
The EVE at risk reported at December 31, 2013, shows that as interest rates increase (decrease) immediately, the economic value of equity position will decrease (increase).
When interest rates rise, fixed rate assets generally lose economic value; the longer the duration, the greater the value lost.
The opposite is true when interest rates fall.
Compared to recent periods, the EVE results for December 31, 2013, reflect the impact of additional mortgage-backed securities, which were added to increase the amount of highly liquid assets in our investment portfolio, and higher market rates.
MSR (This section should be read in conjunction with Note 6 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. )
At December 31, 2013 we had a total of $162.3 million of capitalized MSRs representing the right to service $15.2 billion in mortgage loans.
Of this $162.3 million, $34.2 million was recorded using the fair value method and $128.1 million was recorded using the amortization method.
Operating profit for the segment decreased by 1% in 2010 compared to 2009.
For the year, operating profit declines in Defense more than offset an increase in Civil, while operating profit at Intelligence essentially was unchanged.
The $27 million decrease in operating profit at Defense primarily was attributable to a decrease in the level of favorable performance adjustments on mission and combat systems activities in 2010.
The $19 million increase in Civil principally was due to higher volume on enterprise civilian services.
Operating profit for the segment decreased by 3% in 2009 compared to 2008.
Operating profit declines in Civil and Intelligence partially were offset by growth in Defense.
The decrease of $29 million in Civil’s operating profit primarily was attributable to a reduction in the level of favorable performance adjustments on enterprise civilian services programs in 2009 compared to 2008.
The decrease in operating profit of $27 million at Intelligence mainly was due to a reduction in the level of favorable performance adjustments on security solution activities in 2009 compared to 2008.
The increase in Defense’s operating profit of $29 million mainly was due to volume and improved performance in mission and combat systems.
The decrease in backlog during 2010 compared to 2009 mainly was due to higher sales volume on enterprise civilian service programs at Civil, including volume associated with the DRIS 2010 program, and mission and combat system programs at Defense.
Backlog decreased in 2009 compared to 2008 due to U. S.  Government’s exercise of the termination for convenience clause on the TSAT Mission Operations System (TMOS) contract at Defense, which resulted in a $1.6 billion reduction in orders.
This decline more than offset increased orders on enterprise civilian services programs at Civil.
We expect IS&GS will experience a low single digit percentage decrease in sales for 2011 as compared to 2010.
This decline primarily is due to completion of most of the work associated with the DRIS 2010 program.
Operating profit in 2011 is expected to decline in relationship to the decline in sales volume, while operating margins are expected to be comparable between the years.
Space Systems Our Space Systems business segment is engaged in the design, research and development, engineering, and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems, and space transportation systems, including activities related to the planned replacement of the Space Shuttle.
Government satellite programs include the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), the Global Positioning Satellite III (GPS III) system, the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R-Series (GOES-R).
Strategic and missile defense programs include the targets and countermeasures program and the fleet ballistic missile program.
Space transportation includes the NASA Orion program and, through ownership interests in two joint ventures, expendable launch services (United Launch Alliance, or ULA) and Space Shuttle processing activities for the U. S.  Government (United Space Alliance, or USA).
The Space Shuttle is expected to complete its final flight mission in 2011 and our involvement with its launch and processing activities will end at that time.
Space Systems’ operating results included the following:
## Table 3 ##
Net sales for Space Systems decreased by 5% in 2010 compared to 2009.
Sales declined in all three lines of business during the year.
The $253 million decrease in Space Transportation principally was due to lower volume on the space shuttle external tank, commercial launch vehicle activity and other human space flight programs, which partially were offset by higher volume on the Orion program.
There were no commercial launches in 2010 compared to one commercial launch in 2009.
Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems (S&DMS) sales declined $147 million principally due to lower volume on defensive missile programs.
The $8 million sales decline in Satellites primarily was attributable to lower volume on commercial satellites, which partially were offset by higher volume on government satellite activities.
There was one commercial satellite delivery in 2010 and one commercial satellite delivery in 2009.
Net sales for Space Systems increased 8% in 2009 compared to 2008.
During the year, sales growth at Satellites and Space Transportation offset a decline in S&DMS.
The sales growth of $707 million in Satellites was due to higher volume in government satellite activities, which partially was offset by lower volume in commercial satellite activities.
There was one commercial satellite delivery in 2009 and two deliveries in 2008.
The increase in sales of $21 million in Space Transportation primarily was due to higher volume on the Orion program, which more than offset a decline in the space shuttle’s external tank program.
There was one commercial launch in both 2009 and 2008.
S&DMS’ sales decreased by $102 million mainly due to lower volume on defensive missile programs, which more than offset growth in strategic missile programs.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Fourth Quarter</td><td colspan="2">Change</td></tr><tr><td><i>(dollar amounts in thousands)</i></td><td> 2012</td><td>2011</td><td>Amount</td><td>Percent</td></tr><tr><td>Personnel costs</td><td>$253,952</td><td>$228,101</td><td>$25,851</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Outside data processing and other services</td><td>48,699</td><td>53,934</td><td>-5,235</td><td>-10</td></tr><tr><td>Net occupancy</td><td>29,008</td><td>26,841</td><td>2,167</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Equipment</td><td>26,580</td><td>25,884</td><td>696</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Deposit and other insurance expense</td><td>16,327</td><td>18,481</td><td>-2,154</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>Professional services</td><td>22,514</td><td>16,257</td><td>6,257</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing</td><td>16,456</td><td>13,920</td><td>2,536</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of intangibles</td><td>11,647</td><td>13,175</td><td>-1,528</td><td>-12</td></tr><tr><td>OREO and foreclosure expense</td><td>4,233</td><td>5,009</td><td>-776</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>Loss (Gain) on early extinguishment of debt</td><td>—</td><td>-9,697</td><td>9,697</td><td>N.R.</td></tr><tr><td>Other expense</td><td>41,212</td><td>38,369</td><td>2,843</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td> Total noninterest expense</td><td>$470,628</td><td>$430,274</td><td>$40,354</td><td>9%</td></tr><tr><td>Full-time equivalent employees, at period-end</td><td>11,806</td><td>11,245</td><td>561</td><td>5%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Net Interest Income at Risk (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basis point change scenario</td><td>-25</td><td></td><td>+100</td><td>+200</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Board policy limits</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>-2.0%</td><td>-4.0%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> December 31, 2013</td><td> -0.4</td><td> %</td><td>0.2%</td><td> 0.0</td><td> %</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">Economic Value of Equity at Risk (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Basis point change scenario</td><td>-25</td><td>+100</td><td></td><td>+200</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Board policy limits</td><td>—</td><td>-5.0%</td><td></td><td>-12.0%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> December 31, 2013</td><td>0.6%</td><td> -3.9</td><td> %</td><td> -9.3</td><td> %</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>(In millions)</i></td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td><i>2008</i></td></tr><tr><td>Net sales</td><td>$8,246</td><td>$8,654</td><td>$8,027</td></tr><tr><td>Operating profit</td><td>972</td><td>972</td><td>953</td></tr><tr><td>Operating margin</td><td>11.8%</td><td>11.2%</td><td>11.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Backlog at year-end</td><td>17,800</td><td>16,800</td><td>17,900</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with the most equipment, what is the growth rate of marketing? (in %)
Answer: 0.18218
Reasoning program: subtract(16456,13920), divide(#0,13920)