THE AES CORPORATION NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued) DECEMBER 31, 2017, 2016, AND 2015 156 The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits anticipated to result in a net decrease to unrecognized tax benefits within 12 months of December 31, 2017 is estimated to be between $5 million and $15 million, primarily relating to statute of limitation lapses and tax exam settlements.
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, 2017.
Our effective tax rate and net income in any given future period could therefore be materially impacted.21.
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS Due to a portfolio evaluation in the first half of 2016, management decided to pursue a strategic shift of its distribution companies in Brazil, Sul and Eletropaulo, to reduce the Company's exposure to the Brazilian distribution market.
Eletropaulo — In November 2017, Eletropaulo converted its preferred shares into ordinary shares and transitioned the listing of those shares into the Novo Mercado, which is a listing segment of the Brazilian stock exchange with the highest standards of corporate governance.
Upon conversion of the preferred shares into ordinary shares, AES no longer controlled Eletropaulo, but maintained significant influence over the business.
As a result, the Company deconsolidated Eletropaulo.
After deconsolidation, the Company's 17% ownership interest is reflected as an equity method investment.
The Company recorded an after-tax loss on deconsolidation of $611 million, which primarily consisted of $455 million related to cumulative translation losses and $243 million related to pension losses reclassified from AOCL.
In December 2017, all the remaining criteria were met for Eletropaulo to qualify as a discontinued operation.
Therefore, its results of operations and financial position were reported as such in the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented.
Eletropaulo's pre-tax loss attributable to AES, including the loss on deconsolidation, for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 was $633 million and $192 million, respectively.
Eletropaulo's pre-tax income attributable to AES for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $73 million.
Prior to its classification as discontinued operations, Eletropaulo was reported in the Brazil SBU reportable segment.
Sul — The Company executed an agreement for the sale of Sul, a wholly-owned subsidiary, in June 2016.
The results of operations and financial position of Sul are reported 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 pre-tax 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 Sul.
Prior to the impairment charge, the carrying value of the 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 Sul disposal group.
On October 31, 2016, the Company completed the sale of Sul and received final proceeds less costs to sell of $484 million, excluding contingent consideration.
Upon disposal of Sul, the Company incurred an additional after-tax
Amortization of acquired intangibles: Pro forma adjustment to increase noninterest expense by $28 million and $44 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, to record estimated amortization of acquired intangible assets.
Huntington merger-related costs: Pro forma results include Huntington merger-related costs which primarily included, but were not limited to, severance costs, professional services, data processing fees, marketing and advertising expenses totaling $281 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Other adjustments: Pro forma results also include adjustments related to branch divestitures, incremental interest expense on the issuance on acquisition debt, elimination of FirstMerit's intangible amortization expense, FirstMerit merger-related costs, and related income-tax effects.
Branch divestiture: On December 5, 2016, Huntington completed the previously announced sale of 13 acquired branches and certain related assets and deposit liabilities to First Commonwealth Bank, the banking subsidiary of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation.
The sale was in connection with an agreement reached with the U. S.  Department of Justice in order to resolve its competitive concerns about Huntington’s acquisition of FirstMerit.
Total deposits and loans transferred to First Commonwealth Bank in the transaction totaled $620 million and $106 million, respectively.4.
LOANS / LEASES AND ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES Except for loans which are accounted for at fair value, loans are carried at the principal amount outstanding, net of unamortized premiums and discounts, deferred loan fees and costs and purchase accounting adjustments, which resulted in a net premium of $120 million and $262 million, at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Loans and leases with a fair value of $15 billion were acquired by Huntington as part of the FirstMerit acquisition.
The fair values of the loans were estimated using discounted cash flow analyses using interest rates currently being offered for loans with similar terms (Level 3).
Of the total acquired loans and leases, Huntington has elected the fair value option for $56 million of consumer loans.
These loans will subsequently be measured at fair value with any changes in fair value recognized in noninterest income in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Direct Financing Leases Huntington’s loan and lease portfolio includes lease financing receivables consisting of direct financing leases on equipment, which are included in C&I loans.
Net investments in lease financing receivables by category at December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:
## Table 1 ##
The future lease rental payments due from customers on direct financing leases at December 31, 2016, totaled $1.9 billion and therefore were as follows: $0.6 billion in 2017, $0.5 billion in 2018, $0.3 billion in 2019, $0.2 billion in 2020, $0.1 billion in 2021, and $0.2 billion thereafter.
Purchased Credit-Impaired Loans The following table reflects the contractually required payments receivable, cash flows expected to be collected, and fair value of the credit impaired FirstMerit loans at acquisition date:
Table 10 - Loan and Lease Portfolio by Collateral Type (dollar amounts in millions)
## Table 2 ##
Commercial Credit The primary factors considered in commercial credit approvals are the financial strength of the borrower, assessment of the borrower’s management capabilities, cash flows from operations, industry sector trends, type and sufficiency of collateral, type of exposure, transaction structure, and the general economic outlook.
While these are the primary factors considered, there are a number of other factors that may be considered in the decision process.
We utilize a centralized preview and senior loan approval committee, led by our chief credit officer.
The risk rating (see next paragraph), size, and complexity of the credit determines the threshold for approval of the senior loan committee with a minimum credit exposure of $10.0 million.
For loans not requiring senior loan committee approval, with the exception of small business loans, credit officers who understand each local region and are experienced in the industries and loan structures of the requested credit exposure are involved in all loan decisions and have the primary credit authority.
For small business loans, we utilize a centralized loan approval process for standard products and structures.
In this centralized decision environment, certain individuals who understand each local region may make credit-extension decisions to preserve our commitment to the communities in which we operate.
In addition to disciplined and consistent judgmental factors, a sophisticated credit scoring process is used as a primary evaluation tool in the determination of approving a loan within the centralized loan approval process.
In commercial lending, on-going credit management is dependent on the type and nature of the loan.
We monitor all significant exposures on an on-going basis.
All commercial credit extensions are assigned internal risk ratings reflecting the borrower’s PD and LGD.
This two-dimensional rating methodology provides granularity in the portfolio management process.
The PD is rated and applied at the borrower level.
The LGD is rated and applied based on the specific type of credit extension and the quality and lien position associated with the underlying collateral.
The internal risk ratings are assessed at origination and updated at each periodic monitoring event.
There is also extensive macro portfolio management analysis on an on-going basis.
We continually review and adjust our risk-rating criteria based on actual experience, which provides us with the current risk level in the portfolio and is the basis for determining an appropriate allowance for credit losses (ACL) amount for the commercial portfolio.
A centralized portfolio management team monitors and reports on the performance of the entire commercial portfolio, including small business loans, to provide consistent oversight.
In addition to the initial credit analysis conducted during the approval process, our Credit Review group performs testing to provide an independent review and assessment of the quality and risk of new loan originations.
This group is part of our Risk Management area and conducts portfolio reviews on a risk-based cycle to evaluate individual loans, validate risk ratings, and test the consistency of credit processes.
Our standardized loan grading system considers many components that directly correlate to loan quality and likelihood of repayment, one of which is guarantor support.
On an annual basis, or more frequently if warranted, we consider, among other things, the guarantor’s reputation and creditworthiness, along with various key financial metrics such as liquidity and net worth, assuming such information is available.
Our assessment of the guarantor’s credit strength, or lack thereof, is reflected in our risk ratings for such loans, which is directly tied to, and an integral component of, our ACL methodology.
When a loan goes to impaired status, viable guarantor support is considered in the determination of a credit loss.
Table 31 - Contractual Obligations (1) (dollar amounts in millions)

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>December 31,</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at January 1</td><td>$352</td><td>$364</td><td>$384</td></tr><tr><td>Additions for current year tax positions</td><td>—</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Additions for tax positions of prior years</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Reductions for tax positions of prior years</td><td>-5</td><td>-1</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of foreign currency translation</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Settlements</td><td>—</td><td>-13</td><td>-17</td></tr><tr><td>Lapse of statute of limitations</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31</td><td>$348</td><td>$352</td><td>$364</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(dollar amounts in thousands)</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial and industrial:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lease payments receivable</td><td>$1,881,596</td><td>$1,551,885</td></tr><tr><td>Estimated residual value of leased assets</td><td>797,611</td><td>711,181</td></tr><tr><td>Gross investment in commercial lease financing receivables</td><td>2,679,207</td><td>2,263,066</td></tr><tr><td>Net deferred origination costs</td><td>12,683</td><td>7,068</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred fees</td><td>-253,423</td><td>-208,669</td></tr><tr><td>Total net investment in commercial lease financing receivables</td><td>$2,438,467</td><td>$2,061,465</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="10">At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2016</td><td colspan="2">2015</td><td colspan="2">2014</td><td colspan="2">2013</td><td colspan="2">2012</td></tr><tr><td>Secured loans:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Real estate—commercial</td><td>$11,729</td><td>18%</td><td>$8,296</td><td>16%</td><td>$8,631</td><td>18%</td><td>$8,622</td><td>20%</td><td>$9,128</td><td>22%</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate—consumer</td><td>17,831</td><td>27</td><td>14,469</td><td>29</td><td>14,322</td><td>30</td><td>13,657</td><td>32</td><td>13,305</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Vehicles, RV and marine</td><td>15,934</td><td>24</td><td>11,880</td><td>24</td><td>10,932</td><td>23</td><td>8,989</td><td>21</td><td>6,659</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables/Inventory</td><td>6,277</td><td>9</td><td>5,961</td><td>12</td><td>5,968</td><td>13</td><td>5,534</td><td>13</td><td>5,178</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Machinery/Equipment</td><td>9,465</td><td>14</td><td>5,171</td><td>10</td><td>3,863</td><td>8</td><td>2,738</td><td>6</td><td>2,749</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Securities/Deposits</td><td>1,305</td><td>2</td><td>974</td><td>2</td><td>964</td><td>2</td><td>786</td><td>2</td><td>826</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1,154</td><td>1</td><td>987</td><td>2</td><td>919</td><td>2</td><td>1,016</td><td>2</td><td>1,090</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total secured loans and leases</td><td>63,695</td><td>95</td><td>47,738</td><td>95</td><td>45,599</td><td>96</td><td>41,342</td><td>96</td><td>38,935</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Unsecured loans and leases</td><td>3,267</td><td>5</td><td>2,603</td><td>5</td><td>2,057</td><td>4</td><td>1,778</td><td>4</td><td>1,793</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans and leases</td><td>$66,962</td><td>100%</td><td>$50,341</td><td>100%</td><td>$47,656</td><td>100%</td><td>$43,120</td><td>100%</td><td>$40,728</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>

Question: what percent of the after-tax loss on deconsolidation hit ordinary income?
Answer: 0.39771
Reasoning program: divide(243,611)