CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
## Table 0 ##
Table of Contents The estimated amortization expense at September 26, 2015 for each of the five succeeding fiscal years was as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Goodwill In accordance with ASC 350, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (ASC 350), the Company tests goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level on an annual basis and between annual tests if events and circumstances indicate it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value.
Events that could indicate impairment and trigger an interim impairment assessment include, but are not limited to, current economic and market conditions, including a decline in market capitalization, a significant adverse change in legal factors, business climate, operational performance of the business or key personnel, and an adverse action or assessment by a regulator.
In performing the impairment test, the Company utilizes the two-step approach prescribed under ASC 350.
The first step requires a comparison of the carrying value of each reporting unit to its estimated fair value.
To estimate the fair value of its reporting units for Step 1, the Company primarily utilizes the income approach.
The income approach is based on a DCF analysis and calculates the fair value by estimating the after-tax cash flows attributable to a reporting unit and then discounting the after-tax cash flows to a present value using a risk-adjusted discount rate.
Assumptions used in the DCF require significant judgment, including judgment about appropriate discount rates and terminal values, growth rates, and the amount and timing of expected future cash flows.
The forecasted cash flows are based on the Company’s most recent budget and strategic plan and for years beyond this period, the Company’s estimates are based on assumed growth rates expected as of the measurement date.
The Company believes its assumptions are consistent with the plans and estimates used to manage the underlying businesses.
The discount rates used are intended to reflect the risks inherent in future cash flow projections and are based on estimates of the weighted-average cost of capital (“WACC”) of market participants relative to each respective reporting unit.
The market approach considers comparable market data based on multiples of revenue or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) and is primarily used as a corroborative analysis to the results of the DCF analysis.
The Company believes its assumptions used to determine the fair value of its reporting units are reasonable.
If different assumptions were used, particularly with respect to forecasted cash flows, terminal values, WACCs, or market multiples, different estimates of fair value may result and there could be the potential that an impairment charge could result.
Actual operating results and the related cash flows of the reporting units could differ from the estimated operating results and related cash flows.
If the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its estimated fair value, the Company is required to perform the second step of the goodwill impairment test to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any.
The second step of the goodwill impairment test compares the implied fair value of a reporting unit’s goodwill to its carrying value.
The implied fair value of goodwill is derived by performing a hypothetical purchase price allocation for each reporting unit as of the measurement date and allocating the reporting unit’s estimated fair value to its assets and liabilities.
The residual amount from performing this allocation represents the implied fair value of goodwill.
To the extent this amount is below the carrying value of goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded.
The Company conducted its fiscal 2015 impairment test on the first day of the fourth quarter, and as noted above used DCF and market approaches to estimate the fair value of its reporting units as of June 28, 2015, and ultimately used the fair value determined by the DCF approach in making its impairment test conclusions.
The Company believes it used reasonable estimates and assumptions about future revenue, cost projections, cash flows, market multiples and discount rates as of the measurement date.
As a result of completing Step 1, all of the Company's reporting units had fair values exceeding their carrying values, and as such, Step 2 of the impairment test was not required.
For illustrative purposes, had the fair value of each of the reporting units that passed Step 1 been lower than 10%, all of the reporting units would still have passed Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test.
At September 26, 2015, the Company believes that each reporting unit, with goodwill aggregating 2.81 billion, was not at risk of failing Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test based on the current forecasts.
The Company conducted its fiscal 2014 annual impairment test on the first day of the fourth quarter, and as noted above used DCF and market approaches to estimate the fair value of its reporting units as of June 29, 2014, and ultimately used the fair value determined by the DCF approach in making its impairment test conclusions.
The Company believes it used reasonable estimates and assumptions about future revenue, cost projections, cash flows, market multiples and discount rates as
2017 and 1% higher than in 2016.
Comparing 2018 with 2017, benefits from higher average sales price realizations, net of mix ($309 million), were partially offset by lower sales volumes ($17 million), higher input costs ($141 million), higher planned maintenance downtime costs ($25 million) and higher operating costs ($42 million).
## Table 2 ##
lower than in 2017, primarily due to lower sales to export markets.
Average sales margins improved due to sales price increases for both cutsize paper and rolls, net of an unfavorable mix.
Input costs were higher for wood and chemicals.
Planned maintenance downtime costs were $1 million higher in 2018.
Operating costs were higher primarily due to inflation and distribution costs, and included $5 million, net of insurance recoveries, related to Hurricane Florence.
Entering the first quarter of 2019, sales volumes are expected to be lower due to capacity constraints resulting from planned maintenance outages.
Average sales margins should be steady, reflecting the full-quarter impact of late-2018 sales price increases.
Operating costs are expected to be higher due to seasonality and inflation.
Input costs should be higher, primarily for wood and chemicals.
Planned maintenance downtime costs will increase by about $3 million in the 2019 first quarter.
## Table 3 ##
(a) Includes intra-segment sales of $13 million for 2018, $24 million for 2017 and $5 million for 2016.
Brazilian Papers' sales volumes for uncoated freesheet paper in 2018, were lower compared with 2017 in both the domestic and export markets.
Average domestic and export sales prices were higher due to the realization of multiple price increases implemented in 2018.
Raw material costs increased for pulp, chemicals and energy.
Operating costs were negatively impacted by inflation and a nationwide truckers' strike in the second quarter.
Planned maintenance downtime costs were $4 million higher in 2018.
Looking ahead to 2019, compared with the fourth quarter of 2018, sales volumes for uncoated freesheet paper in the first quarter are expected to be seasonally weaker in the domestic market.
Average sales margins are expected to decrease as price pressures in the Latin American export markets and an unfavorable mix more than offset the partial realization of announced domestic sales price increases.
Input costs are expected to be stable.
Maintenance outage costs should be flat due to no outages in the fourth quarter and no planned outages in the first quarter.
## Table 4 ##
European Papers' sales volumes for uncoated freesheet paper in 2018 were higher in Russia, but lower in Europe compared with 2017.
Average sales prices increased for uncoated freesheet paper in both regions following price increases implemented in late 2017, and throughout 2018.
Input costs were higher for wood, energy, purchased pulp and chemicals.
Planned maintenance downtime costs were $20 million higher in 2018, than in 2017, primarily at the Saillat mill.
Entering 2019, sales volumes for uncoated freesheet paper in the first quarter are expected to increase in Europe, but decrease in Russia.
Average sales prices are expected to be higher in Europe due to the continued realization of a fourth-quarter 2018 price increase, and higher in Russia.
Input costs should be lower in Europe, mainly for wood and energy, but higher in Russia, primarily for wood and chemicals.
Maintenance outage costs should be flat due to no outages in the fourth quarter and no planned outages in the first quarter.
Indian Papers' sales volumes in 2018 were higher than in 2017 due to improved paper machine productivity.
Average sales prices also increased.
Input costs were higher for chemicals and recycled fiber, but were partially offset by lower wood costs.
Operating costs were lower in 2018, reflecting improved mill performance efficiencies, while planned maintenance downtime costs were flat compared with 2017.
Looking ahead to the first quarter of 2019, sales volumes are expected to be slightly higher than in the 2018 fourth quarter.
Based on pricing to date in the current quarter, average sales prices are expected to be stable.
Equity Earnings, Net of Taxes – Ilim International Paper accounts for its investment in Ilim , a separate reportable industry segment, using the equity method of accounting.
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (CONTINUED) 83 Dividends Dividends per share paid to shareholders were $4.55, $4.30 and $3.90 during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
Share Repurchase Program On July 25, 2017, our Board of Directors authorized an additional share repurchase program of up to $2 billion.
For the year ended December 31, 2018, we repurchased 7,456,038 shares at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $1.2 billion under this program.
At December 31, 2018, there were approximately $800 million in remaining funds authorized under this program.
Share repurchases are made from time to time on the open market as conditions warrant.
These programs do not obligate us to repurchase any of our shares and they have no expiration date.
Retained Earnings The increase to beginning retained earnings in 2018 of $72 million was a result of the adoption of the following accounting standards: ASU 2016-16 ($56 million), ASU 2016-01 ($17 million) and ASU 2014-09 ($0.4 million).
For additional information regarding the adoption of these accounting standards, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
(12) SHARE-BASED INCENTIVE PLANS We sponsor several share-based employee incentive plans.
Share-based compensation expense for grants awarded under these plans was $51 million, $48 million and $39 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.
Related income tax benefits recognized in earnings were $9 million, $16 million and $14 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.
At December 31, 2018, unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock option and stock unit awards totaled $54 million.
The cost of these non-vested awards is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average remaining vesting period of 23 months.
Share-Based Employee Incentive Plans On April 17, 2018, our stockholders approved the 2018 Omnibus Stock and Incentive Plan ("2018 OSIP").
This plan was adopted by our Board of Directors on February 20, 2018 and provides for the issuance of stock options, performance stock units, performance shares, restricted stock and restricted stock units.
No new awards may be granted under the 2018 OSIP after the tenth anniversary of the date that the stockholders approved the plan.
However, the term and exercise of awards granted before then may extend beyond that date.
At December 31, 2018, approximately 6.7 million shares remain available for issuance under the 2018 OSIP.
Stock Options Eligible employees may receive stock options as a portion of their total compensation.
Such options generally become exercisable over a 3-year period, expire 10 years from the date of grant and are subject to forfeiture upon termination of employment, other than by death, disability or retirement.
We use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to measure the fair value of stock options granted to employees.
Granted options have exercise prices equal to the market price of Whirlpool common stock on the grant date.
The principal assumptions used in valuing options include: (1) risk-free interest rate - an estimate based on the yield of United States zero coupon securities with a maturity equal to the expected life of the option; (2) expected volatility - an estimate based on the historical volatility of Whirlpool common stock for a period equal to the expected life of the option; and (3) expected option life - an estimate based on historical experience.
Stock options are expensed on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures.
Based on the results of the model, the weighted-average grant date fair value of stock options granted for 2018, 2017, and 2016 were $38.34, $44.01 and $31.21, respectively, using the following assumptions:

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">As of and for the Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(dollars in millions)</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Charge-offs:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>-$62</td><td>-$56</td><td>-$30</td><td>-$31</td><td>-$72</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>-13</td><td>-14</td><td>-6</td><td>-12</td><td>-36</td></tr><tr><td>Leases</td><td>—</td><td>-9</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial loans and leases</td><td>-75</td><td>-79</td><td>-36</td><td>-43</td><td>-108</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>-11</td><td>-21</td><td>-22</td><td>-36</td><td>-54</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans</td><td>-11</td><td>-16</td><td>-34</td><td>-55</td><td>-77</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit</td><td>-34</td><td>-43</td><td>-59</td><td>-80</td><td>-102</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans serviced by others</td><td>-15</td><td>-38</td><td>-32</td><td>-55</td><td>-119</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit serviced by others</td><td>-5</td><td>-12</td><td>-14</td><td>-12</td><td>-27</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>-181</td><td>-160</td><td>-117</td><td>-41</td><td>-19</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>-59</td><td>-52</td><td>-51</td><td>-54</td><td>-74</td></tr><tr><td>Credit cards</td><td>-61</td><td>-58</td><td>-59</td><td>-64</td><td>-68</td></tr><tr><td>Other retail</td><td>-60</td><td>-57</td><td>-56</td><td>-53</td><td>-55</td></tr><tr><td>Total retail loans</td><td>-437</td><td>-457</td><td>-444</td><td>-450</td><td>-595</td></tr><tr><td>Total gross charge-offs</td><td>-$512</td><td>-$536</td><td>-$480</td><td>-$493</td><td>-$703</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Recoveries:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>$37</td><td>$21</td><td>$18</td><td>$35</td><td>$46</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>3</td><td>12</td><td>31</td><td>23</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Leases</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial loans and leases</td><td>40</td><td>33</td><td>49</td><td>58</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans</td><td>13</td><td>18</td><td>11</td><td>24</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit</td><td>16</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>15</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans serviced by others</td><td>18</td><td>19</td><td>17</td><td>21</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit serviced by others</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>73</td><td>65</td><td>49</td><td>20</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Credit cards</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Other retail</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total retail loans</td><td>167</td><td>168</td><td>147</td><td>112</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Total gross recoveries</td><td>$207</td><td>$201</td><td>$196</td><td>$170</td><td>$202</td></tr><tr><td>Net (Charge-offs)/Recoveries:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial</td><td>-$25</td><td>-$35</td><td>-$12</td><td>$4</td><td>-$26</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>-10</td><td>-2</td><td>25</td><td>11</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Leases</td><td>—</td><td>-9</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial loans and leases</td><td>-35</td><td>-46</td><td>13</td><td>15</td><td>-21</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgages</td><td>-5</td><td>-12</td><td>-10</td><td>-25</td><td>-44</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>-23</td><td>-31</td><td>-51</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit</td><td>-18</td><td>-25</td><td>-41</td><td>-65</td><td>-83</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity loans serviced by others</td><td>3</td><td>-19</td><td>-15</td><td>-34</td><td>-96</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity lines of credit serviced by others</td><td>2</td><td>-6</td><td>-6</td><td>-7</td><td>-22</td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>-108</td><td>-95</td><td>-68</td><td>-21</td><td>-7</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>-44</td><td>-41</td><td>-39</td><td>-45</td><td>-61</td></tr><tr><td>Credit cards</td><td>-54</td><td>-50</td><td>-51</td><td>-57</td><td>-61</td></tr><tr><td>Other retail</td><td>-48</td><td>-43</td><td>-44</td><td>-53</td><td>-55</td></tr><tr><td>Total retail loans</td><td>-270</td><td>-289</td><td>-297</td><td>-338</td><td>-480</td></tr><tr><td>Total net (charge-offs)/recoveries</td><td>-$305</td><td>-$335</td><td>-$284</td><td>-$323</td><td>-$501</td></tr><tr><td>Ratio of net charge-offs to average loans and leases</td><td>-0.28%</td><td>-0.32%</td><td>-0.30%</td><td>-0.36%</td><td>-0.59%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Fiscal 2016</td><td>$377.0</td></tr><tr><td>Fiscal 2017</td><td>$365.6</td></tr><tr><td>Fiscal 2018</td><td>$355.1</td></tr><tr><td>Fiscal 2019</td><td>$343.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fiscal 2020</td><td>$332.3</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Net Sales</td><td>$1,956</td><td>$1,833</td><td>$1,890</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit (Loss)</td><td>$160</td><td>$132</td><td>$236</td></tr><tr><td>Riverdale mill conversion</td><td>9</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Abandoned property removal</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit Before Special Items</td><td>$170</td><td>$134</td><td>$236</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Net Sales (a)</td><td>$978</td><td>$972</td><td>$897</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit (Loss)</td><td>$227</td><td>$194</td><td>$173</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In millions</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Net Sales</td><td>$1,252</td><td>$1,187</td><td>$1,109</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit (Loss)</td><td>$129</td><td>$136</td><td>$142</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the average of the Net Sales (a) in the years where Net Sales is positive? (in million)
Answer: 2847
Reasoning program: add(978,972), add(#0,897)