Other Matters The Company recorded a curtailment gain in 2003 as a result of freezing the ongoing contributions to its Cash Balance Pension Plan effective December 31, 2003.
The gain totaled $22.5 million ($14.6 million after tax, or $0.05 per share) and represents the unrecognized benefits associated with prior plan amendments were being amortized into income over the remaining service period of participating associates prior to freezing the plan.
The Company will continue recording pension expense related to this plan, representing interest costs on the accumulated benefit obligation and amortization of actuarial losses.
Due to declines in the equity markets in 2001 and 2002, the fair value of the Company’s pension fund assets has decreased below the accumulated benefit obligation due to the participants in the plan.
After recording a minimum pension liability adjustment of $76.9 million (net of tax benefit of $39.6 million) at December 31, 2002, the Company increased the minimum pension liability to $114.1 million (net of tax benefit of $59.6 million) at December 31, 2003 as a result of changes in actuarial assumptions, including the impact of the plan curtailment noted above.
The Company reduced the minimum pension liability to $107.2 million (net of tax benefit of $55.9 million) at December 31, 2004 as a result of change in actuarial assumptions and plan asset performance.
Substantially all employees not covered by defined benefit plans are covered by defined contribution plans, which generally provide funding based on a percentage of compensation.
Pension expense for all plans, including the $22.5 million gain on curtailment in 2003, amounted to $63.0 million $22.9 million, and $45.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
In addition to the plans discussed above, the Company maintains several smaller defined benefit plans in countries outside the United States.
Select information regarding the significant plans is as follows (in millions):
## Table 0 ##
In May 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Staff Position No.106-2 (“FSP 106-2”), “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” (the “Act”).
The Act introduces a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (“Medicare Part D”) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of post-retirement health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.  FSP 106-2 supersedes FSP 106-1, “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003”, which was issued in January 2004 and permitted a sponsor of a post-retirement health care plan that provides a prescription drug benefit to make a one-time election to defer accounting for the effects of the Act until more authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy was issued.
The Company elected the one-time deferral allowed under FSP 106-1.
FSP 106-2 provides authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy and specifies the disclosure requirements for employers who have adopted FSP 106-2, including those who are unable to determine whether benefits provided under its plan are actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.  FSP 106-2 was effective for the Company’s third quarter of 2004.
Based on available information, the Company has formed a conclusion that its retiree medical plans provide benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.  As a result, the accrued post-retirement benefit obligation was reduced by approximately $12 million and reduced the annual net periodic benefit cost was reduced by approximately $1 million.
The reduction in the accrued benefits obligation has been included in “amendments and other” in the above reconciliation of the funded status of the plan.
Detailed final regulations necessary to implement the Act have not been issued, including those that would specify the manner in which actuarial equivalency must be determined, the evidence required to demonstrate actuarial equivalency, and the documentation requirements necessary to be entitled to the subsidy.
Since final regulations have not been issued, the Company’s benefit recorded may change in future periods.
(9) Leases and Commitments: The Company’s leases extend for varying periods of time up to 10 years and, in some cases, contain renewal options.
Future minimum rental payments for all operating leases having initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year are $58 million in 2005, $46 million in 2006, $37 million in 2007, $28 million in 2008, $24 million in 2009 and $59 million thereafter.
Total rent expense charged to income for all operating leases was $62 million, $56 million and $56 million, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively
Operating Revenues and Net Revenues The main categories of revenues, and the dollar and percentage change between the periods, are as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Net revenues are operating revenues less third-party distribution, service and advisory expenses, plus our proportional share of net revenues from joint venture arrangements, plus management and performance fees earned from, less other revenues recorded by, CIP, plus other reconciling items.
See “Schedule of Non-GAAP Information” for additional important disclosures regarding the use of net revenues.
Operating revenues increased by 10.8% in the year ended December 31, 2014 to $5,147.1 million (year ended December 31, 2013 : $4,644.6 million ).
Net revenues increased by 11.0% in the year ended December 31, 2014 to $3,608.3 million (year ended December 31, 2013 : $3,252.0 million ).
Operating revenues increased by 14.7% in the year ended December 31, 2013 to $ 4,644.6 million (year ended December 31, 2012 : $ 4,050.4 million ).
Net revenues increased by 14.7% in the year ended December 31, 2013 to $3,252.0 million (year ended December 31, 2012 : $2,836.0 million ).
A significant portion of our business and AUM is based outside of the U. S.  The strengthening or weakening of the U. S.  Dollar against other currencies, primarily the Pound Sterling, Canadian Dollar, Euro and Japanese Yen will impact our reported revenues and expenses from period to period.
The income statements of foreign currency subsidiaries are translated into U. S.  Dollars, the reporting currency of the company, using average foreign exchange rates.
As noted in the AUM discussion, a significant amount of our AUM by client are domiciled in the U. K. , and while the Pound Sterling's rate relative to the U. S.  Dollar weakened during 2014, the average rate during 2014 was stronger than the average rate during 2013 resulting in a positive effect when translating our U. K.  revenue into U. S.  Dollars when compared to 2013.
The impact of foreign exchange rate movements increased operating revenues by $29.2 million , equivalent to 0.6% of total operating revenues, during the year ended December 31, 2014 when compared to the year ended December 31, 2013 ($47.4 million decrease in 2013 as compared to 2012 , or 1% of 2013 total operating revenues).
Additionally, our revenues are directly influenced by the level and composition of our AUM.
Therefore, movements in global capital market levels, net new business inflows (or outflows) and changes in the mix of investment products between asset classes and geographies may materially affect our revenues from period to period.
Market movements are discussed in the "Executive Overview" section of this Management's Discussion and Analysis.
During 2014 market value increases, combined with net new business inflows, contributed to a 8.9% increase in average AUM when compared to 2013 .
OTHER OPERATING/PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL STATISTICS We report key Railroad performance measures weekly to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), including carloads, average daily inventory of rail cars on our system, average train speed, and average terminal dwell time.
We provide this data on our website at www.
up.
com/investors/reports/index.
shtml.
Operating/Performance Statistics Included in the table below are Railroad performance measures reported to the AAR:
## Table 2 ##
Average Train Speed – Average train speed is calculated by dividing train miles by hours operated on our main lines between terminals.
Ongoing network management initiatives, productivity improvements, and lower volume levels contributed to 8% and 2% improvements in average train speed in 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Average Terminal Dwell Time – Average terminal dwell time is the average time that a rail car spends at our terminals.
Lower average terminal dwell time improves asset utilization and service.
Average terminal dwell time improved 1% and 8% in 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Lower volumes combined with initiatives to more timely deliver rail cars to our interchange partners and customers improved dwell time in both periods.
Gross and Revenue Ton-Miles – Gross ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the weight of loaded and empty freight cars by the number of miles hauled.
Revenue ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the weight of freight by the number of tariff miles.
Gross ton-miles decreased 3%, while revenue ton-miles were flat in 2008 compared to 2007 with commodity mix changes (notably autos and coal) explaining the variance in year over year growth between the two metrics.
In 2007, revenue ton-miles declined 1% in relation to the 1% reduction in carloadings compared to 2006.
Gross ton-miles decreased 2% in 2007 driven by a mix shift in freight shipments.
Operating Ratio – Operating ratio is defined as our operating expenses as a percentage of operating revenue.
Our operating ratios improved 2.0 points to 77.3% in 2008 and 2.2 points to 79.3% in 2007.
Price increases, fuel cost recoveries, network management initiatives, and improved productivity more than offset the impact of higher fuel prices.
Employees – Productivity initiatives and lower volumes reduced employee levels throughout the Company in 2008 versus 2007.
Fewer train and engine personnel due to improved network productivity and 5% lower volume drove the change while productivity initiatives within the support organizations also contributed to a lower full-time equivalent force level.
Lower employee levels in 2007 versus 2006

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td>Service cost</td><td>$2.0</td><td>$2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost</td><td>5.0</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$7.0</td><td>$6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Benefits paid</td><td>$5.4</td><td>$2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulated plan benefit obligation</td><td>$96.4</td><td>$71.5</td></tr><tr><td>Assets available for benefits</td><td>48.4</td><td>39.4</td></tr><tr><td>Funded status</td><td>$-48.0</td><td>$-32.1</td></tr><tr><td>Actuarial (gains) losses and other</td><td>$-1.5</td><td>$0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Prepaid (accrued) benefit cost</td><td>$-49.5</td><td>$-31.7</td></tr><tr><td>Discount rate</td><td>5.5%</td><td>5.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Rate of compensation increase</td><td>2.9%</td><td>3.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="4">Variance</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years ended December 31,</td><td colspan="2">2014 vs 2013</td><td colspan="2">2013 vs 2012</td></tr><tr><td>$ in millions</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>$ Change</td><td>% Change</td><td>$ Change</td><td>% Change</td></tr><tr><td>Investment management fees</td><td>4,054.1</td><td>3,599.6</td><td>3,127.8</td><td>454.5</td><td>12.6%</td><td>471.8</td><td>15.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Service and distribution fees</td><td>893.1</td><td>872.8</td><td>771.6</td><td>20.3</td><td>2.3%</td><td>101.2</td><td>13.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Performance fees</td><td>61.1</td><td>55.9</td><td>41.4</td><td>5.2</td><td>9.3%</td><td>14.5</td><td>35.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>138.8</td><td>116.3</td><td>109.6</td><td>22.5</td><td>19.3%</td><td>6.7</td><td>6.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Total operating revenues</td><td>5,147.1</td><td>4,644.6</td><td>4,050.4</td><td>502.5</td><td>10.8%</td><td>594.2</td><td>14.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Third-party distribution, service and advisory expenses</td><td>-1,630.7</td><td>-1,489.2</td><td>-1,308.2</td><td>-141.5</td><td>9.5%</td><td>-181.0</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Proportional share of revenues, net of third-party distribution expenses, from joint venture investments</td><td>56.7</td><td>51.7</td><td>37.5</td><td>5.0</td><td>9.7%</td><td>14.2</td><td>37.9%</td></tr><tr><td>CIP</td><td>35.2</td><td>37.9</td><td>41.0</td><td>-2.7</td><td>-7.1%</td><td>-3.1</td><td>-7.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Other reconciling items</td><td>—</td><td>7.0</td><td>15.3</td><td>-7.0</td><td>-100.0%</td><td>-8.3</td><td>-54.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Net revenues*</td><td>3,608.3</td><td>3,252.0</td><td>2,836.0</td><td>356.3</td><td>11.0%</td><td>416.0</td><td>14.7%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td><i>2008</i></td><td><i>2007</i></td><td><i>2006</i></td><td><i>% Change 2008 v 2007</i></td><td><i>% Change 2007 v 2006</i></td></tr><tr><td>Average train speed (miles per hour)</td><td>23.5</td><td>21.8</td><td>21.4</td><td>8 %</td><td>2 %</td></tr><tr><td>Average terminal dwell time (hours)</td><td>24.9</td><td>25.1</td><td>27.2</td><td>-1%</td><td>-8%</td></tr><tr><td>Average rail car inventory (thousands)</td><td>300.7</td><td>309.9</td><td>321.6</td><td>-3%</td><td>-4%</td></tr><tr><td>Gross ton-miles (billions)</td><td>1,020.4</td><td>1,052.3</td><td>1,072.5</td><td>-3%</td><td>-2%</td></tr><tr><td>Revenue ton-miles (billions)</td><td>562.6</td><td>561.8</td><td>565.2</td><td>-</td><td>-1%</td></tr><tr><td>Operating ratio</td><td>77.3</td><td>79.3</td><td>81.5</td><td>2.0 pt</td><td>2.2 pt</td></tr><tr><td>Employees (average)</td><td>48,242</td><td>50,089</td><td>50,739</td><td>-4%</td><td>-1%</td></tr><tr><td>Customer satisfaction index</td><td>83</td><td>79</td><td>72</td><td>4 pt</td><td>7 pt</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the ratio of Service and distribution fees to Total operating revenues in 2012?
Answer: 0.1905
Reasoning program: divide(771.6,4050.4)