Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries Notes to Financial Statements The FERC proceedings that resulted from rate filings made in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been resolved by various orders issued by the FERC and appellate courts.
See below for a discussion of rate filings since 2009 and the comprehensive recalculation filing directed by the FERC in the proceeding related to the 2010 rate filing.2010 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2009 Production Costs In May 2010, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2010 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding, and supplemented the filing in September 2010.
Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC and the City Council, which also filed protests.
In July 2010 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2010, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for hearing and settlement procedures.
Settlement procedures have been terminated, and the ALJ scheduled hearings to begin in March 2011.
Subsequently, in January 2011 the ALJ issued an order directing the parties and FERC Staff to show cause why this proceeding should not be stayed pending the issuance of FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.
In March 2011 the ALJ issued an order placing this proceeding in abeyance.
In October 2013 the FERC issued an order granting clarification and denying rehearing with respect to its October 2011 rehearing order in this proceeding.
The FERC clarified that in a bandwidth proceeding parties can challenge erroneous inputs, implementation errors, or prudence of cost inputs, but challenges to the bandwidth formula itself must be raised in a Federal Power Act section 206 complaint or section 205 filing.
Subsequently in October 2013 the presiding ALJ lifted the stay order holding in abeyance the hearing previously ordered by the FERC and directing that the remaining issues proceed to a hearing on the merits.
The hearing was held in March 2014 and the presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in September 2014.
Briefs on exception were filed in October 2014.
In December 2015 the FERC issued an order affirming the initial decision in part and rejecting the initial decision in part.
Among other things, the December 2015 order directs Entergy Services to submit a compliance filing, the results of which may affect the rough production cost equalization filings made for the June - December 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 test periods.
In January 2016 the LPSC, the APSC, and Entergy Services filed requests for rehearing of the FERC’s December 2015 order.
In February 2016, Entergy Services submitted the compliance filing ordered in the December 2015 order.
The result of the true-up payments and receipts for the recalculation of production costs resulted in the following payments/receipts among the Utility operating companies:
## Table 0 ##
2011 Rate Filing Based on Calendar Year 2010 Production Costs In May 2011, Entergy filed with the FERC the 2011 rates in accordance with the FERC’s orders in the System Agreement proceeding.
Several parties intervened in the proceeding at the FERC, including the LPSC, which also filed a protest.
In July 2011 the FERC accepted Entergy’s proposed rates for filing, effective June 1, 2011, subject to refund, set the proceeding for hearing procedures, and then held those procedures in abeyance pending FERC decisions in the prior production cost proceedings currently before the FERC on review.
In January 2014 the LPSC filed a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In its petition, the LPSC requested that the Fifth Circuit issue an order compelling the FERC to issue a final order in several proceedings related to the System Agreement, including the 2011 rate filing based on calendar year 2010 production costs and the 2012 and 2013 rate filings discussed below.
In March 2014 the Fifth Circuit rejected the LPSC’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
In December 2014 the FERC rescinded its earlier abeyance order and consolidated the 2011 rate filing with the 2012, 2013,
SVB FINANCIAL GROUP AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) to provide incentives for such persons to exert maximum efforts for our success and for the success of our affiliates.
The table below provides stock option information related to the 1989 Stock Option Plan and the 1997 Plan for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003:
## Table 1 ##
The following table summarizes information regarding stock options outstanding as of December 31, 2005:
## Table 2 ##
At December 31, 2005, options for 1,784,765 shares were available for future grant under the 1997 Plan.
To the extent that a stock award is made from this reserve, in the form of stock options the 1,784,765 share reserve will be reduced by an amount equal to the number of shares subject to that award.
Further, if shares acquired from the 1,784,765 share reserve pursuant to stock options are forfeited, the number of shares so forfeited will return to the 1,784,765 share reserve and will again become available for issuance.
while $7.2 million in aggregate grant date fair value of new equity warrant assets was added to the portfolio.
Additionally, the decrease in fair value of our equity warrant assets attributable to cancellations and expirations was $2.4 million.
Lastly, a $0.9 million increase was related to an increase in the fair value of the remaining equity warrant assets.
The fair value of foreign exchange forward and option contracts decreased by $0.4 million.
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the aggregate notional amounts of client related foreign exchange forward contracts totaled $525.4 million and $155.8 million, respectively.
The maximum credit exposure for counterparty nonperformance for foreign exchange forward contracts with both clients and correspondent banks amounted to $10.0 million at December 31, 2004 and $3.5 million at December 31, 2003.
We have not experienced nonperformance by a counterparty and therefore have not incurred related losses.
Further, we anticipate performance by all counterparties to such foreign exchange forward contracts.
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the notional amounts of client related foreign currency contracts totaled $13.5 million and $21.1 million, respectively.
We have not experienced nonperformance by a counterparty and therefore have not incurred related losses.
Further, we anticipate performance by all counterparties.
These contracts typically expire in less than one year.
Convertible Note Hedge On May 15, 2003, we entered into a convertible note hedge agreement (purchased call option) with a counterparty, with respect to our common stock, to limit our exposure to potential dilution from conversion of our $150.0 million principal amount of zero coupon convertible notes.
For information on the our $150.0 million principal amount of zero coupon convertible notes, see Borrowings below.
Upon the occurrence of conversion events, we have the right to purchase up to approximately 4,460,610 shares of its common stock from the counterparty at a price of $33.6277 per common share.
The convertible note hedge agreement will expire on June 15, 2008.
We have the option to settle any amounts due under the convertible hedge either in cash or net shares of our common stock.
The cost of the convertible note hedge is included in stockholders’ equity in accordance with the guidance in EITF No.00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company’s Own Stock.
Also see Item 8.
Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 13.
Derivative Financial Instruments for additional discussion.
Deposits Our deposits are largely obtained from clients within our technology, life science, private equity, and premium wine industry sectors and, to a lesser extent, from individuals served by private client services.
We do not obtain deposits from conventional retail sources and have no brokered deposits.
The following table presents the composition of our deposits for the last five years ended December 31:
## Table 3 ##

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td>Payments(Receipts) (In Millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Arkansas</td><td>$2</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Louisiana</td><td>$6</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Mississippi</td><td>-$4</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy New Orleans</td><td>-$1</td></tr><tr><td>Entergy Texas</td><td>-$3</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td colspan="6"> Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td colspan="2"> 2005</td><td colspan="2"> 2004</td><td colspan="2"> 2003</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Shares</td><td> Weighted- Average Exercise Price</td><td>Shares</td><td> Weighted- Average Exercise Price</td><td>Shares</td><td> Weighted- Average Exercise Price</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding at</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>beginning of year</td><td>6,646,760</td><td>$27.40</td><td>6,659,967</td><td>$24.58</td><td>6,234,638</td><td>$22.63</td></tr><tr><td>Granted</td><td>449,315</td><td>44.81</td><td>1,326,899</td><td>37.28</td><td>1,780,162</td><td>29.11</td></tr><tr><td>Exercised</td><td>-656,688</td><td>22.93</td><td>-981,455</td><td>20.98</td><td>-728,277</td><td>15.56</td></tr><tr><td>Forfeited</td><td>-414,932</td><td>32.11</td><td>-358,651</td><td>28.95</td><td>-626,556</td><td>27.13</td></tr><tr><td>Outstanding at end of year</td><td>6,024,455</td><td>28.84</td><td>6,646,760</td><td>27.40</td><td>6,659,967</td><td>24.58</td></tr><tr><td>Exercisable at end of year</td><td>3,775,634</td><td>$25.43</td><td>3,170,309</td><td>$23.54</td><td>2,764,034</td><td>$21.18</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td colspan="3"> Outstanding Options</td><td colspan="2"> Vested Options</td></tr><tr><td> Ranges of Exercise Prices</td><td> Shares</td><td> Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life in Years</td><td> Weighted- Average Exercise Price</td><td> Shares</td><td> Weighted- Average Exercise Price</td></tr><tr><td>$8.25 - $17.00</td><td>640,782</td><td>2.69</td><td>$11.30</td><td>628,159</td><td>$11.19</td></tr><tr><td>17.07 - 22.50</td><td>648,110</td><td>6.67</td><td>19.41</td><td>462,221</td><td>19.47</td></tr><tr><td>22.97 - 25.17</td><td>1,014,455</td><td>3.36</td><td>24.54</td><td>692,802</td><td>24.29</td></tr><tr><td>25.29 - 26.06</td><td>648,868</td><td>5.56</td><td>26.02</td><td>644,994</td><td>26.02</td></tr><tr><td>26.24 - 31.29</td><td>718,988</td><td>5.88</td><td>30.47</td><td>552,844</td><td>30.37</td></tr><tr><td>31.40 - 35.26</td><td>745,360</td><td>3.24</td><td>34.85</td><td>420,188</td><td>34.61</td></tr><tr><td>35.54 - 36.56</td><td>716,785</td><td>5.22</td><td>35.77</td><td>189,470</td><td>35.81</td></tr><tr><td>36.63 - 43.49</td><td>611,707</td><td>5.95</td><td>41.77</td><td>103,331</td><td>40.89</td></tr><tr><td>43.62 - 51.61</td><td>261,400</td><td>5.94</td><td>46.96</td><td>63,625</td><td>48.93</td></tr><tr><td>51.69 - 51.69</td><td>18,000</td><td>4.72</td><td>51.69</td><td>18,000</td><td>51.69</td></tr><tr><td>$8.25 - $51.69</td><td>6,024,455</td><td>4.76</td><td>$28.84</td><td>3,775,634</td><td>$25.43</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td colspan="5"> At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> 2005</td><td> 2004</td><td> 2003</td><td> 2002</td><td> 2001</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td colspan="5"> (Dollars in thousands)</td></tr><tr><td>Noninterest-bearing demand</td><td>$2,934,278</td><td>$2,649,853</td><td>$2,186,317</td><td>$1,892,048</td><td>$1,737,463</td></tr><tr><td>Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW)</td><td>39,573</td><td>32,009</td><td>20,897</td><td>21,531</td><td>25,401</td></tr><tr><td>Regular money market</td><td>305,112</td><td>520,368</td><td>372,877</td><td>285,640</td><td>264,858</td></tr><tr><td>Bonus money market</td><td>655,940</td><td>685,710</td><td>707,682</td><td>647,615</td><td>630,091</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>317,827</td><td>331,574</td><td>379,068</td><td>589,216</td><td>722,964</td></tr><tr><td>Total deposits</td><td>$4,252,730</td><td>$4,219,514</td><td>$3,666,841</td><td>$3,436,050</td><td>$3,380,777</td></tr></table>

Question: Which year has the greatest proportion of beginning of year forWeighted- Average Exercise Price ?
Answer: 2005