The computation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31 is presented in the following table.
## Table 0 ##
The effect of dilutive potential common shares does not include the effect of options with an anti-dilutive effect on earnings per share because their exercise prices exceed the average market price of Allstate common shares during the period or for which the unrecognized compensation cost would have an anti-dilutive effect.
Options to purchase 26.7 million, 25.9 million and 27.1 million Allstate common shares, with exercise prices ranging from $27.36 to $64.53, $23.13 to $65.38 and $28.41 to $65.38, were outstanding for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share in those years.
As a result of the net loss for the year ended December 31, 2008, weighted average dilutive potential common shares outstanding resulting from stock options of 1.3 million were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share since inclusion of these securities would have an anti-dilutive effect.
In the absence of the net loss, weighted average common and dilutive potential common shares outstanding would have totaled 549.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Adopted accounting standards Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (‘‘FASB’’) issued new accounting guidance which expands disclosure requirements relating to fair value measurements.
The guidance adds requirements for disclosing amounts of and reasons for significant transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and requires gross rather than net disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements relating to Level 3 measurements.
The guidance also provides clarification that fair value measurement disclosures are required for each class of assets and liabilities.
Disclosures about the valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair value for measurements that fall in either Level 2 or Level 3 are also required.
The Company adopted the provisions of the new guidance as of March 31, 2010, except for disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, which are required for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010.
Disclosures are not required for earlier periods presented for comparative purposes.
The new guidance affects disclosures only; and therefore, the adoption had no impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities In June 2009, the FASB issued new accounting guidance which requires an entity to perform a qualitative analysis to determine whether it holds a controlling financial interest (i. e. , is a primary beneficiary) in a VIE.
The analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the entity that has both the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIE and the obligation to absorb losses, or the right to receive benefits, that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
The Company adopted the new guidance as of January 1, 2010.
The adoption resulted in the consolidation of four VIEs for which the Company concluded it is the primary beneficiary as of January 1, 2010.
Two of the consolidated VIEs hold investments managed by Allstate Investment Management Company (‘‘AIMCO’’), a subsidiary of the Company.
Consolidation as of January 1, 2010 resulted in an increase in total assets of $696 million, an increase in total liabilities of $679 million, an increase in retained income of $7 million and an increase in noncontrolling interest of $10 million.
During the first quarter of 2010, the Company sold substantially all its variable
Any products or technologies that are directly or indirectly successful in addressing anemia associated with chemotherapy and nephrology could negatively impact product sales of Aranesp?.
The following table reflects companies and their currently marketed products that primarily compete with Aranesp?
in the United States and Europe in the supportive cancer care and nephrology segments, unless otherwise indicated.
## Table 1 ##
(1) In the United States, Aranesp?
competes with PROCRIT?
in the supportive cancer care and pre-dialysis settings.
(2) A subsidiary of J&J.
(3) Biosimilar product approved and launched in certain EU countries.
(4) Competes with Aranesp?
in the nephrology segment only.
(5) Shire announced in the second quarter of 2008 that it had decided to stop the commercialization of Dynepo?.
In the United States, Aranesp?
also competes with EPOGEN?, primarily in the U. S.  hospital dialysis clinic setting.
In addition to competition from the above-noted marketed products, the following product candidates could compete with Aranesp?
in the future.
Affymax Inc.  (“Affymax”) and Takeda are co-developing Hematide?, an ESA for the treatment of anemia in renal patients.
FibroGen is developing FG-2216 and FG-4592, orally active ESAs, for the treatment of anemia and is also studying FG-4592 for the treatment in anemia of chronic kidney disease (“CKD”).
Ratiopharm is developing a biosimilar ESA, EpoTheta, expected to launch in the EU in 2009.
Additionally, in December 2008, Merck & Company, Inc.  (“Merck”) announced the formation of a new biotech division, Merck Bioventures, which is developing a late-stage pegylated ESA (MK-2578), which they have announced they expect to launch in 2012.
EPOGEN?
(Epoetin alfa) EPOGEN?
is our registered trademark for our recombinant human erythropoietin product, a protein that stimulates red blood cell production.
A reduced red blood cell count can result in anemia (see “— Aranesp?
(darbepoetin alfa)”).
People with CRF suffer from anemia because they do not produce sufficient amounts of erythropoietin, which is normally produced in healthy kidneys.
We were granted an exclusive license to manufacture and market recombinant human erythropoietin in the United States under a licensing agreement with KA.
We have retained exclusive rights to market EPOGEN?
in the United States for dialysis patients.
We granted Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (which has assigned its rights under the Product License Agreement to Ortho Biotech) a license to commercialize recombinant human erythropoietin as a human therapeutic in the United States in all markets other than dialysis (see “Joint Ventures and Business Relationships — Johnson & Johnson”).
We launched EPOGEN?
in the United States in 1989 for the treatment of anemia associated with CRF for patients who are on dialysis.
We market EPOGEN?
for the treatment of anemic adult and pediatric patients with CRF who are on dialysis.
EPOGEN?
is indicated for elevating or maintaining the red blood cell level (as determined by hematocrit or Hb measurements) and decreasing the need for blood transfusions in these patients.
EPOGEN?
sales in the United States were $2.5 billion for each of the three years ended December 31, 2008.
initiatives: global supply chain optimization; global marketing and innovation effectiveness; operating expense leverage and operational excellence; data and information technology systems standardization; and the integration of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. ’s (“Old CCE”) former North America bottling operations.
In February 2014, the Company announced the expansion of our productivity and reinvestment program to drive incremental productivity that will primarily be redirected into increased media investments.
Our incremental productivity goal consists of two relatively equal components.
First, we will expand savings through global supply chain optimization, data and information technology systems standardization, and resource and cost reallocation.
Second, we will increase the effectiveness of our marketing investments by transforming our marketing and commercial model to redeploy resources into more consumer-facing marketing investments to accelerate growth.
In October 2014, the Company announced that we were further expanding our productivity and reinvestment program and extending it through 2019.
The expansion of the productivity initiatives will focus on four key areas: restructuring the Company’s global supply chain; implementing zero-based work, an evolution of zero-based budget principles, across the organization; streamlining and simplifying the Company’s operating model; and further driving increased discipline and efficiency in direct marketing investments.
The Company expects that the expanded productivity initiatives will generate an incremental $2.0 billion in annualized productivity.
This productivity will enable the Company to fund marketing initiatives and innovation required to deliver sustainable net revenue growth and will also support margin expansion and increased returns on invested capital over time.
We expect to achieve total annualized productivity of approximately $3.0 billion by 2019 as a result of initiatives implemented under the 2014 expansions of the program.
In April 2017, the Company announced that we were expanding the current productivity and reinvestment program, with planned initiatives that are expected to generate an incremental $800 million in annualized savings by 2019.
We expect to achieve these savings through additional efficiencies in both our supply chain and our marketing expenditures as well as the transition to a new, more agile operating model to enable growth.
Under this operating model, our business units will be supported by an expanded enabling services organization and a corporate center focused on a few strategic initiatives, policy and governance.
The expanded enabling services organization will focus on both simplifying and standardizing key transactional processes and providing support to business units through global centers of excellence.
The Company has incurred total pretax expenses of $3,058 million related to this program since it began in 2012.
Refer to Note 18 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Integration of Our German Bottling Operations In 2008, the Company began the integration of our German bottling operations acquired in 2007.
The Company incurred total pretax expenses of $1,367 million as a result of this initiative, primarily related to involuntary terminations.
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company deconsolidated our German bottling operations.
Refer to Note 2 and Note 18 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Operating Income and Operating Margin Information about our operating income contribution by operating segment on a percentage basis is as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Bermuda.
The following table presents the underwriting results and ratios for the Bermuda segment for the periods indicated.
## Table 3 ##
Premiums.
Gross written premiums decreased 7.8% to $733.0 million in 2010 compared to $794.8 million in 2009.
Bermuda home office business was down 4.4%, or $12.8 million, due to lower property catastrophe excess of loss business.
Premiums written by the U. K.  branch and Ireland subsidiary in the U. K.  and continental Europe, decreased $49.0 million, or 9.7% in response to softening market conditions.
Net written premiums decreased 7.8% to $733.0 million in 2010 compared to $795.1 million in 2009, in line with the decrease in gross written premiums.
Premiums earned decreased 5.9% to $738.4 million in 2010 compared to $784.6 million in 2009.
The change in premiums earned relative to net written premiums is the result of timing; premiums are earned ratably over the coverage period whereas written premiums are recorded at the initiation of the coverage period.
Gross written premiums increased 1.5% to $794.8 million in 2009 compared to $783.4 million in 2008.
The Bermuda home office gross written premium increased $33.0 million, or 12.8%.
Premiums written out of the UK branch decreased $21.3 million, or 4.1%, as a result of the change in foreign exchange rates period over period.
Excluding the impact of the foreign exchange, the branch premiums were up approximately 15.7%.
Net written premiums also increased 1.5% to $795.1 million in 2009 compared to $783.1 million in 2008.
Premiums earned decreased 2.1% to $784.6 million in 2009 compared to $801.2 million in 2008.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td> ($ in millions, except per share data) </td><td> 2010</td><td> 2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Numerator:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net income (loss)</td><td>$928</td><td>$854</td><td>$-1,679</td></tr><tr><td>Denominator:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average common shares outstanding</td><td>540.3</td><td>539.6</td><td>548.3</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of dilutive potential common shares:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stock options</td><td>2.0</td><td>1.3</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted stock units (non-participating)</td><td>0.2</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average common and dilutive potential common shares outstanding</td><td>542.5</td><td>540.9</td><td>548.3</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per share – Basic</td><td>$1.72</td><td>$1.58</td><td>$-3.06</td></tr><tr><td>Earnings per share – Diluted</td><td>$1.71</td><td>$1.58</td><td>$-3.06</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Territory</td><td> Competitor Marketed Product</td><td> Competitor</td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>PROCRIT<sup>®</sup><sup>-1</sup></td><td>J&J</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>EPREX<sup>®</sup>/ERYPO<sup>®</sup></td><td>Janssen-Cilag<sup>-2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>NeoRecormon<sup>®</sup></td><td>Roche</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>Retacrit™<sup>-3</sup>/Silapo<sup>®</sup><sup>(3)</sup></td><td>Hospira Enterprises B.V. (“Hospira”)/Stada Arzneimittel AG (“Stada”)</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>Binocrit<sup>®</sup><sup>-3</sup>/Epoetin alfa Hexal<sup>®</sup><sup>(3)</sup>/Abseamed<sup>®</sup><sup>(3)</sup></td><td>Sandoz GmbH (“Sandoz”)/Hexal Biotech Forschungs GmbH (“Hexal”)/Medice Arzneimittel Pütter GmbH & Company KG(“Medice”)</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>MIRCERA<sup>®</sup><sup>-4</sup></td><td>Roche</td></tr><tr><td>Europe</td><td>Dynepo<sup>®</sup><sup>-5</sup></td><td>Shire Pharmaceutical Group Plc (“Shire”)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year Ended December 31,</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East & Africa</td><td>48.6%</td><td>42.6%</td><td>44.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Latin America</td><td>29.5</td><td>22.6</td><td>24.9</td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>34.4</td><td>30.0</td><td>27.1</td></tr><tr><td>Asia Pacific</td><td>28.8</td><td>25.8</td><td>25.1</td></tr><tr><td>Bottling Investments</td><td>-14.9</td><td>-1.6</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate</td><td>-26.4</td><td>-19.4</td><td>-22.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td><td>100.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years Ended December 31,</td><td colspan="2">2010/2009</td><td colspan="2">2009/2008</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>Variance</td><td>% Change</td><td>Variance</td><td>% Change</td></tr><tr><td>Gross written premiums</td><td>$733.0</td><td>$794.8</td><td>$783.4</td><td>$-61.9</td><td>-7.8%</td><td>$11.5</td><td>1.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Net written premiums</td><td>733.0</td><td>795.1</td><td>783.1</td><td>-62.0</td><td>-7.8%</td><td>12.0</td><td>1.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Premiums earned</td><td>$738.4</td><td>$784.6</td><td>$801.2</td><td>$-46.1</td><td>-5.9%</td><td>$-16.6</td><td>-2.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Incurred losses and LAE</td><td>457.9</td><td>484.0</td><td>420.3</td><td>-26.1</td><td>-5.4%</td><td>63.8</td><td>15.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Commission and brokerage</td><td>171.1</td><td>192.1</td><td>208.9</td><td>-21.0</td><td>-10.9%</td><td>-16.8</td><td>-8.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Other underwriting expenses</td><td>26.4</td><td>24.6</td><td>24.2</td><td>1.9</td><td>7.6%</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Underwriting gain (loss)</td><td>$83.0</td><td>$83.9</td><td>$147.8</td><td>$-0.9</td><td>-1.1%</td><td>$-64.0</td><td>-43.3%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Point Chg</td><td></td><td>Point Chg</td></tr><tr><td>Loss ratio</td><td>62.0%</td><td>61.7%</td><td>52.5%</td><td></td><td>0.3</td><td></td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Commission and brokerage ratio</td><td>23.2%</td><td>24.5%</td><td>26.1%</td><td></td><td>-1.3</td><td></td><td>-1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Other underwriting expense ratio</td><td>3.6%</td><td>3.1%</td><td>2.9%</td><td></td><td>0.5</td><td></td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Combined ratio</td><td>88.8%</td><td>89.3%</td><td>81.5%</td><td></td><td>-0.5</td><td></td><td>7.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">(Some amounts may not reconcile due to rounding.)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with lowest amount of Commission and brokerage, what's the increasing rate of Other underwriting expenses?
Answer: 0.07317
Reasoning program: subtract(26.4,24.6), divide(#0,24.6)