concentrated among fewer companies.
In addition, some companies have segregated asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines exposures into separate legal entities with dedicated capital.
Regulatory bodies in certain cases have supported these actions.
We are unable to determine the impact, if any, that these developments will have on the collectability of reinsurance recoverables in the future.
The effects of reinsurance ceded on our property-liability premiums earned and claims and claims expense for the years ended December 31 are summarized in the following table.
## Table 0 ##
In 2012, ceded property-liability premiums earned decreased $8 million compared to 2011, primarily due to decreased premiums in our catastrophe reinsurance program.
In 2011, ceded property-liability premiums earned increased $6 million compared to 2010 year, primarily due to higher premium rates and an increase in policies written for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense increased in 2012 primarily due to amounts ceded to the National Flood Insurance Program related to Sandy, reserve increases in the MCCA program, and amounts ceded under our catastrophe reinsurance program related to Sandy.
The reserve increases in the MCCA program are attributable to an increased recognition of longer term paid loss trends.
The paid loss trends are rising due to increased costs in medical and attendant care and increased longevity of claimants.
Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense increased in 2011 primarily due to reserve increases in the MCCA program and an increase in claim activity on the National Flood Insurance Program due to multiple flooding events throughout the year.
For a detailed description of the MCCA, FHCF and Lloyd’s, see Note 10 of the consolidated financial statements.
As of December 31, 2012, other than the recoverable balances listed in the table above, no other amount due or estimated to be due from any single Property-Liability reinsurer was in excess of $26 million.
We enter into certain intercompany insurance and reinsurance transactions for the Property-Liability operations in order to maintain underwriting control and manage insurance risk among various legal entities.
These reinsurance agreements have been approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities.
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Catastrophe reinsurance Our catastrophe reinsurance program is designed, utilizing our risk management methodology, to address our exposure to catastrophes nationwide.
Our program is designed to provide reinsurance protection for catastrophes including hurricanes, windstorms, hail, tornados, fires following earthquakes, earthquakes and wildfires.
These reinsurance agreements are part of our catastrophe management strategy, which is intended to provide our shareholders an acceptable return on the risks assumed in our property business, and to reduce variability of earnings, while providing protection to our customers.
We anticipate completing the placement of our 2013 catastrophe reinsurance program in March 2013.
We expect the program will be similar to our 2012 catastrophe reinsurance program.
For further details of the existing 2012 program, see Note 10 of the consolidated financial statements.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of their communities for housing and other purposes, particularly in neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, our CRA portfolio was $12.5 billion and $13.8 billion, or eight percent of the residential mortgage loan balances for both periods.
The CRA portfolio included $2.5 billion and $3.0 billion of nonperforming loans at December 31, 2011 and 2010 representing 15 percent and 17 percent of total nonperforming residential mortgage loans.
Net charge-offs related to the CRA portfolio were $732 million and $857 million for 2011 and 2010, or 19 percent and 23 percent of total net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio.
For information on representations and warranties related to our residential mortgage portfolio, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 50 and Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Home Equity The home equity portfolio makes up 20 percent of the consumer portfolio and is comprised of HELOCs, home equity loans and reverse mortgages.
As of December 31, 2011, our HELOC portfolio had an outstanding balance of $103.4 billion or 83 percent of the home equity portfolio.
HELOCs generally have an initial draw period of 10 years with approximately 11 percent of the portfolio having a draw period of five years with a five-year renewal option.
During the initial draw period, the borrowers are only required to pay the interest due on the loans on a monthly basis.
After the initial draw period ends, the loans generally convert to 15-year amortizing loans.
As of December 31, 2011, our home equity loan portfolio had an outstanding balance of $20.2 billion, or 16 percent of the home equity portfolio.
Home equity loans are almost all fixed-rate loans with amortizing payment terms of 10 to 30 years and approximately 52 percent of these loans have 25 to 30-year terms.
As of December 31, 2011, our reverse mortgage portfolio had an outstanding balance of $1.1 billion, or one percent of the total home equity portfolio.
In 2011, we exited the reverse mortgage origination business.
At December 31, 2011, approximately 88 percent of the home equity portfolio was included in CRES while the remainder of the portfolio was primarily in GWIM.
Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio decreased $13.3 billion in 2011 primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations and draws on existing lines.
Of the total home equity portfolio at December 31, 2011 and 2010, $24.5 billion, or 20 percent, and $24.8 billion, or 18 percent, were in first-lien positions (22 percent and 20 percent excluding the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio).
As of December 31, 2011, outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio that were in a second-lien or more junior-lien position and where we also held the first-lien loan totaled $37.2 billion, or 33 percent, of our home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
Unused HELOCs totaled $67.5 billion at December 31, 2011 compared to $80.1 billion at December 31, 2010.
This decrease was due primarily to customers choosing to close accounts as well as line management initiatives on deteriorating accounts, which more than offset new production.
The HELOC utilization rate was 61 percent at December 31, 2011 compared to 59 percent at December 31, 2010.
Table 26 presents certain home equity portfolio key credit statistics on both a reported basis as well as excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
We believe the presentation of information adjusted to exclude the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio is more representative of the credit risk in this portfolio.
## Table 1 ##
(1) Accruing past due 30 days or more includes $609 million and $662 million and nonperforming loans includes $703 million and $480 million of loans where we serviced the underlying first-lien at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
(2) These vintages of loans have higher refreshed combined LTV ratios and accounted for 54 percent and 57 percent of nonperforming home equity loans at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
These vintages of loans accounted for 65 percent and 66 percent of net charge-offs in 2011 and 2010.
(3) Net charge-off ratios are calculated as net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans.
The following discussion presents the home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
Nonperforming outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio decreased $241 million compared to December 31, 2010 driven primarily by charge-offs and nonperforming loans returning to performing status which together outpaced delinquency inflows, which continued to slow during 2011 due to favorable early stage delinquency trends.
Accruing outstanding balances past due 30 days or more decreased $271 million in 2011.
At December 31, 2011, $1.1 billion, or 43 percent, of the nonperforming home equity portfolio was 180 days or more past due and had been written down to their fair values.
continued investments in eCommerce and technology.
The increase in operating expenses as a percentage of net sales for fiscal 2017 was partially offset by the impact of store closures in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016.
Membership and other income was relatively flat for fiscal 2018 and increased $1.0 billion?for fiscal 2017, when compared to the same period in the previous fiscal year.
While fiscal 2018 included a $387 million gain from the sale of Suburbia, a $47 million gain from a land sale, higher recycling income from our sustainability efforts and higher membership income from increased Plus Member penetration at Sam's Club, these gains were less than gains recognized in fiscal 2017.
Fiscal 2017 included a $535 million gain from the sale of our Yihaodian business and a $194 million gain from the sale of shopping malls in Chile.
For fiscal 2018, loss on extinguishment of debt was?$3.1 billion, due to the early extinguishment of long-term debt which allowed us to retire higher rate debt to reduce interest expense in future periods.
Our effective income tax rate was 30.4% for fiscal 2018 and 30.3% for both fiscal 2017 and 2016.
Although relatively consistent year-over-year, our effective income tax rate may fluctuate from period to period as a result of factors including changes in our assessment of certain tax contingencies, valuation allowances, changes in tax laws, outcomes of administrative audits, the impact of discrete items and the mix of earnings among our U. S.  operations and international operations.
The reconciliation from the U. S.  statutory rate to the effective income tax rates for fiscal 2018, 2017 and 2016 is presented in Note 9 in the "Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" and describes the impact of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "Tax Act") to the fiscal 2018 effective income tax rate.
As a result of the factors discussed above, we reported $10.5 billion and $14.3 billion of consolidated net income for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively, which represents a decrease of $3.8 billion and $0.8 billion for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively, when compared to the previous fiscal year.
Diluted net income per common share attributable to Walmart ("EPS") was $3.28 and $4.38 for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively.40 Walmart U. S.  Segment
## Table 2 ##
Net sales for the Walmart U. S.  segment increased $10.6 billion or 3.5% and $9.5 billion or 3.2% for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively, when compared to the previous fiscal year.
The increases in net sales were primarily due to increases in comparable store sales of 2.1% and 1.6% for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively, and year-over-year growth in retail square feet of 0.7% and 1.4% for fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively.
Additionally, for fiscal 2018, sales generated from eCommerce acquisitions further contributed to the year-over-year increase.
Gross profit rate decreased 24 basis points for fiscal 2018 and increased 24 basis points for fiscal 2017, when compared to the previous fiscal year.
For fiscal 2018, the decrease was primarily due to strategic price investments and the mix impact from eCommerce.
Partially offsetting the negative factors for fiscal 2018 was the positive impact of savings from procuring merchandise.
For fiscal 2017, the increase in gross profit rate was primarily due to improved margin in food and consumables, including the impact of savings in procuring merchandise and lower transportation expense from lower fuel costs.
Operating expenses as a percentage of segment net sales was relatively flat for fiscal 2018 and increased 101 basis points for fiscal 2017, when compared to the previous fiscal year.
Fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2017 included charges related to discontinued real estate projects of $244 million and $249 million, respectively.
For fiscal 2017, the increase was primarily driven by an increase in wage expense due to the investment in the associate wage structure; the charge related to discontinued real estate projects; and investments in digital retail and technology.
The increase in operating expenses as a percentage of segment net sales for fiscal 2017 was partially offset by the impact of store closures in fiscal 2016.
As a result of the factors discussed above, segment operating income increased $124 million for fiscal 2018 and decreased $1.3 billion for fiscal 2017, respectively

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td> ($ in millions) </td><td> 2012</td><td> 2011</td><td> 2010</td></tr><tr><td> Ceded property-liability premiums earned</td><td>$1,090</td><td>$1,098</td><td>$1,092</td></tr><tr><td>Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Industry pool and facilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MCCA</td><td>$962</td><td>$509</td><td>$142</td></tr><tr><td>National Flood Insurance Program</td><td>758</td><td>196</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>FHCF</td><td>—</td><td>8</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>70</td><td>84</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal industry pools and facilities</td><td>1,790</td><td>797</td><td>266</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>261</td><td>130</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td> Ceded property-liability claims and claims expense</td><td>$2,051</td><td>$927</td><td>$271</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Table 26</td><td colspan="4">Home Equity – Key Credit Statistics December 31</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Reported Basis</td><td colspan="2">Excluding Countrywide PurchasedCredit-impaired Loans</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Outstandings</td><td>$124,699</td><td>$137,981</td><td>$112,721</td><td>$125,391</td></tr><tr><td>Accruing past due 30 days or more<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1,658</td><td>1,929</td><td>1,658</td><td>1,929</td></tr><tr><td>Nonperforming loans<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2,453</td><td>2,694</td><td>2,453</td><td>2,694</td></tr><tr><td>Percent of portfolio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Refreshed combined LTV greater than 90 but less than 100</td><td>10%</td><td>11%</td><td>11%</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>Refreshed combined LTV greater than 100</td><td>36</td><td>34</td><td>32</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Refreshed FICO below 620</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2006 and 2007 vintages<sup>-2</sup></td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>46</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Net charge-off ratio<sup>-3</sup></td><td>3.42</td><td>4.65</td><td>3.77</td><td>5.10</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Fiscal Years Ended January 31,</td></tr><tr><td>(Amounts in millions, except unit counts)</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Net sales</td><td>$318,477</td><td>$307,833</td><td>$298,378</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage change from comparable period</td><td>3.5%</td><td>3.2%</td><td>3.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Calendar comparable sales increase</td><td>2.1%</td><td>1.6%</td><td>1.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Operating income</td><td>$17,869</td><td>$17,745</td><td>$19,087</td></tr><tr><td>Operating income as a percentage of net sales</td><td>5.6%</td><td>5.8%</td><td>6.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Unit counts at period end</td><td>4,761</td><td>4,672</td><td>4,574</td></tr><tr><td>Retail square feet at period end</td><td>705</td><td>699</td><td>690</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the growing rate of Refreshed combined LTV greater than 100 in the years with the least Reported Basis?
Answer: 0.05556
Reasoning program: subtract(36,34), divide(#0,36)