hellotayssir/FinQA_TAT-QA_financial_finetuning_dataset huggingface dataset:
Plan Summaries
As of January 3, 2020, the Company had stock-based compensation awards outstanding under the following plans: the 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan, 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended ("ESPP"). Leidos issues new shares upon the issuance of the vesting of stock units or exercising of stock options under these plans.
In fiscal 2017, stockholders approved the 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan which provides the Company and its affiliates' employees, directors and consultants the opportunity to receive various types of stock-based compensation awards, such as stock options, restricted stock units and performance-based awards, as well as cash awards.
The Company grants service-based awards that generally vest or become exercisable 25% a year over four years or cliff vest in three years. As of January 3, 2020, 4.4 million shares of Leidos' stock were reserved for future issuance under the 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan.
The Company offers eligible employees the opportunity to defer restricted stock units into an equity-based deferred equity compensation plan, the Key Executive Stock Deferral Plan ("KESDP"). Prior to 2013, the Company offered an additional opportunity for deferrals into the Management Stock Compensation Plan ("MSCP"). Benefits from these plans are payable in shares of Leidos' stock that are held in a trust for the purpose of funding shares to the plans' participants.
Restricted stock units deferred under the KESDP are counted against the total shares available for future issuance under the 2017 Omnibus Incentive Plan. All awards under the MSCP are fully vested and the plan does not provide for a maximum number of shares available for future issuance.
The Company's ESPP allows eligible employees to purchase shares of Leidos' stock at a discount of up to 15% of the fair market value on the date of purchase. During the first half of fiscal 2018 and 2017, the discount was 5% of the fair market value on the date of purchase, thereby resulting in the ESPP being non-compensatory. Effective the second half of fiscal 2018, the Company increased the discount to 10% of the fair market value on the date of purchase, resulting in the ESPP being compensatory.
During fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, $25 million, $11 million and $10 million, respectively, was received from ESPP plan participants for the issuance of Leidos' stock. A total of 4.2 million shares remain available for future issuance under the ESPP.
Stock-based compensation and related tax benefits recognized under all plans were as follows:
Table:
 |  | Year Ended | 
 | January 3, 2020 | December 28, 2018 | December 29, 2017
 |  | (in millions) | 
Total stock-based compensation expense | $52 | $44 | $43
Tax benefits recognized from stock-based compensation | 13 | 11 | 17


Question: What was the average Total stock-based compensation expense in 2018 and 2017?
Answer: 43.5
Calculation: (44 + 43) / 2
9. Audit, audit related and other non-audit services  The following fees were paid or are payable to the company’s auditors, KPMG LLP and other firms in the KPMG network, for the year ended 31 March 2019. Figures in the table below for the years ended 31 March 2017 and 2018 are in respect of fees paid to the company’s previous auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
a Services in relation to the audit of the parent company and the consolidated financial statements, including fees for reports under section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This also includes fees payable for the statutory audits of the financial statements of subsidiary companies. This excludes amounts for the audit of BT Group Employee Share Ownership Trust and Ilford Trustees (Jersey) Limited amounting to £32,000.
b During the year a further £446,000 of fees were payable to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in relation to the audit of 2017/18 subsidiary accounts and the audit of our restated IAS 19 accounting valuation of retirement benefit obligations, which have not been included in the 2019 balances in the above table.
c Services in relation to other statutory filings or engagements that are required by law or regulation to be carried out by an appointed auditor. This includes fees for the review of interim results, the accrued fee for the audit of the group’s regulatory financial statements and reporting associated with the group’s US debt shelf registration. d Services relating to tax returns, tax audits, monitoring and enquiries.
e Fees payable for all taxation advisory services not falling within taxation compliance. All other assurance services include fees payable to KPMG LLP for agreed upon procedures performed on the estimated impact of the new IFRS 15 revenue accounting standard, which took effect from 1 April 2018 for the 2017/18 audit. g Fees payable for all non-audit services not covered above, principally comprising other advisory services.
f All other assurance services include fees payable to KPMG LLP for agreed upon procedures performed on the estimated impact of the new IFRS 15 revenue accounting standard, which took effect from 1 April 2018 for the 2017/18 audit.
g Fees payable for all non-audit services not covered above, principally comprising other advisory services.
Table:
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Year ended 31 March | £000 | £000 | £000
Fees payable to the company’s auditors and its associates for: |  |  | 
Audit services a,b |  |  | 
The audit of the parent company and the consolidated financial statements | 8,165 | 5,418 | 4,316
The audit of the company’s subsidiaries | 6,061 | 5,877 | 5,675
 | 14,226 | 11,295 | 9,991
Audit related assurance services c | 2,236 | 1,771 | 1,865
Other non-audit services |  |  | 
Taxation compliance services d | – | – | 366
Taxation advisory services e | – | – | 111
All other assurance services f | 748 | 211 | 200
All other services g | 210 | 592 | 2,332
 | 958 | 803 | 3,009
Total services | 17,420 | 13,869 | 14,865


Question: What was the change in the The audit of the parent company and the consolidated financial statements from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: 2747
Calculation: 8,165 - 5,418
9. Pensions continued
Defined benefit plans continued
ii) Amounts in the financial statements continued
e) Movements in the fair value of plans’ assets
Table:
 | 2019 | 2018
 | $ million | $ million
At 1 January | 254.2 | 282.6
Interest income on plans’ assets | 7.0 | 7.0
Employer contributions | 6.6 | 6.8
Benefit payments | (11.4) | (12.1)
Plan administration expenses | (0.6) | (0.5)
Re-measurement gain/(loss) on plans’ assets | 25.8 | (14.2)
Exchange adjustment | 9.5 | (15.4)
Fair value of plans’ assets | 291.1 | 254.2


Question: In which years are the movements in the fair value of plans' assets recorded?
Answer: 2019, 2018
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Components and activities of AOCI, net of tax, were as follows:
During fiscal 2018, a net foreign currency translation loss of $8 million related to foreign entities sold in the divestiture of our WSS and PKI solutions was reclassified to Gain on divestiture, and a net gain of $3 million related to liquidated foreign entities was reclassified to Other income (expense), net. A realized gain of $7 million on securities sold in connection with the divestiture of our WSS and PKI solutions was reclassified to Gain on divestiture. The tax effect of $3 million was reclassified to Income tax expense (benefit).
Table:
(In millions) | Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments | Unrealized Gain (Loss) On Available- For-Sale Securities | Equity Method Investee | Total AOCI
Balance as of March 31, 2017 | $7 | $5 | $— | $12
Other comprehensive loss before reclassifications | (4) | (5) | — | (9)
Reclassification to net income (loss) | 5 | (4) | — | 1
Balance as of March 30, 2018 | 8 | (4) | — | 4
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications | (13) | 3 | (1) | (11)
Balance as of March 29, 2019 | $(5) | $(1) | $(1) | $(7)


Question: What is the average balance as of the end of fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 for Total AOCI?
Answer: 3
Calculation: (12+4+(-7))/3
The following table summarizes restricted stock-based award activity, including service-based awards and performance-based awards, granted pursuant to Oracle-based stock plans and stock plans assumed from our acquisitions for our last three fiscal years ended May 31, 2019 :
The total grant date fair value of restricted stock-based awards that were vested and issued in fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $1.3 billion, $1.0 billion and $715 million, respectively. As of May 31, 2019, total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to non-vested restricted stock-based awards was $2.8 billion and is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average vesting period of 2.68 years.
No PSUs were granted in each of fiscal 2019 and 2018. In fiscal 2017, 1.7 million PSUs were granted which vest upon the attainment of certain performance metrics and service-based vesting. Based upon actual attainment relative to the “target” performance metric, certain participants have the ability to be issued up to 150% of the target number of PSUs originally granted, or to be issued no PSUs at all. In fiscal 2019, 2.4 million PSUs vested and 1.3 million PSUs remained outstanding as of May 31, 2019.
Table:
 |  | Restricted Stock-Based Awards Outstanding
(in millions, except fair value) | Number of Shares | Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value
Balance, May 31, 2016 | 52 | $39.29
Granted | 42 | $39.40
Assumed | 14 | $37.83
Vested and Issued | (18) | $40.39
Canceled | (7) | $39.73
Balance, May 31, 2017 | 83 | $39.18
Granted | 44 | $47.42
Vested and Issued | (27) | $39.10
Canceled | (11) | $41.97
Balance, May 31, 2018 | 89 | $42.93
Granted | 53 | $42.47
Vested and Issued | (31) | $41.85
Canceled | (12) | $42.97
Balance, May 31, 2019 | 99 | $43.01


Question: What is the average total grant date fair value of restricted stock-based awards that were vested and issued in fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, in millions?
Answer: 1005
Calculation: (($1.3 billion +$1.0 billion +$715 million)/3)
The credit quality and credit concentration of cash equivalents, current asset investments and derivative financial assets are detailed in the tables below. Where the opinion of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s (S&P) differ, the lower rating is used.
a We hold cash collateral of £638m (2017/18: £492m, 2016/17: £702m) in respect of derivative financial assets with certain counterparties.
The concentration of credit risk for our trading balances is provided in note 17, which analyses outstanding balances by customerfacing unit. Where multiple transactions are undertaken with a single financial counterparty or group of related counterparties, we enter into netting arrangements to reduce our exposure to credit risk by making use of standard International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) documentation.
We have also entered into credit support agreements with certain swap counterparties whereby, on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, the fair value position on notional £3,289m of long dated cross-currency swaps and interest rate swaps is collateralised. The related net cash inflow during the year was £129m (2017/18: outflow £220m, 2016/17: inflow £100m). The collateral paid and received is recognised within current asset investments and loans and other borrowings, respectively.
Table:
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Moody’s / S&P credit rating of counterparty | £m | £m | £m
Aa2/AA and above | 2,522 | 2,575 | 1,444
Aa3/AA– | 1,376 | 313 | 208
A1/A+a | 1,145 | 651 | 952
A2/Aa | 649 | 628 | 370
A3/A–a | 50 | 180 | 204
Baa1/BBB+a | 75 | 59 | 561
Baa2/BBB and below a | 160 | 207 | 86
 | 5,977 | 4,613 | 3,825


Question: What is the fair value position in 2019?
Answer: £3,289m
average revenue per car 2008 2007 2006 % (  % ) change 2008 v 2007 % (  % ) change 2007 v 2006 .

Table:
average revenue per car | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | % (  % ) change 2008 v 2007 | % (  % ) change 2007 v 2006
agricultural | $ 3352 | $ 2888 | $ 2584 | 16 % (  % ) | 12% ( 12 % )
automotive | 2017 | 1766 | 1710 | 14 | 3
chemicals | 2818 | 2464 | 2326 | 14 | 6
energy | 1622 | 1363 | 1285 | 19 | 6
industrial products | 2620 | 2322 | 2167 | 13 | 7
intermodal | 955 | 847 | 813 | 13 | 4
average | $ 1848 | $ 1591 | $ 1501 | 16 % (  % ) | 6% ( 6 % )
agricultural products 2013 price improvements , fuel surcharges , and volume growth generated higher agricultural freight revenue in 2008 versus 2007 .
strong global demand for grain and a weak dollar drove higher shipments of corn and feed grains and shipments of wheat and food grains for 2008 .
shipments of ethanol , a grain product used as an alternative fuel and fuel additive , and its co- products ( primarily livestock feed ) also increased .
price increases were the primary drivers of agricultural freight revenue in 2007 versus 2006 , partially offset by a decline in volume levels .
shipments of whole grains used in feed declined as barge operators captured more shipments destined for export from the gulf coast due to both favorable barge rates and improved navigation conditions on the mississippi river .
conversely , wheat and food grain shipments improved as a strong wheat crop generated record shipments to the gulf coast for export .
shipments of ethanol and its co-products also increased substantially .
automotive 2013 double-digit declines in shipments of both finished vehicles and auto parts drove freight revenue lower in 2008 compared to 2007 .
price improvements and fuel surcharges partially offset these lower volumes .
the manufacturers experienced poor sales and reduced vehicle production during 2008 due to the recessionary economy , which in turn reduced shipments of finished vehicles and parts .
in addition , a major parts supplier strike reduced volume levels compared to 2007 .
shipments of finished vehicles decreased 23% ( 23 % ) in 2008 versus 2007 .
in 2007 , price increases drove the growth in automotive revenue , partially offset by lower finished vehicle shipments versus 2006 .
a decline in vehicle production levels primarily drove the volume decline .
conversely , automotive parts shipments grew due to increased volumes from domestic manufacturers , new business acquired in the middle of 2006 , and our new intermodal train service between mexico and michigan .
2008 agricultural revenue 2008 automotive revenue .

Question: in 2008 what was the ratio of the average revenue per car for the agriculture products to energy
Answer: 2.1
Calculation: divide(3352, 1622)
Results of Operations
Year Ended December 31, 2019 Compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Our management reviews and analyzes several key financial measures in order to manage our business and assess the quality of and variability of our service revenue, operating results and cash flows. The following summary tables present a comparison of our results of operations with respect to certain key financial measures. The comparisons illustrated in the tables are discussed in greater detail below.
Table:
 |  | Year Ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | Percent Change
Other Operating Data |  |  | 
Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU) |  |  | 
ARPU—on-net | $ 461 | $ 480 | (3.8)%
ARPU—off-net | $ 1,097 | $ 1,155 | (5.0)%
Average price per megabit | $ 0.62 | $ 0.82 | (23.9)%
Customer Connections—end of period |  |  | 
On-net | 74,554 | 68,770 | 8.4%
Off-net | 11,660 | 10,974 | 6.3%


Question: What are the respective APRU from on-net in 2018 and 2019?
Answer: $ 480, $ 461
Interest income (expense), net consisted of the following:
Interest income is related to the cash and cash equivalents held by the Company. Interest expense recorded in 2019, 2018 and 2017 included respectively a charge of $39 million, $38 million and $37 million on the senior unsecured convertible bonds issued in July 2017 and July 2014, of which respectively $37 million, $36 million and $33 million was a non-cash interest expense resulting from the accretion of the discount on the liability component. Net interest includes also charges related to the banking fees and the sale of trade and other receivables.
No borrowing cost was capitalized in 2019, 2018 and 2017. Interest income on government bonds and floating rate notes classified as available-for-sale marketable securities amounted to $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.
Table:
 | Year ended December 31, 2019 | Year ended December 31, 2018 | Year ended December 31, 2017
Income | 55 | 47 | 30
Expense | (54) | (54) | (52)
Total | 1 | (7) | (22)


Question: What is the average Expense?
Answer: 53.33
Calculation: (54+54+52) / 3
Base Salary
Base salary for our named executive officers is the fixed component of our executive compensation program. We use base salary to compensate our named executive officers for services rendered during the year and to recognize the experience, skills, knowledge and responsibilities required of each named executive officer. We apply no specific formula to determine adjustments to base salary. Adjustments to base salary have been made to reflect our economic condition and future expected performance. We continue to provide base salaries that are conservative relative to competitive market pay levels.
In April 2018, our compensation committee reviewed the base salaries of Mses. Friar, Henry, Reses and Whiteley, taking into consideration a competitive market analysis performed by Compensia, the recommendations of our CEO and our then-current People Lead, the desire to retain our highly qualified executive team and the other factors described above. Following this review, our compensation committee approved an increase in the annual base salary levels for Mses. Friar, Henry, Reses and Whiteley to $400,000, in each case effective as of April 1, 2018, in order to improve competitive alignment with our peers. In addition, our compensation committee determined that it was appropriate to leave our CEO’s 2018 base salary level at $2.75 per year, at the request of our CEO and with compensation committee approval.
The annualized base salaries of our named executive officers as of December 31, 2018 compared to December 31, 2017 were:
(1) Ms. Friar resigned from her position as Chief Financial Officer, effective as of November 16, 2018, at which time her annual base salary was $400,000.
(2) Ms. Whiteley was appointed to General Counsel and Corporate Secretary effective March 18, 2018, and her salary was adjusted to reflect her promotion to this role.
(3) The base salaries of Messrs. Daswani and Murphy were not adjusted in conjunction with their service as interim co-CFOs. Salary adjustments for Messrs. Daswani and Murphy made in April 2018, prior to their becoming named executive officers, were made as part of the company-wide compensation review program. Their salary adjustments were recommended by their direct manager and approved by the then-current People Lead. Messrs. Daswani and Murphy’s annualized base salaries at the time of their appointment as interim co-CFOs were $300,000 and $295,000, respectively.
Table:
Named Executive Officer | Annual Base Salary as of December 31, 2017 | Annual Base Salary as of December 31, 2018 | Percentage Increase
Mr. Dorsey | $2.75 | $2.75 | 0%
Ms. Friar (1) | $350,000 | $N/A | N/A
Ms. Henry | $350,000 | $400,000 | 14%
Ms. Reses | $350,000 | $400,000 | 14%
Ms. Whiteley (2) | $325,000 | $400,000 | 23%
Mr. Daswani (3) | $280,000 | $300,000 | 7%
Mr. Murphy (3) | $270,000 | $295,000 | 9%


Question: What is the annual base salary of Mr. Daswini in 2017 and 2018 respectively?
Answer: $280,000, $300,000
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Tabular amounts in millions, unless otherwise disclosed)
Accounts Receivable and Deferred Rent Asset—The Company derives the largest portion of its revenues and corresponding accounts receivable and the related deferred rent asset from a relatively small number of tenants in the telecommunications industry, and 54% of its current-year revenues are derived from four tenants.
The Company’s deferred rent asset is associated with non-cancellable tenant leases that contain fixed escalation clauses over the terms of the applicable lease in which revenue is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.
The Company mitigates its concentrations of credit risk with respect to notes and trade receivables and the related deferred rent assets by actively monitoring the creditworthiness of its borrowers and tenants. In recognizing tenant revenue, the Company assesses the collectibility of both the amounts billed and the portion recognized in advance of billing on a straight-line basis. This assessment takes tenant credit risk and business and industry conditions into consideration to ultimately determine the collectibility of the amounts billed. To the extent the amounts, based on management’s estimates, may not be collectible, revenue recognition is deferred until such point as collectibility is determined to be reasonably assured. Any amounts that were previously recognized as revenue and subsequently determined to be uncollectible are charged to bad debt expense included in Selling, general, administrative and development expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
Accounts receivable is reported net of allowances for doubtful accounts related to estimated losses resulting from a tenant’s inability to make required payments and allowances for amounts invoiced whose collectibility is not reasonably assured. These allowances are generally estimated based on payment patterns, days past due and collection history, and incorporate changes in economic conditions that may not be reflected in historical trends, such as tenants in bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization. Receivables are written-off against the allowances when they are determined to be uncollectible. Such determination includes analysis and consideration of the particular conditions of the account. Changes in the allowances were as follows:
(1) In 2019, write-offs are primarily related to uncollectible amounts in India. In 2018 and 2017, recoveries include recognition of revenue resulting from collections of previously reserved amounts.
Table:
 |  | Year Ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Balance as of January 1, | $282.4 | $131.0 | $45.9
Current year increases | 104.3 | 157.8 | 87.2
Write-offs, recoveries and other (1) | (223.4) | (6.4) | (2.1)
Balance as of December 31, | $163.3 | $282.4 | $131.0


Question: What was the change in current year increases between 2017 and 2018?
Answer: 70.6
Calculation: 157.8-87.2
Note 24 Post-employment benefit plans
POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLANS COST
We provide pension and other benefits for most of our employees. These include DB pension plans, DC pension plans and OPEBs.
We operate our DB and DC pension plans under applicable Canadian and provincial pension legislation, which prescribes minimum and maximum DB funding requirements. Plan assets are held in trust, and the oversight of governance of the plans, including investment decisions, contributions to DB plans and the selection of the DC plans investment options offered to plan participants, lies with the Pension Fund Committee, a committee of our board of directors.
The interest rate risk is managed using a liability matching approach, which reduces the exposure of the DB plans to a mismatch between investment growth and obligation growth.
The longevity risk is managed using a longevity swap, which reduces the exposure of the DB plans to an increase in life expectancy.
COMPONENTS OF POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLANS SERVICE COST
Table:
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 | 2019 | 2018
DB pension | (193) | (213)
DC pension | (110) | (106)
OPEBs | (3) | (3)
Less: |  | 
Capitalized benefit plans cost | 59 | 56
Total post-employment benefit plans service cost included in operating costs | (247) | (266)
Other costs recognized in severance, acquisition and other costs | – | (4)
Total post-employment benefit plans service cost | (247) | (270)


Question: How many post-employment benefit plans are there?
Answer: 3
Calculation: DB pension##DC pension##OPEBs