natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One is initially pleasantly surprised to find out that the method to undertake the valuation is in conformity with the law (p. 13 reads ‘The methodological references are the criteria laid down in Ministerial Order ECO 805/2003 on real estate valuation and Law 6/1998 of 13 April 1998 on land valuation, the aim of the valuation being to establish the value at the present date.’ However, on p. 25, one discovers that, after all, the valuation report has not complied with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Order: ‘In accordance with Article 61(1)(b) of Order ECO 805/2003 of March 2003 on rules for real estate valuation, we would point out that this Valuation Report does not formally comply with that Order since its purpose is other than the scope of application of the Order’ (‘por ser su finalidad distinta al objeto de aplicación de la misma’).
Najprej smo prijetno presenečeni, ko ugotovimo, da je metoda za ocenjevanje vrednosti skladna z zakonom (str. 13 se glasi: „Metodološke reference so merila iz ministrske uredbe ECO 805/2003 o oceni vrednosti nepremičnin in zakona št. 6/1998 z dne 13. aprila 1998 o oceni vrednosti zemljišč, pri čemer je namen ocenjevanja določiti današnjo vrednost.“) Na strani 25 ugotovimo, da poročilo o oceni vrednosti kljub vsemu ne izpolnjuje zahtev iz ministrske uredbe: „V skladu s členom 61(1)(b) uredbe ECO 805/2003, sprejete marca 2003, o pravilih za oceno vrednosti nepremičnin, bi poudarili, da to poročilu o oceni vrednosti formalno ni skladno z navedeno uredbo, ker njegov namen ne spada v obseg uporabe uredbe“ („por ser su finalidad distinta al objeto de aplicación de la misma“).
It is also interesting to note that there is a huge difference between the estimates per square meter for the two plots (NNH and NNT).
Zanimivo je tudi ugotoviti, da je med ocenami na kvadratni meter za oba sklopa (NNH in NNT) ogromna razlika.
While not denying that the projected uses (offices vs. hotels) may explain part of the difference, the gap is still striking.
Ne zanikamo sicer, da predvidene rabe (pisarne ali hoteli) lahko razliko deloma pojasnijo, vendar je vrzel kljub vsemu očitna.
How is it possible to account for this difference of over 300 %?
Kako je mogoče razložiti več kot 300-odstotno razliko?
Should we conclude that this is due to the fact that the methodology used to value the plot destined for hotels is closer to the standards established by the law?
Ali naj sklepamo, da je to zato, ker je bila metodologija, uporabljena za oceno vrednosti sklopa, namenjenega hotelom, bližje zakonskim standardom?
Or should it be put down to the greater transparency of the price of a hotel night?
Ali bi bilo treba to pripisati večji preglednosti cene hotelske nočitve?
It is also claimed that variable costs represent 50 % of revenues (e.g. on pp 18-19 of the 2009 report).
Navedeno je, da spremenljivi stroški obsegajo 50 % prihodkov (npr. na straneh 18 in 19 poročila iz leta 2009).
Where does the estimate of such large margins come from?
Od kod prihaja ocena tako velike marže?
Building costs are estimated on the basis of a benchmark price module.
Stroški gradnje so ocenjeni na podlagi modula referenčne cene.
For the 2000 and 2002 reports, the correct figures are chosen.
Za poročili iz let 2000 in 2002 so izbrani pravilni podatki.
Risk premiums
Premije za tveganja
We also note that the reports recognise that investment in hotel facilities is riskier than investment in office space (e.g. on p. 12 and p. 26 of the 2000 report).
Ugotavljamo tudi, da poročila priznavajo, da so naložbe v hotelske objekte bolj tvegane od naložb v pisarniške prostore (npr. na str. 12 in 26 poročila iz leta 2000).
At all times, the Spanish authorities have consistently envisaged the construction of a ‘hotel complex’.
Španski organi so dosledno priporočali gradnjo „hotelskega kompleksa“.
Similarly, the report indicates that the discount rate (tipo de actualización) is given by the following formula (p. 16 of the 2000 report):
Poročilo tudi navaja, da je diskontna stopnja (tipo de actualización) navedena z naslednjo formulo (str. 16 poročila iz leta 2000):
i = Risk-free rate + risk premium
i = netvegana stopnja donosa + premija za tveganje
On the same page, a table provides the minimum risk premiums to be applied.
Preglednica na isti strani določa minimalne premije za tveganja, ki se uporabijo.
The relevant premiums are above the ex-ante expected return on investment in Ciudad de la Luz.
Ustrezne premije presegajo predvideni pričakovani donos na naložbe v Ciudad de la Luz.
Lastly, the risk premium used in the calculations appearing on p. 21 of the 2000 report (10 %) is lower than the one appearing in the corresponding table on p. 16 (11 %).
In na koncu, premija za tveganje, uporabljena v izračunih na strani 21 poročila iz leta 2000 (10 %), je nižja kakor tista iz ustrezne preglednice na strani 16 (11 %).
Credible valuations
Verodostojne ocene vrednosti
In order to obtain a credible valuation of the land, valuations for around 2000 of various plots of similar characteristics in terms of size and location (next to the Aguas Amargas industrial complex), and intended for ‘tertiary use’ and ‘hotel use’, should have been provided.
Za pridobitev verodostojne ocene vrednosti zemljišč bi bilo treba navesti ocene vrednosti okoli 2000 različnih sklopov s podobnimi značilnostmi glede velikosti in lokacije (poleg industrijskega kompleksa Aguas Amargas), ki so namenjeni „terciarni rabi“ in „hotelski rabi“.
Damodaran (Damodaran, Aswath (1994), Damodaran on Valuation. New York: John Wiley and Sons) also makes this point by calculating the beta of Disney.
Damodaran (Damodaran, Aswath (1994), Damodaran on Valuation. New York: John Wiley and Sons) se poslužuje istegfa prostopa za izračun količnika beta za Disneya.
With daily data, he gets 1,33;
Rezultat pri dnevnih podatkih je 1,33;
1,38 with weekly data;
pri tedenskih 1,38;
1,13 with monthly data;
pri mesečnih 1,33;
With a 3-year period, he gets 1,04;
Za triletno obdobje je rezultat 1,04;
Also, the beta depends on the index taken as the benchmark;
Poleg tega je beta odvisna tudi od indeksa, uporabljenega za primerjavo.
thus, the beta with respect to the Dow 30 is 0,99;
Za Dow 30 tako znaša 0,99;
with respect to the S&P 500, it is 1,13, and with respect to the Wilshire 5000, it is 1,05.
za S&P 500 znaša 1,13, za Wilshire 5000 pa 1,05.
According to our calculations the WACC in 2004 was 14,91, using a risk-free rate of 4,1 % and a market risk premium of 6,8.
Po naših izračunih je leta 2004 WACC znašal 14,91, z uporabo netvegane stopnja donosa 4,1 % in premije za tržno tveganje 6,8.
See OECD Statistics.
Glej statistične podatke OECD.
The LECG report of 25 April 2008 follows the same line, as it states at the outset (beginning of section 2.1.) that the relevant question for the application of the MEIP is ‘With the information available at the time the investment was made, did the project offer enough profitability to induce a private investor also to decide to undertake this investment? […] The investment decision must be analysed from an ex-ante perspective.’
Poročilo LECG z dne 25. aprila 2008 podobno že na začetku (začetek oddelka 2.1.) pravi, za je za uporabo MEIP upoštevno vprašanje „Ali je na podlagi podatkov, ki so bili na voljo v času, ko je bila izvedena naložba, projekt zagotavljal zadostno donosnost, da bi se lahko zasebni vlagatelj odločil tudi za to naložbo? […] Naložbeno odločitev je treba analizirati s predhodnega vidika.“
The Commission received comments from interested parties, and forwarded them to Spain on 3 October 2008.
Komisija je od zainteresiranih strani prejela pripombe, ki jih je 3. oktobra 2008 posredovala Španiji.
The Spanish authorities’ comments were received on 21 November 2008 and on 29 December 2008.
Pripombe španskih organov je prejela 21. novembra 2008 in 29. decembra 2008.
Spain replied on 7 June 2011.
Španija je odgovorila 7. junija 2011.
The Commission replied to Spain on 22 July 2011.
Komisija ji je odgovorila 22. julija 2011.
Ciudad de la Luz SA was incorporated on 2 November 2000.
Družba Ciudad de la Luz SA je bila ustanovljena 2. novembra 2000.
Its objective was to carry out the necessary activities for the promotion, organisation and management of the ‘Ciudad de la Luz’ site, including the construction, management and operation of audiovisual and cinematographic facilities, as well as other related leisure and accommodation activities.
Njen namen je bil izvesti potrebne dejavnosti za promocijo, organizacijo in upravljanje kompleksa Ciudad de la Luz, vključno z gradnjo, upravljanjem in obratovanjem avdiovizualnih in kinematografskih objektov ter drugih sorodnih zabavnih in hotelskih dejavnosti.
The film studio complex opened for filming in August 2005.
Kompleks filmskih studiev je začel snemati filme avgusta 2005.
Designed to accommodate the largest film productions, construction began in 2002 and has been divided into three phases:
Gradnja, namenjena največjim filmskim produkcijam, se je začela leta 2002 in je bila razdeljena na tri faze:
On the basis of this business plan, between 2000 and 2004, SPTCV carried out or committed investments in Ciudad de la Luz through share capital increases and land totalling EUR 104259759. See details in recital 53.
Na podlagi tega poslovnega načrta je SPTCV od leta 2000 do 2004 izvedla ali naročila naložbe v Ciudad de la Luz s povečanji delniškega kapitala in zemljišči v skupni višini 104259759 EUR. Glej podrobnosti v uvodni izjavi 53.
On the basis of the modified work schedule and business plan, SPTCV, as sole shareholder, granted two participating loans of EUR 95 million in 2005 and EUR 20 million in 2007.
Na podlagi spremenjenega delovnega in poslovnega načrta je SPTCV kot edina delničarka zagotovila dve udeležbeni posojili v višini 95 milijonov EUR leta 2005 in 20 milijonov EUR leta 2007.
The accounts of Ciudad de la Luz SAU to 31 December 2010, provided by the Spanish authorities in April 2012, show that SPTCV went on to invest a total of EUR 45829840 in convertible loan stock between 2008 and 2010.
Računovodski izkazi Ciudad de la Luz SAU do 31. decembra 2010, ki so jih predložili španski organi aprila 2012, kažejo, da je SPTCV med letoma 2008 in 2010 vložila skupaj 45829840 EUR v zamenljivih podjetniških obveznicah.
As noted above, at the time the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in February 2008, the only basis for the investment decision that had been provided by the Spanish authorities was the Consultia business plan, purportedly carried out in 2002.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je bila v času, ko je Komisija februarja 2008 uvedla formalni postopek preiskave, edina podlaga za odločanje o naložbah, ki so jo navedli španski organi, poslovni načrt družbe Consultia, ki naj bi bil izveden leta 2002.
After a preliminary assessment, the Commission had serious doubts that a market investor would have invested on the same terms and on the same scale as the Valencia Regional Government.
Komisija je po predhodni oceni močno dvomila, da bi tržni vlagatelj dejansko vlagal pod enakimi pogoji in v enakem obsegu kot regionalna vlada Valencije.
Barrandov Studio subscribe to the grounds of the complaint alleged by Complainant A and stress that the size and number of sound stages indicate that Ciudad de la Luz is focused on high budget US films rather than on Spanish ones.
Barrandov Studio potrjuje razloge za pritožbo, ki jih navaja pritožnik A, ter poudarja, da velikost in število zvočnih odrov kažeta, da je Ciudad de la Luz usmerjena v visokoproračunske filme ZDA in ne v španske.
By the time of the 2004 study, more than EUR 90 million had already been invested in the project. Consequently, the Spanish authorities claim that two investment decisions were taken:
Do študije leta 2004 je bilo v projekt vloženih že več kot 90 milijonov EUR. Zato španski organi trdijo, da sta bili sprejeti dve odločitvi o vlaganjih:
Even if the Commission considered that at least part of the investment was State aid, Spain alleged that all the films shot in Ciudad de la Luz met the cultural criteria of the Valencia film incentives, which were approved by the Commission in April 2008, December 2008 and July 2009 [16].
Čeprav bi Komisija menila, da je vsaj del naložb državna pomoč, Španija trdi, da so vsi filmi, posneti v Ciudad de la Luz, izpolnjevali kulturna merila Valencije za film, ki jih je Komisija odobrila aprila 2008, decembra 2008 in julija 2009 [16].
According to Spain, the cultural exception provided in Article 107(3)(d) TFEU can be applied to investment aid upstream or downstream of the production of films.
Španija trdi, da se izjema v zvezi s kulturo iz člena 107(3)(d) PDEU lahko uporablja za pomoč za naložbe pred produkcijo filmov in za njo.
For Ciudad de la Luz, using the opportunity cost of capital of 14 % and the cash flows provided in the Consultia business plan of 2004 (which are taken at face value by the Commission as explained in recital 76), the NPV of the investment is around minus EUR 130 million (see Annex).
V primeru Ciudad de la Luz znašajo z uporabo oportunitetnih stroškov kapitala v višini 14 % in z denarnimi tokovi iz poslovnega načrta družbe Consultia iz leta 2004 (ki jih je Komisija upoštevala po nominalni vrednosti, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 76) NPV naložbe okoli minus 130 milijonov EUR (glej Prilogo).
Consequently, this investment opportunity is not worthwhile for a private investor.
Zato za zasebnega vlagatelja to ni primerna naložbena priložnost.
Secondly, to establish the relevant benchmark, the Commission should not have used only the Consultia IT’s business plan but also the Arthur Andersen’s 2000 business plan.
Drugič, Komisija za določitev ustreznega merila ne bi smela uporabljati le poslovnega načrta družbe Consultia IT, temveč tudi poslovni načrt Arthurja Andersena iz leta 2000.
Thirdly, the Commission did not use the appropriate financial ratios to estimate the expected profitability of the Ciudad de la Luz project.
Tretjič, Komisija ni uporabila primernih finančnih kazalnikov za oceno pričakovane donosnosti projekta Ciudad de la Luz.
Most importantly, the values proposed for the premium were estimated values for 2009 and not those which prevailed in 2000 and 2004.
Zlasti je pomembno to, da so bile vrednosti, predlagane za premijo, ocenjene vrednosti za leto 2009 in ne tiste, ki so prevladovale v letih 2000 in 2004.
Clearly, the parameters to be used for the estimation of the CAPM should be contemporaneous to the date of the business decision.
Jasno je, da morajo biti parametri, uporabljeni v oceni CAPM, iz istega obdobja kot poslovna odločitev.
As can be seen, due to a higher risk premium and to a higher risk-free rate, in that case the WACC would be even higher than in 2004.
Kot se lahko vidi, bi bil v tem primeru zaradi višje premije za tveganje in zaradi višje netvegane stopnje WACC še višji kot leta 2004.
Also, this calculation leads to a negative NPV.
Tudi pri tem izračunu je NPV negativna.
The Ecorys report considers various scenarios which estimate the cost of equity capital to be between 12,5 % and 21,4 % for the investment in 2000 and between 10,9 % and 15,9 % for the further investment in 2004.
Poročilo družbe Ecorys obravnava različne možnosti, ki ocenjujejo stroške lastniškega kapitala od 12,5 % do 21,4 % za naložbe leta 2000 in od 10,9 % do 15,9 % za nadaljnje naložbe leta 2004.
Thus, the result of the Commission’s study is within the range calculated by Ecorys.
Rezultati študije Komisije so v mejah, izračunanih v študiji družbe Ecorys.
‘To ensure that productive investment is viable and sound, the recipient’s contribution to its financing must be at least 25 %.’ Footnote 20 of the Guidelines clarifies that this minimum contribution of 25 % must not contain any aid.
„Če hočemo zagotoviti, da bo podprta produktivna naložba donosna in zdrava, mora prejemnik k njenemu financiranju prispevati vsaj 25 % finančnih sredstev.“ Opomba 20 Smernic pojasnjuje, da 25-odstotni minimalni prispevek ne sme vsebovati nobene pomoči.
BetaUnlevered = 1,68
betanezadolženega podjetja = 1,68
A similar assessment was made in Germany in 2008 by Der Spezialist fur Finanzaktien for Studio Babelsberg, another firm identified as a direct competitor to CDL by Spanish authorities.
Podobno oceno je leta 2008 v Nemčiji pripravil Der Spezialist für Finanzaktien za Studio Babelsberg, ki je še eno podjetje, ki so ga španski organi navedli kot neposrednega konkurenta CDL.
On the basis of the submission provided by the Spanish authorities, it emerges that the 199 million investment is the sum of the cash flows in the period 2005-2007.
Na podlagi pripomb španskih organov se je pokazalo, da je naložba 199 milijonov EUR vsota denarnih tokov v obdobju med letoma 2005 in 2007.
The cash flow of the last period includes the residual value, computed using the dividend discount model:
Denarni tok zadnjega obdobja vključuje preostalo vrednost, izračunano z uporabo dividendno diskontnega modela:
NPV
Čista sedanja vrednost (NPV)
LECG questions our choice of using historical data relating to the premiums, based on Fernández (2004), to estimate the market risk premium in Spain for the years 2000 and 2004.
LECG podvomi o naši odločitvi o uporabi preteklih podatkov za premije, na podlagi dokumenta Fernández (2004), za oceno premije za tržno tveganje v Španiji med letoma 2000 in 2004.
Instead, LECG suggests using the information found in a later paper by the same author [1].As will be seen below, the LECG report quotes this paper very selectively.
Namesto tega pravi, da bi bilo treba uporabiti podatke iz poznejšega dokumenta istega avtorja [1].Kot bo prikazano spodaj, poročilo LECG zelo selektivno navaja ta dokument.
In other words, the relevant equity premium is the one that was prevailing in 2000 (or 2004), not 2009.
Ustrezna premija za tveganje lastniškega kapitala je torej tista, ki je prevladovala v letu 2000 (ali 2004) in ne 2009.
With respect to that point, Fernández’s paper (2009) does provide consensus estimates of the REP in 2000 and 2004.
V zvezi s tem Fernándezov dokument (2009) navaja enotne ocene REP v letih 2000 in 2004.
In particular, the 2004 value of the REP is above 6 %, whereas its value for 2000 is around 7 %.
Treba je poudariti, da vrednost REP leta 2004 presega 6 %, njena vrednost za leto 2000 pa znaša okoli 7 %. Naša ocena pred objavo tega dokumenta je bila pravilna in je bila v tem razponu;
Our estimation before this paper was made public was correct, and was in this range, i.e. 6,8 %.
znašala je 6,8 %.
It is possible to go one step further and compute the NPV of the project in 2000.
Naredili bi lahko še korak naprej in izračunali NPV projekta za leto 2000.
Bearing in mind all the caveats we stressed in our previous analysis (i.e., the use at face value of the cash flows and the parameters used for the calculation of the terminal value, except, of course, for the WACC) we obtain the following negative NPV:
Ob upoštevanju vseh pridržkov, ki smo jih poudarili v predhodni analizi (tj. uporabo nominalne vrednosti denarnih tokov in parametrov, ki se uporabljajo za izračun končne vrednosti, razen seveda WACC), smo dobili naslednjo negativno vrednost NPV:
They provide a valuation for the years 2000, 2002, and 2009.
Ocene se nanašajo na leta 2000, 2002 in 2009. Za vsako leto sta ocenjena dva sklopa:
For each of these years, two plots are valued:
eden za razvoj hotelskega kompleksa, drugi za pisarniški del;
The average price per square metre of urban land in the Alicante province stood at EUR 234,3/m2 during the first quarter of 2004.
Povprečna cena za kvadratni meter mestnega zemljišča v provinci Alicante je v prvem četrtletju 2004 znašala 234,3 EUR/m2.
The corresponding figure for municipalities of more than 50000 inhabitants in the province of Alicante stood at EUR 464,9m2 during the first quarter of 2004.
Ustrezni znesek za občine z več kot 50000 prebivalci v provinci Alicante je bil v prvem četrtletju 2004 464,9 m2.
On p. 18, seven transactions that took place between April 2007 and December 2008 are listed.
Na strani 18 je naštetih sedem transakcij, izvršenih od aprila 2007 do decembra 2008.
The average value is EUR 2736,22 per square meter.
Povprečna vrednost je 2736,22 EUR na kvadratni meter.
Thus, the 2009 report provides glaring evidence that real estate inflation was far above the 33,5 % used in the 2000 report.
Poročilo iz leta 2009 torej jasno dokazuje, da je inflacija nepremičnin precej presegala 33,5 %, kot je bilo uporabljeno v poročilu iz leta 2000.
The resulting average prices are EUR 44,95/night in the 2000 report, and EUR 47,65/night in the 2002 report.
Izračunane povprečne cene so 44,95 EUR/nočitev v poročilu iz leta 2000 in 47,65 EUR/nočitev v poročilu iz leta 2002.
Although the source underpinning these values has not been provided, they are not out of line with previous figures.
Čeprav vir teh podatkov ni bil naveden, niso neskladne s prejšnjimi podatki.
For hotels, the values range from EUR 144,12/m2 (2000) to EUR 188,35/m2 in 2009.
Vrednosti hotelov nihajo od 144,12 EUR/m2 (2000) do 188,35 EUR/m2 leta 2009.
For office space, the respective magnitudes range from EUR 491,64/m2 (2000) to EUR 800/m2 in 2009.
Vrednost pisarniških prostorov sega od 491,64 EUR/m2 (2000) do 800 EUR/m2 leta 2009.
What can explain the significant difference in the price evolution (inflation) of these two plots situated next to each other?
S čim bi lahko razložili tako veliko razliko v gibanju cene (inflaciji) dveh sklopov, ki sta drug poleg drugega?
Why is this?
Zakaj je tako?
0,44 with quarterly data; and 0,77 with annual data.
pri četrtletnih 0,44 ter pri letnih 0,77.
The share of Ciudad de la Luz SA held by Producciones Aguamarga SL was bought out by SPTCV in July 2004 for EUR 139059. Unlike SPTCV, Producciones Aguamarga SL had made no further investment in Ciudad de la Luz SA after its initial EUR 150000 investment in November 2000.
Družba SPTCV je julija 2004 za 139059 EUR odkupila delež Ciudad de la Luz SA, ki je bil v lasti družbe Producciones Aguamarga SL. Za razliko od SPTCV Producciones Aguamarga SL od prvotne naložbe v višini 150000 EUR novembra 2000 ni več vlagala v Ciudad de la Luz SA.
Those comments reached the Commission on 15 September 2008.
Komisija je navedene pripombe prejela 15. septembra 2008.
Information about the amounts of aid received, to be recovered and already recovered
Podatki o izplačanih zneskih pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti in ki so že bili povrnjeni
BetaUnlevered
betanezadolženega podjetja
= BetaLevered
= betazadolženega podjetja
At the time of the share issue, the debt to equity ratio stood at 10 %.
V času izdaje delnic je znašalo razmerje med dolžniškim in lastniškim kapitalom 10 %.
This magnitude has been confirmed with Bloomberg data.
Ta podatek potrjujejo podatki Bloomberg.
The use of this benchmark should not be interpreted as deeming that this figure is accurate.
Uporaba tega merila se ne bi smela razlagati, kot da se šteje, da je ta podatek točen.
Cash flow forecasts are difficult to establish with precision;
Napovedi denarnih tokov je težko natančno določiti;
In our previous analysis, we used the year 2004 as a reference year for the calculation of the NPV, as this was the time when the entire investment of EUR 199,4 million had been committed. However, we can easily duplicate our analysis for the year 2000.
V predhodni analizi smo kot referenčno leto za izračun NPV uporabili leto 2004, ker je bil to čas, ko je bila odobrena celotna naložba 199,4 milijona EUR. Našo analizo z lahkoto lahko ponovimo tudi za leto 2000.
LA VIVIENDA EN ESPAÑA:
La vivienda en España:
A beta of 1 represents the portfolio of all stocks, so the ‘average’ stock.
Vrednost beta 1 predstavlja portfelj vseh delnic, zato so to „povprečne“ delnice.
Finally, investors are not really interested in accounting earnings but rather in monetary gains, i.e. the cash flows they receive from their investment. Furthermore, LECG should have compared the WACC measure with the ROCE (Return on Capital Employed), and not with ROA.
Vlagateljev dejansko ne zanima obračunavanje zaslužka, temveč prej finančne koristi, in sicer denarni tokovi, ki jih prejmejo od svoje naložbe.Poleg tega bi morala LECG primerjati merilo WACC z ROCE (donos vloženega kapitala), in ne z donosom sredstev (ROA).
By comparing the two reports, we obtain inflation of 146,1 %.
S primerjavo obeh poročil ugotovimo, da je inflacija znašala 146,1 %.