trismik/FinRAG huggingface dataset:
five-year stock performance graph the graph below illustrates the cumulative total shareholder return on snap-on common stock since december 31 , 2007 , assuming that dividends were reinvested .
the graph compares snap-on 2019s performance to that of the standard & poor 2019s 500 stock index ( 201cs&p 500 201d ) and a peer group .
snap-on incorporated total shareholder return ( 1 ) fiscal year ended ( 2 ) snap-on incorporated peer group ( 3 ) s&p 500 .

Fiscal Year Ended<sup>(2)</sup>
Snap-onIncorporated
Peer Group<sup>(3)</sup>
S&P 500
December 31, 2007
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
December 31, 2008
83.66
66.15
63.00
December 31, 2009
93.20
84.12
79.67
December 31, 2010
128.21
112.02
91.67
December 31, 2011
117.47
109.70
93.61
December 31, 2012
187.26
129.00
108.59

( 1 ) assumes $ 100 was invested on december 31 , 2007 , and that dividends were reinvested quarterly .
( 2 ) the company's fiscal year ends on the saturday that is on or nearest to december 31 of each year ; for ease of calculation , the fiscal year end is assumed to be december 31 .
( 3 ) the peer group consists of : stanley black & decker , inc. , danaher corporation , emerson electric co. , genuine parts company , newell rubbermaid inc. , pentair ltd. , spx corporation and w.w .
grainger , inc .
cooper industries plc , a former member of the peer group , was removed , as it was acquired by a larger , non-comparable company in 2012 .
2012 annual report 23 snap-on incorporated peer group s&p 500 2007 2008 201120102009 2012 .

Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. what is the roi of s&p 500 from 2007 to 2012?
Choices:
108.59
2.0859
0.0859
2.8633
1
Correct choice index: 2
Fees Paid to our Independent Auditor
The following table sets forth the fees billed to us by Ernst & Young LLP for services in fiscal 2019 and 2018, all of which
were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.
(1) In accordance with the SEC’s definitions and rules, “audit fees” are fees that were billed to Systemax by Ernst & Young LLP for
the audit of our annual financial statements, to be included in the Form 10-K, and review of financial statements included in the
Form 10-Qs; for the audit of our internal control over financial reporting with the objective of obtaining reasonable assurance about
whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects; for the attestation of management’s
report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting; and for services that are normally provided by the auditor
in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.
(2) “Audit-related fees” are fees for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or
review of our financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, including services in connection with assisting
Systemax in our compliance with our obligations under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related regulations.
(3) Ernst & Young LLP did not provide any professional services for tax compliance, planning or advice in 2019 or 2018.
(4) Consists of fees billed for other professional services rendered to Systemax.

Fee Category
2019 ($)
2018 ($)
Audit fees (1)
1,196,000
1,257,000
Audit-related fees (2)
0
15,000
Tax fees (3)
0
0
All other fees (4)
2,000
2,000
Total
1,198,000
1,274,000


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What is the change in audit fees between 2018 and 2019?
Choices:
61000
0
-1196003
6100000
2453000
Correct choice index: 0
The following table summarizes activity for the interest rate swap:
There were no transfers between Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 fair value hierarchy categories of financial instruments in the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.
Financial Instruments Not Recorded at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
Some of the Company’s financial instruments are not measured at fair value on a recurring basis but are recorded at amounts that approximate fair value due to their liquid or short-term nature. Such financial assets and financial liabilities include: cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, net receivables, certain other assets, accounts payable, accrued price protection liability, accrued expenses, accrued compensation costs, and other current liabilities. The Company’s long-term debt is not recorded at fair value on a recurring basis, but is measured at fair value for disclosure purposes (Note8 ).

Fair Value at December 31,
2019
2018
(in thousands)
Interest rate swap
Beginning balance
$1,623
$734
Unrealized gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss)
(1,660)
889
Ending balance
$(37)
1,623


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What was the average Unrealized gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) for 2018 and 2019?
Choices:
889
-1274.5
426
-385.5
-771
Correct choice index: 3
part ii .
item 5 .
market for registrant 2019s common equity , related stockholder matters and issuer purchases of equity securities our common stock is traded on the nasdaq global select market under the symbol cdns .
as of february 2 , 2019 , we had 523 registered stockholders and approximately 56000 beneficial owners of our common stock .
stockholder return performance graph the following graph compares the cumulative 5-year total stockholder return on our common stock relative to the cumulative total return of the nasdaq composite index , the s&p 500 index and the s&p 500 information technology index .
the graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and in each index on december 28 , 2013 ( including reinvestment of dividends ) was $ 100 and tracks it each year thereafter on the last day of our fiscal year through december 29 , 2018 and , for each index , on the last day of the calendar year .
comparison of 5 year cumulative total return* among cadence design systems , inc. , the nasdaq composite index , the s&p 500 index and the s&p 500 information technology index 12/29/181/2/16 12/30/1712/28/13 12/31/161/3/15 *$ 100 invested on 12/28/13 in stock or index , including reinvestment of dividends .
fiscal year ending december 29 .
copyright a9 2019 standard & poor 2019s , a division of s&p global .
all rights reserved .
nasdaq compositecadence design systems , inc .
s&p 500 s&p 500 information technology .

12/28/2013
1/3/2015
1/2/2016
12/31/2016
12/30/2017
12/29/2018
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
$100.00
$135.18
$149.39
$181.05
$300.22
$311.13
Nasdaq Composite
100.00
112.60
113.64
133.19
172.11
165.84
S&P 500
100.00
110.28
109.54
129.05
157.22
150.33
S&P 500 Information Technology
100.00
115.49
121.08
144.85
201.10
200.52

the stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance. .

Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. what was the percentage cumulative 5-year total stockholder return for cadence design systems inc . for the period ending 12/29/2018?
Choices:
-0.98
0.6786
2.1113
3.0913
211.13
Correct choice index: 2
The following table reconciles the expected income tax expense, computed by applying our combined German tax rate of 26.4% (2018: 26.4%; 2017: 26.4%), to the actual income tax expense. Our 2019 combined German tax rate includes a corporate income tax rate of 15.0% (2018: 15.0%; 2017: 15.0%), plus a solidarity surcharge of 5.5% (2018: 5.5%; 2017: 5.5%) thereon, and trade taxes of 10.6% (2018: 10.6%; 2017: 10.6%).
Relationship Between Tax Expense and Profit Before Tax

€ millions, unless otherwise stated
2019
2018
2017
Profit before tax
4,596
5,600
5,029
Tax expense at applicable tax rate of 26.4% rate of 26.4% (2018: 26.4%; 2017: 26.4%)
1,212
1,478
1,327
Tax effect of:
Foreign tax rates
–209
–147
–403
Changes in tax laws and tax rates
10
0
–212
Non-deductible expenses
116
106
82
Tax-exempt income
–93
–38
–95
Withholding taxes
138
91
131
Research and development and foreign tax credits
–89
–33
–26
Prior-year taxes
80
–17
–26
Reassessment of deferred tax assets, research and development tax credits, and foreign tax credits
48
58
185
Other
13
13
20
Total income tax expense
1,226
1,511
983
Effective tax rate (in %)
26.7
27.0
19.5


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What was the percentage change in Other in 2019 from 2018?
Choices:
-93
-3
0
2
-13
Correct choice index: 2
General and Administrative
General and administrative expenses increased $71.5 million, or 66.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in 2018, due to an increase of $28.7 million in employee-related costs ($12.2 million of which related to stock-based compensation and related payroll taxes), a $14.9 million increase in finance costs, which include an estimated net liability for non-recurring HST payable to the Government of Canada in the amount of $8.1 million related to 2019 and prior years, sales and use and other value added taxes, insurance, and bank fees, a $9.0 million increase in Shopify Payments losses driven by increased GMV processed through Shopify Payments, a $8.6 million increase in losses and insurance related to Shopify Capital driven by an expansion of our Capital offerings and programs, a $6.9 million increase in professional services fees for legal and tax services, including those related to our international expansion and the growth of our business, a $1.8 million increase in computer and software costs, and a $1.6 million increase in general bad debt expense. General and administrative expenses increased $71.5 million, or 66.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in 2018, due to an increase of $28.7 million in employee-related costs ($12.2 million of which related to stock-based compensation and related payroll taxes), a $14.9 million increase in finance costs, which include an estimated net liability for non-recurring HST payable to the Government of Canada in the amount of $8.1 million related to 2019 and prior years, sales and use and other value added taxes, insurance, and bank fees, a $9.0 million increase in Shopify Payments losses driven by increased GMV processed through Shopify Payments, a $8.6 million increase in losses and insurance related to Shopify Capital driven by an expansion of our Capital offerings and programs, a $6.9 million increase in professional services fees for legal and tax services, including those related to our international expansion and the growth of our business, a $1.8 million increase in computer and software costs, and a $1.6 million increase in general bad debt expense.
General and administrative expenses increased $39.7 million, or 58.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to the same period in 2017, due to an increase of $30.3 million in employee-related costs, a $4.5 million increase in professional services fees for legal and tax services, a $4.0 million increase in finance costs, which includes insurance, sales and use and other value added taxes, and a $1.7 million increase in computer and software costs.

Years ended December 31,
2019 vs 2018
2018 vs 2017
2019
2018
2017
% Change
% Change
(in thousands, except percentages)
General and administrative
$ 178,934
$ 107,444
$ 67,719
66.5 %
58.7 %
Percentage of total revenues
11.3 %
10.0 %
10.1 %


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What is the average general and administrative expenses for 2017 and 2018?
Choices:
87581.5
2634
107444
33864.5
67719
Correct choice index: 0
OPERATING EXPENSES
(1) For the three-month period ended August 31, 2019, the average foreign exchange rate used for translation was 1.3222 USD/CDN.
(2) Fiscal 2018 was restated to comply with IFRS 15 and to reflect a change in accounting policy as well as to reclassify results from Cogeco Peer 1 as discontinued operations. For further details, please consult the "Accounting policies" and "Discontinued operations" sections.
(3) Fiscal 2019 actuals are translated at the average foreign exchange rate of the comparable period of fiscal 2018 which was 1.3100 USD/CDN.
Fiscal 2019 fourth-quarter operating expenses increased by 1.6% (1.1% in constant currency) mainly from: • additional costs in the American broadband services segment mainly due to higher programming costs, additional headcount to support growth, higher marketing initiatives to drive primary service units growth and the FiberLight acquisition;

Three months ended August 31,
2019 (1)
2018 (2)
Change
Change in constant currency (3)
Foreign exchange impact (3)
(in thousands of dollars, except percentages)
$
$
%
%
$
Canadian broadband services
147,815
153,560
(3.7)
(3.8)
73
American broadband services
148,215
136,506
8.6
7.6
1,370
Inter-segment eliminations and other
6,803
7,911
(14.0)
(14.0)
(2)
302,833
297,977
1.6
1.1
1,441


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What was the increase / (decrease) in the Canadian broadband services from three months ended August 31, 2018 to 2019?
Choices:
147818
-5745
-5345
147815
-153551
Correct choice index: 1
14. Fair Value Measures
The Company is required to categorize both financial and nonfinancial assets and liabilities based on the following fair value hierarchy. The fair value of an asset is the price at which the asset could be sold in an orderly transaction between unrelated, knowledgeable, and willing parties able to engage in the transaction. A liability’s fair value is defined as the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability to a new obligor in a transaction between such parties, not the amount that would be paid to settle the liability with the creditor.
• Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. • Level 2 - Inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. • Level 3 - Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability supported by little or no market activity and are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.
The disclosure of fair value of certain financial assets and liabilities recorded at cost are as follows:
Cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and accounts payable: The carrying amount approximates fair value due to the short maturity of these instruments.
Long-term debt: The carrying value of the Company’s long-term debt is at its stated value. We have not elected to carry our long-term debt at fair value. Fair values for debt are based on quoted market prices or published forward interest rate curves, which are level 2 inputs. Estimated fair values are management’s estimates, which is a level 3 input; however, when there is no readily available market data, the estimated fair values may not represent the amounts that could be realized in a current transaction, and the fair values could change significantly. The fair value of the Company’s debt is sensitive to changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates. Under its current policies, the Company does not use interest rate derivative instruments to manage exposure to interest rate changes. A one percent (1%) decrease in interest rates would increase the net fair value of the Company’s debt by $23,000 at June 1, 2019. The fair value and carrying value of the Company’s long-term debt were as follows (in thousands):

June 1, 2019
June 2, 2018
Carrying Value
Fair Value
Carrying Value
Fair Value
Note payable
$1,283
$1,309
$4,750
$4,732
Long-term leases
1,054
940
1,340
1,171
$2,337
$2,249
$6,090
$5,903


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What is the increase / (decrease) in the total debt carrying value?
Choices:
-3753
2335
1397
14232330
-9843
Correct choice index: 0
DERIVATIVE LIABILITIES
In connection with the issuance of Series A-1 Preferred Stock in June 2017, the Company issued a warrant with variable consideration through September 2018. The Company determined that this instrument is an embedded derivative pursuant to ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging.” The accounting treatment of derivative financial instruments requires that the Company record the warrant, at its fair value as of the inception date of the agreement and at fair value as of each subsequent balance sheet date through the expiration of the variable consideration. Any change in fair value is recorded as a change in the fair value of derivative liabilities for each reporting period at each balance sheet date. The Company reassesses the classification at each balance sheet date. If the classification changes as a result of events during the period, the contract is reclassified as of the date of the event that caused the reclassification. On September 19, 2018, upon expiration of the variable consideration, the warrant liability of $4.5 million was reclassified to equity.
The Monte Carlo Valuation model is used to estimate the fair value of the warrant. The model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options or warrants. The expected volatility is estimated based on the most recent historical period of time equal to the weighted average life of the instrument granted.
The risk-free interest rate used is the United States Treasury rate for the day of the grant having a term equal to the life of the equity instrument. The volatility is a measure of the amount by which the Company’s share price has fluctuated or is expected to fluctuate. The dividend yield is zero as the Company has not made any dividend payment and has no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. The Company determines the expected term of its warrant awards by using the contractual term.
The principal assumptions used in applying the model were as follows:

Upon 2018 Expiration
December 31, 2017
Assumptions:
Risk-free interest rate
2.3% - 2.5%
1.5% - 2.0%
Expected life
1.8 - 2.2 Years
2.5 - 3 Years
Expected volatility
65% - 70%
50% - 60%
Dividends
0%
0%


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What is the average expected life upon 2018 expiration?
Choices:
-2
4
2
1
6
Correct choice index: 2
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income for the period by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing net income for the period by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period, plus the dilutive effect of outstanding restricted stock-based awards, stock options, and shares issuable under the employee stock purchase plan using the treasury stock method. The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:
(1) These weighted shares relate to anti-dilutive restricted stock-based awards and stock options as calculated using the treasury stock method and contingently issuable shares under PSO and PSU agreements. Such shares could be dilutive in the future. See Note 13 for information regarding the exercise prices of our outstanding, unexercised stock options.

Year Ended May 31,
(in millions, except per share data)
2019
2018
2017
Net income
$11,083
$3,587
$9,452
Weighted average common shares outstanding
3,634
4,121
4,115
Dilutive effect of employee stock plans
98
117
102
Dilutive weighted average common shares outstanding
3,732
4,238
4,217
Basic earnings per share
$3.05
$0.87
$2.30
Diluted earnings per share
$2.97
$0.85
$2.24
Shares subject to anti-dilutive restricted stock-based awards and stock options excluded from calculation (1)
71
64
74


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. In 2019, how much more was the basic earnings per share than the diluted earnings per share?
Choices:
4235.03
1.03
0.08
-2.1
0
Correct choice index: 2
Restricted Stock Awards
We present below a summary of changes in unvested units of restricted stock during 2019:
The Company recorded equity-based compensation expense related to restricted stock and RSUs (collectively “restricted stock awards”) of $31.8 million, $19.9 million, and $16.2 million in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The total fair value of restricted stock awards vested in 2019, 2018 and 2017, based on market value at the vesting dates was $18.2 million, $18.1 million, and $18.8 million, respectively. The weighted average grant-date fair value of RSUs granted during fiscal year 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $49.48, $51.72 and $49.01, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested RSU totaled $47.5 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 2.5 years. In January 2017, we elected to recognize forfeitures of equity-based payments as they occur.
awards”) of $31.8 million, $19.9 million, and $16.2 million in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The total fair value of restricted
stock awards vested in 2019, 2018 and 2017, based on market value at the vesting dates was $18.2 million, $18.1 million, and $18.8
million, respectively. The weighted average grant-date fair value of RSUs granted during fiscal year 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $49.48,
$51.72 and $49.01, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested RSU totaled $47.5
million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 2.5 years. In January 2017, we elected to
recognize forfeitures of equity-based payments as they occur.
Included in RSU grants for the year ended December 31, 2019 are 282,327 units that have performance-based vesting criteria. The
performance criteria are tied to our financial performance. As of December 31, 2019, the associated equity-based compensation
expense has been recognized for the portion of the award attributable to the 2019 performance criteria.

Number of Units
Grant Date Fair Value
Outstanding at January 1, 2019   
997,173
$52.22
Granted   
945,159
49.48
Vested   
(386,060)
51.79
Forfeited   
(59,579)
50.56
Outstanding at December 31, 2019   
1,496,693
$50.67


Question: Analyse this data from a financial earnings document. What is the value difference between granted share and vested share?
Choices:
2.78
19.99
101.27
-2.31
2.31
Correct choice index: 4