Question: How many years did the balance at beginning of year exceed $200 million if the Balance at Beginning of Year in 2018 was $150 million instead?

Answer: 1

Context:
Note 22. Supplemental Financial Information Cash paid for income taxes amounted to $77.6 million, $25.9 million and $48.4 million during fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Cash paid for interest on borrowings amounted to $347.9 million, $85.3 million and $82.5 million during fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. A summary of additions and deductions related to the valuation allowance for deferred tax asset accounts for the years ended March 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 follows (amounts in millions):

	Balance at Beginning of Year	Additions Charged to Costs and Expenses	Additions Charged to Other Accounts	Deductions	Balance at End of Year

Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets:

Fiscal 2019	$204.5	$16.2	$175.8	$(64.4)	$332.1

Fiscal 2018	$210.1	$36.2	$—	$(41.8)	$204.5

Fiscal 2017	$161.8	$15.2	$37.6	$(4.5)	$210.1


Question: What would be the change in the Additions Charged to Costs and Expenses between 2017 and 2019 if the additions in 2017 were $100 million instead?

Answer: 75.8


Question: What would be the percentage change in the Balance at End of Year between 2018 and 2019 if the Balance at End of Year in 2019 was $500 million instead?

Answer: 144.5


Question: If the Selling, general and administrative expenses in 2019 is increased to 1,922 million, what is the revised average?

Answer: 1332.67

Context:
The 2019 operating expenses increased 3.9% compared to the prior year, mainly due to salary dynamic, increased spending in certain R&D programs and higher share-based compensation cost, partially offset by favorable currency effects, net of hedging. The 2018 operating expenses increased 9.5% compared to the prior year, mainly due to unfavorable currency effects, net of hedging, salary dynamic, increased R&D activities and higher costs of the share-based compensation plans. The R&D expenses were net of research tax credits in France and Italy, which amounted to $126 million in 2019, $138 million in 2018 and $124 million in 2017.

	Year Ended December 31,	Year Ended December 31,	Year Ended December 31,	Variation	Variation

	2019	2018	2017	2019 vs 2018	2018 vs 2017

	(In millions)	(In millions)	(In millions)

Selling, general and administrative expenses	$(1,093)	$(1,095)	$(981)	0.3%	(11.7)%

Research and development expenses	(1,498)	(1,398)	(1,296)	(7.1)	(7.9)

Total operating expenses	$(2,591)	$(2,493)	$(2,277)	(3.9)%	(9.5)%

As percentage of net revenues	(27.1)%	(25.8)%	(27.3)%	-130 bps	+150 bps


Question: If the Research and development expenses in 2019 is increased to 2,120 million, what is the revised average?

Answer: 1604.67


Question: What would be the increase/ (decrease) in in total operating expenses as percentage of net revenues, if the percentage of net revenues in 2019 is increased to 32.1?

Answer: 4.8


Question: If the Furniture and equipment in 2019 increased to 12,674 thousand, what would be the revised change between December 31, 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 2400

Context:
Note 8 — Property, Plant and Equipment, net The components of property, plant and equipment, net, are: The estimated useful lives of buildings and improvements and rental property are twenty to twenty-five years. The estimated useful lives of furniture and equipment range from three to eight years. Depreciation expense from continuing operations was $1.5 million and $1.2 million for 2019 and 2018, respectively. The Company leases a portion of its headquarters facility to various tenants. Net rent received from these leases totaled $0.3 million and $0.4 million for 2019 and 2018, respectively.

	December 31,

	(in thousands)

	2019	2018

Land	$199	$199

Building and improvements	6,983	6,983

Rental property	2,749	2,749

Software	12,015	2,226

Furniture and equipment	11,755	10,274

Construction in process	480	8,519

	34,181	30,950

Less accumulated depreciation	(19,830)	(18,375)

	$ 14,351	$ 12,575


Question: If the accumulated depreciation in 2019 increased to 20,779 thousand, what would be the revised change between December 31, 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 2404


Question: If the Furniture and equipment in 2019 increased to 12,674 thousand, what would be the revised average for December 31, 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 11474


Question: If cash flow from operating activities in 2019 was 300,000 thousands, what was the increase / (decrease) from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: 44562

Context:
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS (1) 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. (2) For further details on the Corporation's cash flow attributable to discontinued operations, please consult the "Discontinued operations" section. OPERATING ACTIVITIES Fiscal 2019 fourth-quarter cash flow from operating activities increased by 19.3% compared to the same period of the prior year mainly from: • higher adjusted EBITDA; • the decreases in income taxes paid and financial expense paid; and • the increase in changes in non-cash operating activities primarily due to changes in working capital. INVESTING ACTIVITIES Fiscal 2019 fourth-quarter investing activities decreased by 25.8% compared to the same period of the prior year mainly due to the acquisition of spectrum licenses in the Canadian broadband services segment in the comparable period of the prior year combined with a decrease in acquisitions of property, plant and equipment.

Three months ended August 31,	2019	2018 (1)	Change

(in thousands of dollars, except percentages)	$	$	%

Cash flow from operating activities	304,702	255,438	19.3

Cash flow from investing activities	(144,332)	(194,474)	(25.8)

Cash flow from financing activities	(50,198)	(52,127)	(3.7)

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents denominated in a foreign currency	(1,405)	(63)	—

Net change in cash and cash equivalents from continuing operations	108,767	8,774	—

Net change in cash and cash equivalent from discontinued operations(2)	—	13,133	(100.0)

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the period	447,737	62,818	—

Cash and cash equivalents, end of the period	556,504	84,725	—


Question: If Cash flow from investing activities in 2019 was -200,000 thousands, what was the increase / (decrease) from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: -197237


Question: If Cash flow from financing activities in 2019 was -53,000 thousands, what was the average?

Answer: -52563.5


Question: Suppose the Facility Fee Rate for BBB/Baa2/BBB is increased to 0.150%. Now, what is the difference in Facility Fee Rate between Tyson Foods and a company with a credit rating of A-/A3/A- or above?

Answer: 0.06

Context:
Standard & Poor's Rating Services', a Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC business ("S&P"), corporate credit rating is "BBB." Moody’s Investor Service, Inc.'s ("Moody's") applicable rating is "Baa2." Fitch Ratings', a wholly owned subsidiary of Fimlac, S.A. ("Fitch"), applicable rating is "BBB." The below table outlines the fees paid on the unused portion of the facility ("Facility Fee Rate") and letter of credit fees and borrowings ("Undrawn Letter of Credit Fee and Borrowing Spread") that corresponds to the applicable rating levels from S&P, Moody's and Fitch. In the event the rating levels are split, the applicable fees and spread will be based upon the rating level in effect for two of the rating agencies, or, if all three rating agencies have different rating levels, the applicable fees and spread will be based upon the rating level that is between the rating levels of the other two rating agencies.

Ratings Level (S&P/Moody's/Fitch)	Facility Fee Rate	All-in Borrowing Spread

A-/A3/A- or above	0.090%	1.000%

BBB+/Baa1/BBB+	0.100%	1.125%

BBB/Baa2/BBB (current level)	0.125%	1.250%

BBB-/Baa3/BBB-	0.175%	1.375%

BB+/Ba1/BB+ or lower	0.225%	1.625%


Question: Suppose the Facility Fee Rate for BBB/Baa2/BBB is increased to 0.150%. What is the difference between the All-in Borrowing Spread and the Facility Fee Rate for Tyson Foods currently?

Answer: 1.1


Question: Suppose the approved loan amount for Tyson Foods is $12 million. What is the Facility Fee payable if the Facility Fee Rate is doubled?

Answer: 0.03


Question: Which year was there a higher average number of employees, if the average number of employees in FY 2019 was 27,000??

Answer: 2019

Context:
Group Value Added Statements Note: (1) FY 2018 included the gain on disposal of economic interest in NetLink Trust of S$2.03 billion.

	FY 2019	FY 2018

	S$ million	S$ million

Value added from:

Operating revenue	17,372	17,268

Less: Purchases of goods and services	(10,307)	(9,716)

	7,065	7,552

Other income	225	259

Interest and investment income (net)	38	45

Share of results of associates (post-tax)	1,563	1,804

Exceptional items (1)	68	1,895

	1,894	4,003

Total value added	8,959	11,555

Distribution of total value added

To employees in wages, salaries and benefits	2,597	2,760

To government in income and other taxes	675	703

To providers of capital on:

- Interest on borrowings	393	390

- Dividends to shareholders	2,857	3,346

Total distribution	6,522	7,199

Retained in business

Depreciation and amortisation	2,222	2,250

Retained profits	238	2,127

Non-controlling interests	(23)	(21)

	2,437	4,356

Total value added	8,959	11,555

Average Number of employees	24,071	25,614


Question: Which year had a higher total value added figure, if there were no exceptional items in FY 2018?

Answer: 2018


Question: How many components are there under the section "retained in business", if non-controlling interests was not a component?

Answer: 2


Question: What would be the average age of the board members if Darcy Antonellis is 55 years old?

Answer: 59.43

Context:
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance Information About Our Board of Directors Set forth below are the name, age and position of each member of our board of directors. The following are biographical summaries of our board members. Darcy Antonellis has served on the Board since December 2018. Since January 2014, Ms. Antonellis has been the Chief Executive Officer of Vubiquity, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Amdocs Limited since February 22, 2018, the largest global provider of premium content services and technical solutions serving clients in 120 countries and in 80 languages. From June 1998 until December 2013, Ms. Antonellis held numerous positions at Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., a Time Warner company, including President, Technical Operations and Chief Technology Officer. Ms. Antonellis has also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. since July 7, 2015. Ms, Antonellis received a B.S. in electrical engineering from Temple University and an M.B.A. from Fordham University. The Board believes Ms. Antonellis brings her extensive expertise in executive management, operations and engineering and her in-depth understanding of content services, media and entertainment industry to her role as a member of the Board. David C. Habiger has served on the Board since December 2016. Mr. Habiger currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of JD Power, a privately held company. Mr. Habiger served as a director of DTS from March 2014 until its acquisition by the Company in December 2016. Mr. Habiger serves as a director of the Chicago Federal Reserve Board. He is on the SABOR (Systems Activities, Bank Operations and Risk) Committee and the Governance & HR Committee for the Federal Reserve. Mr. Habiger served as the CEO at Textura Corporation, a soft David C. Habiger has served on the Board since December 2016. Mr. Habiger currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of JD Power, a privately held company. Mr. Habiger served as a director of DTS from March 2014 until its acquisition by the Company in December 2016. Mr. Habiger serves as a director of the Chicago Federal Reserve Board. He is on the SABOR (Systems Activities, Bank Operations and Risk) Committee and the Governance & HR Committee for the Federal Reserve. Mr. Habiger served as the CEO at Textura Corporation, a soft David C. Habiger has served on the Board since December 2016. Mr. Habiger currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of JD Power, a privately held company. Mr. Habiger served as a director of DTS from March 2014 until its acquisition by the Company in December 2016. Mr. Habiger serves as a director of the Chicago Federal Reserve Board. He is on the SABOR (Systems Activities, Bank Operations and Risk) Committee and the Governance & HR Committee for the Federal Reserve. Mr. Habiger served as the CEO at Textura Corporation, a software company focused on construction management, from May 2015 until its sale to Oracle in June 2016. From May 2011 to August 2012, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of NDS Group Ltd., a provider of video software and content security solutions. Mr. Habiger worked with the founding members of Sonic Solutions (“Sonic”), a computer software company, from 1992 to 2011 and served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sonic from 2005 to 2011. He serves as a director for Echo Global Logistics, Inc., GrubHub Inc., and Stamps.com Inc., and previously served as a director for Control4 Corporation, Enova International, Inc., Immersion Corporation, RealD Inc., Textura Corporation, DTS, and Sonic Solutions. He is a member of the National Association of Corporate Directors and is on the Advisory Board of the University of Chicago Center for Entrepreneurship. Mr. Habiger received a bachelor’s degree in business administration from St. Norbert College and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. The Board believes that Mr. Habiger brings extensive experience in the digital media and entertainment industries and his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the consumer electronics industry to his role as a member of the Board. Richard S. Hill has served as a member of the Board since August 2012 and as Chairman of the Board since March 2013. Mr. Hill also served as the Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer from April 15, 2013 until May 29, 2013. Mr. Hill previously served as the Chief Executive Officer and member of the board of directors of Novellus Systems Inc., until its acquisition by Lam Research Corporation in June 2012. During his nearly 20 years leading Novellus Systems, a designer, manufacturer, and marketer of semiconductor equipment used in fabricating integrated circuits, Mr. Hill grew annual revenues from approximately $100 million to over $1 billion. Presently, Mr. Hill is Chairman of Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (“Marvell”), a producer of storage, communications and consumer semiconductor products, and a member of its board of directors. Mr. Hill served as Interim Chief Executive Officer of Marvell from May 2016 until July 2016. Mr. Hill is a member of the boards of directors of Arrow Electronics, Inc., a global provider of products and services to industrial and commercial users of electronic components and enterprise computing, and Cabot Microelectronics Corporation, the leading global supplier of chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) slurries and a growing CMP pad supplier to the semiconductor industry. Mr. Hill previously served on the board of directors of Symantec Corporation, LSI Corporation, Planar Systems, Autodesk, Inc. and Yahoo Inc. Mr. Hill received a B.S. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois in Chicago and an M.B.A. from Syracuse University. The Board believes that Mr. Hill brings extensive expertise in executive management and engineering for technology and defenserelated companies to his role as Chairman of the Board. Jon E. Kirchner has served on the Board and as Chief Executive Officer since June 2017. Previously he was president of Xperi following the completion of the acquisition of DTS in December 2016. He served as DTS’s Chairman of the board of directors and Chief Executive Officer from 2010 to December 2016 and had been a member of DTS’s board of directors from 2002 to December 2016. From 2001 to 2010, he served as DTS’s Chief Executive Officer. Prior to his tenure as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Kirchner served at DTS from 1993 to 2001 in a number of senior leadership roles including President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining DTS, Mr. Kirchner worked for the consulting and audit groups at Price Waterhouse LLP (now PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP), an international accounting firm. In 2012, Mr. Kirchner received the Ernst & Young Technology Entrepreneur of the Year Award for Greater Los Angeles. In 2011, Mr. Kirchner was honored by the Producers Guild of America, receiving the “Digital 25: Leaders in Emerging Entertainment” award for being among the visionaries that have made significant contributions to the advancement of digital entertainment and storytelling. Mr. Kirchner currently serves on the board of directors of Free Stream Media Corporation (Samba TV), a leader in developing cross platform TV experiences for consumers and advertisers. Mr. Kirchner is a Certified Public Accountant and received a B.A. in Economics, cum laude, from Claremont McKenna College. The Board believes that Mr. Kirchner brings his experience in the senior management of public companies, including service as chairman, president, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, his extensive experience in the digital media and entertainment industries, as well as his knowledge of the Company as its Chief Executive Officer, to his role as a member of the Board. V. Sue Molina has served on the Board since February 2018. Most recently she served on the Board of Directors of DTS from January 2008 until December 2016, and served as Chair of the Audit Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. From November 1997 until her retirement in May 2004, Ms. Molina was a tax partner at Deloitte & Touche LLP, an international accounting firm, serving from 2000 until May 2004 as the national partner in charge of Deloitte’s Initiative for the Retention and Advancement of Women. Prior to that, she spent twenty years with Ernst & Young LLP, an international accounting firm, the last ten years as a partner. Ms. Molina has prior board experience serving on the Board of Directors, chair of the Compensation Committee and member of the Audit Committee of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and on the Board of Directors, chair of the Audit Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee of Royal Neighbors of America. She received a B.S.B.A. and a Masters of Accounting degree from the University of Arizona. The Board believes that Ms. Molina brings her extensive accounting and financial expertise, her experience in advising boards and her past service on boards of public companies, to her role as a member of the Board. George A. Riedel has served on the Board since May 2013. He also has served on the board of Cerner Corporation, a leading supplier of health care information technology solutions and tech-enabled services, since May 2019. Since January 2018, Mr. Riedel has been a Senior Lecturer at Harvard Business School. Prior to that, he was the Chairman of the Board of Montreal-based Accedian Networks, where he had served as a director since 2010. Until January 2017, Mr. Riedel also served as Chairman and CEO of Cloudmark, Inc., a private network security company. Mr. Riedel joined the board at Cloudmark in June 2013, became Chairman in January 2014 and CEO in December 2014. Mr. Riedel also served on the board of directors of PeerApp from 2011 until 2014 and on the board of directors of Blade Network Technologies from 2009 until its sale to IBM in 2010. In March 2006, Mr. Riedel joined Nortel Networks Corporation, a publicly-traded, multinational, telecommunications equipment manufacturer (“Nortel”), as part of the turnaround team as the Chief Strategy Officer. His role changed after Nortel initiated creditor protection under the respective restructuring regimes of Canada under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, in the U.S. under the Bankruptcy Code, the United Kingdom under the Insolvency Act 1986, on January 14, 2009, and subsequently, Israel, to lead the sale/restructuring of various carrier and enterprise business units through a series of transactions to leading industry players such as Ericsson, Avaya and Ciena. Mr. Riedel led the efforts to create stand-alone business units, carve out the relevant P&L and balance sheet elements and assign patents to enable sales of the assets. In 2010, Mr. Riedel’s role changed to President of Business Units and CSO as he took leadership of the effort to monetize the remaining 6,500 patents and applications patents as well as manage the P&L for several business units that were held for sale. The 2011 patent sale led to an unprecedented transaction of $4.5 billion to a consortium of Apple, Ericsson, RIM, Microsoft and EMC. Prior to Nortel, Mr. Riedel was the Vice President of Strategy and Corporate Development of Juniper Networks, Inc., a publicly-traded designer, developer and manufacturer of networking products, from 2003 until 2006. Previously, Mr. Riedel was also a Director at McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, where he spent 15 years serving clients in the telecom and technology sectors in Asia and North America on a range of strategy and growth issues. Mr. Riedel received a B.S. with Distinction in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Virginia and his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Mr. Riedel holds a Stanford Directors’ College certification based on completion of its corporate directors training. The Board believes that Mr. Riedel brings his experience from his direct involvement in the restructuring of Nortel, including the sale of Nortel’s patent portfolio for $4.5 billion, as well as his knowledge of the technology industry and leadership experience, to his role as a member of the Board. Christopher A. Seams has served on the Board since March 2013. Mr. Seams served as the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Deca Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, a global semiconductor company, from May 2013 until August 2016. Mr. Seams previously was an Executive Vice President of Sales & Marketing at Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, from July 2005 until June 2013. He previously served as an Executive Vice President of Worldwide Manufacturing & Research and Development of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. Mr. Seams joined Cypress in 1990 and held a variety of positions in process and assembly technology research and development and manufacturing operations. Prior to joining Cypress in 1990, he worked as a process development Engineer or Manager for Advanced Micro Devices and Philips Research Laboratories. Mr. Seams currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Onto Innovation Inc. (formerly Nanometrics Inc.). Mr. Seams is a senior member of IEEE, a member of NACD and ACCD, served on the Engineering Advisory Council for Texas A&M University and was a board member of Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Mr. Seams received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University and a M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Mr. Seams has a Professional Certificate in Advanced Computer Security from Stanford University. Mr. Seams also holds a National Association of Corporate Directors certification which was awarded to him based on NACD training and examination standards. The Board believes that Mr. Seams brings extensive management, sales and marketing, and engineering experience in the semiconductor industry to his role as a member of the Board.

Name	Age	Position(s)

Darcy Antonellis	57	Director

David C. Habiger	51	Director

Richard S. Hill	68	Chairman of the Board of Directors

Jon E. Kirchner	52	Chief Executive Officer and Director

V. Sue Molina	71	Director

George A. Riedel	62	Director

Christopher A. Seams	57	Director


Question: Who would be the oldest among all board members if the age of V. Sue Molina is 65 years old?

Answer: Richard S. Hill


Question: What would be the proportion of years that David C. Habiger worked in Sonic Solutions throughout his whole life if Habiger worked from 1990 to 2012?

Answer: 0.43


Question: What would be the company's net assets measured at fair value as at December 31, 2019 if its long term liabilities are doubled while its cash equivalents are decreased by $5,000 thousand?

Answer: 252223

Context:
Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value The following table presents our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis at December 31, 2019: The carrying amount of money market funds approximates fair value as of each reporting date because of the short maturity of those instruments. The Company did not have any non-financial assets or non-financial liabilities that were recognized or disclosed at fair value as of December 31, 2019.

	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3

	(In thousands)

Assets

Cash equivalents: Money market funds	$256,915	$ -	$ -

Other current assets:

Indemnification - Sale of SSL	$ -	$ -	$ 598

Liabilities

Long term liabilities:

Indemnification - Globalstar do Brasil S.A.	$ -	$ -	$145


Question: What would be the fair value of the company's total assets as at December 31, 2019 if its cash equivalents is decreased by 10%?

Answer: 231821.5


Question: What would be the total fair value of the company's Level 3 net assets if the total net fair value is doubled and then decreased by $5 thousand?

Answer: 901


Question: If revenue in 2019 was 300,000 thousands, what would be the increase / (decrease) in revenue from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: 38747

Context:
A. Selected Financial Data The table set forth below presents our selected historical consolidated financial data for the periods and at the dates indicated. The selected historical consolidated statements of income data for each of the three years ended March 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 and the selected statements of financial position data as of March 31, 2019 and 2018 have been derived from and should be read in conjunction with “Part I — Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. The selected historical consolidated statements of income data for each of the two years ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 and the selected historical statements of financial position data as of March 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been derived from audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. (1) References to “net income” in this document correspond to “profit/(loss) for the period” or “profit/(loss) for the year” line items in our consolidated financial statement appearing elsewhere in this document. (2) Gross Revenue is defined as reported revenue adjusted in respect of significant financing component that arises on account of normal credit terms provided to catalogue customers. (3) We use EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Gross Adjusted EBITDA as supplemental financial measures. EBITDA is defined by us as net income before interest expense, income tax expense and depreciation and amortization (excluding amortization of capitalized film content and debt issuance costs). Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA adjusted for (gain)/impairment of available-for-sale financial assets, profit/loss on held for trading liabilities (including profit/loss on derivative financial instruments), transactions costs relating to equity transactions, share based payments, Loss / (Gain) on sale of property and equipment, Loss on de-recognition of financial assets measured at amortized cost, net, Credit impairment loss, net, Loss on financial liability (convertible notes) measured at fair value through profit and loss, Loss on deconsolidation of a subsidiary and exceptional items such as impairment of goodwill, trademark, film & content rights and content advances. Gross Adjusted EBITDA is defined as Adjusted EBITDA adjusted for amortization of intangible films and content rights. EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Gross Adjusted EBITDA as used and defined by us, may not be comparable to similarly-titled measures employed by other companies and is not a measure of performance calculated in accordance with GAAP. EBITDA Adjusted EBITDA and Gross Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for operating income, net income, cash flows from operating, investing and financing activities, or other income or cash flow statement data prepared in accordance with GAAP. EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Gross Adjusted EBITDA provide no information regarding a Company’s capital structure, borrowings, interest costs, capital expenditures and working capital movement or tax position.

			Year ended March 31,

	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015

			(in thousands, except (Loss)/Earnings per share)

Selected Statement of Income Data

Revenue	$270,126	$261,253	$252,994	$274,428	$284,175

Cost of sales	(155,396)	(134,708)	(164,240)	(172,764)	(155,777)

Gross profit	114,730	126,545	88,754	101,664	128,398

Administrative costs	(87,134)	(68,029)	(63,309)	(64,019)	(49,546)

Operating profit before exceptional item	27,596	58,516	25,445	37,645	78,852

Impairment loss	(423,335)	—	—	—	—

Operating profit/(loss)	(395,739)	58,516	25,445	37,645	78,852

Net finance costs	(7,674)	(17,813)	(17,156)	(8,010)	(5,861)

Other gains/(losses), net	288	(41,321)	14,205	(3,636)	(10,483)

Profit/(loss) before tax	(403,125)	(618)	22,494	25,999	62,508

Income tax	(7,328)	(9,127)	(11,039)	(12,711)	(13,178)

Profit/(loss) for the year (1)	$(410,453)	$(9,745)	$11,455	$13,288	$49,330

(Loss)/Earnings per share (cents)

Basic (loss)/earnings per share	(599.5)	(36.3)	6.4	6.6	74.3

Diluted (loss)/earnings per share	(599.5)	(36.3)	5.1	5.2	72.4

Weighted average number of ordinary shares

Basic	70,707	62,151	59,410	57,732	54,278

Diluted	72,170	63,482	60,943	59,036	54,969

Other non-GAAP measures

Gross Revenue (2)	$304,593	$268,069	$252,994	$274,428	$284,175

EBITDA (3)	$(393,188)	$20,186	$42,548	$36,294	$70,066

Adjusted EBITDA (3)	$103,845	$82,955	$55,664	$70,852	$101,150

Gross Adjusted EBITDA (3)	$234,000	$198,240	$190,980	$199,155	$218,404


Question: If gross profit in 2019 was 125,000 thousands, what would be the average gross profit?

Answer: 114072.2


Question: If Operating profit before exceptional item in 2019 was 60,000 thousands, what would be the percentage increase / (decrease) in the Operating profit before exceptional item from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: 2.54


Question: What would be the change in Employee separation costs between 2017 and 2018 if Employee separation costs in 2018 was $40 million instead?

Answer: 0.9

Context:
Note 4. Special Charges and Other, Net The following table summarizes activity included in the "special charges and other, net" caption on the Company's consolidated statements of income (in millions): The Company continuously evaluates its existing operations in an attempt to identify and realize cost savings opportunities and operational efficiencies. This same approach is applied to businesses that are acquired by the Company and often the operating models of acquired companies are not as efficient as the Company's operating model which enables the Company to realize significant savings and efficiencies. As a result, following an acquisition, the Company will from time to time incur restructuring expenses; however, the Company is often not able to estimate the timing or amount of such costs in advance of the period in which they occur. The primary reason for this is that the Company regularly reviews and evaluates each position, contract and expense against the Company's strategic objectives, long-term operating targets and other operational priorities. Decisions related to restructuring activities are made on a "rolling basis" during the course of the integration of an acquisition whereby department managers, executives and other leaders work together to evaluate each of these expenses and make recommendations. As a result of this approach, at the time of an acquisition, the Company is not able to estimate the future amount of expected employee separation or exit costs that it will incur in connection with its restructuring activities. The Company's restructuring expenses during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 were related to the Company's most recent business acquisitions, and resulted from workforce, property and other operating expense rationalizations as well as combining product roadmaps and manufacturing operations. These expenses were for employee separation costs and intangible asset impairment charges. The impairment charges in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 were primarily recognized as a result of writing off intangible assets purchased from Microsemi prior to the close of the acquisition and other intangible assets that were impaired as a result of changes in the combined product roadmaps after the acquisition that affected the use and life of the assets. Additional costs will be incurred in the future as additional synergies or operational efficiencies are identified in connection with the Microsemi transaction and other previous acquisitions. The Company is not able to estimate the amount of such future expenses at this time. During fiscal 2018, the Company incurred expenses including non-restructuring contract exit costs of $19.5 million for fees associated with transitioning from the public utility provider in Oregon to a lower cost direct access provider. The fee is paid monthly and will depend on the amount of actual energy consumed by the Company's wafer fabrication facility in Oregon over the next five years. In connection with the transition to a direct access provider, the Company signed a ten-year supply agreement to purchase monthly amounts of energy that are less than the current average usage and priced on a per mega watt hour published index rate in effect at those future dates. Also during fiscal 2018, the Company incurred $1.2 million of employee separation costs in connection with the acquisition of Atmel. The Company's restructuring expenses during fiscal 2017 were related to the Company's acquisitions of Atmel and Micrel, and resulted from workforce, property and other operating expense rationalizations as well as combining product roadmaps and manufacturing operations. These expenses were for employee separation costs, contract exit costs, other operating expenses and intangible asset impairment losses. The impairment charges in fiscal 2017 were recognized as a result of changes in the combined product roadmaps after the acquisition of Atmel that affected the use and life of these assets. At March 31, 2017, these activities were substantially complete. All of the Company's restructuring activities occurred in its semiconductor products segment. The Company incurred $115.2 million in costs since the start of fiscal 2016 in connection with employee separation activities, of which $65.3 million, $1.2 million and $39.1 million was incurred during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The Company could incur future expenses as additional synergies or operational efficiencies are identified. The Company is not able to estimate future expenses, if any, to be incurred in employee separation costs. The Company has incurred $40.8 million in costs in connection with contract exit activities since the start of fiscal 2016 which includes $4.7 million of income incurred for the year ended March 31, 2019 and $0.7 million and $44.1 million of costs incurred for the years ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The amounts recognized during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 were primarily related to vacated lease liabilities. While the Company expects to incur further acquisition-related contract exit expenses, it is not able to estimate the amount at this time. In the three months ended June 30, 2017, the Company completed the sale of an asset it acquired as part of its acquisition of Micrel for proceeds of $10.0 million and the gain of $4.4 million is included in the gain on sale of assets in the above table.

		For The Years Ended March 31,

	2019	2018	2017

Restructuring

Employee separation costs	$65.3	$1.2	$39.1

Gain on sale of assets	—	(4.4)	—

Impairment charges	3.6	—	12.6

Contract exit costs	(4.7)	0.7	44.1

Other	(0.3)	—	2.8

Legal contingencies	(30.2)	—	—

Non-restructuring contract exit costs and other	—	20.0	—

Total	$33.7	$17.5	$98.6


Question: What would be the change in Impairment charges between 2017 and 2019 if Impairment charges in 2019 was $20 million instead?

Answer: 7.4


Question: What would be the change in the total between 2018 and 2019 if the total in 2019 was $50 million instead?

Answer: 185.71


Question: What would be the average value of finished goods in 2018 and 2019 if the value of finished goods in 2019 is decreased by $5,000?

Answer: 773

Context:
NOTE 7. INVENTORIES The following table details the components of inventories (in thousands).

	December 31

	2019	2018

Finished goods	$698	$853

Raw materials	90	3

Packaging	110	102

Inventories	$ 898	$ 958


Question: What would be the average value of raw materials in 2018 and 2019 if the value of raw materials in 2019 is doubled?

Answer: 91.5


Question: What would be the average value of packaging in 2018 and 2019 if the value of packaging in 2019 is decreased by 10%?

Answer: 100.5


Question: In which year would the amortization of Day 1 gain be lower if the amount in 2018 was 4,110 thousand?

Answer: 2018

Context:
b) Liquefaction services revenue: The Hilli is moored in close proximity to the Customer’s gasfields, providing liquefaction service capacity over the term of the LTA. Liquefaction services revenue recognized comprises the following amounts: (1) The LTA bills at a base rate in periods when the oil price is $60 or less per barrel (included in "Liquefaction services revenue" in the consolidated statements of income), and at an increased rate when the oil price is greater than $60 per barrel (recognized as a derivative and included in "Realized and unrealized gain on oil derivative instrument" in the consolidated statements of income, excluded from revenue and from the transaction price). (2) Customer billing during the commissioning period, prior to vessel acceptance and commencement of the contract term, of $33.8 million is considered an upfront payment for services. These amounts billed were deferred (included in "Other current liabilities" and "Other non-current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets) and recognized as part of "Liquefaction services revenue" in the consolidated statements of income evenly over the contract term. (3) The Day 1 gain was established when the oil derivative instrument was initially recognized in December 2017 for $79.6 million (recognized in "Other current liabilities" and "Other non-current liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets). This amount is amortized and recognized as part of "Liquefaction services revenue" in the consolidated statements of income evenly over the contract term. We expect to recognize liquefaction services revenue related to the partially unsatisfied performance obligation at the reporting date evenly over the remaining contract term of less than eight years, including the components of transaction price described above.

	Year Ended December 31,

(in thousands of $)	2019	2018

Base tolling fee (1)	204,501	119,677

Amortization of deferred commissioning period revenue (2)	4,220	2,467

Amortization of Day 1 gain (3)	9,950	5,817

Other	(575)	(336)

Total	218,096	127,625


Question: What would be the change in base tolling fee between 2018 and 2019 if the fee in 2019 was 150,809 thousand instead?

Answer: 31132


Question: What would be the percentage change in the total liquefaction services revenue between 2018 and 2019 if the amount in 2019 was 188,328 thousand?

Answer: 47.56


Question: What would be the change in Cash flows from operating activities between 2017 and 2018 if cash flows from operating activities in 2017 was $60,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 710

Context:
Historical Cash Flows The following table sets forth our cash flows for the periods indicated (in thousands):

		Year Ended December 31,

	2019	2018	2017

Cash flows from operating activities	$47,112	$60,710	$57,187

Cash flows used in investing activities	(73,414)	(13,377)	(168,795)

Cash flows (used in) / from financing activities	(130)	2,399	67,303


Question: What would be the sum of cash flows in 2019 if Cash flows (used in) / from financing activities in 2019 was $10,000 thousand instead?

Answer: -16302


Question: What would be the percentage change in the Cash flows (used in) / from financing activities between 2017 and 2018 if cash flows (used in) / from financing activities in 2019 was $70,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 4.01


Question: In which year would the Average invested capital less average impairment be the largest if the amount in 2017 was $1,781.9 million instead?

Answer: 2017

Context:
Adjusted Return on Invested Capital (Adjusted RoIC): TORM defines Adjusted RoIC as earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) less tax and impairment losses and reversals, divided by the average invested capital less average impairment for the period. Invested capital is defined below. The Adjusted RoIC expresses the returns generated on capital invested in the Group adjusted for impacts related to the impairment of the fleet. The progression of RoIC is used by TORM to measure progress against our longer-term value creation goals outlined to investors. Adjusted RoIC is calculated as follows: ¹⁾ Average invested capital is calculated as the average of the opening and closing balance of invested capital. ²⁾ Average impairment is calculated as the average of the opening and closing balances of impairment charges on vessels and goodwill in the balance sheet.

USDm	2019	2018	2017

EBIT less Tax	205.1	1.2	38.8

Impairment reversal	-120.0	-	-

EBIT less tax and impairment	85.1	1.2	38.8

Average invested capital¹⁾	1,627.7	1,437.7	1,396.9

Average impairment ²⁾	98.2	185.0	185.0

Average invested capital less average impairment	1,725.9	1,622.7	1,581.9

Adjusted RoIC	4.9%	0.1%	2.4%


Question: What would the change in the Average invested capital less average impairment in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $1,700.0 million instead?

Answer: 77.3


Question: What would the percentage change in the Average invested capital less average impairment in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $1,700.0 million instead?

Answer: 4.76


Question: If raw materials in 2018 increased to 4,000,000 thousands, what was the increase / (decrease) from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: 1102571

Context:
a. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2018 and 2019, the Company recognized NT$118,252 million, NT$123,795 million and NT$122,999 million, respectively, in operating costs, of which NT$2,256 million, NT$1,698 million and NT$820 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, were related to write-down of inventories. b. None of the aforementioned inventories were pledged.

As of December 31,

	2018	2019

	NT$	NT$

	(In Thousands)	(In Thousands)

Raw materials	$3,766,056	$5,102,571

Supplies and spare parts	3,133,737	3,548,376

Work in process	10,034,488	11,309,718

Finished goods	1,268,838	1,754,137

Total	$18,203,119	$21,714,802


Question: If the Supplies and spare parts in 2018 increased to 3,500,000 thousands, what was the average?

Answer: 3524188


Question: If Finished goods in 2019 increased to 1,800,000, what is the percentage increase / (decrease) from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: 41.86


Question: How many companies accounted for more than 15% of the company's net revenue in 2019 if Westcon Group Inc. accounted for 16% of the company's net revenue instead?

Answer: 3

Context:
Concentrations The Company may be subject to concentration of credit risk as a result of certain financial instruments consisting of accounts receivable and short term investments. The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers and generally does not require collateral in exchange for credit. The following table sets forth major customers accounting for 10% or more of the Company’s net revenue:

	Year Ended

	June 30, 2019	June 30, 2018	June 30, 2017

Tech Data Corporation	18%	14%	16%

Jenne Corporation	17%	13%	15%

Westcon Group Inc.	12%	13%	12%


Question: What would be the change in the percentage that Tech Data Corporation accounted for between 2018 and 2019 if they occupied 15% in 2018 instead?

Answer: 3


Question: How much would all three companies account for in the company's net revenue in 2017 if Westcon Group Inc. accounted for 15% instead?

Answer: 46


Question: In which year would accrued income be larger if the amount in 2018 was 28.7 million instead?

Answer: 2018

Context:
Contract balances The following table provides information about receivables, contract assets and contract liabilities from contracts with customers. Accrued income relates to the Group’s rights to consideration for services provided but not invoiced at the reporting date. Accrued income is transferred to receivables when invoiced. Deferred income relates to advanced consideration received for which revenue is recognised as or when services are provided. Included within deferred income is £11.2m (2018: £nil) relating to consideration received from Auto Trader Auto Stock Limited (which forms part of the Group’s joint venture) for the provision of data services (note 16). Revenue relating to this service is recognised on a straight-line basis over a period of 20 years.

	2019	2018

	£m	£m

Receivables, which are included in trade and other receivables	27.0	28.8

Accrued income	28.0	26.7

Deferred income	(13.2)	(1.8)


Question: What would the change in accrued income in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was 28.7 million instead?

Answer: 2


Question: What would the percentage change in accrued income in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was 28.7 million instead?

Answer: 7.49


Question: What would be the ratio of dividends that the company received from equity method investments to total earning after income taxes in fiscal 2019 if the total earning after income taxes was $200 million?

Answer: 0.28

Context:
7. INVESTMENTS IN JOINT VENTURES The total carrying value of our equity method investments at the end of fiscal 2019 and 2018 was $796.3 million and $776.2 million, respectively. These amounts are included in other assets and reflect our 44% ownership interest in Ardent Mills and 50% ownership interests in other joint ventures. Due to differences in fiscal reporting periods, we recognized the equity method investment earnings on a lag of approximately one month. In fiscal 2019, we had purchases from our equity method investees of $39.4 million. Total dividends received from equity method investments in fiscal 2019 were $55.0 million. In fiscal 2018, we had purchases from our equity method investees of $34.9 million. Total dividends received from equity method investments in fiscal 2018 were $62.5 million. In fiscal 2017, we had purchases from our equity method investees of $41.8 million. Total dividends received from equity method investments in fiscal 2017 were $68.2 million. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - (Continued) Fiscal Years Ended May 26, 2019, May 27, 2018, and May 28, 2017 (columnar dollars in millions except per share amounts) Summarized combined financial information for our equity method investments on a 100% basis is as follows:

	2019	2018	2017

Net Sales:

Ardent Mills .	$3,476.0	$3,344.1	$3,180.0

Others	195.4	198.8	177.7

Total net sales .	$3,671.4	$3,542.9	$3,357.7

Gross margin:

Ardent Mills .	$281.9	$386.5	$340.3

Others	45.5	34.8	34.6

Total gross margin	$327.4	$421.3	$374.9

Earnings after income taxes:

Ardent Mills .	$151.9	$197.0	$152.0

Others	18.1	10.1	10.1

Total earnings after income taxes	$170.0	$207.1	$162.1


Question: What would be the average of Ardent Mills’ net sales from 2017 to 2019 if the net sales in 2018 were $3,500 million?

Answer: 3385.33


Question: What would be Ardent Mills’ gross profit margin ratio for the fiscal year 2017 if the net sales were $2,750 million?

Answer: 0.12


Question: What would be the change in depreciation and amortization cost between 2019 and 2018 if 2019 depreciation cost doubles?

Answer: 7.4

Context:
Property and Equipment Property and equipment is recorded at cost and consists of furniture, computers, other office equipment, and leasehold improvements. We depreciate the cost of furniture, computers, and other office equipment on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives (five years for office equipment, seven years for furniture and fixtures). Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the lesser of their useful lives or the term of the lease. Depreciation and amortization expense for 2019, 2018, and 2017 was approximately $8.0 million, $8.6 million, and $9.1 million, respectively, and was included in “Depreciation and amortization” in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Amortization expense on intangible assets in 2019, 2018 and 2017 was immaterial. Property and equipment, at cost, consist of the following (in thousands):

	December 31

	2019	2018

Office equipment	$ 38,373	$ 39,633

Furniture and fixtures	5,017	4,610

Leasehold improvement	23,534	19,430

Property and equipment, gross	66,924	63,673

Less accumulated depreciation	(44,199 )	(49,355 )

Property and equipment, net	$ 22,725	$ 14,318


Question: What would be the change in office equipment cost in 2019 and 2018 if the office equipment cost in 2018 decreases by 50%?

Answer: 18556.5


Question: What would be the change in property and equipment, net cost in 2019 and 2018 if 2019 property and equipment, net decreases by 50%?

Answer: 2955.5


Question: What would be the percentage change in pro forma revenue from 2018 to 2019 if the pro forma revenue in 2018 was $76,500 thousand?

Answer: 12.69

Context:
The following unaudited pro forma financial information is presented as if the acquisitions had taken place at the beginning of the periods presented and should not be taken as representative of the Company’s future consolidated results of operations. The following unaudited pro forma information includes adjustments for the amortization expense related to the identified intangible assets. The following table summarizes the Company’s unaudited pro forma financial information is presented as if the acquisitions occurred on October 1, 2017 (amounts shown in thousands): For the year ended September 30, 2018, revenue of $9.1 million and a net loss of $5.3 million related to the A2iA and ICAR businesses since the respective acquisition dates are included in the Company's consolidated statements of operations.

	For the years ended September 30,

	2019	2018

Pro forma revenue	$86,206	$78,130

Pro forma net income (loss)	$889	$(12,268)


Question: What would be the average pro forma net income (loss) for the last 2 years, i.e. 2018 and 2019, if the pro forma net income in 2019 was $4,000 thousand?

Answer: -4134


Question: Which year would have a higher amount of pro forma revenue if the value in 2018 was $80,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 2019


Question: What would be the change in the Dividends per share declared between 2018 and 2019 if the dividends per share declared in 2018 was $1.00 instead?

Answer: 0.6

Context:
Dividends The following is a summary of our fiscal 2019, 2018 and 2017 activities related to dividends on our common stock (in millions, except per share amounts). On May 22, 2019, we declared a cash dividend of $0.48 per share of common stock, payable on July 24, 2019 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on July 5, 2019. The timing and amount of future dividends will depend on market conditions, corporate business and financial considerations and regulatory requirements. All dividends declared have been determined by the Company to be legally authorized under the laws of the state in which we are incorporated.

		Year Ended

	April 26, 2019	April 27, 2018	April 28, 2017

Dividends per share declared	$ 1.60	$ 0.80	$ 0.76

Dividend payments allocated to additional paid-in capital	$ 403	$ 106	$ 88

Dividend payments allocated to retained earnings (accumulated deficit)	$ —	$ 108	$ 120


Question: What would be the change in the Dividend payments allocated to retained earnings (accumulated deficit) between 2017 and 2018 if the amount of dividend payments allocated in 2018 was $150 million instead?

Answer: 30


Question: What would be the percentage change in the Dividend payments allocated to additional paid-in capital between 2017 and 2018 if Dividend payments allocated to additional paid-in capital in 2018 was $200 million instead?

Answer: 127.27


Question: What would be the percentage change in total income before tax between 2017 and 2018 if income in 2018 is increased by $50,000?

Answer: 73.2

Context:
NOTE 13 – INCOME TAX The domestic and foreign components of loss before income taxes from operations for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 are as follows:

		For the Years Ended December 31,

	2019	2018	2017

		(in thousands)

Domestic	$(22,708)	$29,110	$17,120

Foreign	—	(320)	(469)

	$(22,708)	$28,790	$16,651


Question: What would be the average income before tax in 2017 and 2018 if income before tax in 2018 is decreased by 5,000,000?

Answer: 20220.5


Question: What would be the total foreign component of loss before income tax in 2017 and 2018 if the total loss in doubled and then decreased by $1,000,000?

Answer: 578


Question: What percentage change is the number of employees in the Sales and Marketing department from 2019 to 2020 if there were 2 times the number of employees originally in 2020?

Answer: 115.79

Context:
Our number of employees is as follows: On August 3, 2018, we implemented a plan to restructure our organization, which included a reduction in workforce of approximately 40 employees, representing approximately 30% of the Company’s total pre-restructuring workforce. We recorded a charge of $381,000 in the third quarter of 2018 relating to this reduction in force, consisting primarily of one-time severance payments and termination benefits. The Company’s goal in the restructuring is to better focus our workforce on retaining current clients, gaining incremental business from current clients, and winning new business in the market segments where we can leverage our expertise and long history as an EFT pioneer. Employees

	March 1,

Department	2020	2019

Sales and Marketing	41	38

Engineering	13	9

Professional Services	6	6

Customer Support	22	22

Management and Administration	18	17

Total	100	92


Question: By what percentage did the number of employees in the Engineering department decrease by from 2019 to 2020 if there were 1.5 times the number of employees originally in 2020?

Answer: 116.67


Question: How much was the company charged approximately for each employee that was dismissed if the cost were to double?

Answer: 19050


Question: In which year would the accrued interest be higher if the accrued interest in 2019 is 37,829 thousand?

Answer: 2018

Context:
GasLog Ltd. and its Subsidiaries Notes to the consolidated financial statements (Continued) For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2018 and 2019 (All amounts expressed in thousands of U.S. Dollars, except share and per share data) 14. Other Payables and Accruals An analysis of other payables and accruals is as follows: The unearned revenue represents charter hires received in advance in December 2019 relating to the hire period of January 2020 for 22 vessels (December 2018: 17 vessels).

	As of December 31,

	2018	2019

Unearned revenue	38,680	48,183

Accrued off-hire	7,376	6,968

Accrued purchases	18,578	9,759

Accrued interest	38,107	36,746

Other accruals	24,709	34,586

Total	127,450	136,242


Question: What would be the change in accrued purchases from 2018 to 2019 if the accrued purchases in 2018 is 7,920 thousand?

Answer: 1839


Question: What would be the percentage change in total payables and  accruals from 2018 to 2019 if the total payables and  accruals in 2019 is 140,321 thousand?

Answer: 10.1


Question: If the Profit (loss) from continuing operations increase to 94,410 in 2017, what is the revised?

Answer: 275468

Context:
Financial information of associates and joint ventures: There is no individually significant associate or joint venture for the Company. For individually immaterial associates and joint ventures, the following tables summarize the amount recognized by the Company at its share of those associates and joint ventures separately. When an associate or a joint venture is a foreign operation, and the functional currency of the foreign entity is different from the Company, an exchange difference arising from translation of the foreign entity will be recognized in other comprehensive income (loss). Such exchange differences recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) in the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2018 and 2019 were NT$45 million, NT$(16) million and NT$(9) million, respectively, which were not included in the following table. The aggregate amount of the Company’s share of all its individually immaterial associates that are accounted for using the equity method was as follows:

		For the years ended December 31,

	2017	2018	2019

	$NT(In Thousands)	$NT (In Thousands)	$NT (In Thousands)

Profit (loss) from continuing operations	$77,589	$(616,665)	$115,329

Post-tax profit from discontinued operations	80,248	—	—

Other comprehensive income (loss)	526,773	(82,871)	873,308

Total comprehensive income (loss)	$684,610	$(699,536)	$988,637


Question: What would be the increase/ (decrease) in Total comprehensive income (loss) if the value in 2018 is reduced to 572,577?

Answer: -126959


Question: What would be the increase/ (decrease) in Profit (loss) from continuing operations if the value in 2018 is reduced to 562,127?

Answer: -54538


Question: Which year would have a higher weighted-average exercise price for options outstanding and exercisable if the price in 2019 is $27.04 instead?

Answer: 2018

Context:
Stock Options The following table summarizes activity involving stock option awards for the year ended December 31, 2019: The aggregate intrinsic value of our options outstanding and exercisable at December 31, 2019 was less than $1 million. The weighted-average remaining contractual term for such options was 0.18 years. During 2019, we received net cash proceeds of less than $1 million in connection with our option exercises. The tax benefit realized from these exercises was less than $1 million. The total intrinsic value of options exercised for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, was less than $1 million each year.

	Number of options	Weighted-Average Exercise Price

	(in thousands)

Outstanding and Exercisable at December 31, 2018	543	$27.46

Exercised	(6)	11.38

Forfeited/Expired	(68)	24.78

Outstanding and Exercisable at December 31, 2019	469	28.04


Question: What would the change in the number of options outstanding and exercisable in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount for 2019 is 500,000 instead?

Answer: -43


Question: What would the percentage change in the weighted-average exercise price for options outstanding and exercisable in 2019 from 2018 be if the price in 2019 is $28.46 instead?

Answer: 3.64


Question: If the Cost of services in 2019 reduced to 8,254 million what would be the revised change?

Answer: -2605

Context:
Cost of Services Cost of services decreased $204 million, or 1.9%, during 2019 compared to 2018, primarily due to lower access costs resulting from a decline in voice connections, as well as lower employee-related costs associated with the lower headcount resulting from the Voluntary Separation Program, offset by an increase in regulatory fees. Cost of Wireless Equipment Cost of wireless equipment increased $173 million, or 3.8%, during 2019 compared to 2018, primarily driven by a shift to higher priced units in the mix of wireless devices sold and an increase in the number of wireless devices sold. Selling, General and Administrative Expense Selling, general and administrative expense increased $499 million, or 6.5%, during 2019 compared to 2018, due to increases in advertising expenses and sales commission expense, which were partially offset by decreases in employee-related costs resulting from the Voluntary Separation Program. The increase in sales commission expense was primarily due to a lower net deferral of commission costs in 2019 as compared to 2018 as a result of the adoption of Topic 606 on January 1, 2018 using a modified retrospective approach. Depreciation and Amortization Expense Depreciation and amortization expense decreased $153 million, or 3.6%, during 2019 compared to 2018, driven by the change in the mix of total Verizon depreciable assets and Business’s usage of those assets.

			(dollars in millions) Increase/ (Decrease)

Years Ended December 31,	2019	2018	2019 vs. 2018

Cost of services	$10,655	$10,859	$(204)	(1.9)%

Cost of wireless equipment	4,733	4,560	173	3.8

Selling, general and administrative expense	8,188	7,689	499	6.5

Depreciation and amortization expense	4,105	4,258	(153)	(3.6)

Total Operating Expenses	$ 27,681	$ 27,366	$ 315	1.2


Question: If the Cost of wireless equipment in 2019 increased to 5,987 million what would be the revised change?

Answer: 1427


Question: If the Selling, general and administrative expense in 2019 reduced to 6,814 million what would be the revised change?

Answer: -875


Question: What would be the change in net cash from operating activities between 2018 and 2019 if net cash from operating activities in 2018 was $200,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 62351

Context:
Cash Flows The following table sets forth summary cash flow data for the periods indicated (in thousands). Cash Flow from Operating Activities Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2019, were $137.6 million as compared to $183.9 million during the same period in 2018. Net cash provided by operating activities primarily consists of net income adjusted to add back depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation. Cash flows provided by operating activities were $46.3 million lower for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to the same period in 2018, due to the timing of working capital. Our current policy is to use our operating cash flow primarily for funding capital expenditures, lease payments, stock repurchases, and acquisitions. Cash Flow from Investing Activities During the year ended December 31, 2019, we paid $753.9 million, net of $0.1 million in cash acquired, to acquire Speedpay. We also used cash of $18.5 million to invest in a payment technology and services company in India and $7.0 million to acquire the technology assets of RevChip, LLC and TranSend Integrated Technologies Inc. In addition, we used cash of $48.0 million to purchase software, property and equipment, as compared to $43.9 million during the same period in 2018. Cash Flow from Financing Activities Net cash flows provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2019, were $667.2 million, as compared to net cash flows used by financing activities of $57.7 million during the same period in 2018. During 2019, we received proceeds of $500.0 million from our Delayed Draw Term Loan and $280.0 million from our Revolving Credit Facility to fund our purchase of Speedpay and stock repurchases, and we repaid $28.9 million on the Initial Term Loan and $41.0 million on the Revolving Credit Facility. In addition, we received proceeds of $16.6 million from the exercise of stock options and the issuance of common stock under our 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, and used $4.0 million for the repurchase of stock-based compensation awards for tax withholdings. During 2019, we also used $35.6 million to repurchase common stock. During 2018, we received proceeds of $400.0 million from the issuance of the 2026 Notes. We used $300.0 million of the proceeds to redeem, in full, our outstanding 6.375% Senior Notes due 2020 and repaid $109.3 million on the Initial Term Loan. In addition, during 2018, we received proceeds of $22.8 million from the exercise of stock options and the issuance of common stock under our 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, and used $2.6 million for the repurchase of restricted share awards ("RSAs") for tax withholdings. During 2018, we also used $54.5 million to repurchase common stock.

	Years Ended December 31,

	2019	2018

Net cash provided by (used in):

Operating activities	$137,649	$183,932

Investing activities	-830,481	-45,360

Financing activities	667,223	-57,704


Question: What would be the change in net cash used in investing activities between 2018 and 2019 if net cash used in investing activities in 2018 was -$800,000 thousand instead?

Answer: -30481


Question: What would be the percentage change in net cash from financing activities between 2018 and 2019 if net cash from financing activities in 2018 was $500,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 33.44


Question: In which year would the amortization of purchased intangibles included in the CTS operating results be lower if the value in 2017 was $4.7 million instead?

Answer: 2017

Context:
Cubic Transportation Systems Sales: CTS sales increased 16% to $670.7 million in 2018 compared to $578.6 million in 2017 and were higher in North America and the U.K., but were slightly lower in Australia. Sales in 2018 were higher in the U.S. primarily due to system development on the New York New Fare Payment System contract, which was awarded in October 2017. Increased work on both development and service contracts, including work on new change orders in London also increased CTS sales for the year. Sales were also positively impacted in the U.K. and Australia due to the impact of exchange rates. The average exchange rates between the prevailing currencies in our foreign operations and the U.S. dollar resulted in an increase in CTS sales of $12.4 million for 2018 compared to 2017, primarily due to the strengthening of the British Pound against the U.S. dollar. Amortization of Purchased Intangibles: Amortization of purchased intangibles included in the CTS operating results totaled $5.2 million in 2018 and $5.7 million in 2017. Operating Income: CTS operating income increased 52% in 2018 to $60.4 million compared to $39.8 million in 2017. For 2018, operating income was higher from increased volumes of system development work and services, including work on new projects and change orders, primarily in North America and the U.K. Operating income was also higher due to operational efficiencies and reductions in R&D spending. R&D expenses for CTS in 2017 included $6.4 million of system development expenses related to our anticipated contract with the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority that was awarded in early fiscal 2018; such expenses incurred in 2018 on this contract are classified as cost of sales. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2018 CTS implemented our new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, and as a result began depreciating the cost of certain capitalized software into its operating results. This resulted in a decrease in operating income of $4.2 million between fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018. The average exchange rates between the prevailing currency in our foreign operations and the U.S. dollar resulted in an increase in CTS operating income of $2.2 million for 2018 compared to 2017. Adjusted EBITDA: CTS Adjusted EBITDA increased 50% to $73.3 million in 2018 compared to $48.8 million in 2017 primarily due to the same items described in the operating income section above. The increase in Adjusted EBITDA was primarily driven by the same factors that drove the increase in operating income described above excluding the increase in depreciation and decrease in amortization which are excluded from Adjusted EBITDA.

	Fiscal 2018	Fiscal 2017	% Change

		(in millions)

Sales	$ 670.7	$ 578.6	16 %

Operating income	60.4	39.8	52

Adjusted EBITDA	73.3	48.8	50


Question: What would the change in CTS adjusted EBITDA be if the amount in 2018 was $73.8 million instead?

Answer: 25


Question: What would the average operating income in 2017 and 2018 be if the amount in 2017 was $39.6 million instead?

Answer: 50


Question: Which period would have a larger total estimated aggregate consideration if the total estimated aggregate consideration under the balance as of October 31, 2018 is $19,622 million?

Answer: October 31, 2018

Context:
The aggregate cash payments required to be paid on or about the closing date were funded with the proceeds of $7.945 billion of term loans and $400 million of funds borrowed under our revolving credit facility together with other available funds, which included $1.825 billion borrowed from Level 3 Parent, LLC. For additional information regarding CenturyLink’s financing of the Level 3 acquisition see Note 7—Long-Term Debt and Credit Facilities. We recognized the assets and liabilities of Level 3 based on the fair value of the acquired tangible and intangible assets and assumed liabilities of Level 3 as of November 1, 2017, the consummation date of the acquisition, with the excess aggregate consideration recorded as goodwill. The estimation of such fair values and the estimation of lives of depreciable tangible assets and amortizable intangible assets required significant judgment. We completed our final fair value determination during the fourth quarter of 2018, which differed from those reflected in our consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2017. In connection with receiving approval from the U.S. Department of Justice to complete the Level 3 acquisition we agreed to divest certain Level 3 network assets. All of those assets were sold by December 31, 2018. The proceeds from these sales were included in the proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment in our consolidated statements of cash flows. No gain or loss was recognized with these transactions. As of October 31, 2018, the aggregate consideration exceeded the aggregate estimated fair value of the acquired assets and assumed liabilities by $11.2 billion, which we have recognized as goodwill. The goodwill is attributable to strategic benefits, including enhanced financial and operational scale, market diversification and leveraged combined networks that we expect to realize. None of the goodwill associated with this acquisition is deductible for income tax purposes. The following is our assignment of the aggregate consideration: (1) Includes accounts receivable, which had a gross contractual value of $884 million on November 1, 2017 and October 31, 2018. (2) The weighted-average amortization period for the acquired intangible assets is approximately 12.0 years. On the acquisition date, we assumed Level 3’s contingencies. For more information on our contingencies, see Note 19—Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items.

	Adjusted November 1, 2017 Balance as of December 31, 2017	Purchase Price Adjustments	Adjusted November 1, 2017 Balance as of October 31, 2018

		(Dollars in millions)

Cash,accounts receivable and other current assets(1)	$3,317	(26)	3,291

Property, plant and equipment	9,311	157	9,468

Identifiable intangible assets(2)

Customer relationships	8,964	(533)	8,431

Other	391	(13)	378

Other non current assets	782	216	998

Current liabilities, excluding current maturities of long-term debt	(1,461)	(32)	(1,493)

Current maturities of long-term debt	(7)	—	(7)

Long-term debt	(10,888)	—	(10,888)

Deferred revenue and other liabilities	(1,629)	(114)	(1,743)

Goodwill	10,837	340	11,177

Total estimated aggregate consideration	$19,617	(5)	19,612


Question: What would property, plant and equipment expressed as a ratio of the total estimated aggregate consideration under the balance as of December 31, 2017 be if the amount for property, plant and equipment is $9,000 million?

Answer: 46.62


Question: What would the percentage change in other non currrent assets in 2018 be if the amount in the balance as of October 31, 2018 is 900 million?

Answer: 15.09


Question: In which year would Accrued roadside assistance claim costs be larger if the amount in 2019 was $1,309 thousand instead?

Answer: 2018

Context:
Note 17. Other Accrued Expenses and Current Liabilities Other accrued expenses and current liabilities consisted of the following (in thousands):

	December 31,

	2019	2018

Accrued purchases	$4,328	$1,679

Accrued legal and professional fees	3,860	3,380

Accrued customer-acquisition advertising costs (Note 1)	3,745	2,831

Deferred Symphony acquisition purchase price (Note 4)	3,517	3,394

Accrued roadside assistance claim costs	1,709	1,330

Accrued telephone charges	1,605	2,000

Financial derivatives (Note 12)	251	2,859

Accrued restructuring (Note 5)	56	976

Accrued rent (Note 3)	—	3,283

Other	10,259	9,503

	$29,330	$31,235


Question: What would the change in Accrued roadside assistance claim costs in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $1,730 thousand instead?

Answer: 400


Question: What would the percentage change in Accrued roadside assistance claim costs in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $1,730 thousand instead?

Answer: 30.08


Question: In which year would the amount of Issued DSUs be larger if the amount issued in 2019 is 94,588?

Answer: 2019

Context:
DSUs Eligible bonuses and RSUs/PSUs may be paid in the form of DSUs when executives or other eligible employees elect to or are required to participate in the plan. The value of a DSU at the issuance date is equal to the value of one BCE common share. For non-management directors, compensation is paid in DSUs until the minimum share ownership requirement is met; thereafter, at least 50% of their compensation is paid in DSUs. There are no vesting requirements relating to DSUs. Dividends in the form of additional DSUs are credited to the participant’s account on each dividend payment date and are equivalent in value to the dividends paid on BCE common shares. DSUs are settled when the holder leaves the company. The following table summarizes the status of outstanding DSUs at December 31, 2019 and 2018. (1) The weighted average fair value of the DSUs issued was $59 in 2019 and $55 in 2018.

NUMBER OF DSUs	2019	2018

Outstanding, January 1	4,391,997	4,309,528

Issued (1)	84,588	94,580

Settlement of RSUs/PSUs	146,960	112,675

Dividends credited	236,079	240,879

Settled	(236,525)	(365,665)

Outstanding, December 31	4,623,099	4,391,997


Question: What would the fair value of the DSUs issued in 2019 be if the weighted average fair value of the DSUs issued in 2019 is $61?

Answer: 5159868


Question: What would the average value of the weighted average fair value of the DSUs issued in 2018 and 2019 be if the weighted average fair value of the DSUs issued was $61 in 2019?

Answer: 58


Question: How many equity shares would 67.9% shareholding represent?

Answer: 2547869215.37

Context:
b. Categories of equity shareholding as on March 31, 2019: c. Top ten equity shareholders of the Company as on March 31, 2019: * Shareholding is consolidated based on Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the shareholder.

Category	Number of equity shares held	Percentage of holding

Promoters	2,702,450,947	72.0

Other Entities of the Promoter Group	1,091,053	-

Mutual Funds & UTI	93,357,668	2.5

Banks, Financial Institutions, States and Central Government	2,750,113	0.1

Insurance Companies	196,172,807	5.2

Foreign Institutional Investors and Foreign Portfolio Investors - Corporate	592,842,601	15.8

NRI's / OCB's / Foreign Nationals	4,854,682	0.1

Corporate Bodies / Trust	26,208,151	0.7

Indian Public & Others	130,744,399	3.6

Alternate Investment Fund	1,663,495	-

IEPF account	248,790	-

GRAND TOTAL	3,752,384,706	100.0

Name of the shareholder*	Number of equity shares held	Percentage of holding

1. Tata Sons Private Limited	2,702,450,947	72.0

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India	152,493,927	4.1

3. SBI Mutual Fund	21,680,561	0.6

4. First State Investments Icvc- Stewart Investors Asia Pacific Leaders Fund	19,248,438	0.5

5. Government of Singapore	18,028,475	0.5

6. Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund	16,731,906	0.5

7. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd	16,139,316	0.4

8. Axis Mutual Fund Trustee Limited	15,244,614	0.4

9. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority	15,036,984	0.4

10. Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund, A Series of Vanguard International Equity Index Funds	14,112,213	0.4


Question: How many shares would ICICI Prudential Life Insurance hold if it has 0.4% shareholding?

Answer: 15009538.82


Question: If the percentage difference in shareholding between Promoters and Insurance Companies is 66.8%, how many equity shares would that represent?

Answer: 2506592983.61


Question: What is the percentage change in the revenue from 2018 to 2019 if the revenue in 2018 is now 150,000,000?

Answer: 14.55

Context:
4. Link between Group performance and remuneration outcomes The Altium Remuneration Framework is designed to align key employee remuneration to shareholder returns (in the form of capital appreciation and dividends). The table below shows the Group performance on key financial results and performance metrics over the last five years. Altium’s remuneration strategy has evolved over the past seven years and we believe that it is linked intrinsically to the success of the Group. Strong payout results for STI and LTI have reflected the strong financial performance of the Group. In addition, STI and LTI hurdles have changed over time to better reflect what is most important for Group growth. 1 Normalised EPS and Profit for the year excludes deferred tax asset of US$77 million recognised on the transfer of core business assets to the USA. 2 The maximum STI payable based on the above performance hurdles is 100%, however based on achievement of individual personal goals, the overall achievement level may be modified up to 150% or down to 0%.

	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015

	US$’000	US$’000	US$’000	US$’000	US$’000

Revenue	171,819	140,176	110,865	93,597	80,216

EBITDA	62,721	44,869	33,254	27,430	22,697

EPS	40.57	28.86	21.70	17.89	12.47 1

Profit for the year	52,893	37,489	28,077	23,020	15,398 1

Dividend declared - AU cents	34	27	23	20	16

Share price - AU$	$34.2	22.51	8.57	6.46	4.43

STI Achievement	100% - 150% 2	131%	103%	97%	63%

STI performance hurdles	70% Revenue 30% EBITDA	50% Revenue 50% EBITDA	70% Revenue 30% EBITDA	50% Revenue 50% EBITDA	Different metrics related to subscriber related to subscriber growth, EPS and Product development related to subscriber growth, EPS and Product development related to subscriber growth, EPS and Product development

LTI Achievement	100%	100%	100%	100%	50%

LTI performance hurdles	50% Revenue	EPS	EPS	EPS	50% Subscriber growth 50% EPS


Question: What is the percentage change in profits from 2018 to 2019 if the profits in 2019 is now 60,000,000?

Answer: 60.05


Question: What is the percentage change in EBITDA from 2017 to 2018 if the amount in 2018 is now 50,000,000?

Answer: 50.36


Question: If the Software in 2019 increased to 165,074 thousand, what would be the revised change between 2018 and 2019?

Answer: -5253

Context:
(4) Property and Equipment Property and equipment consist of the following (in thousands): Depreciation and amortization expense related to property and equipment was $22,538,000, $21,721,000 and $25,787,000 in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. On November 1, 2019, we completed the purchase of real estate in Chandler, Arizona for approximately $48,000,000 that we intend to use as our global corporate headquarters. The property contains a building and some infrastructure in place that we will complete readying for our use over the next year. We intend to sell our current properties in Tempe, Arizona. Included within the software, buildings and land values presented above are assets in the process of being readied for use in the amounts of approximately $12,138,000, $27,658,000 and $11,700,000, respectively. Depreciation on these assets will commence, as appropriate, when they are ready for use and placed in service.

	December 31,

	2019	2018

Software	$114,674	$170,327

Buildings	92,092	64,263

Equipment	60,661	100,421

Furniture and fixtures	34,768	38,200

Lease hold improvements	33,668	26,319

Land	31,374	5,124

	367,237	404,654

Accumulated depreciation and amortization	(236,330)	(331,700)

Property and equipment, net	$130,907	$72,954


Question: If the Buildings in 2019 increased to 99,699 thousand, what would be the revised change between 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 35436


Question: If the Software in 2019 increased to 165,074 thousand, what would be the revised average for 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 167700.5


Question: If Assets held for sale in 2018 was 6,000 thousands, what would be the change from 2018 to 2019?

Answer: -4893

Context:
10.8. Non-financial assets fair value measurement The Group has classified its non-financial assets held at fair value into the three levels prescribed in note 9.8 to provide an indication about the reliability of inputs used to determine fair value. Recognised fair value measurements The Group’s policy is to recognise transfers into and out of fair value hierarchy levels at the end of the reporting period. There were no transfers between levels 1 and 2 for recurring fair value measurements during the year. During the year ended 30 June 2019 the Group transferred $2.1m from level 3 to level 2 following the reclassification of assets from freehold investment properties to assets held for sale, and $5.7m from level 2 to level 3 following the reclassification of assets from assets held for sale to freehold investment properties, as detailed in note 10.2. In the prior year ended 30 June 2018 the Group transferred $4.4m from level 3 to level 2 following the reclassification of an asset from freehold investment properties to assets held for sale. Fair value measurements using significant observable inputs (level 2) The fair value of assets held for sale is determined using valuation techniques which maximise the use of observable market data. For the years ended 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2018, the Group has valued assets classified as held for sale at the contractually agreed sales price less estimated cost of sale or other observable evidence of market value. Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (level 3) Valuation techniques used to determine level 3 fair values and valuation process Investment properties, principally storage buildings, are held for rental to customers requiring selfstorage facilities and are carried at fair value. Changes in fair values are presented in profit or loss as fair value adjustments. Fair values are determined by a combination of independent valuations and Director valuations. The independent valuations are performed by an accredited independent valuer. Investment properties are independently valued on a rotational basis every three years unless the underlying financing requires a more frequent valuation cycle. For properties subject to an independent valuation report the Directors verify all major inputs to the valuation and review the results with the independent valuer. The Director valuations are completed by the NSH Group Board. The valuations are determined using the same techniques and similar estimates to those applied by the independent valuer. The Group obtains the majority of its external independent valuations at each financial year end. The Group’s policy is to maintain the valuation of the investment property valued in the preceding year at external valuation, unless there is an indication of a significant change to the property’s valuation inputs.

		Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total

	Notes	$'000	$'000	$'000	$'000

At 30 June 2019

Assets held for sale	10.2	-	1,107	-	1,107

Leasehold investment properties	10.4	-	-	215,279	215,279

Freehold investment properties	10.4	-	-	1,874,698	1,874,698

		-	1,107	2,089,977	2,091,084

At 30 June 2018

Assets held for sale	10.2	-	5,713	-	5,713

Leasehold investment properties	10.4	-	-	207,664	207,664

Freehold investment properties	10.4	-		1,377,924	1,377,924


Question: If Assets held for sale in 2018 was 1,900 thousands, in which year would it be lower than 2,000 thousands?

Answer: 2019

Answer: 2018


Question: If Leasehold investment properties in 2018 was 200,000 thousands, what would be the average for 2018 and 2019?

Answer: 207639.5


Question: What was the change in volatility between 2018 and 2019 if volatility in 2018 was 35.0% instead?

Answer: -5

Context:
Fair Value Valuation Assumptions Valuation of Stock Options The fair value of stock options granted are principally estimated using a binomial-lattice model. The inputs in our binomial-lattice model include expected stock price volatility, risk-free interest rate, dividend yield, contractual term, and vesting schedule, as well as measures of employees’ cancellations, exercise, and post-vesting termination behavior. Statistical methods are used to estimate employee termination rates. The following table presents the weighted-average assumptions, weighted average grant date fair value, and the range of expected stock price volatilities: Expected life The expected life of employee stock options is a derived output of the binomial-lattice model and represents the weighted-average period the stock options are expected to remain outstanding. A binomial-lattice model assumes that employees will exercise their options when the stock price equals or exceeds an exercise multiple. The exercise multiple is based on historical employee exercise behaviors. Volatility To estimate volatility for the binomial-lattice model, we consider the implied volatility of exchange-traded options on our stock to estimate short-term volatility, the historical volatility of our common shares during the option’s contractual term to estimate long-term volatility, and a statistical model to estimate the transition from short-term volatility to long-term volatility. Risk-free interest rate As is the case for volatility, the risk-free interest rate is assumed to change during the option’s contractual term. The riskfree interest rate, which is based on U.S. Treasury yield curves, reflects the expected movement in the interest rate from one time period to the next (“forward rate”). Dividend yield The expected dividend yield assumption is based on our historical and expected future amount of dividend payouts. Share-based compensation expense recognized is based on awards ultimately expected to vest and therefore has been reduced for estimated forfeitures. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant based on historical experience and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.

		Employee and Director Options

		For the Years Ended December 31,

	2019	2018	2017

Expected life (in years)	7.85	7.64	7.01

Volatility	30.00%	32.37%	35.00%

Risk free interest rate	1.90%	3.10%	2.14%

Dividend yield	0.76%	0.61%	0.50%

Weighted-average grant date fair value	$17.12	$21.03	$21.11

Stock price volatility range:

Low	30.00%	31.72%	28.19%

High	38.17%	36.73%	35.00%


Question: What was the change in risk free interest rate between 2017 and 2018 if the risk free interest rate in 2017 was 3.00% instead?

Answer: 0.1


Question: What was the percentage change in the weighted-average grant date fair value between 2018 and 2019 if the weighted-average grant date fair value in 2019 was $30.00 instead?

Answer: 42.65


Question: How many years did restructuring charges exceed $10,000 thousand if Restructuring charges in 2019 was $11,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 2

Context:
KEMET CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued) A summary of the expenses aggregated on the Consolidated Statements of Operations line item “Restructuring charges” in the fiscal years ended March 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, is as follows (amounts in thousands): Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2019 The Company incurred $8.8 million in restructuring charges in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, including $2.8 million in personnel reduction costs and $6.0 million in relocation and exit costs. The personnel reduction costs of $2.8 million were primarily due to $0.9 million in costs related to headcount reductions in the TOKIN legacy group across various internal and operational functions, $0.3 million in severance charges related to personnel reductions in the Film and Electrolytic reportable segment resulting from a reorganization of the segment's management structure, and $1.6 million in costs related to reorganization in the Solid Capacitors reportable segment due to a permanent structural change driven by a decline of MnO2 products. The relocation and exit costs of $6.0 million were primarily due to $3.4 million in costs related to the Company's relocation of its tantalum powder equipment from Carson City, Nevada to its plant in Matamoros, Mexico and $2.3 million in costs related to the relocation of axial electrolytic production equipment from Granna, Sweden to its plant in Evora, Portugal. Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2018 The Company incurred $14.8 million in restructuring charges in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, including $12.6 million related to personnel reduction costs and $2.3 million of relocation and exit costs. The personnel reduction costs of $12.6 million were due to $5.2 million related to a voluntary reduction in force in the Film and Electrolytic reportable segment's Italian operations; $4.4 million related to a headcount reduction in the TOKIN legacy group across various internal and operational functions; $2.7 million in severance charges across various overhead functions in the Simpsonville, South Carolina office as these functions were relocated to the Company's new corporate headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and $0.2 million in headcount reductions related to a European sales reorganization. The relocation and exit costs of $2.3 million included $0.9 million in lease termination penalties related to the relocation of global marketing, finance and accounting, and information technology functions to the Company's Fort Lauderdale office, $0.8 million in expenses related to the relocation of the K-Salt operations to the existing Matamoros, Mexico plant, $0.4 million in exit costs related to the shut-down of operations for KFM, and $0.1 million related to the transfer of certain Tantalum production from Simpsonville, South Carolina to Victoria, Mexico. Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2017 The Company incurred $5.4 million in restructuring charges in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, including $2.2 million related to personnel reduction costs and $3.2 million of relocation and exit costs. The personnel reduction costs of $2.2 million corresponded with the following: $0.3 million related to the consolidation of certain Solid Capacitor manufacturing in Matamoros, Mexico; $0.4 million for headcount reductions related to the shut-down of operations for KFM; $0.3 million related to headcount reductions in Europe (primarily Italy and Landsberg, Germany) corresponding with the relocation of certain production lines and laboratories to lower cost regions; $0.3 million for overhead reductions in Sweden; $0.3 million in U.S. headcount reductions related to the relocation of global marketing functions to the Company’s Fort Lauderdale, Florida office; $0.3 million in headcount reductions related to the transfer of certain Tantalum production from Simpsonville, South Carolina to Victoria, Mexico; $0.2 million in overhead reductions for the relocation of research and development operations from Weymouth, England to Evora, Portugal; and $0.1 million in manufacturing headcount reductions related to the relocation of the K-Salt operations to the existing Matamoros, Mexico plant. The relocation and exit costs of $3.2 million included $1.9 million in expenses related to contract termination costs related to the shut-down of operations for KFM; $0.6 million in expenses related to the relocation of the K-Salt operations to the existing Matamoros, Mexico plant; $0.6 million for transfers of Film and Electrolytic production lines and R&D functions to lower cost regions; and $0.1 million related to the transfer of certain Tantalum production from Simpsonville, South Carolina to Victoria, Mexico.

		Fiscal Years Ended March 31,

	2019	2018	2017

Personnel reduction costs	$2,823	$12,587	$2,214

Relocation and exit costs	5,956	2,256	3,190

Restructuring charges	$8,779	$14,843	$5,404


Question: What would be the change in Personnel reduction costs between 2017 and 2018 if Personnel reduction costs in 2017 was $10,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 2587


Question: What would be the percentage change in the Relocation and exit costs between 2018 and 2019 if the Relocation and exit costs in 2019 was $3,000 thousand instead?

Answer: 32.98


Question: In which year would Foreign be largest if the amount in 2019 was $21.8 million instead?

Answer: 2019

Context:
17. Income Taxes Income before income taxes for the Company’s domestic and foreign operations was as follows:

		Years Ended June 30,

($ in millions)	2019	2018	2017

Domestic	$204.2	$140.3	$56.0

Foreign	11.8	19.9	14.2

Income before income taxes	$216.0	$160.2	$70.2


Question: What would the change in Foreign in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $11.9 million instead?

Answer: -8


Question: What would the percentage change in Foreign in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $11.9 million instead?

Answer: -40.2


Question: If number of centres in Gold Cost were 6, what would be the sum of centres in Brisbane and Gold Coast?

Answer: 11

Context:
ACQUISITIONS National Storage has successfully transacted 35 acquisitions and 4 development sites in FY19 and continues to pursue high-quality acquisitions across Australia and New Zealand. The ability to acquire and integrate strategic accretive acquisitions is one of National Storage’s major competitive advantages and a cornerstone of its growth strategy. This active growth strategy also strengthens and scales the National Storage operating platform which drives efficiencies across the business. WINE ARK Wine Ark, Australia’s largest wine storage provider is part of the National Storage group and houses over two million bottles of fine wine across 15 centres for clients located in over 30 countries. There are few businesses in Australia with more experience when it comes to storing and managing premium wine. Throughout FY19 Wine Ark continued to strengthen its relationship and involvement in the greater wine trade supporting the Wine Communicators of Australia, Sommeliers Association of Australia, Wine Australia and Commanderie de Bordeaux (Australian Chapter).

REGION	NUMBER OF CENTRES	TOTAL NLA

Brisbane	5	25,000

Gold Coast	4	6,500

Sunshine Coast	1	6,500

Central Coast (NSW)	6	20,600

Wollongong	3	12,700

Melbourne	2	8,600

Adelaide	3	15,500

Perth	2	10,800

Auckland (NZ)	3	27,000

Hamilton (NZ)	4	21,600

Rotorua (NZ)	1	5,000

Tauranga (NZ)	1	3,200

Total Acquisitions	35	163,000


Question: If total NLA in Brisbane were 10,000, what would be the difference in the NLA between Sunshine Coast and Brisbane?

Answer: 3500


Question: If NLA in Gold Coast was 5,000, what would be the average of Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast?

Answer: 5750


Question: How many years did net sales from APAC exceed $1,500 million if the net sales from APAC in 2018 was $2,000 million instead?

Answer: 2

Context:
A discussion of net sales by reportable segment is presented below for the indicated fiscal years (in millions): AMER. Net sales for fiscal 2019 in the AMER segment increased $210.4 million, or 17.3%, as compared to fiscal 2018. The increase in net sales was driven by a $181.7 million increase in production ramps of new products for existing customers, a $13.5 million increase in production ramps for new customers and overall net increased customer end-market demand. The increase was partially offset by a $16.4 million decrease for end-of-life products and a $6.0 million reduction due to disengagements with customers. APAC. Net sales for fiscal 2019 in the APAC segment increased $59.2 million, or 4.0%, as compared to fiscal 2018. The increase in net sales was driven by an $87.3 million increase in production ramps of new products for existing customers and a $58.1 million increase in production ramps for new customers. The increase was partially offset by a $28.4 million reduction due to a disengagement with a customer, a $7.3 million decrease for end-of-life products and overall net decreased customer end-market demand. EMEA. Net sales for fiscal 2019 in the EMEA segment increased $28.4 million, or 10.1%, as compared to fiscal 2018. The increase in net sales was the result of a $20.2 million increase in production ramps of new products for existing customers, a $4.2 million increase in production ramps for new customers and overall net increased customer end-market demand. The increase was partially offset by a $6.2 million reduction due to a disengagement with a customer.

	2019	2018

Net sales:

AMER	$1,429.3	$1,218.9

APAC	1,557.2	1,498.0

EMEA	309.9	281.5

Elimination of inter-segment sales	(132.0)	(124.9)

Total net sales	3,164.4	2,873.5


Question: What would be the difference in net sales in 2018 between AMER and EMEA regions if the net sales from EMEA was $1,000 million instead?

Answer: 218.9


Question: What would be the percentage change in the Elimination of inter-segment sales between 2018 and 2019 if the Elimination of inter-segment sales in 2019 was -$100 million instead?

Answer: -19.94


Question: In which year would the amount of Property be larger if the amount in 2018 was $14.5 million instead?

Answer: 2018

Context:
9 Profit / (loss) on Ordinary Activities The profit (2018: loss) on ordinary activities before taxation is stated after charging:

	Year-ended 31 March 2019	Year-ended 31 March 2018 Restated See note 2

	$M	$M

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment	11.8	11.6

Amortisation of intangible assets	16.9	25.2

Research and development expenditure	(143.9)	(140.3)

Operating lease rentals:

Property	14.0	12.5

Other	1.6	1.6

Pension scheme contributions	8.9	8.4

Impairment of trade receivables	0.6	0.6

Net foreign currency differences	(1.5)	6.9


Question: What would the change in the amount of Property in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $14.5 million instead?

Answer: 2


Question: What would the percentage change in the amount of Property in 2019 from 2018 be if the amount in 2019 was $14.5 million instead?

Answer: 16