Features and Amenities
Features and Amenities:
Wifi ready study area
Gym and Function Room
Features and Amenities:
2 Lap Pools
Ground Floor Commercial Areas
Features and Amenities:
3 Swimming Pools
Gym and Fitness Center
Outdoor Basketball Court
Contact us today for a no obligation quotation:
Copyright © 2018 SMDC :: SM Residences, All Rights Reserved.
up to date and reliable brain dumps of A4070-603 are to be had here.
this is a splendid A4070-603 exam preparation. i purchased it due to the fact that I could not locate any books or PDFs to test for the A4070-603 exam. It turned out to be higher than any e-book on account that this practice examgives you true questions, simply the way youll be requested them on the exam. No useless information, no inappropriatequestions, that is the way it was for me and my buddies. I noticeably advocate killexams.com to all my brothers and sisters who plan to take A4070-603 exam.
Are there properly sources for A4070-603 test guides?
I honestly thank you. I actually have cleared the A4070-603 exam with the assist of your mock test. It became very plenty helpful. I simply might recommend to those who are going to seem the A4070-603.
I need actual test questions of A4070-603 exam.
I overlooked a couple of questions best considering the fact that I went smooth and didnt undergo in brain the answer given inside the unit, but while you recall that I got the relaxation right, I passed and solved forty three/50 questions. So my advice is to test all that i am getting from killexams.com - this is everything I want to pass. I passed this exam due to killexams. This percent. Is 100% trustworthy, a huge part of the questions had been the equal as what I were given on the A4070-603 exam.
wherein am i able to locate A4070-603 trendy and updated dumps questions?
Your client thoughts assist specialists have been constantly available via stay chat to tackle the most trifling troubles. Their advices and clarifications have been big. this is to illuminate that I figured out the way to pass my A4070-603 security exam via my first utilising killexams.com Dumps direction. exam Simulator of A4070-603 by using killexams.com is a excellent too. i am amazingly cheerful to have killexams.com A4070-603 course, as this valuable material helped me achieve my objectives. an awful lot liked.
Do you know the fastest manner to clear A4070-603 examination? i have were given it.
Ive endorsed approximately your objects to numerous companions and companions, and theyre all tremendously fulfilled. A good deal obliged killexams.com Questions & solutions for boosting up my career and assisting me plan nicely for my excessive exams. Loads preferred over again. I even have to mention that i am your greatest fan! I need you to recognize that I cleared my A4070-603 exam these days, contemplating the A4070-603 route notes i purchased from you. I solved 86/90 five questions within the exam. you are the awesome training issuer.
Nice to hear that dumps of A4070-603 exam are available.
practise kit has been very beneficial throughout my exam training. I got a hundred% im not an amazing check taker and may pass blank at the exam, which isnt always a terrific aspect, specifically if this is A4070-603 exam, when time is your enemy. I had revel in of failing IT tests within the beyond and wanted to avoid it at all charges, so i purchased this package deal. It has helped me pass with a hundred%. It had everything I had to recognise, and given that I had spent endless hours reading, cramming and making notes, I had no hassle passing this exam with the very best marks possible.
those A4070-603 questions and solutions offer appropriate information present day subjects.
Im so satisfied i bought A4070-603 exam prep. The A4070-603 exam is hard considering its very great, and the questions cover everything you notice in the blueprint. killexams.com have become my important training source, and they cowl the entiretyperfectly, and there were lots of related questions about the exam.
I need actual test questions of A4070-603 exam.
I take the benefit of the Dumps supplied by using the killexams.com and the content wealthy with statistics and offers the powerful things, which I searched precisely for my training. It boosted my spirit and presents wanted self belief to take my A4070-603 exam. The material you provided is so close to the actual exam questions. As a non local English speaker I were given 120 minutes to finish the exam, but I simply took ninety five mins. great material. thanks.
Here they are! Exact study, Exact Result.
Im very masses happy along with your test papers particularly with the solved issues. Your test papers gave me courage to seem in the A4070-603 paper with self assurance. The end result is seventy seven.25%. Over again I complete heartedly thank the killexams.com employer. No other manner to pass the A4070-603 exam apart from killexams.com model papers. I in my view cleared distinct test with the help of killexams.com question economic organization. I suggest it to each one. If you need to pass the A4070-603 exam then take killexams.com help.
Party is over! Time to study and pass the exam.
I didnt plan to use any brain dumps for my IT certification exams, but being under pressure of the difficulty of A4070-603 exam, I ordered this bundle. I was impressed by the quality of these materials, they are absolutely worth the money, and I believe that they could cost more, this is how great they are! I didnt have any trouble while taking my exam thanks to Killexams. I simply knew all questions and answers! I got 97% with only a few days exam preparation, besides having some work experience, which was certainly helpful, too. So yes, killexams.com is really good and highly recommended.
February eleven, 2019 Timothy Prickett Morgan
If nothing else, the IBM i platform has exhibited staggering durability. One could even say legendary durability, if you need to take its history all the way again to the system/three minicomputer from 1969. this is the precise starting aspect within the AS/four hundred family unit tree and here is when big Blue, for extremely sound legal and technical and advertising reasons, determined to fork its products to tackle the wonderful wants of enormous organizations (with the device/360 mainframe and its observe-ons) and small and medium groups (beginning with the gadget/3 and moving on throughout the system/34, device/32, equipment/38, and gadget/36 in the Seventies and early 1980s and passing through the AS/four hundred, AS/400e, iSeries, equipment i, and then IBM i on power programs platforms.
It has been an extended run indeed, and a lot of shoppers who have invested within the platform started way lower back then and there with the early models of RPG and moved their applications ahead and adjusted them as their corporations evolved and the depth and breadth of company computing changed, moving on up through RPG II, RPG III, RPG IV, ILE RPG, and now RPG free kind. Being on this platform for even three a long time makes you a relative newcomer.
there is a longer run forward, due to the fact they believe that the agencies that are nonetheless working IBM i systems are the proper diehards, the ones who haven't any intention of leaving the platform and that, at least in line with the survey data they now have been privy too, are aspiring to proceed investing in, or even extend their investments in, the IBM i platform.
to date, they aren't in a recession and heaven willing there are usually not one, so the priorities that IBM i shops have don't seem to be the ones that they had a decade in the past during the height of the notable Recession. lower back then, as became the case in pretty much all IT agencies, IBM i shops had been hunkering down and had been attempting to cut expenses in all approaches feasible, together with deferring gadget improvements and migrations in addition to slicing returned on other initiatives. simplest 29 % of the 750 IBM i stores that participated in the 2019 IBM i market Survey, which HelpSystems did lower back in October 2018, have been concerned about cutting back IT spending. this is a remarkably low degree, and that i believe is indicative of how highly mighty the economic climate is – excepting some of the suits and begins they saw on the conclusion of 2018 and right here in early 2019 that make us fearful and could delivery placing pressure on issues. listed here are the top issues as culled from the survey:
dealing with the growth in records and in determining the analytics to chunk on that information ranked a bit bit larger on the 2019 IBM i market Survey than did reducing expenses, and i believe over the lengthy haul these concerns will develop into extra vital than modernizing applications and dealing with the IBM i capabilities shortages which are a perennial agonize. both of these concerns are being solved as new programmers and new equipment to make new interfaces to database purposes are getting more general and as applied sciences corresponding to free kind RPG, which appears more like Java, Python, and personal home page, are being extra commonly deployed and, importantly, can also be picked up extra right away by way of programmers experienced with these different languages.
Given the character of the consumer base, it looks unlikely to me that security and excessive availability will now not proceed to be basic concerns, despite the fact that the IBM i platform is among the many most comfortable structures in the world (and never just because it is vague, but since it is exceptionally complicated to hack) and it has various high availability and disaster healing equipment (from IBM, Syncsort, Maxava, and HelpSystems) attainable for people that need to double up their programs and give protection to their applications and information. The bar is regularly bigger than standard backup and recovery for a lot of IBM i stores within the banking, coverage, manufacturing, and distribution industries that dominate the platform. These businesses can’t have safety breaches, and that they can’t have downtime.
there's a striking amount of stability in the IBM i client base that they suppose, at this point, is reflective in the balance of the IBM i platform and big Blue’s own perception that it needs a match IBM i platform to have an ordinary suit power programs enterprise. all of us comprehend that the energy programs hardware company has just turned in 5 quarters of profits increase – whatever they mentioned lately in establishing their personal earnings mannequin for the power methods enterprise – however what they didn't be aware of, and what remember to know, is that in the second and third quarters of 2018, the IBM i portion of the business grew vastly sooner than the typical power methods enterprise, and the only purpose that this didn't happen in the ultimate quarter of 2018 is that income of IBM i machinery in this autumn 2017 became rather strong and represented a really hard evaluate. The element is, the IBM i business has been raising the energy methods class typical. (These guidelines concerning the IBM i enterprise come compliments of Steve Sibley, vp and providing supervisor of Cognitive programs at IBM.)
IBM’s personal monetary balance of the vigor platform – which has been bolstered through a flow into Linux clusters for analytics and excessive performance computing simulation and modeling in addition to via the adoption of the HANA in-memory database by using SAP shoppers on large iron machines together with Power8 and now Power9 methods – helps IBM i purchasers believe greater confident in investing in the existing IBM i platform. The fresh proof from a couple of diverse surveys, now not just the one done by HelpSystems each year, means that corporations are via and big both continuing to make investments within the platform or even in some situations are planning to increase their spending on the IBM i platform in 2019.
As you can see, the pattern of funding plans for the IBM i platform, as shown in the chart above, has not modified very much in any respect during the past four years. it's a remarkably good pattern with but a little wiggling here and there that may no longer even be statistically large. simply beneath a quarter of IBM i retail outlets have suggested in the past four years that they plan to raise their investment within the platform in each and every yr, and just below half say that they're retaining steady. This does not imply that the same agencies, yr after year, are investing extra and different corporations are staying pat, year after year. it is way more likely that every handful of years – more like four or five – purchasers upgrade their techniques and expand their capacity, and that they then sit down tight. The ask yourself is that the break up isn’t displaying some distance fewer organizations investing and far extra sitting tight. That greater than a tenth of the shops don’t be aware of what their plan is as every prior year involves a detailed is a little bit stressful, however it is sincere and indicates that a significant portion of outlets produce other priorities other than hardware and operating system enhancements. they have observed this before and they can say it once more: They feel that the americans who reply to surveys and skim weekly publications concentrated on the IBM i platform are essentially the most energetic retail outlets – the ones more more likely to reside exceedingly current on hardware and application. So the tempo of adoption for brand new applied sciences, and the rate of funding, may still be larger than in the specific base, much of which does not trade lots at all.
So if they had to alter this facts to take on the whole base, there might possibly be far fewer websites which are investing extra funds, far more businesses which are sitting tight, and perhaps fewer sites which are taking into consideration relocating off the IBM i platform. I feel the distribution of information is probably whatever like 10 p.c of retailers have no thought what they are doing investment smart with IBM this yr, 5 p.c are thinking about moving some or all of their applications to one other platform, possibly 10 % are investing extra this year, and the final seventy five % are sitting tight. this is just a bet, of course. as far as they will tell, the cost of attrition – what number of websites they basically lose each and every year – just a tad over 1 %. So the expense of stream of functions off the platform, or incidences of unplugging IBM i databases and functions, may additionally now not be anywhere near as high within the usual base because the records above suggests. what is alarming, perhaps, is that the fee of relocating some or all applications off the platform is balanced in opposition t people that say they are going to enhance investments. perhaps these are hopeful survey takers, and those that believe it's convenient to circulate locate it isn't and those that believe they're going to discover the cash to make investments will now not.
What they do know is that if the fee of utility attrition become anyplace close as excessive as these surveys imply, then the IBM i business would no longer be turning out to be, but shrinking. And they realize it is not shrinking, so they consider there is a disconnect between planning and reality, both on the upside and the downside.
in case you drill down into the information for the 2019 IBM i market Survey, there have been 13 % of shops that referred to they might be relocating some functions to a new platform, and yet another 9 p.c that noted they were going to movement all of their purposes off IBM i. (This quantity is consistent with the fresh ALL400s survey executed by means of John Rockwell.)
Anyway, first rate luck with that.
Porting applications from one platform to a further, of purchasing a brand new suite on that new platform, is an awfully difficult assignment. It is not like attempting to change a tire while driving down the highway, as is a standard metaphor, however fairly like making an attempt to take the tire off one motor vehicle relocating down the motorway and installation it on another automobile driving beside it in the adjoining lane with out crashing either automobile or smashing into any one else on the road. Optimism abounds, but when push comes to shove, only a few companies are trying this kind of maneuver, and after they do, it is constantly as a result of there is a company mandate, greater times than no longer caused by means of a merger or acquisition, that pits every other platform towards IBM i operating on vigor programs. corporations that say they're making such a circulation off IBM i are sanguine for their own personal causes, most likely, however they are not necessarily practical about how long it may take, what disruption it'll can charge, and what most appropriate advantage, if any, will be realized.
in case you do the mathematics on the chart above, eight-tenths of the bottom has no thought how lengthy a flow will take, another 1.7 percent thinks it will take more than 5 years, and 3 % say it is going to take between two years and 5 years. simplest 3.4 percent of the full base say they could do it in under two years. They believe all of these numbers are optimistic, and the corporations who may readily go away OS/four hundred and IBM i already did a long time in the past and people that are continue to be have a harder time, not a less complicated time, relocating. If this have been no longer actual, the IBM i base can be a hell of a whole lot smaller than the 120,000 customers they think are available, in line with what large Blue has advised us in the past. this is the difference between concern or power or subculture and the reality of making an attempt to stream a business off one platform and onto one other. These moves are at all times an awful lot tougher than they seem on the entrance conclusion, and they suspect most of the merits also don’t materialize for people that do soar structures.
on the average attrition rate advised by means of this survey facts – 9 percent circulation off the platform in somewhere between three hundred and sixty five days and more than five years, with most groups not being capable of see more than five years into the future it is a neat trick – the installed base would decrease dramatically. it's tough to assert how some distance as a result of the wide range of timeframes in the survey. If it was 9 p.c of the bottom within two years – call it 4.5 percent of the bottom per yr – then inside a decade the basic base would shrink from a hundred and twenty,000 IBM i websites worldwide all the way down to about 72,000. this might dramatic certainly. but at a 1 percent attrition price per 12 months, the bottom remains at 107,500 interesting valued clientele (no longer websites and not installed machines, both of which might be bigger) via 2029. They suppose there's every chance that the attrition cost will in fact slow and drop underneath 1 p.c as IBM demonstrates dedication to the vigor methods platform and its IBM i operating gadget. There are all the time some new consumers being brought in new markets, to be certain, but the bleed price (even though it is small) is still probably an order of magnitude greater than the feed price.
after they do think about making the movement, IBM i stores recognize exactly the place they want to go, and this answer has been progressively changing through the years: Linux as an alternative to IBM i is on the upward push and windows Server as an option is on the wane. in the latest survey, 52 p.c of the organizations that noted they have been moving all or some of their functions to a different platform stated they were picking windows Server, while 34 percent selected Linux. This displays the relative popularity of windows Server and Linux in the datacenters of the area at tremendous, and may be tipped simply a bit extra heavily in opposition t Linux compared to the rest of the realm. curiously, 10 percent of those polled who observed they have been moving have been taking a look at AIX systems, and one more 4 p.c had been going upscale to device z mainframes – as not going as this may also appear. structures are inclined to roll downhill; they don't always defy gravity like that.
The issue about such surveys is that they exhibit intent, not action. They frequently intend to do much more than they actually can accomplish, and relocating systems after spending a long time of building up expertise isn't usually a extremely smart circulation unless the platform is in precise problem – just like the Itanium techniques from Hewlett Packard business working OpenVMS or HP-UX or the HP 3000s working MPE or the Sparc programs from Oracle running Solaris. These had been once top notch structures with huge installed bases and large income streams, but now, IBM is the final of these Unix and proprietary structures with its power programs line. And it is with the aid of far the largest and for bound the only one showing any boom.related experiences
The IBM i Base Did certainly movement On Up
The IBM i Base Is ready to stream On Up
investment And Integration symptoms For IBM i
protection still Dominates IBM i dialogue, HelpSystems’ 2018 Survey exhibits
The IBM i Base not As Jumpy because it Has Been
The Feeds And Speeds Of The IBM i Base
IBM i Priorities For 2017: Pivot To protection
IBM i traits, concerns, And Observations
IBM i Survey gets greater As Numbers develop
where Do these IBM i Machines Work?
discovering IBM i: A online game Of 40 Questions
it is time to inform Us What you are up to
IBM i market Survey: The value Of Being Earnest
What’s Up within the IBM i market?
IBM i market Survey Fills within the Blanks
Key players|SAP, Oracle, IBM, Informatica, Stibo techniques, TIBCO software, Riversand technologies, Orchestra Networks, EnterWorks, Magnitude, Talend, SAS Institute
The global grasp statistics management (MDM) Market from the standpoint of all its current traits which are prompting it's fundamental to grasp with a view to obtain essentially the most helpful solution for company thoughts. These developments are of differing kinds together with geographical, socioeconomic, financial, consumer, political, cultural.
Their ordinary impact on customer or buyer preferences can have a massive contribution in how this market will enhance itself in the following years to come. master facts administration (MDM) model increase because the quantity and diversity of organizational units, the function of employees, and the expansion of computing applications.
MDM can be more helpful to big or advanced corporations than small, medium, or primary agencies. grasp statistics administration can facilitate the operation of a variety of gadget architectures, systems and functions.
Request a sample document @ www.qurateresearch.com/report/samp…QBI-99S-ICT-10483
important Key avid gamers in this file are: SAP, Oracle, IBM, Informatica, Stibo methods, TIBCO utility, Riversand applied sciences, Orchestra Networks, EnterWorks, Magnitude, Talend, SAS Institute, Microsoft, KPMG, Teradata company, software AG, Agility Multichannel, VisionWare, SupplyOn AG, Sunway World, Yonyou
The decisive aim for the distribution of this tips is to develop an in depth descriptive evaluation of how these developments can also doubtlessly create impact over the future of the world master records administration (MDM) Market over the forecast length.
The master records administration (MDM) Market file has been recently delivered to the Qurate’s database on the web site, is a complete and descriptive analysis of the worldwide market. It explains the market dynamics, scope of growth, and other elements of the market that have been impacting the advertising all through its growth in terms of gaining price and measurement.
This research is a quantitative in addition to a qualitative examine aimed toward offering clear view of all viable scenarios and structure in the global master information administration (MDM) Market.
Enquiry @ www.qurateresearch.com/file/enqu…QBI-99S-ICT-10483
“international grasp records management (MDM) Market” is analysis file of finished nature which entails assistance in relation with primary regional markets, current eventualities. This includes key regional areas similar to North the usa, Europe, Asia-Pacific,.
and the most desirable countries similar to united states, Germany, united kingdom, Japan, South Korea and China.
The global master facts administration (MDM) Market is additionally purchasable to the readers as a wholistic overview of the competitive panorama. It offers a comparative evaluation of the key gamers in addition to regional segments, enabling readers to improve more advantageous figuring out of areas during which they can place their standing supplies and gauging the significance of a specific area to be able to carry their standing in the international Market.
Get this top class record @www.qurateresearch.com/file/disc…QBI-99S-ICT-10483
desk of content:
world “world master statistics administration (MDM) Market” research file 2019-2025
Chapter 1: business Overview
Chapter 2: master statistics administration (MDM) foreign and China Market evaluation
Chapter 3: atmosphere evaluation of master information administration (MDM)
Chapter 4: evaluation of earnings through Classifications
Chapter 5: analysis of salary via areas and applications
Chapter 6: evaluation of master information management (MDM) revenue Market fame.
Chapter 7: evaluation of master facts administration (MDM) business Key manufacturers
Chapter 8: income rate and Gross Margin analysis
Chapter 9: advertising dealer or Distributor evaluation of master information administration (MDM) Market
Chapter 10: construction style of grasp facts administration (MDM) trade 2019-2025
Chapter eleven: business Chain Suppliers of grasp statistics administration (MDM) with Contact tips
Chapter 12: New mission funding Feasibility evaluation of master statistics management (MDM)
Chapter 13: Conclusion of the world master facts management (MDM) Market research file
IBM (NYSE: IBM) became one of the vital few organizations still developing the manufacturing strategies to construct reducing-area chips. Then, again in 2015, IBM achieved the sale of its chip manufacturing belongings to face-on my own chip brand GLOBALFOUNDRIES.
lamentably for IBM's chip efforts -- the business still develops power processors for servers and Z-sequence chips for its mainframes -- GLOBALFOUNDRIES ceased building of chopping-facet chip manufacturing expertise. This left IBM in need of a new associate to fabricate its chip designs.
inner an IBM desktop room.more
picture supply: IBM.
a little while again, Nikkei Asian assessment said that this new accomplice would be Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing company (NYSE: TSM). while GLOBALFOUNDRIES did not carry its own seven-nanometer manufacturing technology, marketed as 7LP, into mass construction, TSMC's personal seven-nanometer know-how is now in mass production. (if you're reading this on one of the crucial latest iPhones or iPads, you're the usage of a tool powered by a TSMC seven-nanometer chip.)
relatively sufficient, that report was wrong, and it looks IBM is partnering with TSMC's best actual competitor in leading-edge semiconductor common sense expertise: Samsung (NASDAQOTH: SSNLF).what's the deal?
On Dec. 20, IBM mentioned that it "announced an agreement with Samsung to fabricate 7-nanometer (nm) microprocessors for IBM power systems, IBM Z and LinuxONE, high-efficiency computing (HPC) programs, and cloud choices."
moreover, the clicking unlock claimed that "[today's] announcement also expands and extends the 15-year strategic method know-how R&D partnership between both agencies, which, as a part of IBM's research Alliance, contains many trade firsts such as the first NanoSheet machine innovation for sub 5nm, the construction of the trade's first 7nm look at various chip and the primary excessive-ok metallic Gate foundry manufacturing."What does this imply for IBM and Samsung?
From IBM's viewpoint, the enterprise now has a potential chip manufacturing associate to guide the chips that vigour its techniques. remaining quarter, IBM's programs enterprise -- which the enterprise says "includes programs hardware and working systems utility -- generated $1.7 billion in income, starting to be 1% 12 months-over-year. That represented simply 9% of the company's earnings within the quarter.
on the other hand, that phase is gigantic ample that IBM is going to wish to proceed to aid it, and having a official manufacturing companion to build the microprocessors on the heart of these methods is vital to retaining that enterprise alive.
as far as Samsung is concerned, here's incremental business for its contract chip manufacturing arm. youngsters, here's by way of no capability a online game changer for Samsung. IBM's total methods enterprise turned into $1.7 billion closing quarter and just over $5.4 billion all over the first three quarters of 2018. If they anticipate that run price for the whole thing of 2018, it translates into about $7.2 billion in universal gadget income.
Samsung goes to be producing earnings handiest for the manufacture of the leading processors in these systems. not only do these programs encompass many different add-ons (chassis, vigour supplies, DRAM, storage, motherboards, and so forth), however IBM is, naturally, marking up the raw substances prices of those methods to generate earnings.
This deal actually isn't going to add one billion greenbacks or greater to Samsung's coffers and is not finally going to be a online game changer for Samsung and even Samsung's semiconductor company (which is primarily dominated by revenue of DRAM and NAND memories), nevertheless it should still power incremental profits and gross earnings.
extra From The Motley fool
Ashraf Eassa has no place in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley fool has a disclosure policy.
Unquestionably it is hard assignment to pick dependable certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals get sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. Killexams.com ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report dissension customers come to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams joyfully and effortlessly. They never trade off on their review, reputation and quality on the grounds that killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer certainty is imperative to us. Uniquely they deal with killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com sham report objection, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. On the off chance that you see any false report posted by their rivals with the name killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com protest or something like this, simply remember there are constantly awful individuals harming reputation of good administrations because of their advantages. There are a huge number of fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.
000-376 VCE | 010-151 braindumps | 1Z0-870 test prep | 000-M36 questions answers | C2150-810 sample test | LOT-915 bootcamp | 132-s-712-2 Practice Test | 650-667 real questions | HP0-J62 free pdf download | 050-728 cram | 920-157 practice exam | HP0-D20 dump | 000-834 dumps questions | JN0-341 dumps | 250-223 cheat sheets | 2B0-012 braindumps | 000-970 practice test | HP5-H03D real questions | HP0-P10 test questions | PMP-Bundle free pdf |
A4070-603 Dumps and Practice software with Real Question
We have Tested and Approved A4070-603 Exams think about aides and brain dumps. killexams.com gives the correct and latest real questions with braindumps which basically contain all data that you have to pass the A4070-603 exam. With the guide of their A4070-603 exam materials, you dont need to misuse your chance on scrutinizing reference books however just need to consume 10-20 hours to retain their A4070-603 real questions and answers.
killexams.com pleased with recognition of serving to people pass the A4070-603 exam of their first attempt. Their exam dumps performance remain astonishing, thanks to their glad customers currently ready to boost their career within the quick lane. killexams.com is the primary alternative amongst IT specialists, above all those try to climb up the hierarchy levels quicker of their respective organization. killexams.com Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on web site PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders additional than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders additional than $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
killexams.com helps millions of candidates pass the exams and get their certifications. They have thousands of successful reviews. Their dumps are reliable, affordable, updated and of really best quality to overcome the difficulties of any IT certifications. killexams.com exam dumps are latest updated in highly outclass manner on regular basis and material is released periodically. Latest killexams.com dumps are available in testing centers with whom they are maintaining their relationship to get latest material.
The killexams.com exam questions for A4070-603 Assessment: System z Sales V6 exam is mainly based on two accessible formats, PDF and Practice questions. PDF file carries all the exam questions, answers which makes your preparation easier. While the Practice questions are the complimentary feature in the exam product. Which helps to self-assess your progress. The evaluation tool also questions your weak areas, where you need to put more efforts so that you can improve all your concerns.
killexams.com recommend you to must try its free demo, you will notice the intuitive UI and also you will find it very easy to customize the preparation mode. But make sure that, the real A4070-603 product has more features than the trial version. If, you are contented with its demo then you can purchase the actual A4070-603 exam product. Avail 3 months Free updates upon purchase of A4070-603 Assessment: System z Sales V6 Exam questions. killexams.com offers you three months free update upon acquisition of A4070-603 Assessment: System z Sales V6 exam questions. Their expert team is always available at back end who updates the content as and when required.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
A4070-603 | A4070-603 | A4070-603 | A4070-603 | A4070-603 | A4070-603
Killexams PW0-205 test prep | Killexams 1D0-541 study guide | Killexams 000-503 braindumps | Killexams 3000-3 exam prep | Killexams CA0-001 cram | Killexams GD0-110 practice test | Killexams C9010-262 Practice Test | Killexams 1Z0-898 dumps | Killexams 250-410 test prep | Killexams 7750X free pdf | Killexams MB6-896 dumps questions | Killexams 000-594 real questions | Killexams A2180-607 braindumps | Killexams 70-630 free pdf | Killexams 000-743 mock exam | Killexams 117-303 bootcamp | Killexams 500-710 VCE | Killexams QQ0-200 free pdf | Killexams HP2-H14 practice exam | Killexams HP0-M44 practice test |
Killexams 117-101 real questions | Killexams A2010-590 braindumps | Killexams RCDD dumps questions | Killexams 650-302 study guide | Killexams 1Z0-335 cheat sheets | Killexams 133-S-713.4 pdf download | Killexams HH0-200 free pdf | Killexams VACC questions and answers | Killexams 00M-664 practice questions | Killexams 000-891 examcollection | Killexams CCB-400 dumps | Killexams CPM questions answers | Killexams 920-551 exam prep | Killexams HP0-831 test prep | Killexams 1Z0-034 VCE | Killexams M8010-246 brain dumps | Killexams HP0-J17 exam questions | Killexams 000-553 study guide | Killexams 000-968 exam prep | Killexams 200-155 bootcamp |
DEERFIELD, Ill., Jan 30, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Full-Year Highlights
DEERFIELD, Ill., Jan. 30, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Mondel�"z International, Inc. MDLZ, +0.86% today reported its fourth quarter and full-year 2018 results.
"Our fourth quarter and full-year 2018 results demonstrate the power of their brands, the strength of their global footprint and the potential of their strategic plan," said Dirk Van de Put, Chairman and CEO. "We delivered on their key financial and strategic commitments for the year, including solid top-line and bottom-line growth and strong cash flow generation. In 2019, they will continue to progress against their new strategy, which includes new investments to drive organic revenue growth and operational excellence across the organization."
Key Strategic Initiatives
Net Revenue$ in millions ReportedNet Revenues OrganicNet Revenue Growth Quarter 4 Q4 2018 % Chgvs PY Q4 2018 Vol/Mix Pricing Latin America $763 (15.2 )% 3.9 % (3.3 )pp 7.2 pp Asia, Middle East & Africa 1,429 (1.4 ) 4.0 2.9 1.1 Europe 2,752 (2.3 ) 2.3 3.4 (1.1 ) North America 1,829 1.6 0.8 (2.1 ) 2.9 Mondel�"z International $6,773 (2.8 )% 2.5 % 1.0 pp 1.5 pp Emerging Markets $2,441 (4.5 )% 6.5 % Developed Markets $4,332 (1.7 )% 0.2 % Full Year 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 Latin America $3,202 (10.2 )% 3.6 % (2.6 )pp 6.2 pp Asia, Middle East & Africa 5,729 (0.2 ) 3.5 1.9 1.6 Europe 10,122 3.3 2.5 3.1 (0.6 ) North America 6,885 1.3 0.6 (0.5 ) 1.1 Mondel�"z International $25,938 0.2 % 2.4 % 1.1 pp 1.3 pp Emerging Markets $9,659 (0.5 )% 5.7 % Developed Markets $16,279 0.6 % 0.3 %
Operating Income and Diluted EPS$ in millions Reported Adjusted Quarter 4 Q4 2018 vs PY(Rpt Fx) Q4 2018 vs PY(Rpt Fx) vs PY(Cst Fx) Gross Profit $2,549 (3.9)% $2,710 (0.3)% 5.4% Gross Profit Margin 37.6% (0.5)pp 40.0% 0.9pp Operating Income $870 4.8% $1,096 0.5% 7.2% Operating Income Margin 12.8% 0.9pp 16.2% 0.5pp Net Earnings  $823 18.4% $928 9.7% 17.7% Diluted EPS $0.56 21.7% $0.63 12.5% 21.4% Full Year 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 Gross Profit $10,352 3.2% $10,401 2.2% 3.5% Gross Profit Margin 39.9% 1.2pp 40.1% 0.4pp Operating Income $3,312 (4.3)% $4,321 4.9% 6.2% Operating Income Margin 12.8% (0.6)pp 16.7% 0.6pp Net Earnings $3,381 19.6% $3,614 10.7% 11.8% Diluted EPS $2.28 23.2% $2.43 13.6% 15.0%
Fourth Quarter Commentary
Full Year Commentary
2019 OutlookMondel�"z International provides guidance on a non-GAAP basis, as the company cannot predict some elements that are included in reported GAAP results, including the impact of foreign exchange. Refer to the Outlook section in the discussion of non-GAAP financial measures below for more details.
The company continues to expect Organic Net Revenue growth to be between 2 and 3 percent. The company maintains its outlook for Adjusted EPS growth of 3 to 5 percent on a constant-currency basis. The company estimates currency translation would decrease net revenue growth by approximately 3 percent  with a negative $0.07 impact to Adjusted EPS  . In addition, the company continues to expect Free Cash Flow of approximately $2.8 billion.
Conference CallMondel�"z International will host a conference call for investors with accompanying slides to review its results at 5 p.m. ET today. A listen-only webcast will be provided at www.mondelezinternational.com. An archive of the webcast will be available on the company's web site. The company will be live tweeting the event at www.twitter.com/MDLZ.
About Mondel�"z InternationalMondel�"z International, Inc. MDLZ, +0.86% empowers people to snack right in over 150 countries around the world. With 2018 net revenues of approximately $26 billion, MDLZ is leading the future of snacking with iconic global and local brands such as Oreo, belVita and LU biscuits; Cadbury Dairy Milk, Milka and Toblerone chocolate; Sour Patch Kids candy and Trident gum. Mondel�"z International is a proud member of the Standard and Poor's 500, Nasdaq 100 and Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Visit www.mondelezinternational.com or follow the company on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MDLZ.
Emerging markets consist of the Latin America region in its entirety; the Asia, Middle East and Africa region excluding Australia, New Zealand and Japan; and the following countries from the Europe region: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltics and the East Adriatic countries.
Developed markets include the entire North America region, the Europe region excluding the countries included in the emerging markets definition, and Australia, New Zealand and Japan from the Asia, Middle East and Africa region.
This press release contains a number of forward-looking statements. Words, and variations of words, such as "will," "expect," "may," "would," "could," "deliver," "potential," "estimate," "guidance," "outlook" and similar expressions are intended to identify the company's forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements about: the company's future performance, including its future revenue growth, earnings per share and cash flow; currency and the effect of foreign exchange translation on the company's results of operations; the impact of U.S. tax reform; the company's liability related to withdrawal from the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund; the Brazilian indirect tax matter; the impacts of the malware incident; strategic transactions; the company's strategy and investments; and the company's outlook, including 2019 Organic Net Revenue growth, Adjusted EPS and Free Cash Flow. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the company's control, which could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the company's forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to, risks from operating globally including in emerging markets; changes in currency exchange rates, controls and restrictions; continued volatility of commodity and other input costs; weakness in economic conditions; weakness in consumer spending; pricing actions; tax matters including changes in tax rates and laws, disagreements with taxing authorities and imposition of new taxes; use of information technology and third party service providers; unanticipated disruptions to the company's business, such as the malware incident, cyberattacks or other security breaches; competition; the restructuring program and the company's other transformation initiatives not yielding the anticipated benefits; and changes in the assumptions on which the restructuring program is based. Please also see the company's risk factors, as they may be amended from time to time, set forth in its filings with the SEC, including the company's most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mondelez International disclaims and does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement in this press release, except as required by applicable law or regulation.Schedule 1 Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (in millions of U.S. dollars and shares, except per share data) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended December 31, For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 2017 2018 2017 Net revenues $ 6,773 $ 6,966 $ 25,938 $ 25,896 Cost of sales 4,224 4,313 15,586 15,862 Gross profit 2,549 2,653 10,352 10,034 Gross profit margin 37.6 % 38.1 % 39.9 % 38.7 % Selling, general and administrative expenses 1,536 1,662 6,475 5,938 Asset impairment and exit costs 99 118 389 642 (Gain)/loss on divestitures - (2 ) - (186 ) Amortization of intangibles 44 45 176 178 Operating income 870 830 3,312 3,462 Operating income margin 12.8 % 11.9 % 12.8 % 13.4 % Benefit plan non-service income (3 ) (14 ) (50 ) (44 ) Interest and other expense, net 106 120 520 382 Earnings before income taxes 767 724 2,842 3,124 Provision for income taxes (111 ) (156 ) (773 ) (666 ) Effective tax rate 14.5 % 21.5 % 27.2 % 21.3 % Gain on equity method investment transactions 21 40 778 40 Equity method investment net earnings 149 95 548 344 Net earnings 826 703 3,395 2,842 Noncontrolling interest earnings (3 ) (8 ) (14 ) (14 ) Net earnings attributable to Mondel�"z International $ 823 $ 695 $ 3,381 $ 2,828 Per share data: Basic earnings per share attributable to Mondel�"z International $ 0.56 $ 0.46 $ 2.30 $ 1.87 Diluted earnings per share attributable to Mondel�"z International $ 0.56 $ 0.46 $ 2.28 $ 1.85 Average shares outstanding: Basic 1,457 1,497 1,472 1,513 Diluted 1,470 1,513 1,486 1,531 Schedule 2 Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) December 31, December 31, 2018 2017 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,100 $ 761 Trade receivables 2,262 2,691 Other receivables 744 835 Inventories, net 2,592 2,557 Other current assets 906 676 Total current assets 7,604 7,520 Property, plant and equipment, net 8,482 8,677 Goodwill 20,725 21,085 Intangible assets, net 18,002 18,639 Prepaid pension assets 132 158 Deferred income taxes 255 319 Equity method investments 7,123 6,193 Other assets 406 366 TOTAL ASSETS $ 62,729 $ 62,957 LIABILITIES Short-term borrowings $ 3,192 $ 3,517 Current portion of long-term debt 2,648 1,163 Accounts payable 5,794 5,705 Accrued marketing 1,756 1,728 Accrued employment costs 701 721 Other current liabilities 2,646 2,959 Total current liabilities 16,737 15,793 Long-term debt 12,532 12,972 Deferred income taxes 3,552 3,341 Accrued pension costs 1,221 1,669 Accrued postretirement health care costs 351 419 Other liabilities 2,623 2,689 TOTAL LIABILITIES 37,016 36,883 EQUITY Common Stock - - Additional paid-in capital 31,961 31,915 Retained earnings 24,491 22,631 Accumulated other comprehensive losses (10,630 ) (9,997 ) Treasury stock (20,185 ) (18,555 ) Total Mondel�"z International Shareholders' Equity 25,637 25,994 Noncontrolling interest 76 80 TOTAL EQUITY 25,713 26,074 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $ 62,729 $ 62,957 December 31, December 31, 2018 2017 Incr/(Decr) Short-term borrowings $ 3,192 $ 3,517 $ (325 ) Current portion of long-term debt 2,648 1,163 1,485 Long-term debt 12,532 12,972 (440 ) Total Debt 18,372 17,652 720 Cash and cash equivalents 1,100 761 339 Net Debt [(1)] $ 17,272 $ 16,891 $ 381 [(1) ] Net debt is defined as total debt, which includes short-term borrowings, current portion of long-term debt and long-term debt, less cash and cash equivalents. Schedule 3 Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 2017 CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net earnings $ 3,395 $ 2,842 Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to operating cash flows: Depreciation and amortization 811 816 Stock-based compensation expense 128 137 U.S. tax reform transition tax / (benefit) (38 ) 1,317 Deferred income tax provision / (benefit) 233 (1,228 ) Asset impairments and accelerated depreciation 141 334 Loss on early extinguishment of debt 140 11 (Gain)/loss on divestitures - (186 ) Gain on equity method investment transactions (778 ) (40 ) Equity method investment net earnings (548 ) (344 ) Distributions from equity method investments 180 152 Other non-cash items, net 381 (225 ) Change in assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions and divestitures: Receivables, net 257 (24 ) Inventories, net (204 ) (18 ) Accounts payable 236 5 Other current assets (25 ) 14 Other current liabilities (136 ) (637 ) Change in pension and postretirement assets and liabilities, net (225 ) (333 ) Net cash provided by/(used in) operating activities 3,948 2,593 CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES Capital expenditures (1,095 ) (1,014 ) Acquisition, net of cash received (528 ) - Proceeds from divestiture, net of disbursements 1 604 Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment and other assets 398 109 Net cash provided by/(used in) investing activities (1,224 ) (301 ) CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES Issuances of commercial paper, maturities greater than 90 days 3,981 1,808 Repayments of commercial paper, maturities greater than 90 days (2,856 ) (1,911 ) Net issuances of other short-term borrowings (1,413 ) 1,027 Long-term debt proceeds 2,948 350 Long-term debt repaid (1,821 ) (1,470 ) Repurchase of Common Stock (2,020 ) (2,174 ) Dividends paid (1,359 ) (1,198 ) Other 211 207 Net cash provided by/(used in) financing activities (2,329 ) (3,361 ) Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents (56 ) 89 Cash and cash equivalents: Increase/(decrease) 339 (980 ) Balance at beginning of period 761 1,741 Balance at end of period $ 1,100 $ 761
Mondel�"z International, Inc. and SubsidiariesReconciliation of GAAP and Non-GAAP Financial Measures(Unaudited)
The company reports its financial results in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ("GAAP"). However, management believes that also presenting certain non-GAAP financial measures provides additional information to facilitate comparison of the company's historical operating results and trends in its underlying operating results, and provides additional transparency on how the company evaluates its business. Management uses these non-GAAP financial measures in making financial, operating and planning decisions and in evaluating the company's performance. The company also believes that presenting these measures allows investors to view its performance using the same measures that the company uses in evaluating its financial and business performance and trends.
The company considers quantitative and qualitative factors in assessing whether to adjust for the impact of items that may be significant or that could affect an understanding of its ongoing financial and business performance and trends. The adjustments generally fall within the following categories: acquisition & divestiture activities, gains and losses on intangible asset sales and non-cash impairments, major program restructuring activities, constant currency and related adjustments, major program financing and hedging activities and other major items affecting comparability of operating results. See below for a description of adjustments to the company's U.S. GAAP financial measures included herein.
Non-GAAP information should be considered as supplemental in nature and is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for the related financial information prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. In addition, the company's non-GAAP financial measures may not be the same as or comparable to similar non-GAAP measures presented by other companies.
Because GAAP financial measures on a forward-looking basis are not accessible and reconciling information is not available without unreasonable effort, the company has not provided that information with regard to the non-GAAP financial measures in the company's outlook. Refer to the Outlook section below for more details.
DEFINITIONS OF THE COMPANY'S NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
The company's non-GAAP financial measures and corresponding metrics reflect how the company evaluates its operating results currently and provide improved comparability of operating results. As new events or circumstances arise, these definitions could change. When these definitions change, the company provides the updated definitions and presents the related non-GAAP historical results on a comparable basis. When items no longer impact the company's current or future presentation of non-GAAP operating results, the company removes these items from its non-GAAP definitions. During 2018, the company added to the non-GAAP definitions the exclusion of the impact from pension participation changes and remeasurement gains or losses related to remeasuring net monetary assets or liabilities in Argentina.
See the attached schedules for supplemental financial data and corresponding reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures referred to above to the most comparable GAAP financial measures for the three months and year ended December 31, 2018. See Items Impacting Comparability of Operating Results below for more information about the items referenced in these definitions.
SEGMENT OPERATING INCOMEThe company uses segment operating income to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources. The company believes it is appropriate to disclose this measure to help investors analyze segment performance and trends. Segment operating income excludes unrealized gains and losses on hedging activities (which are a component of cost of sales), general corporate expenses (which are a component of selling, general and administrative expenses), amortization of intangibles, gains and losses on divestitures and acquisition-related costs (which are a component of selling, general and administrative expenses) in all periods presented. The company excludes these items from segment operating income in order to provide better transparency of its segment operating results. Furthermore, the company centrally manages benefit plan non-service income and interest and other expense, net. Accordingly, the company does not present these items by segment because they are excluded from the segment profitability measure that management reviews.
ITEMS IMPACTING COMPARABILITY OF OPERATING RESULTSThe following information is provided to give qualitative and quantitative information related to items impacting comparability of operating results. The company identifies these based on how management views the company's business; makes financial, operating and planning decisions; and evaluates the company's ongoing performance. In addition, the company discloses the impact of changes in currency exchange rates on the company's financial results in order to reflect results on a constant currency basis.
Divestitures, Divestiture-related costs and Gains/(losses) on divestituresDivestitures include completed sales of businesses and exits of major product lines upon completion of a sale or licensing agreement. Divestiture-related activity in 2018 and 2017 included:
Acquisitions and Acquisition-related costsOn June 7, 2018, the company acquired a U.S. premium biscuit company, Tate's Bake Shop, within its North America segment and extended its premium biscuit offerings. On a constant currency basis, the purchase added incremental net revenues of $22 million in the three months and $52 million in the year ended December 31, 2018. In addition, the company incurred acquisition-related costs of $13 million in the year ended December 31, 2018.
On November 2, 2016, the company purchased from Burton's Biscuit Company certain intangibles, which included the license to manufacture, market and sell Cadbury-branded biscuits in additional key markets around the world, including in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, North America and Saudi Arabia. On a constant currency basis, the purchase added incremental net revenues of $9 million in the three months and $59 million in the year ended December 31, 2017.
Acquisition integration costsWithin the company's AMEA segment, in connection with the acquisition of a biscuit operation in Vietnam in 2015, the company recorded integration costs of $4 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 and $1 million in the three months ended and $3 million in the year ended December 31, 2017.
Simplify to Grow ProgramOn September 6, 2018, the company's Board of Directors approved an extension of the restructuring program through 2022, an increase of $1.3 billion in the program charges and an increase of $700 million in capital expenditures. The current restructuring program, as increased and extended by these actions, is now called the Simplify to Grow Program. The primary objective of the Simplify to Grow Program is to reduce the company's operating cost structure in both its supply chain and overhead costs. The program is intended primarily to cover severance as well as asset disposals and other manufacturing-related one-time costs.
Restructuring costsThe company recorded restructuring charges of $96 million in the three months and $316 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 and $117 million in the three months and $535 million in the year ended December 31, 2017 within asset impairment and exit costs or benefit plan non-service income. These charges were for non-cash asset write-downs (including accelerated depreciation and asset impairments), severance and other related costs.
Implementation costsImplementation costs primarily relate to reorganizing the company's operations and facilities in connection with its supply chain reinvention program and other identified productivity and cost saving initiatives. The costs include incremental expenses related to the closure of facilities, costs to terminate certain contracts and the simplification of the company's information systems. The company recorded implementation costs of $100 million in the three months and $315 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 and $78 million in the three months and $257 million in the year ended December 31, 2017.
Gain on equity method investment transactionsOn July 9, 2018, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") closed on its definitive merger agreement with Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., and formed Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. ("KDP"), a publicly traded company. Following the close of the transaction, the company's 24.2% investment in Keurig together with the company's shareholder loan receivable became a 13.8% investment in KDP. During the third quarter of 2018, the company recorded a preliminary pre-tax gain of $757 million reported as a gain on equity method transaction and $184 million of deferred tax expense reported in the provision for income taxes (or $573 million after-tax) related to the change in the company's ownership interest while KDP finalizes the valuation for the transaction. During the company's fourth quarter of 2018, KDP finalized its opening balance sheet and the company increased its pre-tax gain by $21 million to $778 million for 2018. As the company continues to have significant influence, the company continues to account for its investment in KDP under the equity method, resulting in recognizing its share of KDP earnings within the company's earnings and its share of KDP dividends within the company's cash flows. In connection with this transaction, the company changed its accounting principle to reflect its share of Keurig's historical and KDP's ongoing earnings on a one-quarter lag basis while the company continues to record dividends when cash is received. The company determined a lag was preferable as it enables the company to continue to report its quarterly and annual results on a timely basis and to record its share of KDP's ongoing results once KDP has publicly reported its results. This change in accounting principle was applied retrospectively to all periods. While the company's operating income did not change, equity method investment net earnings, net earnings and earnings per share have been adjusted to reflect the lag across all reported periods.
On October 2, 2017, the company completed the sale of one of its equity method investments and recorded a pre-tax gain of $40 million within the gain on equity method investment transactions and $15 million of tax expense.
Equity method investee adjustmentsWithin Adjusted EPS, the company's equity method investment net earnings exclude its proportionate share of its investees' unusual or infrequent items, such as acquisition and divestiture-related costs and restructuring program costs.
Mark-to-market impacts from commodity and currency derivative contractsThe company excludes unrealized gains and losses (mark-to-market impacts) from outstanding commodity and forecasted currency transaction derivatives from its non-GAAP earnings measures until such time that the related exposures impact its operating results. The company recorded net unrealized losses on commodity and forecasted currency transaction derivatives of $38 million in the three months and net unrealized gains of $142 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 and net unrealized losses of $27 million in the three months and $96 million in the year ended December 31, 2017.
Intangible asset impairment chargesDuring the company's 2018 annual testing of non-amortizable intangible assets, the company recorded $68 million of impairment charges in the third quarter of 2018 related to five trademarks. The impairments arose due to lower than expected product growth. The company recorded charges related to gum, chocolate, biscuits and candy trademarks of $45 million in Europe, $14 million in North America and $9 million in AMEA. The impairment charges were recorded within asset impairment and exit costs.
During the company's 2017 annual testing of non-amortizable intangible assets, the company recorded $70 million of impairment charges in the third quarter of 2017 related to five trademarks. The impairments arose due to lower than expected growth in part driven by decisions to redirect support from these trademarks to other regional and global brands. The company recorded charges related to candy and gum trademarks of $52 million in AMEA, $11 million in Europe, $5 million in Latin America and $2 million in North America.
In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2017, the company recorded a $38 million intangible asset impairment charge resulting from a category decline and lower than expected product growth related to a gum trademark in its North America segment as well as a $1 million impairment related to a transaction.
Remeasurement of net monetary positionDuring the second quarter of 2018, primarily based on published estimates which indicated that Argentina's three-year cumulative inflation rate exceeded 100%, the company concluded that Argentina became a highly inflationary economy for accounting purposes. As of July 1, 2018, the company began to apply highly inflationary accounting for its Argentinian subsidiaries and changed their functional currency from the Argentinian peso to the U.S. dollar. On July 1, 2018, both monetary and non-monetary assets and liabilities denominated in Argentinian pesos were remeasured into U.S. dollars. As of each subsequent balance sheet date, Argentinian peso denominated monetary assets and liabilities were remeasured into U.S. dollars using the exchange rate as of the balance sheet date, with remeasurement and other transaction gains and losses recorded in net earnings. The company recorded, related to the revaluation of the Argentinian peso denominated net monetary assets, a remeasurement gain of $2 million during the three months and a remeasurement loss of $11 million during the year ended December 31, 2018.
Incremental expenses related to the malware incidentOn June 27, 2017, a global malware incident impacted the company's business. The malware affected a significant portion of the company's global sales, distribution and financial networks. In the last four days of the second quarter and during the third quarter of 2017, the company executed business continuity and contingency plans to contain the impact, minimize damages and restore its systems environment. To date, the company has not found, nor does the company expect to find, any instances of Company or personal data released externally. The company has also restored its main operating systems and processes and enhanced its system security.
For the second quarter of 2017, the company estimated that the malware incident had a negative impact of 2.3% on its net revenue growth and 2.4% on its Organic Net Revenue growth. The company also incurred incremental expenses of $7 million as a result of the incident. The company recognized the majority of delayed second quarter shipments in its third quarter 2017 results, although the company permanently lost some revenue. On a 2017 full-year basis, the company estimated the loss of revenue had a negative impact of 0.4% on its net revenue and Organic Net Revenue growth. The company also incurred total incremental expenses of $84 million predominantly during the second half of 2017 as part of the recovery effort. The recovery from the incident was largely resolved by December 31, 2017 and the company continued efforts to strengthen its security measures and enhance general information technology, business process and disclosure controls.
Gain related to interest rate swapsThe company recognized a net pre-tax gain of $10 million in the year ended December 31, 2018, within interest and other expense, net related to certain forward-starting interest rate swaps for which the planned timing of the related forecasted debt was changed.
Loss on debt extinguishmentOn April 17, 2018, the company completed a cash tender offer and retired $570 million of the long-term U.S. dollar debt. The company recorded a loss on debt extinguishment of $140 million within interest and other expense, net related to the amount the company paid to retire the debt in excess of its carrying value and from recognizing unamortized discounts, deferred financing and other cash costs in earnings at the time of the debt extinguishment.
On April 12, 2017, the company discharged $488 million of its 6.500% U.S. dollar-denominated debt. The company paid $504 million, representing principal as well as past and future interest accruals from February 2017 through the August 2017 maturity date. The company recorded an $11 million loss on debt extinguishment within interest expense.
Impact from resolution of tax mattersA tax indemnification matter related to the company's 2007 acquisition of the LU biscuit business was closed during the quarter ended June 30, 2018. The closure had no impact on net earnings, however, it did result in a $15 million tax benefit that was fully offset by an $11 million expense in selling, general and administrative expenses and a $4 million expense in interest and other expense, net.
During the first quarter of 2017, the Brazilian Supreme Court (the "Court") ruled against the Brazilian tax authorities in a leading case related to the computation of certain indirect (non-income) taxes. The Court ruled that the indirect tax base should not include a value-added tax known as "ICMS". By removing the ICMS from the tax base, the Court effectively eliminated a "tax on a tax." In lower courts, the company's Brazilian subsidiaries filed lawsuits to recover amounts paid and to discontinue subsequent payments related to the "tax on a tax." The Brazilian subsidiaries received injunctions against making payments for the "tax on a tax" in 2008 and since that time until December 2016, the company had accrued for this portion of the tax each quarter in the event that the tax was reaffirmed by the Brazilian courts. On September 30, 2017, based on legal advice and the publication of the Court's decision related to this case, the company determined that the likelihood that the increased tax base would be reinstated and assessed against the company was remote. Accordingly, the company reversed its accrual of 667 million Brazilian reais, or $212 million as of September 30, 2017, of which, $153 million was recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses and $59 million was recorded within interest and other expense, net. In connection with the Court's 2017 decision, the Brazilian tax authority filed a motion seeking clarification and adjustment of the terms of enforcement and that motion is still to be decided. The company continues to monitor developments in this matter and currently does not expect a material future impact on its financial statements. During the fourth quarter of 2018, in one of the lower court cases, the Brazilian Federal Court of Appeals ruled in the company's favor against the Brazilian tax authority, allowing one of the company's Brazil subsidiaries to recover amounts previously paid. As a result, the company recorded a net benefit in selling, general and administrative expenses of $26 million.
During the first quarter of 2017, the Spanish Supreme Court decided, in the company's favor, an ongoing transfer pricing case with the Spanish tax authorities related to businesses Cadbury divested prior to the company's acquisition of Cadbury. As a result of the final ruling, during the first quarter of 2017, the company recorded a favorable earnings impact of $46 million in selling, general and administrative expenses and $12 million in interest and other expense, net, for a total pre-tax impact of $58 million due to the non-cash reversal of Cadbury-related accrued liabilities related to this matter. The company recorded a total of $4 million of income over the third and fourth quarters of 2017 in connection with the related bank guarantee releases.
CEO transition remunerationOn November 20, 2017, Dirk Van de Put succeeded Irene Rosenfeld as CEO of Mondel�"z International. In order to incent Mr. Van de Put to join the company, the company provided him compensation to make him whole for incentive awards he forfeited or grants that were not made to him when he left his former employer. In connection with Irene Rosenfeld's retirement, the company made her outstanding grants of performance share units for the 2016-2018 and 2017-2019 performance cycles eligible for continued vesting and paid $0.5 million salary for her service as Chairman from January through March 2018. The company refers to these elements of Mr. Van de Put's and Ms. Rosenfeld's compensation arrangements together as "CEO transition remuneration."
The company is excluding amounts it expenses as CEO transition remuneration from its non-GAAP results because those amounts are not part of the company's regular compensation program and are incremental to amounts the company would have incurred as ongoing CEO compensation. The company incurred CEO transition remuneration of $4 million in the three months and $22 million in the year ended December 31, 2018. During 2017, the company incurred CEO transition remuneration of $14 million in the three months ended December 31, 2017.
U.S. tax reform discrete impactsOn December 22, 2017, the United States enacted tax reform legislation that included a broad range of business tax provisions, including but not limited to a reduction in the U.S. federal tax rate from 35% to 21% as well as provisions that limit or eliminate various deductions or credits. The legislation also causes U.S. allocated expenses (e.g. interest and general administrative expense) to be taxed and imposes a new tax on U.S. cross-border payments, Furthermore, the legislation includes a one-time transition tax on accumulated foreign earnings and profits. While clarifying guidance was issued by the IRS during 2018, further tax guidance is expected during 2019.
Certain impacts of the new legislation would have generally required accounting to be completed and incorporated into the company's 2017 year-end financial statements, however in response to the complexities of this new legislation, the SEC issued guidance to provide companies with relief. The SEC provided up to a one-year window for companies to finalize the accounting for the impacts of this new legislation. The company finalized its accounting for the new provisions during the fourth quarter of 2018.
The 2018 impact from finalizing the accounting for the new provisions was a discrete net tax expense of $19 million, which is in addition to the $44 million discrete net tax benefit in the company's 2017 financial statements. The $19 million expense in 2018 is primarily comprised of a $60 million expense related to finalizing the changes in the company's indefinite reinvestment assertion, partially offset by a $38 million decrease to the transition tax estimated as of December 31, 2017.
Impact from pension participation changesThe impact from pension participation changes represent the charges incurred when employee groups are withdrawn from multiemployer pension plans and other changes in employee group pension plan participation. The company excludes these charges from its non-GAAP results because those amounts do not reflect the company's ongoing pension obligations.
In the fourth quarter of 2018, the company executed a complete withdrawal from the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund. The company estimated a withdrawal liability of $573 million, which represents the company's best estimate of the withdrawal liability absent an assessment from the Fund. The company expects to pay the liability over a period of 20 years from the date of the assessment. During 2018, within its North America segment, the company recorded a total discounted liability and related charge of $423 million or $321 million net of tax. The company determined the net present value of the liability using a risk-free interest rate. The company recorded the pre-tax non-cash charges in selling, general and administrative expense (and in other non-cash items, net in the consolidated statement of cash flows) and the liability in long-term other liabilities. During 2018, the company also recorded $6 million of accreted interest related to the long-term liability within interest and other expense, net.
Constant currencyManagement evaluates the operating performance of the company and its international subsidiaries on a constant currency basis. The company determines its constant currency operating results by dividing or multiplying, as appropriate, the current period local currency operating results by the currency exchange rates used to translate the company's financial statements in the comparable prior-year period to determine what the current period U.S. dollar operating results would have been if the currency exchange rate had not changed from the comparable prior-year period.
OUTLOOKThe company's outlook for 2019 Organic Net Revenue growth, Adjusted EPS growth on a constant currency basis and Free Cash Flow are non-GAAP financial measures that exclude or otherwise adjust for items impacting comparability of financial results such as the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, restructuring activities, acquisitions and divestitures. The company is not able to reconcile its projected Organic Net Revenue growth to its projected reported net revenue growth for the full-year 2019 because the company is unable to predict the impacts from potential acquisitions or divestitures as well as the impact of foreign exchange due to the unpredictability of future changes in foreign exchange rates, which could be material as a significant portion of the company's operations are outside the U.S. The company is not able to reconcile its projected Adjusted EPS growth on a constant currency basis to its projected reported diluted EPS growth for the full-year 2019 because the company is unable to predict the timing of its restructuring program costs, mark-to-market impacts from commodity and forecasted currency transaction derivative contracts and impacts from potential acquisitions or divestitures as well as the impact of foreign exchange due to the unpredictability of future changes in foreign exchange rates, which could be material as a significant portion of the company's operations are outside the U.S. The company is not able to reconcile its projected Free Cash Flow to its projected net cash from operating activities for the full-year 2019 because the company is unable to predict the timing and amount of capital expenditures impacting cash flow. Therefore, because of the uncertainty and variability of the nature and amount of future adjustments, which could be significant, the company is unable to provide a reconciliation of these measures without unreasonable effort.Schedule 4a Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Net Revenues (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) LatinAmerica AMEA Europe NorthAmerica Mondel�"zInternational For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 Reported (GAAP) $ 763 $ 1,429 $ 2,752 $ 1,829 $ 6,773 Acquisition - - - (22 ) (22 ) Currency 172 74 128 9 383 Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 935 $ 1,503 $ 2,880 $ 1,816 $ 7,134 For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2017 Reported (GAAP) $ 900 $ 1,449 $ 2,816 $ 1,801 $ 6,966 Divestitures - (4 ) (2 ) - (6 ) Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 900 $ 1,445 $ 2,814 $ 1,801 $ 6,960 % Change Reported (GAAP) (15.2 )% (1.4 )% (2.3 )% 1.6 % (2.8 )% Divestitures - pp 0.3 pp 0.1 pp - pp 0.1 pp Acquisition - - - (1.3 ) (0.3 ) Currency 19.1 5.1 4.5 0.5 5.5 Organic (Non-GAAP) 3.9 % 4.0 % 2.3 % 0.8 % 2.5 % Vol/Mix (3.3 )pp 2.9 pp 3.4 pp (2.1 )pp 1.0 pp Pricing 7.2 1.1 (1.1 ) 2.9 1.5 Latin America AMEA Europe North America Mondel�"z International For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 Reported (GAAP) $ 3,202 $ 5,729 $ 10,122 $ 6,885 $ 25,938 Acquisition - - - (52 ) (52 ) Currency 493 74 (228 ) 4 343 Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 3,695 $ 5,803 $ 9,894 $ 6,837 $ 26,229 For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017 Reported (GAAP) $ 3,566 $ 5,739 $ 9,794 $ 6,797 $ 25,896 Divestitures - (133 ) (137 ) - (270 ) Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 3,566 $ 5,606 $ 9,657 $ 6,797 $ 25,626 % Change Reported (GAAP) (10.2 )% (0.2 )% 3.3 % 1.3 % 0.2 % Divestitures - pp 2.4 pp 1.5 pp - pp 1.0 pp Acquisition - - - (0.8 ) (0.2 ) Currency 13.8 1.3 (2.3 ) 0.1 1.4 Organic (Non-GAAP) 3.6 % 3.5 % 2.5 % 0.6 % 2.4 % Vol/Mix (2.6 )pp 1.9 pp 3.1 pp (0.5 )pp 1.1 pp Pricing 6.2 1.6 (0.6 ) 1.1 1.3 Schedule 4b Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Net Revenues - Brands and Markets (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) Emerging Markets Developed Markets Mondel�"z International For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 Reported (GAAP) $ 2,441 $ 4,332 $ 6,773 Acquisition - (22 ) (22 ) Currency 283 100 383 Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 2,724 $ 4,410 $ 7,134 For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2017 Reported (GAAP) $ 2,557 $ 4,409 $ 6,966 Divestitures - (6 ) (6 ) Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 2,557 $ 4,403 $ 6,960 % Change Reported (GAAP) (4.5 )% (1.7 )% (2.8 )% Divestitures - pp 0.1 pp 0.1 pp Acquisition - (0.5 ) (0.3 ) Currency 11.0 2.3 5.5 Organic (Non-GAAP) 6.5 % 0.2 % 2.5 % Vol/Mix 3.1 pp (0.2 )pp 1.0 pp Pricing 3.4 0.4 1.5 Emerging Markets Developed Markets Mondel�"z International For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 Reported (GAAP) $ 9,659 $ 16,279 $ 25,938 Acquisition - (52 ) (52 ) Currency 604 (261 ) 343 Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 10,263 $ 15,966 $ 26,229 For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017 Reported (GAAP) $ 9,707 $ 16,189 $ 25,896 Divestitures - (270 ) (270 ) Organic (Non-GAAP) $ 9,707 $ 15,919 $ 25,626 % Change Reported (GAAP) (0.5 )% 0.6 % 0.2 % Divestitures - pp 1.7 pp 1.0 pp Acquisition - (0.3 ) (0.2 ) Currency 6.2 (1.7 ) 1.4 Organic (Non-GAAP) 5.7 % 0.3 % 2.4 % Vol/Mix 2.5 pp 0.2 pp 1.1 pp Pricing 3.2 0.1 1.3 Schedule 5a Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Gross Profit / Operating Income (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 Net Revenues GrossProfit Gross Profit Margin Operating Income Operating IncomeMargin Reported (GAAP) $ 6,773 $ 2,549 37.6 % $ 870 12.8 % Simplify to Grow Program - 121 194 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - 40 40 Acquisition integration costs - - 1 Acquisition-related costs - - (1 ) Divestiture-related costs - - 2 Remeasurement of net monetary position - - (2 ) Impact of pension participation changes - - 15 Impacts from resolution of tax matters - (1 ) (26 ) CEO transition remuneration - - 4 Rounding - 1 (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 6,773 $ 2,710 40.0 % $ 1,096 16.2 % Currency 155 74 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 2,865 $ 1,170 For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2017 Net Revenues Gross Profit Gross Profit Margin Operating Income Operating IncomeMargin Reported (GAAP) $ 6,966 $ 2,653 38.1 % $ 830 11.9 % Simplify to Grow Program - 22 192 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - 27 27 Malware incident incremental expenses - 20 30 Acquisition integration costs - - 1 Divestiture-related costs - (1 ) 9 Operating income from divestitures (6 ) (3 ) (1 ) (Gain)/loss on divestitures - - (2 ) Impacts from resolution of tax matters - - (8 ) CEO transition remuneration - - 14 Rounding - - (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 6,960 $ 2,718 39.1 % $ 1,091 15.7 % Gross Profit Operating Income $ Change - Reported (GAAP) $ (104 ) $ 40 $ Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) (8 ) 5 $ Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 147 79 % Change - Reported (GAAP) (3.9 )% 4.8 % % Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) (0.3 )% 0.5 % % Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 5.4 % 7.2 % Schedule 5b Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Gross Profit / Operating Income (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 Net Revenues Gross Profit Gross Profit Margin Operating Income Operating IncomeMargin Reported (GAAP) $ 25,938 $ 10,352 39.9 % $ 3,312 12.8 % Simplify to Grow Program - 189 626 Intangible asset impairment charges - - 68 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - (140 ) (141 ) Acquisition integration costs - - 3 Acquisition-related costs - - 13 Divestiture-related costs - - (1 ) Remeasurement of net monetary position - - 11 Impact of pension participation changes - - 423 Impacts from resolution of tax matters - (1 ) (15 ) CEO transition remuneration - - 22 Rounding - 1 - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 25,938 $ 10,401 40.1 % $ 4,321 16.7 % Currency 128 55 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 10,529 $ 4,376 For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017 Net Revenues Gross Profit Gross Profit Margin Operating Income Operating IncomeMargin Reported (GAAP) $ 25,896 $ 10,034 38.7 % $ 3,462 13.4 % Simplify to Grow Program - 61 777 Intangible asset impairment charges - - 109 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - 96 96 Malware incident incremental expenses - 62 84 Acquisition integration costs - - 3 Divestiture-related costs - 2 31 Operating income from divestitures (270 ) (79 ) (61 ) (Gain)/loss on divestitures - - (186 ) Impacts from resolution of tax matters - - (209 ) CEO transition remuneration - - 14 Rounding - 1 (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 25,626 $ 10,177 39.7 % $ 4,119 16.1 % Gross Profit Operating Income $ Change - Reported (GAAP) $ 318 $ (150 ) $ Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) 224 202 $ Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 352 257 % Change - Reported (GAAP) 3.2 % (4.3 )% % Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) 2.2 % 4.9 % % Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 3.5 % 6.2 % Schedule 6a Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Net Earnings and Tax Rate (in millions of U.S. dollars and shares, except per share data) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 Operating Income Benefit plan non-service expense / (income) Interest and other expense, net Earnings before income taxes Income taxes [(1)] Effective tax rate Gain on Equity Method Investment Transactions Equity Method Investment Net Losses / (Earnings) Non-controlling interest Net Earnings attributable to Mondel�"z International Diluted EPS attributable to Mondel�"z International Reported (GAAP) $ 870 $ (3 ) $ 106 $ 767 $ 111 14.5 % $ (21 ) $ (149 ) $ 3 $ 823 $ 0.56 Simplify to Grow Program 194 (2 ) - 196 45 - - - 151 0.10 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives 40 - 2 38 17 - - - 21 0.01 Acquisition integration costs 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - Acquisition-related costs (1 ) - - (1 ) - - - - (1 ) - Divestiture-related costs 2 - - 2 - - - - 2 - Remeasurement of net monetary position (2 ) - - (2 ) - - - - (2 ) - Impact of pension participation changes 15 - (3 ) 18 4 - - - 14 0.01 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (26 ) - - (26 ) (9 ) - - - (17 ) (0.01 ) CEO transition remuneration 4 - - 4 1 - - - 3 - U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense - - - - 77 - - - (77 ) (0.05 ) Gain on equity method investment transactions - - - - (8 ) 21 - - (13 ) (0.01 ) Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments - - - - 8 - (32 ) - 24 0.02 Rounding (1 ) - - (1 ) - - - - (1 ) - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 1,096 $ (5 ) $ 105 $ 996 $ 246 24.7 % $ - $ (181 ) $ 3 $ 928 $ 0.63 Currency 68 0.05 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 996 $ 0.68 Diluted Average Shares Outstanding 1,470 For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2017 Operating Income Benefit plan non-service expense / (income) Interest and other expense, net Earnings before incometaxes Income taxes [(1)] Effective tax rate Gain on Equity Method Investment Transactions Equity Method Investment Net Losses / (Earnings) Non-controlling interest Net Earnings attributable to Mondel�"z International Diluted EPS attributable to Mondel�"z International Reported (GAAP) $ 830 $ (14 ) $ 120 $ 724 $ 156 21.5 % $ (40 ) $ (95 ) $ 8 $ 695 $ 0.46 Simplify to Grow Program 192 (3 ) - 195 35 - - - 160 0.11 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives 27 - - 27 6 - - - 21 0.01 Malware incident incremental expenses 30 - - 30 10 - - - 20 0.01 Acquisition integration costs 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - Divestiture-related costs 9 - - 9 5 - - - 4 - Net earnings from divestitures (1 ) - - (1 ) - - - - (1 ) - (Gain)/loss on divestitures (2 ) - - (2 ) 5 - - - (7 ) - Impacts from resolution of tax matters (8 ) - - (8 ) (3 ) - - - (5 ) - CEO transition remuneration 14 - - 14 5 - - - 9 0.01 U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense - - - - 44 - - - (44 ) (0.03 ) Gain on equity method investment transactions - - - - (15 ) 40 - - (25 ) (0.02 ) Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments - - - - 2 - (21 ) - 19 0.01 Rounding (1 ) - - (1 ) - - - - (1 ) - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 1,091 $ (17 ) $ 120 $ 988 $ 250 25.3 % $ - $ (116 ) $ 8 $ 846 $ 0.56 Diluted Average Shares Outstanding 1,513 [(1)] Taxes were computed for each of the items excluded from the company's GAAP results based on the facts and tax assumptions associated with each item. Schedule 6b Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Net Earnings and Tax Rate (in millions of U.S. dollars and shares, except per share data) (Unaudited) For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 Operating Income Benefit plan non-service expense / (income) Interest and other expense, net Earnings before income taxes Income taxes [(1)] Effective tax rate Gain on Equity Method Investment Transactions Equity Method Investment Net Losses / (Earnings) Non-controlling interest Net Earnings attributable to Mondel�"z International Diluted EPSattributable to Mondel�"z International Reported (GAAP) $ 3,312 $ (50 ) $ 520 $ 2,842 $ 773 27.2 % $ (778 ) $ (548 ) $ 14 $ 3,381 $ 2.28 Simplify to Grow Program 626 (5 ) - 631 156 - - - 475 0.32 Intangible asset impairment charges 68 - - 68 16 - - - 52 0.03 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives (141 ) - 1 (142 ) (10 ) - - - (132 ) (0.09 ) Acquisition integration costs 3 - - 3 - - - - 3 - Acquisition-related costs 13 - - 13 3 - - - 10 0.01 Divestiture-related costs (1 ) - - (1 ) (2 ) - - - 1 - Remeasurement of net monetary position 11 - - 11 - - - - 11 0.01 Impact of pension participation changes 423 - (6 ) 429 108 - - - 321 0.22 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (15 ) - (4 ) (11 ) 6 - - - (17 ) (0.01 ) CEO transition remuneration 22 - - 22 5 - - - 17 0.01 (Gain)/loss related to interest rate swaps - - 10 (10 ) (2 ) - - - (8 ) (0.01 ) Loss on debt extinguishment and related expenses - - (140 ) 140 35 - - - 105 0.07 U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense - - - - (19 ) - - - 19 0.01 Gain on equity method investment transactions - - - - (192 ) 778 - - (586 ) (0.39 ) Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments - - - - (16 ) - 54 - (38 ) (0.03 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 4,321 $ (55 ) $ 381 $ 3,995 $ 861 21.6 % $ - $ (494 ) $ 14 $ 3,614 $ 2.43 Currency 41 0.03 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 3,655 $ 2.46 Diluted Average Shares Outstanding 1,486 For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017 Operating Income Benefit plan non-service expense / (income) Interest and other expense, net Earnings before income taxes Income taxes [(1)] Effective tax rate Gain on Equity Method Investment Transactions Equity Method Investment Net Losses / (Earnings) Non-controlling interest Net Earningsattributable to Mondel�"z International Diluted EPSattributable to Mondel�"z International Reported (GAAP) $ 3,462 $ (44 ) $ 382 $ 3,124 $ 666 21.3 % $ (40 ) $ (344 ) $ 14 $ 2,828 $ 1.85 Simplify to Grow Program 777 (15 ) - 792 190 - - - 602 0.39 Intangible asset impairment charges 109 - - 109 30 - - - 79 0.05 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives 96 - - 96 6 - - - 90 0.06 Malware incident incremental expenses 84 - - 84 27 - - - 57 0.04 Acquisition integration costs 3 - - 3 - - - - 3 - Divestiture-related costs 31 - (3 ) 34 (8 ) - - - 42 0.02 Net earnings from divestitures (61 ) - - (61 ) (15 ) - 6 - (52 ) (0.03 ) (Gain)/loss on divestitures (186 ) - - (186 ) (7 ) - - - (179 ) (0.11 ) Impacts from resolution of tax matters (209 ) - 72 (281 ) (75 ) - - - (206 ) (0.13 ) CEO transition remuneration 14 - - 14 5 - - - 9 0.01 Loss on debt extinguishment and related expenses - - (11 ) 11 4 - - - 7 - U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense - - - - 44 - - - (44 ) (0.03 ) Gain on equity method investment transactions - - - - (15 ) 40 - - (25 ) (0.02 ) Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments - - - - 10 - (69 ) - 59 0.04 Rounding (1 ) - - (1 ) - - - - (1 ) - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 4,119 $ (59 ) $ 440 $ 3,738 $ 862 23.1 % $ - $ (407 ) $ 14 $ 3,269 $ 2.14 Diluted Average Shares Outstanding 1,531 [(1)] Taxes were computed for each of the items excluded from the company's GAAP results based on the facts and tax assumptions associated with each item. Schedule 7a Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Diluted EPS (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 2017 $ Change % Change Diluted EPS attributable to Mondel�"z International (GAAP) $ 0.56 $ 0.46 $ 0.10 21.7 % Simplify to Grow Program 0.10 0.11 (0.01 ) Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives 0.01 0.01 - Malware incident incremental expenses - 0.01 (0.01 ) Impact of pension participation changes 0.01 - 0.01 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (0.01 ) - (0.01 ) CEO transition remuneration - 0.01 (0.01 ) U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense (0.05 ) (0.03 ) (0.02 ) Gain on equity method investment transactions (0.01 ) (0.02 ) 0.01 Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments 0.02 0.01 0.01 Adjusted EPS (Non-GAAP) $ 0.63 $ 0.56 $ 0.07 12.5 % Impact of unfavorable currency 0.05 - 0.05 Adjusted EPS @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 0.68 $ 0.56 $ 0.12 21.4 % Adjusted EPS @ Constant FX - Key Drivers Increase in operations $ 0.04 Change in benefit plan non-service income (0.01 ) Change in interest and other expense, net 0.01 Increase in equity method investment net earnings 0.05 Change in income taxes 0.01 Change in shares outstanding 0.02 $ 0.12 Schedule 7b Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Diluted EPS (Unaudited) For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 2017 $ Change % Change Diluted EPS attributable to Mondel�"z International (GAAP) $ 2.28 $ 1.85 $ 0.43 23.2 % Simplify to Grow Program 0.32 0.39 (0.07 ) Intangible asset impairment charges 0.03 0.05 (0.02 ) Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives (0.09 ) 0.06 (0.15 ) Malware incident incremental expenses - 0.04 (0.04 ) Acquisition-related costs 0.01 - 0.01 Divestiture-related costs - 0.02 (0.02 ) Net earnings from divestitures - (0.03 ) 0.03 (Gain)/loss on divestitures - (0.11 ) 0.11 Remeasurement of net monetary position 0.01 - 0.01 Impact of pension participation changes 0.22 - 0.22 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (0.01 ) (0.13 ) 0.12 CEO transition remuneration 0.01 0.01 - (Gain)/loss related to interest rate swaps (0.01 ) - (0.01 ) Loss on debt extinguishment and related expenses 0.07 - 0.07 U.S. tax reform discrete net tax (benefit)/expense 0.01 (0.03 ) 0.04 Gain on equity method investment transactions (0.39 ) (0.02 ) (0.37 ) Equity method investee acquisition-related and other adjustments (0.03 ) 0.04 (0.07 ) Adjusted EPS (Non-GAAP) $ 2.43 $ 2.14 $ 0.29 13.6 % Impact of unfavorable currency 0.03 - 0.03 Adjusted EPS @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 2.46 $ 2.14 $ 0.32 15.0 % Adjusted EPS @ Constant FX - Key Drivers Increase in operations $ 0.13 VAT-related settlements in 2018 0.01 PY Property insurance recovery (0.01 ) Change in interest and other expense, net 0.02 Increase in equity method investment net earnings 0.05 Change in income taxes 0.05 Change in shares outstanding 0.07 $ 0.32 Schedule 8a Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Segment Data (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2018 Latin America AMEA Europe North America Unrealized G/(L) on HedgingActivities General CorporateExpenses Amortization of Intangibles Other Items Mondel�"z International Net Revenue Reported (GAAP) $ 763 $ 1,429 $ 2,752 $ 1,829 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,773 Divestitures - - - - - - - - - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 763 $ 1,429 $ 2,752 $ 1,829 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,773 Operating Income Reported (GAAP) $ 92 $ 144 $ 489 $ 335 $ (40 ) $ (107 ) $ (44 ) $ 1 $ 870 Simplify to Grow Program 37 30 64 33 - 30 - - 194 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - - - - 40 - - - 40 Acquisition integration costs - - - - - 1 - - 1 Acquisition-related costs - - - - - - - (1 ) (1 ) Divestiture-related costs - 2 - - - - - - 2 Remeasurement of net monetary position (2 ) - - - - - - - (2 ) Impact of pension participation changes - - - 15 - - - - 15 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (26 ) - - - - - - - (26 ) CEO transition remuneration - - - - - 4 - - 4 Rounding - - - - - (1 ) - - (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 101 $ 176 $ 553 $ 383 $ - $ (73 ) $ (44 ) $ - $ 1,096 Currency 37 13 27 2 - (4 ) (1 ) - 74 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 138 $ 189 $ 580 $ 385 $ - $ (77 ) $ (45 ) $ - $ 1,170 % Change - Reported (GAAP) (3.2 )% 60.0 % (2.8 )% 10.9 % n/m (18.9 )% 2.2 % n/m 4.8 % % Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) (20.5 )% 29.4 % (3.3 )% 9.1 % n/m (46.0 )% 2.2 % n/m 0.5 % % Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 8.7 % 39.0 % 1.4 % 9.7 % n/m (54.0 )% 0.0 % n/m 7.2 % Operating Income Margin Reported % 12.1 % 10.1 % 17.8 % 18.3 % 12.8 % Reported pp change 1.5 pp 3.9 pp (0.1 )pp 1.5 pp 0.9 pp Adjusted % 13.2 % 12.3 % 20.1 % 20.9 % 16.2 % Adjusted pp change (0.9 )pp 2.9 pp (0.2 )pp 1.4 pp 0.5 pp For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2017 Latin America AMEA Europe North America Unrealized G/(L) on HedgingActivities General CorporateExpenses Amortization of Intangibles Other Items Mondel�"z International Net Revenue Reported (GAAP) $ 900 $ 1,449 $ 2,816 $ 1,801 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,966 Divestitures - (4 ) (2 ) - - - - - (6 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 900 $ 1,445 $ 2,814 $ 1,801 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,960 Operating Income Reported (GAAP) $ 95 $ 90 $ 503 $ 302 $ (27 ) $ (90 ) $ (45 ) $ 2 $ 830 Simplify to Grow Program 32 47 65 33 - 15 - - 192 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - - - - 27 - - - 27 Malware incident incremental expenses - - 4 23 - 3 - - 30 Acquisition integration costs - 1 - - - - - - 1 Divestiture-related costs - (2 ) 2 - - 9 - - 9 Operating income from divestitures - - (1 ) - - - - - (1 ) (Gain)/loss on divestitures - - - - - - - (2 ) (2 ) Impacts from resolution of tax matters - - (1 ) (7 ) - - - - (8 ) CEO transition remuneration - - - - - 14 - - 14 Rounding - - - - - (1 ) - - (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 127 $ 136 $ 572 $ 351 $ - $ (50 ) $ (45 ) $ - $ 1,091 Operating Income Margin Reported % 10.6 % 6.2 % 17.9 % 16.8 % 11.9 % Adjusted % 14.1 % 9.4 % 20.3 % 19.5 % 15.7 % Schedule 8b Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Segment Data (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2018 LatinAmerica AMEA Europe NorthAmerica Unrealized G/(L) on Hedging Activities GeneralCorporateExpenses Amortization of Intangibles Other Items Mondel�"z International Net Revenue Reported (GAAP) $ 3,202 $ 5,729 $ 10,122 $ 6,885 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,938 Divestitures - - - - - - - - - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 3,202 $ 5,729 $ 10,122 $ 6,885 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,938 Operating Income Reported (GAAP) $ 410 $ 702 $ 1,734 $ 849 $ 141 $ (335 ) $ (176 ) $ (13 ) $ 3,312 Simplify to Grow Program 130 108 205 111 - 72 - - 626 Intangible asset impairment charges - 9 45 14 - - - - 68 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - - - - (141 ) - - - (141 ) Acquisition integration costs - 4 - - - (1 ) - - 3 Acquisition-related costs - - - - - - - 13 13 Divestiture-related costs - 2 - - - (3 ) - - (1 ) Remeasurement of net monetary position 11 - - - - - - - 11 Impact of pension participation changes - - - 423 - - - - 423 Impacts from resolution of tax matters (26 ) - - - - 11 - - (15 ) CEO transition remuneration - - - - - 22 - - 22 Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 525 $ 825 $ 1,984 $ 1,397 $ - $ (234 ) $ (176 ) $ - $ 4,321 Currency 82 14 (42 ) 2 - (2 ) 1 - 55 Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) $ 607 $ 839 $ 1,942 $ 1,399 $ - $ (236 ) $ (175 ) $ - $ 4,376 % Change - Reported (GAAP) (27.3 )% 36.6 % 7.7 % (25.8 )% n/m (18.8 )% 1.1 % n/m (4.3 )% % Change - Adjusted (Non-GAAP) (5.1 )% 13.0 % 8.0 % 1.2 % n/m (14.7 )% 1.1 % n/m 4.9 % % Change - Adjusted @ Constant FX (Non-GAAP) 9.8 % 14.9 % 5.7 % 1.3 % n/m (15.7 )% 1.7 % n/m 6.2 % Operating Income Margin Reported % 12.8 % 12.3 % 17.1 % 12.3 % 12.8 % Reported pp change (3.0 )pp 3.3 pp 0.7 pp (4.5 )pp (0.6 )pp Adjusted % 16.4 % 14.4 % 19.6 % 20.3 % 16.7 % Adjusted pp change 0.9 pp 1.4 pp 0.6 pp - pp 0.6 pp For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017 Latin America AMEA Europe North America Unrealized G/(L) on HedgingActivities General CorporateExpenses AmortizationofIntangibles Other Items Mondel�"z International Net Revenue Reported (GAAP) $ 3,566 $ 5,739 $ 9,794 $ 6,797 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,896 Divestitures - (133 ) (137 ) - - - - - (270 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 3,566 $ 5,606 $ 9,657 $ 6,797 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,626 Operating Income Reported (GAAP) $ 564 $ 514 $ 1,610 $ 1,144 $ (96 ) $ (282 ) $ (178 ) $ 186 $ 3,462 Simplify to Grow Program 136 183 263 142 - 53 - - 777 Intangible asset impairment charges 5 52 11 41 - - - - 109 Mark-to-market (gains)/losses from derivatives - - - - 96 - - - 96 Malware incident incremental expenses 1 2 15 61 - 5 - - 84 Acquisition integration costs - 3 - - - - - - 3 Divestiture-related costs - 3 21 - - 7 - - 31 Operating income from divestitures - (27 ) (34 ) - - - - - (61 ) (Gain)/loss on divestitures - - - - - - - (186 ) (186 ) Impacts from resolution of tax matters (153 ) - (49 ) (7 ) - - - - (209 ) CEO transition remuneration - - - - - 14 - - 14 Rounding - - - - - (1 ) - - (1 ) Adjusted (Non-GAAP) $ 553 $ 730 $ 1,837 $ 1,381 $ - $ (204 ) $ (178 ) $ - $ 4,119 Operating Income Margin Reported % 15.8 % 9.0 % 16.4 % 16.8 % 13.4 % Adjusted % 15.5 % 13.0 % 19.0 % 20.3 % 16.1 % Schedule 9 Mondel�"z International, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures Cash Flow (in millions of U.S. dollars) (Unaudited) For the TwelveMonths EndedDecember 31, 2018 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities (GAAP) $ 3,948 Capital Expenditures (1,095 ) Free Cash Flow (Non-GAAP) $ 2,853
(C) Copyright 2019 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.
The 2019 Infiniti QX50 is all-new from the ground up and armed, at least according to Infiniti, to tackle on the latest crop of compact luxury crossovers out there, which have now become all the talk in the industry.
It features the first-ever variable-compression engine… in the world. Thanks to trick and, frankly cool engineering, this turbocharged mill promises to significantly improve fuel economy, all while delivering substantial performance. It’s the kind of talk they like to hear from a carmaker; innovative technology that allows a specific vehicle to stand tall next to its rivals.
We took one out for drive to find out how this VC-Turbo business feels behind the wheel.Montreal-penned
Infiniti’s newest crossover is the brand’s first vehicle to have been designed by Montrealer Karim Habib. He cut his teeth over at BMW, leading stylish vehicles such as the BMW 7 Series and 5 Series, as well as the brand’s first all-electric car, the i3, not forgetting the i8 hybrid supercar.
Under Karim’s stylistic management, Infiniti promises to finally have an identity of its own, something it’s been lacking for quite some time now. With recent concept cars like the QX Inspiration, unveiled in Detroit in January, we’re seeing where Karim is heading, and they kind of like it.
This is also why the QX50, while a tad too subtle, is without question a fantastically well-designed little SUV. It has an elegant and organic silhouette that plays well at making the vehicle appear luxurious, but not too flashy, nor pretentious, all while retaining actual compact dimensions.
However, they fear it’s not enough for the Audi/BMW/Mercedes-Benz crowd to take notice. From some angles, the QX50 kind of resembles (whispers) a Mazda CX-5. We’re not sure if that’s a compliment, or an insult.
Photo: William ClaveyLess Quirky, More Normal
At least, it’s significantly more coherent-looking than the old QX50, which had more or less a wagon-type demeanour. But that vehicle had other tricks up its sleeves. While unsophisticated, it rode on a platform sourced from Nissan’s own Z car. Its engine was also taken straight out of the aforementioned sports coupe. And its all-wheel drive system was once bolted onto a so-called Nissan Skyline GT-R over in Japan. It was a different kind of crossover.
But that’s all in the past now. This new QX50 ditches the quirky traits of its predecessor for a more mainstream package. Its platform is new from the ground up, quieter, more solid and a lot more spacious inside. Its all-wheel drive system is now front-wheel biased, with a transverse four-cylinder engine sitting under its hood. And its gearbox is a continuously variable automatic.
It’s the engine that gets all the attention now. At two litres of displacement, it’s turbocharged and fitted with direct fuel injection, pumping out 268 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque. It’s a marvel of engineering, capable of changing its compression ratio on the fly, from a low of 8.0:1, to a high of 14.0:1.
Photo: William Clavey
According to Infiniti, it has taken 20 years to put this thing onto the market. It’s the first of its kind, allowing, says the carmaker, for the engine to run in maximum efficiency, burning very little fuel when running quietly, or running at 22.0 psi of boost when at full throttle.
On paper, the system is rather clever. Extra pieces were added to the crankshaft for solidity. There’s now a joint between the crankshaft and the connecting rods. That joint moves with a computer-controlled arm. By doing this, you not only allow variations in compression, but also in stroke—by 1.2 mm—which alters the engine’s overall displacement, from 1,971 cc (14:1 compression), to 1,997 cc (8:1 compression).But Does it Work?
It’s indeed a daunting feat, and we’re happy Infiniti went through with it. But while we’re geeking out on the technology, it turns out that it’s not all that substantial out in the wild.
While they had the vehicle, during winter, the best fuel economy average they recorded was 9.5 L/100 km. That was in Eco mode, feathering the throttle. While good, that number isn’t significantly better than what you’ll get from a traditional turbocharged 2.0-litre four from, say, an Audi Q5 or an Acura RDX. Heck, they got almost similar numbers out of a V6-powered Honda Pilot.
Photo: William Clavey
And the system is so darn seamless behind the wheel that none of this innovative trickery actually plays through to the driver. It also gets quickly overshadowed by the relentlessly drone-y engine note and the elastic feel of the CVT gearbox. To its credit, the VC-Turbo engine is peppy, and when running full swing in Sport mode, it revs fast, providing impeccable pickup and more than decent acceleration. But it’s all ruined by the transmission which, we’re sorry, doesn’t belong in a luxury vehicle.
On the road, the QX50 demonstrates fantastic chassis calibration. It feels solid, nimble and reacts rather well to driver commands, but that steering wheel, not connected to an actual rack-and-pinion system (like the one found in the Q50), is absent of life or any sort of resistance. It basically feels like it isn’t connected to anything. That’s because it isn’t.A Lot Going On
There’s hope, however, for buyers who care not about driving dynamics, or engineering. The cabin is well put together, and there’s a clever use of materials, such as the quilted leather seats that help it shine as a luxury vehicle. But we’re so not sure about the mashup of colors—blue, brown and white—our Autograph variant was fitted with.
Photo: William Clavey
Its rear bench, adjustable both in tilt and slide, is spacious thanks in part to a flat floor. And its trunk will engulf 1,822 litres of your gear once all seats are folded flat, placing it right smack between an Audi Q5 (1,550 litres) and an Acura RDX (2,260 litres). Infiniti’s two-screen infotainment system remains a complex bugger, especially when comes time to turn on the heated steering wheel, which requires entering the Climate menu, and clicking the touch-operated command, which doesn’t work with gloves on. The heated seats, on the other hand, have their own physical button.
Overall, there’s a lot to like about the 2019 Infiniti QX50, and there’s finally a sense the brand is aligning itself with an identity all of its own. But that VC-Turbo deserves a lot more attention, let alone actually do something for consumers. As a whole, there’s appeal, but they fear it’s already getting eaten up by the other new kid on the block, the redesigned Acura RDX.
Friday, February 8, 2019INCREASING FOCUS ON CORPORATE PURPOSE
There is a notable increase in governance discourse on the relationship of corporate purpose to sustainable revenue growth, in the context of changing social and political structures.
Prominent thought leaders such as Laurence Fink and Martin Lipton are emphasizing the “inextricable link” between corporate social purpose and profit. According to Mr. Fink, a company that truly understands and expresses its corporate purpose is more likely to function with the discipline that will produce long-term profitability. His 2019 letter to corporate CEOs continued his emphasis on the need for corporate leadership to focus more on the social and environmental needs of the regions and communities a company serves.
Mr. Lipton advises that concepts of social responsibility and environmental/social/governance criteria in investments “are becoming mainstream governance topics that encompass a wide range of issues,” including, for example, “climate change, systemic financial stability, human capital management, worker retirement, supply chain labor standards, and consumer/product safety.”
Underscoring the timeliness of the social purpose discussion, Microsoft and Facebook recently contributed significant funding towards the development of affordable housing in Seattle and San Francisco, respectively.
These developments present a potential threat to the tax-exempt status of nonprofit health systems. As for-profit corporations (especially those in the health care industry) commit to corporate social responsibility purposes, they narrow the distinction between their corporate purposes and those of nonprofit corporations as it relates to the justification of tax-exempt status. The pressure for nonprofit health systems to demonstrate how their purposes are materially different from those of for-profit systems will increase.POST-SCANDAL GOVERNANCE CHANGES
The newly released Business Standards Report from Wells Fargo provides a comprehensive template for how boards (including those in health care) may implement governance and compliance based “lessons learned” from corporate scandals.The report is premised on an acknowledgment of the root causes of the well-chronicled compliance scandal:
Performance management and incentive programs that drove behaviors that were both inappropriate and inconsistent with corporate values
A decentralized business model that granted too much autonomy to management and de-emphasized corporate oversight
Certain control functions that adopted a narrow “transactional” approach to issues as they arose
The value in the Report is its description of the governance, structural, compensation and compliance based changes made in response to the scandal. These include the following:
Eliminating product sales goals incentives for retail bankers and changing their incentive and performance management models to focus on customer experience and broader “team” incentives
Centralizing functions such as corporate risk, human resources, finance, technology, and data in order to ensure greater corporate oversight and consistency
Adopting a more refined, comprehensive and better-resourced risk management function
Adopting a series of governance changes aimed at strengthening oversight and other board practices
Among the most significant governance changes were separating the chair and CEO roles; implementing compensation-based accountability actions against certain executives; changing the composition of the board to add members with experience in financial services, risk management and human capital management; changing the leadership and membership of several important board committees; amending committee charters to stress risk oversight factors; and improving the level of management reporting and analysis to the board.THE 2019 ACC SURVEY
The latest edition in this important annual review provides relevant information to the board and executive leadership on the expanding role of, and the value provided by, the chief legal officer (CLO).
The survey articulates changes to the CLO’s role emerging from what the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) calls “the age of the chief legal officer.” These changes collectively indicate that CLOs are assuming more prominent roles within their respective organizations, which involve them in tasks beyond those of technical legal advisor. The CLO’s expanded role is attributed in part to such factors as rapid regulatory change, globalization, disruptive technology and the growing importance of corporate social responsibility issues—all of which, the survey correctly notes, have significant legal implications.
Several specific observations of the survey are of relevance to hospitals and health systems:
The CLO’s role is that of an organizational leader on matters of ethics and culture, and on corporate sustainability efforts.
78 percent of surveyed CLOs report to their CEO (with an even higher percentage in Fortune 500 companies).
70 percent of those surveyed indicated that management regularly seeks their input on business decisions (i.e., when the CLO is not consulted in the business decision process, risk increases).
A primary focus of CLO dialogue with the board focuses on risk-related issues.
New regulations, brand, and reputational issues, as well as disruptive technology, can be expected to significantly affect corporate decisions in 2019.
The role of legal operations staff in the management of in-house legal departments is increasing.
Board and executive leadership should be made aware of these and other important conclusions of the ACC Survey as they relate to the proper organizational role of the CLO.KAUFMAN HALL CFO OUTLOOK
The 2019 version of Kaufman Hall’s annual “CFO Outlook” makes an important observation about confidence in the health system’s ability to make critical decisions in the current transformational health industry environment.
One of the Outlook’s leading conclusions is that “CFO confidence” in organizational ability to manage the financial impact of evolving business conditions has dropped. Only 23 percent of the surveyed CFOs “are very confident in their team’s ability to quickly and easily make adjustments to strategies and plans,” which is a reduction from the 2018 survey. Kaufman Hall concludes that the data represents “red flags” that should be of “serious concern” to health systems, especially as it relates to the system’s ability to apply organizational agility to the twin challenges of changing payment and delivery models.
Two other survey conclusions are particularly noteworthy for the health system board. One is the perceived leading priority areas for CFOs: identifying and managing cost-reduction initiatives, predicting and managing the impact of changing payment models, and improved performance management and reporting to operational and C-suite leaders (and presumably to the board). The other is the need for management to monitor the financial impact of capital projects after their completion. This is noted as critical to effect accountability and transparency, and to ensure that capital spending does not exceed capital capabilities.
The entirety of the Kaufman Hall Outlook is recommended reading for the board’s finance committee, and should also be considered by the governance committee as it evaluates opportunities for enhancements to the board’s existing approach to making informed decisions on important issues affecting the system’s business strategy.DIRECTOR LIABILITY FOR CYBERBREACH
Boards that didn’t previously take their personal exposure for cybersecurity breach seriously may no longer need convincing if the recent resolution of a prominent shareholder derivative action is any indication.
The case arose from a series of security incidents that afflicted an internet content and service provider. The recent judicially approved settlement requires the provider’s former directors to personally contribute $29 million to the settlement. (The company had been sold in the period following the security incidents.) The derivative action contained a number of allegations, including but not limited to breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiffs claimed that company leadership improperly withheld information about the breaches and were more focused on covering up the incidents than on making proper disclosure.
As some observers have noted, it is one of the first instances in which a cyber-breach-based derivative action has been successful to any degree. While the settlement amount will be paid by the defendants’ insurance carriers, this case illustrates to corporate boards the personal costs associated with allegations that they failed to meet their cybersecurity oversight responsibilities. At a more practical level, the settlement is likely to motivate plaintiff’s attorneys whose primary goal may be to access the board’s D&O coverage, as opposed to litigating until verdict.
All of this is bad news for corporate boards already suffering from cybersecurity fatigue and lack of confidence in their cyber and digital literacy. The settlement’s direct implication may be higher expectations of director cybersecurity oversight.DIRECTOR RETIREMENT POLICIES AND AGE DIVERSITY
Several recent developments are drawing attention to director refreshment concepts regarding age-based service limits and the impact of millennial directors.
For example, the FedEx board recently announced that it approved changes to its corporate governance guidelines to apply its mandatory retirement age of 75 only to non-management directors. While the company’s press release didn’t specify the reason for the change, media speculation posits that it was to allow FedEx’s prominent and highly regarded founder, chairman, and chief executive Frederick W. Smith to remain on the company’s board past his 75th birthday this year.
Also notable is a new academic survey that draws some controversial conclusions about the quality of board service by independent directors over the age of 65. Among these are that such directors are less able or have weaker incentives to fulfill board duties; that company performance suffers when it has a greater proportion of older directors on the board; and that such directors suffer from monitoring deficiencies that may limit board effectiveness in the exercise of its oversight of management.
There are no “best practices” with respect to director age limits. The Commonsense Principles of Governance 2.0 recommend that whatever the case, companies should clearly articulate their approach on term limits and retirement age. To the extent, the board allows exceptions, the bases for particular exceptions (in the context of the board’s assessment of its performance and composition) should be clearly documented.
The “age diversity” of the board, appropriateness of age limitations, and the effectiveness of directors over a certain age are all likely to be a source of serious governance committee discussion over the next several years as boards of many leading companies become notably older in age. Contributing to the issue is the continuing demand for experienced independent directors, while companies limit the outside board service of their own directors. At the same time, there are slowly increasing amounts of data and other information on the perspectives and tendencies of director candidates from the “Generations X, Y and Z” eras.
All of this will increase expectations for the governance committee to make thoughtful, informed decisions with respect to age diversity on the board.BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE AND NON-DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Senior executive leaders should be counseled on conduct that could prompt fiduciary claims, given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding business judgment rule protection.
As executive leaders face continued pressure to translate sustainable business strategy into plans that can be effectively implemented, questions naturally arise with respect to their exposure to regulatory, derivative or other challenges to their conduct. In this context, the availability of business judgment rule protection becomes a concern for non-director executive officers.
A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision provides an equivocal response to this concern. The case was a derivative action in which a shareholder alleged that the company CEO breached his fiduciary duty in the context of the sale of Xura, Inc. to a private equity firm. In a footnote to the decision (which addressed a motion to dismiss), the vice-chancellor addressed the question of the standard concerning fiduciary breaches by non-director officers.
While expressing a presumption in favor of applying the business judgment rule to the CEO, the vice chancellor acknowledged the unsettled nature of the law on this point (i.e., whether the rule should apply, versus evaluating executive conduct under negligence standards based on agency principles). Given that uncertainty, he recommended that such officers be counseled to take certain steps to reduce exposure to fiduciary claims—for example, by ensuring that they act with due care, not in a conflicted state and in good faith.
Health system general counsel may wish to review the state of law on this point in their own jurisdiction(s), advise their executive leadership accordingly, and also confirm for those leaders the availability of insurance, indemnification and advancement protection.THE COMBINED CHAIR/CEO POSITION
Several recent developments commend continued discourse on the appropriateness, from a governance perspective, of the CEO also serving as the chair of the board.
Trends reflect a slight preference towards separating the position, reflecting the view that a stand-alone chair will be able to provide more effective oversight and balance to a stand-alone executive. There are also questions regarding CEO conflicts arising from votes on business proposals made by the CEO. But recent business media coverage has also reported on decisions by some major corporations’ boards to combine the position in a single individual in order to ensure continuity in a period of strong operational and financial performance.
This is another prominent governance topic for which there is no established “best practice.” For example, the Commonsense Principles of Governance 2.0 recognizes both approaches (without a specific preference) and recommends that the ultimate decision be the product of thoughtful board discussion. It also recommends that the board periodically review its leadership structure and explain clearly (in the appropriate form of public document) to interested third parties why it has separated or combined the roles, consistent with the board’s oversight responsibilities.
The expectation is that if a board combines the chair and CEO roles, it will apply a prominent designated lead independent director and governance structure. In such situations, it is important to clearly articulate the duties and responsibilities of the lead independent director in order to avoid confusion, conflict, and misunderstanding.FAILED MERGER CONTROVERSY
Ongoing litigation involving two nonprofit health systems highlights the types of legal claims that can be made by the parties to a proposed merger transaction that was terminated in the context of acrimonious circumstances.
According to news reports and litigation filings in state court, the two nonprofit systems pursued discussions in which Health System A would be substituted for Health System B as the sole corporate member of two hospitals. The parties executed a letter of intent (LOI) and commenced their respective due diligence reviews while simultaneously negotiating the transaction agreements. Unique terms of the LOI allegedly included a commitment by System A to cease negotiations with any other health system in the state during the term of the LOI, and to make a good faith deposit of $15 million in escrow in consideration for receiving an exclusivity commitment from System B. The LOI allegedly contained a due diligence “out” for System A under certain circumstances.
Subsequently, System A sought to exercise its “out” based on certain information provided to it by System B. System B refused System A’s request for return of its escrow payment, and System A filed a complaint seeking the escrow’s return as well as the cost of its due diligence. System B responded with a counterclaim alleging that System A improperly used confidential information obtained in its due diligence to attempt to recruit certain physicians away from System B.
The litigation is relevant in the context of the broader health care consolidation market. There is a notable increase in parties abandoning transactions post-LOI, for multiple meritorious reasons, such as possibility of regulatory challenge/legal feasibility issues, cultural concerns, due diligence issues and unresolvable disagreements on business issues. Depending upon the circumstances involved with a decision to terminate discussions, the allegations presented in this litigation could be relevant to the nature of disputes that could arise as a result of the termination decision, and the costs associated with the related dispute.LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY FOR QUALITY ISSUES
Several recent health system developments suggest increasing board willingness to hold senior corporate management directly responsible for significant, high-profile quality of care incidents.
In one incident involving a major medical center, 23 employees (including members of management) were placed on administrative leave during the pendency of an internal investigation regarding allegations that a staff physician prescribed fatal doses of a particular pain medication for dozens of patients. The incident is also under local law enforcement investigation, and multiple civil suits have been filed against the involved physician and the hospital.
In another incident, essentially the entire senior leadership team of a prominent hospital resigned or otherwise left the organization in the wake of a local media investigation that identified what it described as dramatic increases in the hospital’s mortality rates. Among those leaving the organization was the hospital CEO, a vice president and the deputy director of the involved institute. The chair of the hospital’s department of surgery resigned his administrative position.
In both instances, the respective state departments of health and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have threatened to terminate the hospitals’ CMS enrollment. CMS’s survey processes often include a review of the role of the hospital governing body in identified areas of concern, including any evidence available to demonstrate appropriate monitoring and oversight of hospital operations, quality, practitioner privileging and credentialing, and other issues directly related to clinical care.
These developments highlight the increasingly closer nexus between quality of care incidents, board quality of care oversight responsibilities, and the reality of individual accountability under broad concepts of corporate compliance and patient stewardship. In particular, these developments suggest that traditional focus on medical-staff-based corrective actions alone may be an insufficient organizational response to the patient, financial, legal, regulatory enforcement and reputational costs associated with catastrophic quality of care incidents.
Going forward, quality, corporate compliance and financial protocols (at the least) may serve to establish an expectation of a broader, more comprehensive board-driven (or parent-organization-mandated) response to significant patient safety concerns that encompasses not only quality improvements and policy changes, but also individual accountability of corporate executives, as well as medical staff members and allied health personnel. It is certainly not inconceivable that board members may in the future be subject to related internal investigations and other scrutiny for their possible role in similar incidents.
3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11971722
Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12908109
Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/12/exactly-same-a4070-603-questions-as-in.html
Wordpress : https://wp.me/p7SJ6L-2pj
Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/5h7gbg2iky0867mv28d4htuc96r2pwny