Case Competition Proposal

2,410 views

Published on

Buyout proposal for Silver Lake private equity case competition- Spring 2010

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,410
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
20
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case Competition Proposal

  1. 1. Leveraged Buyout Proposal of Michael Baker Corporation (AMEX: BKR) Prepared for SLPECC Committee By TEAM UNLEVERAGED (Cheng Li & Allan Yang) April 23, 2010 1
  2. 2. Target Overview Michael Baker is a well-established, national engineering and consulting firm that has been providing engineering services to the federal government, transportation, and civil infrastructure end markets since 1940. Baker advises customers on the design, engineering, and implementation (construction inspection and construction management) of its projects in various sectors including transportation, aviation, transit/rail, water/waste, and commercial facilities. Its services encompass the life cycle of infrastructure and managed asset project. Baker provides its core engineering services in three end markets: the federal government, transportation, and commercial infrastructure. Federal Government – the federal government sector accounts for approximately 50% of total revenues and includes services in facilities, water, environmental, and geospatial information technology projects. Its main customers include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security with FEMA, US-VISITS, and the Coastal Guard. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is Baker’s largest customer, representing 15% of its revenue in 2009. Transportation – the state and local transportation sector accounts for approximately 40% of total revenues and includes engineering services for roads, highways, bridges, and rail systems. Its main customers include various state departments of transportation (DOTs) including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and New Jersey. Commercial/Private – the private sector accounts for approximately 10% of total revenues and includes services for universities, port authorities, prisons, office buildings, aviation and medical facilities. Although Baker historically has not focused on this sector, it plans to dedicate more resources to this market. In addition to these three markets, Baker also maintains a joint venture with the Stanley Group to provide construction management services in Iraq. It was awarded this contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. Although this specific contract expired at year end 2009, Baker is currently bidding for similar contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly, in October 2009, Baker completed the sale of its energy business to Wood Group of Scotland for $47.2 million, ending a multi-year effort to refocus the company toward its core competency, the engineering business. 2
  3. 3. Industry Overview The engineering and construction industry has been resilient during the economic downturn and is poised for significant growth in the upcoming years. Market opportunities have arisen as a result of specific bills and acts passed by Congress: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February 2009 has positively impacted the industry, with an addressable opportunity of approximately $87 billion for early stage engineering service companies like Michael Baker. In addition, the House passed a jobs bill in December 2009, which allocates $48 billion for transportation and infrastructure projects. This bill highlights the Obama Administration’s continued focus on highway, bridge, and rail infrastructure spending, a key part of Baker’s business. SAFE Transportation Equity Act – The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act is a federal program to fund highway and interstate transportation projects. In the program, the government matches at least 80% of highway and interstate projects though the highway trust fund, which is paid for via a federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. The act was extended to year end 2010. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission estimates that the nation needs to invest at least $225 billion annually for the next 50 years to bring our current infrastructure up to good repair, which suggests that the SAFE act will be further extended. This bodes well for Baker and the engineering and construction industry. Department of Transportation and Housing & Urban Development Bill – in December 2009, the House approved the budget report to allot $76 billion of its fiscal year 2010 budget to the Department of Transportation, which is a 13% increase from the allotted amount in fiscal year 2009. A significant portion of the increase was for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which included a $1.5 billion increase in funding for high-speed rails. The FRA designated 10 potential high speed rail corridors locations and plans to inject 1 billion per year for 6 years to jump start this program. This 1 billion is beyond what is already allocated to transit and rails in the ARRA stimulus bill. Again, this action is opens the doors for substantial growth in the transportation industry for Baker. National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank – President Obama is expected to create a federally funded government entity to review, authorize, and fund significant national and regional infrastructure projects. The objective of this entity is to improve national security and stimulate the economy through highway, airport, and water projects. Through this entity, an injection of over $50 billion dollars is expected to take place over a span of 10 years. The NIRB would help to emphasize the need for infrastructure spending and highlight the importance of transportation safety and security on a national scale, another growth opportunity for companies in the engineering and construction industry. Overall, Baker competes for contracting business with larger Engineering and Construction companies, such as AECOM Technology Corporation, URS Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group, and Tetra Tech as well as with a large number of smaller private engineering and architectural firms. Although the industry is competitive, pricing and billing rates have remained stable. We see no indication that this will be a problem in the near future. 3
  4. 4. Investment Thesis & Value Creation Opportunities Investment Strategic Fit Consistent cash flow generation – Baker operates a stable business with the ability to generate consistent and predictable cash flows. Baker has been in the engineering services industry for 70 years and has a history of profitability. It has recorded positive net profits since 2001 and is consistently ranked in the top 10% of US engineering design firms. The nature its business allows Baker to forecast future cash flows from its backlog system where historically, over 80% of unfunded projects receive funding. As of December 2009, Baker’s total backlog was $1.43 billion, including a funded backlog of $438 million and an unfunded backlog of $991. Historically, almost 100% of transportation-related unfunded backlog have received funding, eventually generating revenue for the company. Strong balance sheet liquidity – The Company has a strong balance sheet with no debt. As of December 2009, Baker has $105 million in excess cash, with $37 million coming from the sale of Energy business. A significant portion of this cash is can be used towards the equity portion of a buyout of the company. Competitive market position – The Company is well positioned in a large and growing, but fragmented market. As a result of the favorable trends in regulation, the engineering and construction industry is positioned for tremendous growth. For Baker, government contracts make up roughly 50% of revenues while transportation supplies are another 40%. In addition, Baker is an industry leader in the field of early stage engineering services. Furthermore, since there is no single big competitor (the industry is competitive with fragment players such as the competitors mentioned previously: AECOM, URS, Jacobs Engineering, Tetra Tech), Baker is well situated to capture this market opportunity. Low current market valuation – The Company is currently undervalued relative to competitors. With an EV/EBITDA ratio of 6x and P/E ratio of 12x, Baker’s multiples are lower compared to industry averages of 9x and 16x. Meanwhile, its operating margins are consistently higher than competitors. From this, we conclude that Baker is undervalued at its current share price and provides a great buy at this discount. P/E EV/EBITDA Company Price* Market Cap Enterprise ($MM) Value ($MM) 2008A 2009A 2010E 2008A 2009A URS Corp (URS) $ 50.57 $ 4,248 $ 4,480 15.9x 16.0x 14.1x 7.3x 8.1x AECOM (ACM) $ 29.57 $ 3,370 $ 3,350 20.1x 17.7x 13.5x 9.5x 9.6x TetraTech (TTEK) $ 22.45 $ 1,385 $ 1,310 25.4x 15.6x 17.0x 13.2x 8.5x Average 20.5x 16.4x 14.9x 10.0x 8.7x Michael Baker (BKR) $ 35.98 $ 321 $ 210 15.6x 12.0x 12.4x 6.9x 6.1x * Priced as of April 20, 2010 (close) Operational Improvements to Create Value Revenue growth via expansion into new geographical territories – Currently, Baker has very little involvement in the Pacific West, the Midwest, and most of the Southeast regions. The company has a strong presence in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions and adequate presence in some states in the West and South. In the overall industry, construction services have been growing rapidly to open up the Northwest and Southeast to provide protection against hurricanes and other disasters. Baker will focus on expanding geographically to cover the rest of the United States. In addition, we plan to accelerate new 4
  5. 5. project delivery methods, such as the design/build model, which can be more profitable than traditional design contracts, in these new territories. Revenue growth via expanded federal market penetration – Currently, Baker provides most of its federal services to the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with FEMA and US-VISITS. Baker plans to leverage these existing relationships to expand contracting opportunities with other federal departments including the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of State (DOS), and Department of Justice (DOJ). Opportunities with the DOE include the design/build of various facilities (office, testing, and maintenance), while DOS presents opportunities in the hardening of existing embassy facilities. The DOJ needs contractors to design and build correctional facilities and improve courthouse information management systems. Preliminary efforts to gain access to federal contracts with these agencies are already in process, and the possibility of contracting them is extremely optimistic. Revenue growth via cross-selling of construction services to existing clients – Baker’s main service offerings centers around design/engineering and architectural services. The company does not control the entire construction contracting process, from design/engineering to end construction. Design/build contracts tend to have higher margins than traditional design contracts and often include performance incentives. Only 15 of its 50 offices have personnel with expertise in construction management and inspection. This revenue initiative focuses on expanding its market share with existing customers through the cross-selling of its construction management services to current design, engineering, and/or architectural services customers. Revenue growth via increased private sector mix – Baker has not focused its efforts on the commercial/private sector market, partially due to the economy and limited opportunities. It will dedicate more resources to this market in order to enhance overall growth and provide diversification to decrease dependence on federal contracts. Cost cutting initiatives – Baker will roll out process improvement initiatives centered around improving labor and subcontractor utilization efficiency to increase margins. In addition, we plan to revitalize its sales force by implementing more efficient marketing & sales spending to create brand equity and gain traction in the private sector. With the expertise of the individuals we bring in, we plan to improve project and financial management to lower overhead costs. Increase leverage – Currently, Baker has zero debt and is underleveraged compared to its competitors. Having had debt several years ago and having received over $37 million in cash from the sale of its energy sector, Baker has the capacity to take on debt for a more efficient capital structure. Aligning incentive to retain and foster talent – The management was replaced in 2008 with an experienced CEO and CFO, whom we plan to retain. Baker can align incentives by increasing top and middle managements’ share of equity to retain and motivate the best talent. 5
  6. 6. Investment Risks Decline in economic conditions could affect profitability and cash flow generation. Even though Michael Baker Corporation has benefited from the ARRA federal stimulus, due to the upfront nature of its services, less than 30% of the stimulus allocations for infrastructure projects have been paid out. Federal projects not attached to the stimulus, such as projects attributed to state and local government agencies, have the possibility of being delayed or postponed due to lack of funding and political interference. Furthermore, while the private sector only accounts for 10% of the company’s revenue, the company has identified the area as a major component of its continual growth strategy; however, a economic decline can dramatically diminish private capital expenditures and decrease the amount of opportunities available. If the economy worsens or recovers much more slowly than expected, Baker’s future revenue and profitability could be negatively impacted as the amount of stimulus opportunities is depleted. Changes in the government’s spending priorities could affect future revenue and growth prospects. Baker’s primary customers that compose a substantial portion of the revenue and backlog include various agencies that operate on funding provided by the U.S. federal government, state, and local governments. Consequently, any significant changes and fluctuations in the government’s spending priorities, either as a result of policy changes or economic downturns, may directly affect future revenue streams. Legislatures may appropriate funds for a given project on a year-by-year basis, even though the project may take more than one year to perform. As a result, at the beginning of a project, the related contract may only be partially funded, with additional funding committed only as appropriations are made in each subsequent year. These appropriations, and the timing of payments, may be influenced by issues such as the state of the economy, competing political priorities, oversight delays, budget constraints, or the overall level of government expenditures. Additionally, reduced spending by the U.S. government may create competitive pressure which could lead to lower revenues and margins in the future. Strong dependence on fixed-price contracts could create cost-control problems. Many federal contracts, especially relating to the infrastructure stimulus, are fixed-price contracts, which can generate higher levels of profits than other contract types; however, they can also lead to cost overrun and losses. Possible cost-control problems due to underestimation, subcontractor cost inflation, and other external environment risks can be prevalent. Competitive billing pressure could affect ability to secure contracts. Baker competes with many other large engineering consulting firms in a fairly fragmented industry, as well as with many local/specialized engineering companies. If competition increases in any sector or geographic region, the market fragmentation can be reduced, leading to increased billing/pricing pressures. Breakdown in partnership, joint venture, and subcontractor could affect company performance. Baker provides many of its services through partnerships and joint ventures with other contractors, construction services providers, and the like. If its partners or subcontractors fail to perform their obligations satisfactorily as a result of financial or other difficulties, Baker may be unable to perform or deliver its contracted services and be required to make additional investments in a project to ensure completion. 6
  7. 7. Statement- Summary Financials (Income Statement- Base Case) Income Statement (US$ in 000's) 2007A 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E Engineering services revenue breakdown Federal government $ 196,500 $ 238,800 $ 217,500 $ 225,113 $ 233,554 $ 242,896 $ 252,612 $ 262,717 $ 273,225 $ 284,154 State and local government 160,700 173,200 181,000 185,525 190,627 196,346 202,236 208,303 214,552 220,989 Domestic private industry 44,300 43,900 46,700 48,802 51,120 53,676 56,359 59,177 62,136 65,243 Total Reveunues 401,500 455,900 445,200 459,439 475,301 492,918 511,208 530,197 549,914 570,386 Cost of work performed 321,850 371,397 357,197 357,135 369,465 383,159 397,377 412,138 427,464 443,378 Gross profit 79,650 84,503 88,003 102,304 105,836 109,758 113,831 118,059 122,450 127,008 Selling, general and administrative expenses 53,122 51,232 57,422 59,259 61,304 63,577 65,936 68,385 70,928 73,569 EBIT 26,528 33,271 30,581 43,045 44,531 46,182 47,895 49,674 51,522 53,440 Depreciation & Amortization 5,039 4,952 5,592 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 EBITDA 31,567 38,223 36,173 48,374 49,860 51,511 53,224 55,004 56,851 58,769 Interest income 303 642 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 Interest expense (554) (93) (70) 15,800 12,318 10,075 7,895 5,588 2,012 0 Other, net (55) 66 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 Income before income taxes 28,446 36,951 37,829 59,106 57,110 56,518 56,051 55,524 53,794 53,701 Provision for income taxes 11,079 14,422 13,234 22,256 21,504 21,281 21,105 20,907 20,256 20,220 Net Income 17,367 22,529 24,595 36,850 35,606 35,237 34,946 34,617 33,539 33,480 Forcast Drivers Revenue growth: Federal government 12% 22% -9% 3.5% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% State and local 6% 8% 5% 2.5% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Domestic private industry -17% -1% 6% 4.5% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Expenses as % of sales: Cost of work performed 80.2% 81.5% 80.2% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% 77.7% Selling, general and administrative expenses 13.2% 11.2% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% Effective Tax Rate 39% 39% 35% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 37.7% 7
  8. 8. LBO Modeling and Valuation Summary A Sources and Uses (US$ in 000's) Sources Pro Forma Capitalization Term Loan 140,000 Pro Forma Mezzanine Debt 50,000 12/31/2009 Adjustment 12/31/2009 Common Equity 139,389 Cash $ 105,259 $ (84,207) $ 21,052 (1) Excess Cash 84,207 Total Sources $413,596 Exisiting Debt 0 0 0 (1) 80% of cash used in buyout, 20% remain for operations Revolver 0 0 0 Uses Term Loan 0 190,000 190,000 Equity Consideration (2) 407,484 Total Senior Secured Debt 0 140,000 190,000 Investment Banking Fees 4,075 Mezzanine 0 50,000 50,000 Mezzanine Underwriting Fees 2,037 Total Debt 0 190,000 240,000 Refinance existing debt 0 Total Uses $413.6 Common Equity 9,403 0 9,403 (2) Assumes 30% Bid Premium on 4/9/10 Stock price Total Capitalization 114,662 105,793 270,455 Summary Financials (US$ in 000's) 2007A 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E Income Statement Summary Total Reveunues $401,500 $455,900 $445,200 $459,439 $475,301 $492,918 $511,208 $530,197 $549,914 $570,386 Revenue growth % -37.9% 13.5% -2.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% Cost of work performed 321,850 371,397 357,197 357,135 369,465 383,159 397,377 412,138 427,464 443,378 Gross profit 79,650 84,503 88,003 102,304 105,836 109,758 113,831 118,059 122,450 127,008 Gross margin % 20% 19% 20% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% Selling, general and administrative expenses 53,122 51,232 57,422 59,259 61,304 63,577 65,936 68,385 70,928 73,569 EBIT 26,528 33,271 30,581 43,045 44,531 46,182 47,895 49,674 51,522 53,440 Depreciation & Amortization 5,039 4,952 5,592 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 5,329 EBITDA 31,567 38,223 36,173 48,374 49,860 51,511 53,224 55,004 56,851 58,769 Balance Sheet Summary Cash and cash equivalents 22,052 49,050 105,259 21,052 21,052 21,052 21,052 21,052 32,633 60,525 Receivables 109,453 113,676 76,455 78,900 81,624 84,650 87,791 91,052 94,438 97,953 Unbilled revenues on contracts in progress 88,214 70,455 49,605 51,192 52,959 54,922 56,960 59,076 61,272 63,553 Property, Plant and Equipment, net 16,776 16,671 12,578 14,693 17,180 20,074 23,275 26,795 30,646 34,841 Secured Debt 0 0 0 90,253 58,213 27,070 0 0 0 0 Mezz Debt 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 46,570 16,765 0 0 Statement of Cash Flows Summary Net cash provided by operating activities: 14,107 23,450 49,077 52,536 39,856 39,367 39,030 38,654 37,526 37,416 Net cashed provided by investing activities: (492) (4,847) (6,154) (2,790) (7,816) (8,223) (8,530) (8,849) (9,180) (9,524) Total pre-debt repayment cash flow 49,747 32,040 31,144 30,500 29,805 28,346 27,892 Cash Flows from Financing Activities: Secure debt paydown 0 0 0 (49,747) (32,040) (31,144) (27,070) 0 0 0 Mezz debt paydown 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3,430) (29,805) (16,765) 0 Net cash used for financing activities (4,745) 8,395 13,286 (49,747) (32,040) (31,144) (30,500) (29,805) (16,765) 0 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 8,870 26,998 56,209 0 0 0 0 0 11,581 27,892 8
  9. 9. LBO Modeling and Valuation Summary (Continued) Debt Repayment Schedule (US$ in 000's) 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E Rate of Return: Senior Debt [L + 600 bps (BBB+ comparables)] 7% Balance 1/1 140,000 94,176 64,321 32,601 1,176 0 0 Debt Repayment 45,824 29,854 31,720 31,424 1,176 0 0 Balance 12/31 94,176 64,321 32,601 1,176 0 0 0 Interest Expense 9,800 6,592 4,502 2,282 82 0 0 Rate of Return: Mezz Debt 12% Balance 1/1 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 20,304 0 Debt Repayment 0 0 0 0 29,696 20,304 0 Balance 12/31 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 20,304 0 0 Interest Expense 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 2,436 0 Total pre-debt repayment cash flow 45,824 29,854 31,720 31,424 30,873 29,453 28,822 Returns - EBITDA Multiple Returns - P/E Multiple Exit Year Exit Year 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Exit Multiple: Exit Multiple: 5.1x 18.1% 15.0% 13.0% 11.4x 26.0% 22.1% 18.3% 6.1 23.5% 19.2% 16.4% 12.4 29.1% 24.2% 20.0% 7.1 28.3% 22.9% 19.4% 13.4 31.9% 26.3% 21.5% Credit Statistics (US$ in 000's) 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) 7% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Debt Payback Period (years) 3.1 3.8 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 Senior Secured / LTM EBITDA 2.3x 1.4x 0.6x 0.0x 0.0x 0.0x 0.0x Total Debt / LTM EBITDA 2.3x 1.4x 0.6x 0.0x 0.0x 0.0x 0.0x Total Debt / Capitalization 20% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% EBITDA / Interest Expense 2.6x 3.7x 5.0x 6.6x 9.3x 24.1x N/A EBITDA less Capex / Interest Expense 2.1x 3.1x 4.2x 5.6x 7.8x 20.2x N/A 9
  10. 10. Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity Analysis (US$ in 000's) 2007A 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E Revenue: Base Case 401,500 455,900 445,200 459,439 475,301 492,918 511,208 530,197 549,914 570,386 Upside Case 401,500 455,900 445,200 477,214 512,740 552,212 594,742 640,571 689,954 743,169 Downside Case 401,500 455,900 445,200 437,179 433,693 434,590 439,853 445,199 450,628 456,142 Revenue growth: Base Case Federal government 3.5% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% State and local 2.5% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Domestic private industry 4.5% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Upside Case Federal government 7.5% 7.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% State and local 6.5% 6.7% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% Domestic private industry 8.3% 8.6% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% Downside Case Federal government -1.5% -0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% State and local -2.5% -1.5% -0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Domestic private industry -0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% EBITDA: Base Case 31,567 38,223 36,173 48,374 49,860 51,511 53,224 55,004 56,851 58,769 Upside Case 31,567 38,223 36,173 50,040 53,368 57,066 61,051 65,345 69,971 74,957 Downside Case 31,567 38,223 36,173 46,289 45,962 46,046 46,539 47,040 47,549 48,065 Secure Debt Base Case 0 0 0 90,253 58,213 27,070 0 0 0 0 Upside Case 0 0 0 92,632 62,127 31,832 1,449 0 0 0 Downside Case 0 0 0 87,291 53,999 22,858 0 0 0 0 Mezz Debt Base Case 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 46,570 16,765 0 0 Upside Case 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 20,873 0 0 Downside Case 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 43,573 15,538 0 0 Returns - EBITDA Multiple Returns - P/E Multiple Upside Case Exit Year Upside Case Exit Year 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Exit Multiple: Exit Multiple: 5.1x 22.3% 19.0% 17.0% 11.4x 30.6% 26.5% 22.8% 6.1 27.8% 23.4% 20.5% 12.4 33.7% 28.7% 24.6% 7.1 32.8% 27.2% 23.6% 13.4 36.6% 30.8% 26.2% Returns - EBITDA Multiple Returns - P/E Multiple Downside Case Exit Year Downside Case Exit Year 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Exit Multiple: Exit Multiple: 5.1x 14.2% 11.5% 9.7% 11.4x 21.6% 18.1% 14.6% 6.1 19.5% 15.5% 13.0% 12.4 24.6% 20.2% 16.2% 7.1 24.1% 19.1% 15.9% 13.4 27.3% 22.1% 17.7% 10

×