The purpose of this assignment is to practice working with marketing research data, searching for patterns in the numbers that might lead you to a new understanding about consumers, their behaviors or their preferences. Download the McSandwich Excel spreadsheet that lists the responses given by 50 customers of the fast food restaurant. The customers were asked questions about the food (quality & variety), service (friendly, fast & competent), pricing, the overall experience (recommend to a friend, general satisfaction), and some personal information (gender, frequency of dining there, and how close to the restaurant they lived). Sort the responses by gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and use the “Average” function to determine if males and females had different opinions about the restaurant’s food, service, pricing and overall experience. Sort the responses again, this time by usage (0 = infrequent diner, 1 = frequent diner). Once again, use the “Average” function to determine if frequent diners and infrequent diners had different opinions about the restaurant’s food, service, pricing and overall experience. Sort the responses one last time, this time by home location (1 = less than a mile from the restaurant, 2 = 1-5 miles from the restaurant, 3 = more than 5 miles from the restaurant). Again, use the “Average” function to determine if nearby and more distant consumers had different opinions about the restaurant’s food, service, pricing and overall experience. In a 2 page document, summarize your conclusions from the three different ways you examined the data. Please include the specific numeric data that led you to those conclusions. Then, describe at least 3 recommended marketing actions for McSandwich, based on those conclusions.

Chloe has done the accounting through August 16, the first sixteen days of business for her company. She has given you her trial balance as of August 16, 2016 below.

Chloe’s Cleaning Services

UNADJUSTED TRIAL BALANCE

August 16, 2016

Chloe Sanderson, a friend of yours from business school, decided to be her own boss and start a business cleaning homes and offices after graduation. Although she was a general business major in college, she always enjoyed accounting; but she’s a little uncertain about what type of accounting system might be best for her fledgling business. She has already hired two employees to work for her, so she would like your help as soon as possible to set things up correctly.

Chloe already has three clients and two vendors, so she’d like to use two subsidiary ledgers: one for accounts receivable and one for accounts payable.

In addition, since would like to streamline her accounting by using four special journals she recalls from business school: a revenue journal, cash receipts journal, purchases journal, and cash payments journal.

Using what she remembers from business school, Chloe has prepared a list of accounting tasks for her business, and would like you to review it.

Determine whether each item should be on a given list. If so, select “Correct.” If not, select “Error,” choosing the correct list for the item.

Chloe has prepared the table below, showing the balances as of August 16 for her Accounts Receivable Subsidiary Ledger and Accounts Payable Subsidiary Ledger.

You’ve received a list of the remaining August transactions from Chloe.

Review the transactions, and then complete the table to give Chloe instructions on how to enter the transactions in her accounting system, using the following abbreviations. The transactions should be entered without considering end-of-month posting of totals, adjusting entries, or closing entries..

As a part of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments Congress established a national goal of preventing future and resolving existing regional haze in national parks and wilderness areas when the visibility impairment results from manmade air pollution. The law requires states to submit implementation plans to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The implementation plans must include identifying major industrial sources of air pollution that have caused or contributed to visibility impairment in national park and wilderness areas.

In the state implementation plan, any facility identified as a major source of air pollution must reduce air pollution by installing the best available retrofit technology (BART)—as determined by the state. To determine the BART, the law requires the following factors be considered: (1) the technology available, (2) the costs of compliance, (3) the energy impacts and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (4) any pollution control equipment currently being used at the source, (5) the remaining useful life of the source, and (6) the degree of improvement in visibility reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology. The law requires the EPA Regional Administrator—“after an opportunity for a public hearing”—to approve or disapprove a state’s determination of the BART and the emission limits for any identified source. The legislative history for the Clean Air Act doesn’t indicate what type of hearing is required or the specific procedures to be used in the “public hearing.”

A party may request the EPA Administrator reconsider the approval or disapproval of the state’s BART determination, but that request for reconsideration doesn’t extend the time for filing a petition for judicial review or postpone the effectiveness of the action. Any Petition for Judicial Review of the BART determination must be filed in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals within 60 days of the Regional Administrator’s decision of the approval or disapproval of the BART determination.

If a facility fails to install the air pollution control measures required by the BART determination by the deadline set forth in the determination, the EPA can bring an action in court to enforce the BART determination, which could include imposing a substantial fine.

The state of West Dakota has identified the Poison Valley Power Plant—a coal-fired power plant in West Dakota—as a major source of air pollution contributing to visibility impairment in White Hills National Park. The West Dakota Department of Natural Resources issued a determination that the best available retrofit technology (BART) for the Poison Valley Power Plant is Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) technology and set an emission limit of 0.20 lbs/MMBtu (pounds per million British thermal units).

In its determination, the state rejected a proposal by the Stormy Plateau Tribe, an Indian tribe with a reservation located within a mile of the Poison Valley Power Plant, and an environmental group, Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (CARE) to use Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology—a more costly but more effective emission-reducing technology. The state also rejected the Poison Valley Power Plant’s proposal, which was that no additional emissions controls should be installed because the new pollution control equipment would be too expensive and could close the plant. The basis for the state’s BART determination was that additional emission controls were required because Poison Valley Power Plant was a substantial contributor to the haze problem in White Hills National Park. In terms of the choosing SNCR over SCR, the state determined the estimated 5 percent increase in visibility improvement using SCR technology was outweighed by the increased cost of SCR. State documents estimated SNCR technology would cost about $4.3 million per year compared to $16.3 million per year for SCR technology.

The Region 25 Office of the United States EPA issued the attached notice to interested parties on July 15, 2017. The notice was posted on the EPA Region 25 Facebook page and the notice was emailed to all the parties who participated and offered comments to the state of West Dakota DNR in its BART proceeding.Poison Valley Power Plant, Stormy Plateau Tribe, and CARE all opposed West Dakota’s determination of the BART (for different reasons). Each objected to the “open-house” process outlined in the notice and contended a trial-type hearing was required by the US Constitution and federal APA to challenge West Dakota’s determination of the BART and the emission limits. In addition, Poison Valley Power Plant, Stormy Plateau Tribe and Care requested the underlying data used by West Dakota officials in making its BART determination be disclosed and an opportunity to cross-examine a DNR official about the data. Regional Administrator Giva Hoot denied the requests for a trial-type hearing, disclosure of data, and cross-examination. The parties provided written and oral comments at the open house. Regional Administrator Giva Hoot approved West Dakota’s determination that SNCR technology is the BART for Poison Valley Power Plant and approved the 0.20 lbs/MMBtu limit on NOx, but she offered no reasons for her action. Instead, on October 1, 2017, she mailed a letter to all those participating in the open house and posted a statement on www.facebook.com/EPA/Region25 stating she had the discretion to approve or deny the BART determination and no law or rule required her to give her reasons. The statement simply

July 15, 2017                          NOTICE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ANNOUNCES PROPOSED BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) DETERMINATION, OPEN HOUSE, AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

The Region 25 Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests public comment on a proposed state implementation plan for implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at Poison Valley Power Plant located near Peabody, West Dakota. The Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Rule requires the use of BART at older coal-fired power plants like PVPP to reduce haze and improve visibility in nearby national parks and wilderness areas.

EPA is proposing to approve West Dakota’s determination that Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) technology is the BART for Poison Valley Power Plant and its limits on emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) is set at 0.20 lbs/MMBtu (pounds per million British thermal units), which must be implemented by January 1, 2020.

EPA is holding an open house on the proposal and an opportunity for the public to comment on September 1, 2017, at the Peabody High School in Peabody, West Dakota. Any person may provide written comments and/or oral comments regarding our proposal at the open house.

If you have questions about the public hearings or how to submit comments, please contact Giva Hoot, EPA Region 25 Administrator at 415-947-4139, or at [email protected]. Please bring this notice to the attention of all persons who may have an interest in our proposal.

Posted on www.facebook.com/EPA/Region25 and sent to interested parties

GIVA HOOT

Region 25 Administrator

Poison Valley Power Plant, Stormy Plateau Tribe, and CARE all opposed West Dakota’s determination of the BART (for different reasons). Each objected to the “open-house” process outlined in the notice and contended a trial-type hearing was required by the US Constitution and federal APA to challenge West Dakota’s determination of the BART and the emission limits. In addition, Poison Valley Power Plant, Stormy Plateau Tribe and Care requested the underlying data used by West Dakota officials in making its BART determination be disclosed and an opportunity to cross-examine a DNR official about the data. Regional Administrator Giva Hoot denied the requests for a trial-type hearing, disclosure of data, and cross-examination. The parties provided written and oral comments at the open house. Regional Administrator Giva Hoot approved West Dakota’s determination that SNCR technology is the BART for Poison Valley Power Plant and approved the 0.20 lbs/MMBtu limit on NOx, but she offered no reasons for her action. Instead, on October 1, 2017, she mailed a letter to all those participating in the open house and posted a statement on www.facebook.com/EPA/Region25 stating she had the discretion to approve or deny the BART determination and no law or rule required her to give her reasons. The statement simply concluded “West Dakota’s determination is approved.”

In individual petitions for judicial review filed in federal court on November 1, 2017, Poison Valley Power Plant, Stormy Plateau Tribe, and CARE all challenged Regional Administrator Giva Hoot’s decision to approve West Dakota’s BART determination and emission limit for the Poison Valley Power Plant and the process used to approve the determination as violating the Constitution and the federal APA. None of the parties requested reconsideration of the decision before filing their lawsuits.

In its complaint, Poison Valley Power Plant alleged the approval violated the Clean Air Act and was arbitrary and implementing SNCR technology would cause economic hardship for the company.

In its complaint, Stormy Plateau Tribe alleged that the approval violated the Clean Air Act, just rubber-stamped the state’s action, and ignored the evidence that Poison Valley Power Plant’s mercury emissions were causing health problems for tribal members, which would be reduced by implementing Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology.

CARE’s members all reside in South Dakota and its complaint alleged that the EPA’s selection of SNCR technology as the BART for Poison Valley Power Plant might be used as precedent in its upcoming review of South Dakota’s state implementation plan. CARE alleged its members are concerned about the haze problems in Mount Rushmore and Badlands National Parks in South Dakota and contend that only SCR technology will fix the pollution problems with the South Dakota power plants.

You are the judge and must write a decision analyzing the legality of EPA Regional Administrator Giva Hoot’s actions, and in doing so, address the following points (make sure you define and explain the important terms and principles mentioned below):

Assume the decision can be reviewed by the court in answering all the questions below.

Applying the principles of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, explain what you—as the reviewing judge—would do to overcome the failure of the EPA Regional Administrator to provide any justification for her decision and why??

Volkswagen in Russia In the mid-2000s, Volkswagen announced that it would invest directly in automobile production in Russia. The decision to invest was driven by a number of factors. Russia’s economy was growing rapidly at the time and living standards were rising, while the level of car ownership per capita was still low by European standards. This suggested that demand for cars would grow rapidly going forward. Indeed, forecasts predicted that by 2020, Russia would surpass Germany to become the largest car market in Europe. Moreover, Volkswagen’s global rivals, including most notably Toyota, General Motors, and Ford, were also investing in production facilities in Russia, so Volkswagen felt that it had to make direct investments in order to avoid being preempted by its rivals. The Russian government also createdPage 238 incentives for carmakers to invest directly in Russian production facilities, allowing them to avoid import tariffs and a punitive tax on imports of parts if they produced at least 25,000 cars in the country. In 2011, the government announced that it would keep tariffs on imported components at 0.3 percent if a foreign automaker built at least 300,000 in the country by 2020 and produced 60 percent of the value of the car locally. Spurred on by such incentives, in 2007 Volkswagen opened a plant in Kaluga, 160 miles southwest of Moscow, to build some of its VW and Skoda car brands. The plant was projected to have a peak capacity of 150,000 units a year and employ 3,000 people. Initially all vehicles at the plant were assembled from semi-knocked-down kits imported from Germany. In October 2009, however, the plant launched full-scale production, including welding and painting of vehicles. In October 2011, Volkswagen announced that, together with a local partner, GAZ Group, it would open a second plant near St. Petersburg, as it strove to reach the 300,000 units of local production by 2020. In 2013, Volkswagen made an additional investment in Kaluga when it pledged 300 million euros to build an engine plant near to its assembly operation. The engine plant opened in September 2015. All told, by this point Volkswagen had invested over $1 billion in production in Russia. General Motors and Toyota had also announced investments of over $1 billion to boost Russian production up to 300,000 units by 2020, and Fiat had indicated that it would make investments to bring its Russian production up to 300,000 as well. In total, foreign carmakers had invested over $5 billion in Russian assembly operations by 2014. Meanwhile, analysts continued to predict that the Russian car market would grow at a healthy pace and exceed that of Germany by 2020. In 2014, however, the market took a sharp turn for the worse. Russia is a major oil producer. Since the mid-2000s, much of the country’s economic growth had been powered by high oil prices. In the second half of 2014, however, global oil prices started to fall rapidly as increased production in America and weak demand in China conspired to create a global glut of oil. By early 2016, oil prices had fallen 80 percent from their peak. To make matters worse, following hard on the heals of its hostile takeover of the Crimea region from Ukraine, Russia had become embroiled in a smoldering civil war in eastern Ukraine. Western nations responded to what they perceived as Russian aggression by imposing sanctions on Russia. Hit by these twin blows, the Russian economy weakened significantly in 2014 and 2015, and the ruble declined precipitously, losing 50 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar. Suddenly the bright hopes that foreign automakers had for the Russian market seemed to be tarnished. Faced with falling demand, Volkswagen cut production at its Kaluga plant to 120,000 vehicles from a planned 150,000. With the new engine plant scheduled to come on line and no resolution to Russia’s economic crisis insight, Volkswagen’s excess capacity problem may get worse. Looking forward, Volkswagen has to decide whether to keep investing in Russia in order to hit the magic 300,000 local output figure by 2020 or to pull back from a market whose future suddenly looks highly uncertain. At this point, it looks as if Volkswagen is staying the course. In late 2015, a Volkswagen board member noted that “We need to continue to strengthen our partnership (in Russia) despite the current situation”.* Sources: Sarah Sloat, “Volkswagen to Halt Production at Russian Plant for 10 Days,” The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2014; Clare Nuttall, “Foreign Car Firms Invest Heavily in Russia,” The Telegraph, April 28, 2011; Staff reporter, “Volkswagen Russia Shows the Way,” Automotive Supply Chain, July 2, 2013; Staff reporter, “Volkswagen Slashes Car Production at Russian Plat,” Reuters, September 7, 2014.

Question: Volkswagen has signaled that it is going to stay the course in Russia, despite current political and economic headwinds. Why do you think it made this decision? What are the pros and cons of this decision?

1.Vaughn Manufacturing can produce and sell only one of the following two products: Oven Contribution Hours Required Margin Per Unit Muffins 0.2 $7 Coffee Cakes 0.3 $8 The company has oven capacity of 3750 hours. How much will contribution margin be if it produces only the most profitable product?

2.How much sales are required to earn a target income of $340000 if total fixed costs are $500000 and the contribution margin ratio is 40%?

3.Bramble Corp. manufactures a product with a unit variable cost of $100 and a unit sales price of $186. Fixed manufacturing costs were $480000 when 10000 units were produced and sold. The company has a one-time opportunity to sell an additional 1000 units at $125 each in a foreign market which would not affect its present sales. If the company has sufficient capacity to produce the additional units, acceptance of the special order would affect net income as follows:

4. Bramble’s CVP income statement included sales of 6200 units, a selling price of $50, variable expenses of $30 per unit, and net income of $25000. Fixed expenses are $310000. $99000. $124000. $186000.

5.It costs Concord Corporation $12 of variable and $5 of fixed costs to produce one bathroom scale which normally sells for $35. A foreign wholesaler offers to purchase 2300 scales at $15 each. Garner would incur special shipping costs of $1 per scale if the order were accepted. Concord has sufficient unused capacity to produce the 2300 scales. If the special order is accepted, what will be the effect on net income? $4600 decrease $6900 decrease $4600 increase $34500 increase

6.Swifty Corporation produces 1000 units of a necessary component with the following costs: Direct Materials $31000 Direct Labor 12000 Variable Overhead 11000 Fixed Overhead 10000 Swifty Corporation could avoid $6000 in fixed overhead costs if it acquires the components externally. If cost minimization is the major consideration and the company would prefer to buy the components, what is the maximum external price that Swifty Corporation would accept to acquire the 1000 units externally? $53000 $58000 $60000 $54000

7.In applying the high-low method, what is the fixed cost? Month Miles Total Cost January 86000 $182000 February 64000 160000 March 78000 178000 April 94000 220000 $32000 $22000 $42000 $60000

8.At the high level of activity in November, 5000 machine hours were run and power costs were $18000. In April, a month of low activity, 1000 machine hours were run and power costs amounted to $9000. Using the high-low method, the estimated fixed cost element of power costs is $6750. $11250. $18000. $9000.

9.The required sales in units to achieve a target net income is (sales + target net income) divided by contribution margin per unit. (fixed cost + target net income) divided by contribution margin ratio. (sales + target net income) divided by contribution margin ratio. (fixed cost + target net income) divided by contribution margin per unit. Click if you would like to Show Work for this question: Open Show Wor

10.Variable costs for Coronado Industries are 40% of sales. Its selling price is $75 per unit. If Coronado sells one unit more than break-even units, how much will profit increase?

11.Crane Company produces only one product. Monthly fixed expenses are $13000, monthly unit sales are 5000, and the unit contribution margin is $10. How much is monthly net income? $63000 $0 $50000 $37000

12.Crane Company produces 1000 units of a necessary component with the following costs: Direct Materials $36000 Direct Labor 25000 Variable Overhead 5000 Fixed Overhead 7000 None of Crane Company‘s fixed overhead costs can be reduced, but another product could be made that would increase profit contribution by $8000 if the components were acquired externally. If cost minimization is the major consideration and the company would prefer to buy the components, what is the maximum external price that Crane Company would be willing to accept to acquire the 1000 units externally? $76000 $74000 $63000 $69000

13.Sheridan Company’s unit manufacturing cost is: Variable Costs $50 Fixed Costs 25 A special order for 2000 units has been received from a foreign company. The unit price requested is $54. The normal unit price is $95. If the order is accepted, unit variable costs will increase by $2 for additional freight costs. If the order is accepted, incremental profit (loss) will be $4000. $(42000). $40000. $(46000).

14.Sheffield Corp. can produce 100 units of a component part with the following costs: Direct Materials $20000 Direct Labor 4500 Variable Overhead 14000 Fixed Overhead 11000 If Sheffield Corp. can purchase the component part externally for $45000 and only $4000 of the fixed costs can be avoided, what is the correct make-or-buy decision?

Call Provision gives issuing corporations the right to call the bonds for redemption. Generally it occurs when interest rate increases substantially. The company should pay additional amount above the par value to the called bondholders, which is call premium.

True/False

At maturity, the value of any bond must equal its par value. The value of a premium bond would decrease to $1,000. The value of a discount bond would increase to $1,000.

True/False

If we expect that Federal Reserve Bank will boost interest rate soon, it is a good strategy for investors to invest in the bond market because bond price is expected to increase.

True/False

Nothing is riskless. Long-term bonds have higher interest rate risk and lower reinvestment rate risk than short-term bonds.

True/False

Corporate yield curves are higher than that of the Treasury bond. However, corporate yield curves are not necessarily parallel to the Treasury curve. The spread between a corporate yield curve and the Treasury curve widens as the corporate bond rating increases.

True/False

For a non-constant dividend growth stock, the capital gain yield of the stock is not always equal to the dividend growth rate g.

True/False

Market risk refers to the tendency of a stock to move with the general stock market. A stock with above-average market risk will tend to be more volatile than an average stock, and its beta will be greater than 1.0.

True/False

The dividends of tracking stock are tied to a particular division, rather than the company as a whole. Tracking stock usually has no voting rights, and the financial disclosure for the division is not as regulated as for the company.

True/False

Use the following convention table for R-square.

Upload the ManBody data. Create a scattered plot chart with X representing the Knee size and Y representing the Ankle size (both in centimeters); plot the line and compute the R-square. Answer the questions:

I) If a person has knee size equal to 40 cm, according to the chart and the analysis, what is his predicted ankle size? (Round to two decimal places) (11.11 points)

• a. About 0.42 centimeters
• b. About 6.51 centimeters
• c. About 0.37 centimeters
• d. About 23.70 centimeters
• e. None of the above

II) If a person A has knee size equal to 30 cm and a person B has knee size equal to 32 cm, according to the chart and the analysis, which of the following can be concluded? (Round to two decimal place) (11.11 points)

• a. Person B will have on average 0.42 centimeters larger Ankle
• b. Person A will have on average 0.42 centimeters larger Ankle
• c. Person B will have on average 4.21 centimeters larger Ankle
• d. Person B will have on average 6.5 centimeters larger Ankle
• e. None of these

III) How strong is the relationship between the Knee size and Ankle size? (11.11 points)

• a. Poor
• b. Decent
• c. Good
• d. Very Good
• e. Excellent

link to data set: https://www.limes.one/Content/DataFiles/Man_body.txt

Optimal Capital Structure with Hamada

Beckman Engineering and Associates (BEA) is considering a change in its capital structure. BEA currently has $20 million in debt carrying a rate of 6%, and its stock price is $40 per share with 2 million shares outstanding. BEA is a zero-growth firm and pays out all of its earnings as dividends. The firm's EBIT is $15 million, and it faces a 25% federal-plus-state tax rate. The market risk premium is 5%, and the risk-free rate is 6%. BEA is considering increasing its debt level to a capital structure with 35% debt, based on market values, and repurchasing shares with the extra money that it borrows. BEA will have to retire the old debt in order to issue new debt, and the rate on the new debt will be 9%. BEA has a beta of 1.0.

1. What is BEA's unlevered beta? Use market value D/S (which is the same as w_d/w_s) when unlevering. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answer to two decimal places.
2. What are BEA's new beta and cost of equity if it has 35% debt? Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answers to two decimal places.

   Beta:

   Cost of equity:   %

3. What is BEA's WACC with 35% debt? Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your answer to two decimal places.

     %

   What is the total value of the firm with 35% debt? Do not round intermediate calculations. Enter your answer in millions. For example, an answer of $1.234 million should be entered as 1.234, not 1,234,000. Round your answer to three decimal places.

   $   million

Barry's Burger Shack operates a single location at NEU selling burgers, fries, and sodas to faculty and students. Revenues for 2017 were $90,000 with profits of $2,250; industry benchmarks suggest profit margins should be close to 10% of revenue. Barry noticed an increasing number of complaints from customers over the quality of his burgers and the messiness of soda service are and has hired you to estimate the cost of quality for his burger business. One in 30 customers returned burgers for a replacement due to burger being too greasy, serving too cool, or served with wrong ingredients, the cost to replace was 1,600 per year.

You observe the cooking process for a few days, and identify the following process steps as well as related material costs, labor time, and scrap % at each step

Required: Complete the chart above to compute the scrap cost per unit. Assuming Barry sells 18,000 burgers per year, what his annual cost of scrap? What would you recommend?

The following table contains approximate figures for gross domestic product (GDP) and the national debt in the United States for June 2001 and June 2010. The national debt represents the total amount of money owed by the federal government to holders of U.S. securities. All numbers are in trillions of dollars.

Source: “U.S. Treasury, Bureau of Economic Analysis.”

Net public debt is the portion of the national debt that is held outside the federal government and the Federal Reserve System. In June 2001, the net public debt as a percentage of total national debt was __________.

In June 2001, the percentage of the U.S. national debt held by foreigners (external national debt) was ________ .

The fraction of the national debt held by foreigners will eventually need to be repaid to foreigners, thereby reducing the collective purchasing power of Americans. Between 2001 and 2010, the fraction of the national debt held by foreigners __________ .

The absolute level of the debt does not necessarily provide a clear indication of a nation's debt burden. Thus, economists often look at relative measures of the national debt. One possible relative measure of the national debt is the federal debt held by the public (outside the federal government and the Federal Reserve) as a percentage of GDP. In 2001, publicly held debt was _______ of GDP. Between 2001 and 2010, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP _________ .