This is a financial cost-benefit analysis class. I need help with the case study with the computations of the case study. The files are provided in the link below or is attached. Willing to pay to get it completed.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B9q-KdfUi3RoUThncU41cjFqRE0

NOTE. The value for the discount rate and time opportunity cost (leisure cost) parameters shown in the computations below (5% and $1.5 respectively) may be different than the values for these parameters in your case. Understand this example with the parameter values shown, and then change the value of the time opportunity cost (leisure) and discount rate as needed to produce the present valu time opportunity cost per trainee for your first KHT Computing the PV of leisure time cost per 100 trainees who enter the program for private Net program case 5% discount baseli Number ne of Discou impac Workers nt t Entering Impact on employment Period Factor factor Program baseline 0 1 1 100 100 1 0.9524 0.65 100 65 2 0.907 0.65 100 65 3 0.8638 0.65 100 65 4 0.8227 0.65 100 65 5 0.7835 0.65 100 65 6 0.7462 0.65 100 65 7 0.7107 0.65 100 65 8 0.6768 0.65 100 65 9 0.6446 0.65 100 65 10 0.6139 0.65 100 65 11 0.5847 0.4 100 40 12 0.5568 0.4 100 40 13 0.5303 0.4 100 40 14 0.5051 0.4 100 40 15 0.481 0.4 100 40 16 0.4581 0.4 100 40 17 0.4363 0.4 100 40 18 0.4155 0.4 100 40 19 0.3957 0.4 100 40 20 0.3769 0.4 100 40 21 0.3589 22 0.3418 23 0.3256 24 0.3101 25 0.2953 26 0.2812 27 0.2678 28 0.2551 29 0.2429 30 0.2314 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 2 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 (getting what we want but not the most efficient way Computing theNet PV of leisure time1 trainee baseli Number for private program case 5% discount ne of Discou impac Workers nt t Entering Impact on employment Period Factor factor Program baseline 0 1 1 1 1 0.9524 0.65 1 2 0.907 0.65 1 3 0.8638 0.65 1 4 0.8227 0.65 1 5 0.7835 0.65 1 6 0.7462 0.65 1 7 0.7107 0.65 1 8 0.6768 0.65 1 9 0.6446 0.65 1 10 0.6139 0.65 1 11 0.5847 0.4 1 1 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.4 12 0.5568 13 0.5303 14 0.5051 15 0.481 16 0.4581 17 0.4363 18 0.4155 19 0.3957 20 0.3769 21 0.3589 22 0.3418 23 0.3256 24 0.3101 25 0.2953 26 0.2812 27 0.2678 28 0.2551 29 0.2429 30 0.2314 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Table 3: the efficient way to do the computation Computing the PV of leisure time1 trainee for private Net program case 4% discount baseli Time cost ne of one Discou impac worker in nt t training or Period Factor factor work Present Value 0 1 1 3000 3000 1 0.9524 0.65 3000 1857.1428571429 2 0.907 0.65 3000 1768.7074829932 3 0.8638 0.65 3000 1684.4833171364 4 0.8227 5 0.7835 6 0.7462 7 0.7107 8 0.6768 9 0.6446 10 0.6139 11 0.5847 12 0.5568 13 0.5303 14 0.5051 15 0.481 16 0.4581 17 0.4363 18 0.4155 19 0.3957 20 0.3769 21 0.3589 22 0.3418 23 0.3256 24 0.3101 25 0.2953 26 0.2812 27 0.2678 28 0.2551 29 0.2429 30 0.2314 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1604.2698258442 1527.8760246135 1455.1200234414 1385.8285937537 1319.8367559559 1256.9873866247 1197.1308444045 701.6151469037 668.2049018131 636.3856207744 606.0815435946 577.2205177092 549.7338263897 523.556025133 498.624785841 474.88074842 452.2673794476 430.7308375691 410.2198453039 390.6855669561 372.0814923392 354.3633260373 337.4888819403 321.4179828003 306.1123645717 291.5355853064 277.652938387 27238.24243 Note: 27, 238.24 can be used to compute the pv of leisure cost for any sized Example PV of leisure per trainee who enters the Examplprogram size of training program 27238.242 1 27238.242 100 27238.242 500 27238.242 1000 27238.242 1100 tunity cost (leisure cost) d $1.5 respectively) may be case. Understand this change the value of the time d to produce the present value s who enter the program Leisure=$1.50 Time cost of one worker in training or Present work Value 3000 300000 3000 185714.3 3000 176870.7 3000 168448.3 3000 160427 3000 152787.6 3000 145512 3000 138582.9 3000 131983.7 3000 125698.7 3000 119713.1 3000 70161.51 3000 66820.49 3000 63638.56 3000 60608.15 3000 57722.05 3000 54973.38 3000 52355.6 3000 49862.48 3000 47488.07 3000 45226.74 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 43073.08 41021.98 39068.56 37208.15 35436.33 33748.89 32141.8 30611.24 29153.56 27765.29 2723824 Present value of leisure time cost for 100 trainees who enter 27238.242 present value per one one trainee who enter the program (what goes i who enters program Time cost Leisure=$1.50 of one worker in training or Present work Value 3000 3000 3000 1857.143 3000 1768.707 3000 1684.483 3000 1604.27 3000 1527.876 3000 1455.12 3000 1385.829 3000 1319.837 3000 1256.987 3000 1197.131 3000 701.6151 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 668.2049 636.3856 606.0815 577.2205 549.7338 523.556 498.6248 474.8807 452.2674 430.7308 410.2198 390.6856 372.0815 354.3633 337.4889 321.418 306.1124 291.5356 277.6529 27238.24 Present value of leisure time cost per trainee who enter the p he computation who enters program Leisure=$2.50 Present value of leisure time cost per trainee who enter the private program v of leisure cost for any sized program aggregate Pv of leisure time cost 27238.242 2723824.2 13619121 27238242 29962067 00 trainees who enter the private program program (what goes in the KHT) rainee who enter the private program rivate program 1. Start with the 50/50 private program permutation. Compute the present value per trainee of the time opportunity cost (\"leisure\" time cost), wages, welfare, and productivity for periods 1-30 for one discount rate and time value permutation using the baseline impact factor method (This method is described in Case 1 Tip 2, and illustrated in the associated spreadsheet.) 2. Once this is done, compute the present value of taxes per trainee by taking X% of the gross wage payments. 3. Specify a KHT shell in a spreadsheet, and partition it in two parts. One part has the per trainee values for the operational period, 1-30. The other part is for the training year. Case 1 Tip 3 gives a KHT template you can use to represent the training year. The bottom row sums across both of these parts of the tableau. 4. Distribute the present value per trainee values you computed above to the part of the tableau for the operational period. 5. Fill in the values in the training period using the information in the case about costs and payments in the training year. Be careful to divide training wages into after-tax (paid from firms to workers), and tax (paid form firms to the revenue department). Also, be careful to shadow price the training expenditure E, get training costs. The trainee expenditure embodies a sales tax. To recover cost from the expenditure, start with E=(1+t)C, where again E is the training expenditure, t is the input tax rate, and C is the training cost. In short, the training cost, C, is E/(1+t)=C. Thus, the input tax on training is T=E-E/(1+t)=T=E(1-1/(1+t))=> T=E*[t/(1+t)]. 6. Once the first tableau for the first permutation is fully specified, including the summations to get the net bottom row and net rightmost column, copy all of the source computations and this tableau, and then paste everything to another place in the spreadsheet (or another tab in the spreadsheet). To compute the other discount rate permutations, simply change the discount rate in this pasted tableau, and click and drag. Then you have two KHTs with the permutation for each of the two discount rate. Copy and paste these tableaus with their source computations giving a third and fourth tableau and label Tableau 3 and 4. Change the leisure time in these tableaus to get the other permutations. You now have four complete tableaus for the 50/50 private program permutation. 7. The 25% private program permutation is IDENTICAL except for the split in the training wage in the training year. To get the public program tableaus, copy and paste the source computations and tableau for the first tableau you computed above for the first discount rate/time opportunity cost permutation for the private program. Go to the source computations and change the baseline impact factor to reflect the greater employment efficiency of the public program. That automatically re-computes for periods 1-30 to be consistent with the values for the public program. To finish off this tableau, go to the training year, and change the numbers there to reflect the public program information given in the case for the training year, rather than the private program. Do the necessary summations across rows and columns to get the net rows and columns. Once you have done that, you have one complete tableau for the public program. At this point, follow the direction in #6 above: copy and paste, change the discount rate to get the other discount rate permutation; copy and paste these two tableaus, and change the time opportunity costs (OCs), to get the time OC permutation. At this point, you have 12 completed KHTS. All other tables can be generated from the information in these KHTs plus information on the number of trainees in the program (for the tables that involve aggregate figures; tables 4 and 5 as listed in the case instruction). Note: you do not need to number your tables in the same order they are numbered in the case instruction. You can present the information in a different order than the tables shown in the case instructions. In the write up, give the background of the problem and structure of the case, and then talk about the efficiency analysis first. The efficiency analysis is always the bottom line in BCA. Then discuss the distributional analysis. Use the Cincinnati Case memo as an approximate model with ONE EXCEPTION. You should NOT have a header \"Cost Analysis\" because, unlike the Cincinnati Case, the worker training case is ONLY a Benefit-Cost Analysis. In short, adapt the Cincinnati memo structure to the context of the worker training case. Computing values \"per trainee\" The measures required in the KHTs are \" Present Values per Trainee who enter the program\". How to compute these measures requires some thought. The attached spreadsheet shows how. It computes the present value per trainee for one cell entry in one KHT permutation: a cell entry under the \"trainee column\" in which the present value of \"leisure time cost\" per trainee is based on leisure permutation l=1.5, and a discount rate permutation d=.05. Once you understand the process, change these parameter values to correspond with the time opportunity costs and discount rates indicated in your case. Critical to understanding this procedure is to think about the meaning of the \"net baseline impact factor\" column in the attached spread sheet. It shows the fractional change in the employment baseline post the training program the training program actually makes. Give this some thought, given the information in the case description about the employment impact of the training program. Training Year KHT (per trainee), for 50/50 private training program Private Sector Stakeholders trainees employer State Revenue Welfare Admin cost Time cost of trainees in training -Le Input tax -T1 Wa Tax on training wage Wa-Le -C2 -Le -C1 Subnet (for training year) Employment Training -C2 Training Cost After tax training wage Net -C1 T1 T1 -.5Wa -.5Wa -.5T2 -.5T2 (C1+T1)-.5 (Wa+T2= -E-.5W T1+ 0 -C2-.5(Wa+T2) or 0 T2 -C2-Le-C1- -C2-.5W T1 T2 Notes: is the fraction of total input tax that is received by the state is the fraction of total income tax (wage tax) received by the state E is the training expense - the figure stated in the case. It includes the cost of training plus the tax markup, i.e., E=C1+T1 (note, given the proportional nature of the input tax and the institutional way it computed, E=(1+taxrate)*C. See Appendix to Case. W is the gross training wage. It includes the income tax payment, and the pre-tax wage. That is: W=Wa+T2. Note, given the institutional aspects of wage taxation. Wa=(1-taxrate)*W. In short, the base for computing absolute taxes differ for the input tax and wage taxes, for institutional reasons. CASE # 3: JOB TRAINING PROGRAM One of the major social and economic problems facing State X and the rest of the nation is the chronic unemployment of low and non-skilled workers. Chronic unemployment places a drain on national productivity, as well as creates burdens on the public welfare system. State X is currently evaluating programs aimed at training the hard-core or chronically unemployed. The major objective of the programs is to increase the productivity of the hard-core unemployed and to make them a productive part of society. The roots of hard-core unemployment are many, but the major causes are the federal minimum wage law, low skill levels, and poor work habits. The value of many unskilled workers to potential employers is less than the federal minimum wage. While the minimum wage sets a basic wage which is necessary for a worker to subsist in society, employers are unwilling to hire workers unless the benefits of employing them exceed the wage rate. Consequently, many workers with low skill levels are unemployed rather than working and earning non-subsistence wages. A second cause of chronic unemployment of the hard-core unemployed is poor work habits. People with little work experience who have been unemployed much of their life generally have poor work habits and are less dependable than experienced workers. They tend to miss work more than experienced workers and have lower levels of pride in the work they do. Finally, chronically unemployed individuals are likely to have relatively low skill levels relative to the needs of employers. State X is considering two programs aimed at improving the productivity (and thus the employment possibilities) of the hard-core unemployed. The first is an on-the-job training program where the state subsidizes training by the private sector, and the second is a public sector training and education program. Both programs are aimed at the hard-core unemployed, defined as those who have been unemployed for at least two years. The two programs are considered substitutes for each other, since they are aimed at educating and improving the skills of the same group of people. Past history has shown that the average age of participants in these types of programs is 35 years and the welfare payment that participants had been receiving before entering such programs averaged $200 per week. Past history also indicates that those who are considered hard-core unemployed do not remain unemployed all their life. Even without training, they do work much of their life, though not continuously, and at relatively low paying jobs averaging between $5.00 per hour and $6.00 per hour. Under the on-the-job training program, State X encourages private training of the hard-core unemployed by subsidizing their wages while in training by private employers. Any employer can participate in the program if they hire and train those who the state classifies as hard-core unemployed. The State sets the wages for enrollees in the program at $7.50 per hour and pays half the wages for one year the period for which the worker is considered to be in training. Workers continue to receive their welfare payments during this period. The employer pays the other half of the trainee's wage as well as provides the necessary training. It is estimated that the average employer will spend $10,000 in direct expenditures for plant, equipment, and labor to train a hard-core unemployed individual. The employee will not contribute to any net productivity during the training period. In other words, the net-productivity of the trainee and their instructor is equal to that of the instructor alone. The trainee contributes to productivity like any other worker after the training period. The state also spends $5000 per participant to administer the program in the training year. Because the on-the-job program is open to all employers, many of the skills gained by the unemployed are transient and do not lead to long term benefits. The state opens the on-the-job training program to any employer who hires the hard-core unemployed, because it would be inequitable to limit participation to only a select few employers and give them a financial advantage in the market place. The state estimates that 1100 workers will be hired and trained each year under the program. The state also estimates that 20 percent of the workers in the program will gain permanent skills but will displace existing workers, forcing them into unemployment. This occurs primarily when training involves skills that are specific to declining industries faced with future labor surpluses. Another 40 percent will gain permanent skills that yield long-term employment due to increased productivity in growing industries with prospective long-term labor shortages. Another 20 percent of the trainees will gain transient skills that contribute to productivity for 10 years, but have no lasting impact beyond. This cohort gains general skills in industries with only short-term needs. The final 20 percent of the program trainees are generally nontrainable and become unemployed again after training. These are individuals for whom job training of any type does not yield measurable benefits due to well-entrenched negative attitudes and work habits. It is estimated that an employed program graduate will earn a gross wage of $10.00 per hour on average starting in the first year after training, and contribute firm productivity an analyst shadow prices at $11.75 per hour. After 10 years work experience, such a person should earn a gross wage equal to the wage earned by others with similar skills. That wage averages $12.00 per hour, with an estimated shadow price for the corresponding productivity benefit of $14.25 per hour. Program graduates with more than 20 years of experience should receive a gross wage of $14.00 per hour, and contribute productivity benefits averaging $16.50 per hour. Under the public sector training program, the state provides traditional vocational training. Trainees do not receive a wage payment during the training, but continue to receive their pre-existing welfare payment. The training expenses for this program are higher than for the private sector programs, but the state can target training at skills more likely to be in short supply over a longer period of time, thereby improving post-training employment rates. It is estimated that 750 people would participate in the public sector training program and the state would spend $22,000 per student for buildings, equipment, and instructors, which are contracted from a private sector supplier. There is also a $1500 administration expense per pupil the state incurs. It is estimated that 60 percent of the participants will gain permanent skills in short supply, while 20 percent will gain transient skills, and the remaining 20 percent will remain unemployed because of their untrainability. The earnings and productivity profiles of graduates from the public training program should be the same as for those who would graduate from the private program. There is one social benefit to the employment training programs not yet mentioned. Reducing unemployment reduces its social costs: the health care costs associated with alcoholism and psychological problems, and the costs associated with criminal justice. These social costs are shadow priced at $1.65 per hour of time worked, or time in training. This figure is constant over the entire project horizon, and is the same for both public and private programs. You are an analyst with the State Department of Human Resources and have been asked by your boss, the department director, to evaluate the two program alternatives. She wants you to perform a traditional cost-benefit analysis that she can present to the governor's budget office. The budget office has indicated that they want to look at these programs as investments in human capital and will likely choose the one with the greatest aggregate net benefits to society. However, they also want to see the distributional impact of the program on the trainees, the firms, the three state agencies affected by the program (Revenue Department, Employment Training Department, and Welfare Department) as well as the overall fiscal impact on the state. The budget office also wants to know this information if the state were to subsidize only one fourth of the training wage bill, in which case it is estimated that only 700 unemployed individuals would enter the program, and which program would be best if the legislature was only willing to appropriate $ 7,500,000 for the jobs training program. Appendix 1 - Assumptions and Additional Information 1.The accounting domain in the state. State X pays 55% of the welfare payments. The federal government pays 45% of the welfare payments. 2. There is an average income tax of 20% on gross wages of the workers. 10% of this tax is federal; 10% is state tax. This tax is paid on training wages, as well as wages from regular employment. 3. There is an average 18% tax on inputs used in training, for both private firms in the private training program, and those private sector suppliers the state contracts to provide the training in the state training program. 10% of this tax is federal, 8% is state. It can be assumed that the plant, equipment, material, labor etc the private sector supplies for training is supplied with infinite elasticity, i.e., this input represents new, rather than diverted inputs, and the project's demand is too small to affect input prices. 4. The state administrative expenditures do not carry a tax, and for lack of better information, can be shadow priced at cost, i.e., the expenditures can be assumed to equal cost. 5. The social-benefit of employment falls on the stakeholder: \"In-state Public\" 6. To simplify the baseline, assume workers are either always unemployed receiving a welfare payment OR employed in one of the employment categories mentioned in the case description. Thus, post training, trainees either return to the state of unemployment and continue to receive a welfare payment, or they become employed for some duration (forgoing the welfare payment during this period). Post any employment period, the workers become fully unemployed again and again begin receiving a welfare check. (In short, ignore the fact stated in the case description that workers may sometimes obtain part time, irregular employment when they are not fully employed). 7. All figures are stated in real terms. Welfare payments do not change in real terms overtime. The valuation of leisure is unchanged overtime. The value of the social benefit does not change over time. 8. The average work horizon for permanently employed workers is 30 years. 9. The work year is 2000 hours 10. Welfare payments are paid out weekly, 52 weeks per year. 11. The fiscal constraint ONLY APPLIES to the PROGRAM EXPENDITURE made by the \"Employment Training Department\" in YEAR ZERO. It does not apply to the net financial impact on the state in year zero (aggregating across all affected stated agencies), nor the NPV on the state of the entire program. In just focusing on the budget of the agency administering the program in the program year, the State legislature is acting myopically - but state legislatures are known to behave that way! 12. Assume that productivity and wages rise overtime as a step function. For example, the productivity of employed trainees is $11.75 per hour in years 1-10; jumps to $14.25 per hour in years 11-20; and jumps to $16.50 per hours in years 21-30. Gross wages rise correspondingly in the same step function. In reality, productivity and wages should rise more smoothly with the gradual accumulation of experience but our assumption simplifies the computation to focus more sharply on other issues. 13. The analysis could be construed in one of two ways. First, it might be seen as a program that would train one group of workers once. Alternatively, it might be conceptualized as a program that trains a group of workers every year. In either case, an analysis of the net-benefits of training one group of workers once - what is asked for in this case - would let you know the net-benefits of the program. In the interpretation that the program is repeated, however, it would also be necessary to assume that the indicated costs, and schedule for productivity and wage payments, are constant over time. 14. There are three affected State agencies: The Revenue Department, the Welfare Department, and the Department of Employment Training. The Revenue Department receives tax revenue; the Welfare Department, receives, or pays out, welfare payments; The Department of Employment training administers jobs training programs. Outputs: A short (no longer than 3 page single space) memo concluding with a recommendation about what option should be pursued. The memo should be supported by the information in the tables indicated in Appendix 2. The tables reflect sensitivity analyses for shadow prices for leisure of $2.50 and $3.75 per hour, and boundary point (real) discount rates of 4% and 8%. Ground Rules 1. Collaboration on the analysis is allowed and encouraged. You should form a working group of 2-3 people to discuss the analytic approach and perhaps share and/or cross check the computations. 2. The memo write up needs to be yours alone. Use the Cincinnati memo as a guidepost, and again look at the syllabus for writing guidelines. Note that there are some differences between the Cincinnati case and this case - specifically, the Cincinnati case is largely a Cost Effectiveness analysis. So don't extend the format of the Cincinnati memo inappropriately. Adapt the general format to the particulars of this case. Appendix 2 - Required Tables (Note: you can label these tables differently, e.g., if it's more convenient to have the information below which is now in Table 1 put in a Table 3 or 4, that's O.K. In short, I need the information that's in these tables, as tables, but you can order and label your tables however it's convenient for the presentation you wish to make). All currency values assumed to be $2015. Table 1. Present Value of Net Program Impact per Trainee Permutation 1; Leisure Time, 1=2.50, Discount rate, d=.04 Participants Private (50% wage subsidy) Private (25% wage subsidy) Public Trainees Firms State Government In-State Public Net E1 E4 E7 E10 Sum E2 E5 E8 E11 Sum E3 E6 E9 E12 Sum Permutation 2; Leisure Time, 1=2.50, Discount rate, d=.08 Participants Trainees Firms State Government In-State Public Net Private (50% wage subsidy) Private (25% wage subsidy) E1 E4 E7 E10 Sum E2 E5 E8 E11 Sum Public E3 E6 E9 E12 Sum Permutation 3; Leisure Time, 1=3.75, Discount rate, d=.04 Participants Trainees Firms State Government In-State Public Net Private (50% wage subsidy) Private (25% wage subsidy) E1 E4 E7 E10 Sum E2 E5 E8 E11 Sum Public E3 E6 E9 E12 Sum Permutation 4; Leisure Time, 1=3.75, Discount rate, d=.08 Participants Private (50% wage subsidy) Private (25% wage subsidy) Public Trainees E3 E1 E2 Firms State Government In-State Public Net E4 E7 E10 Sum E5 E8 E11 Sum E6 E9 E12 Sum Table 2: Kaldor Hicks Tableau, Private Program: 50% Wage Subsidy (Net Present Value per Trainee) Permutation L=2.50, d=.04 Trainees Firms Welfare State Government Departments of: Revenue Employment Training In-State Public Net Benefits Benefit Category 1 Etc B1 B2 B1 B2 Costs Cost Category 1 Cost Category 2 Etc C1 C1 C2 C2 Transfer Payments Transfer Category 1 Transfer Category 2 Etc T1 -T2 Net Sum -T1 0 T2 Sum Sum Table 3. Repeats Table 2 (for same permutation) for Public Program Table 4. Aggregate Year Zero Program Cost Program Private Program: 50% wage subsidy Private Program: 25% wage Public Program Aggregate Year Zero Program Cost E1 E2 E3 0 Sum Sum Table 5: Aggregate Net Benefits of Program Alternatives Permutation Private Program (50% wage subsidy) Private Program (25% wage subsidy) Public Program Permutation 1 l=2.50, d=.04 E1 E2 E3 Permutation 2 l=2.50, d=.08 E4 E5 E6 Permutation 3 l=3.75, d=.04 E7 E8 E9 Permutation 4 l=3.75, d=.08 E10 E11 E12