PART II Item?7 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Valuation and Recoverability of Goodwill Goodwill represented $833,512 and $841,239 of our $30,043,128 and $31,562,466 of total assets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
We review our goodwill annually in the fourth quarter for impairment, or more frequently if indicators of impairment exist.
Such indicators include, but are not limited to, significant adverse change in legal factors, adverse action or assessment by a regulator, unanticipated competition, loss of key personnel or a significant decline in our expected future cash flows due to changes in companyspecific factors or the broader business climate.
The evaluation of such factors requires considerable judgment.
Any adverse change in these factors could have a significant impact on the recoverability of goodwill and could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
We have concluded that our reporting units for goodwill testing are equivalent to our operating segments.
Therefore, we test goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level.
The following table illustrates the amount of goodwill carried at each reporting unit:
||December 31,|
||2015|2014|
|Assurant Solutions|$529,093|$539,653|
|Assurant Specialty Property|304,419|301,586|
|Assurant Health|—|—|
|Assurant Employee Benefits|—|—|
|Total|$833,512|$841,239|

In 2015, the Company chose the option to perform qualitative assessments for our Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property reporting units.
This option allows us to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount.
If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the twostep impairment test is unnecessary.
However, if an entity concludes otherwise, then it is required to perform the first step of the two-step impairment test.
We initially considered the 2014 quantitative analysis performed by the Company whereby it compared the estimated fair value of the Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property reporting units with their respective net book values (“Step 1”).
Based on the 2014 Step 1 tests, Assurant Solutions had an estimated fair value that exceeded its net book value by 25.4%, and Assurant Specialty Property had an estimated fair value that exceeded its net book value by 33.3%.
Based on our qualitative assessments, having considered the factors in totality we determined that it was not necessary to perform a Step 1 quantitative goodwill impairment test for the Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property reporting units and that it is more-likely-than-not that the fair value of each reporting unit continues to exceed its net book value in 2015.
Significant changes in the external environment or substantial declines in the operating performance of Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property could cause us to reevaluate this conclusion in the future.
In undertaking our qualitative assessments for the Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property reporting units, we considered macro-economic, industry and reporting unitspecific factors.
These included (i. )
the effect of the current interest rate environment on our cost of capital; (ii. )
each reporting unit’s ability to sustain market share over the year; (iii. )
lack of turnover in key management; (iv. )2015 actual performance as compared to expected 2015 performance from our 2014 Step 1 assessment; and, (v. ) the overall market position and share price of Assurant, Inc.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements Please see Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
criteria in FASB ASC 360-20 related to the terms of the transactions and any continuing involvement in the form of management or financial assistance from the seller associated with the properties.
We make judgments based on the specific terms of each transaction as to the amount of the total profit from the transaction that we recognize considering factors such as continuing ownership interest we may have with the buyer (“partial sales”) and our level of future involvement with the property or the buyer that acquires the assets.
If the full accrual sales criteria are not met, we defer gain recognition and account for the continued operations of the property by applying the finance, installment or cost recovery methods, as appropriate, until the full accrual sales criteria are met.
Estimated future costs to be incurred after completion of each sale are included in the determination of the gain on sales.
To the extent that a property has had operations prior to sale, and that we do not have continuing involvement with the property, gains from sales of depreciated property are included in discontinued operations and the proceeds from the sale of these held-for-rental properties are classified in the investing activities section of the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Gains or losses from our sale of properties that were developed or repositioned with the intent to sell and not for long-term rental (“Build-for-Sale” properties) are classified as gain on sale of properties in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Other rental properties that do not meet the criteria for presentation as discontinued operations are also classified as gain on sale of properties in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share Basic net income (loss) per common share is computed by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders, less dividends on sharebased awards expected to vest, by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period.
Diluted net income (loss) per common share is computed by dividing the sum of basic net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders and the noncontrolling interest in earnings allocable to Units not owned by us (to the extent the Units are dilutive), by the sum of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding and, to the extent they are dilutive, partnership Units outstanding, as well as any potential dilutive securities for the period.
During the first quarter of 2009, we adopted a new accounting standard (FASB ASC 260-10) on participating securities, which we have applied retrospectively to prior period calculations of basic and diluted earnings per common share.
Pursuant to this new standard, certain of our share-based awards are considered participating securities because they earn dividend equivalents that are not forfeited even if the underlying award does not vest.
The following table reconciles the components of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share (in thousands):
||2010|2009|2008|
|Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders|$-14,108|$-333,601|$50,408|
|Less: Dividends on share-based awards expected to vest|-2,513|-1,759|-1,631|
|Basic net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders|-16,621|-335,360|48,777|
|Noncontrolling interest in earnings of common unitholders|-|-|2,640|
|Diluted net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders|$-16,621|$-335,360|$51,417|
|Weighted average number of common shares outstanding|238,920|201,206|146,915|
|Weighted average partnership Units outstanding|-|-|7,619|
|Other potential dilutive shares|-|-|19|
|Weighted average number of common shares and potential dilutive securities|238,920|201,206|154,553|

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.  Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 20.
FAIR VALUE OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES (continued) Fair Value of Financial Instruments The Company is required by U. S.  GAAP to disclose the fair value of certain financial instruments including those that are not carried at fair value.
For the following financial instruments the carrying amount equals or approximates fair value: fixed maturities classified as available for sale, trading account assets supporting insurance liabilities, other trading account assets, equity securities, securities purchased under agreements to resell, short-term investments, cash and cash equivalents, accrued investment income, separate account assets, investment contracts included in separate account liabilities, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, and cash collateral for loaned securities, as well as certain items recorded within other assets and other liabilities such as broker-dealer related receivables and payables.
See Note 21 for a discussion of derivative instruments.
The following table discloses the Company’s financial instruments where the carrying amounts and fair values may differ:
|| December 31, 2010| December 31, 2009|
|| Carrying Amount| Fair Value| Carrying Amount| Fair Value|
|| (in millions)|
| Assets:|||||
|Fixed maturities, held to maturity|$5,226|$5,477|$5,120|$5,198|
|Commercial mortgage and other loans-1|31,831|33,129|31,384|30,693|
|Policy loans|10,667|12,781|10,146|11,837|
| Liabilities:|||||
|Policyholders’ account balances - investment contracts|$77,254|$78,757|$73,674|$74,353|
|Short-term and long-term debt-1|25,635|27,094|24,159|24,054|
|Debt of consolidated VIEs|382|265|413|239|
|Bank customer liabilities|1,754|1,775|1,523|1,538|

The fair values presented above for those financial instruments where the carrying amounts and fair values may differ have been determined by using available market information and by applying market valuation methodologies, as described in more detail below.
Fixed Maturities, held to maturity The fair values of public fixed maturity securities are generally based on prices from third party pricing services, which are reviewed to validate reasonability.
However, for certain public fixed maturity securities and investments in private placement fixed maturity securities, this information is either not available or not reliable.
For these public fixed maturity securities the fair value is based on non-binding broker quotes, if available, or determined using a discounted cash flow model or internally developed values.
For private fixed maturities fair value is determined using a discounted cash flow model, which utilizes a discount rate based upon the average of spread surveys collected from private market intermediaries who are active in both primary and secondary transactions and takes into account, among other factors, the credit quality and industry sector of the issuer and the reduced liquidity associated with private placements.
In determining the fair value of certain fixed maturity securities, the discounted cash flow model may also use unobservable inputs, which reflect the Company’s own assumptions about the inputs market participants would use in pricing the security.
Commercial Mortgage and Other Loans The fair value of commercial mortgage and other loans, other than those held by the Company’s commercial mortgage operations, is primarily based upon the present value of the expected future cash flows discounted at the appropriate U. S.  Treasury rate or Japanese Government Bond rate for yen based loans, adjusted for the current market spread for similar quality loans.
The fair value of commercial mortgage and other loans held by the Company’s commercial mortgage operations is based upon various factors, including the terms of the loans, the principal exit markets for the loans, prevailing interest rates, and credit risk.
Policy Loans The fair value of U. S.  insurance policy loans is calculated using a discounted cash flow model based upon current U. S.  Treasury rates and historical loan repayment patterns, while Japanese insurance policy loans use the risk-free proxy based on the Yen LIBOR.
For group corporate-, bank- and trust-owned life insurance contracts and group universal life contracts, the fair value of the policy loans is the amount due as of the reporting date.
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.  NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) estimated accruals for these liabilities could be affected if future occurrences or loss development significantly differ from the assumptions used.
As of December 31, 2008, our general liability insurance program carried selfinsurance exposures of up to $2.5 million per incident and our workers’ compensation insurance program carried self-insurance exposures of up to $5 million per incident.
As of December 31, 2008, our auto liability insurance program included a per-incident base deductible of $1 million, subject to additional aggregate deductibles in the $1 million to $5 million layer and the $5 million to $10 million layer of $2.4 million and $2.5 million, respectively.
Self-insurance claims reserves acquired as part of our acquisition of WM Holdings in July 1998 were discounted at 2.25% at December 31, 2008 and 4.0% at December 31, 2007.
The changes to our net insurance liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008 are summarized below (in millions):
||Gross Claims Liability|Estimated Insurance Recoveries(a)|Net Claims Liability|
|Balance, December 31, 2005|$660|$-311|$349|
|Self-insurance expense (benefit)|233|-31|202|
|Cash (paid) received|-241|75|-166|
|Balance, December 31, 2006|652|-267|385|
|Self-insurance expense (benefit)|144|-1|143|
|Cash (paid) received|-225|54|-171|
|Balance, December 31, 2007|571|-214|357|
|Self-insurance expense (benefit)|169|-28|141|
|Cash (paid) received|-209|51|-158|
|Balance, December 31, 2008|$531|$-191|$340|
|Current portion at December 31, 2008|$142|$-63|$79|
|Long-term portion at December 31, 2008|$389|$-128|$261|

(a) Amounts reported as estimated insurance recoveries are related to both paid and unpaid claims liabilities.
For the 14 months ended January 1, 2000, we insured certain risks, including auto, general liability and workers’ compensation, with Reliance National Insurance Company, whose parent filed for bankruptcy in June 2001.
In October 2001, the parent and certain of its subsidiaries, including Reliance National Insurance Company, were placed in liquidation.
We believe that because of probable recoveries from the liquidation, currently estimated to be $15 million, it is unlikely that events relating to Reliance will have a material adverse impact on our financial statements.
We do not expect the impact of any known casualty, property, environmental or other contingency to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Operating leases — Rental expense for leased properties was $114 million, $135 million and $122 million during 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
These amounts primarily include rents under operating leases.
Minimum contractual payments due for our operating lease obligations are $81 million in 2009, $71 million in 2010, $58 million in 2011, $57 million in 2012 and $46 million in 2013.
Our minimum contractual payments for lease agreements during future periods is significantly less than current year rent expense because our significant lease agreements at landfills have variable terms based either on a percentage of revenue or a rate per ton of waste received.
Other commitments — We have the following unconditional obligations: ?
Fuel Supply — We have purchase agreements expiring at various dates through 2011 that require us to purchase minimum amounts of wood waste, anthracite coal waste (culm) and conventional fuels at our independent power production plants.
These fuel supplies are used to produce steam that is sold to industrial

Question: What's the total amount of the Policyholders’ account balances - investment contracts in the years where Policy loans of Assets greater than 0 for Fair Value? (in million)

Python solution:
def solution():
    # Define variables name and value
    policyholders_account_balance_investment_contracts_2010 = (77254, 78757)
    policyholders_account_balance_investment_contracts_2009 = (73674, 74353)

    # Do math calculation to get the answer
    answer = sum(policyholders_account_balance_investment_contracts_2010) + sum(policyholders_account_balance_investment_contracts_2009)
    
    return answer

Answer: 304038