Subscription Cost of subscription revenue consists of third-party royalties and expenses related to operating our network infrastructure, including depreciation expenses and operating lease payments associated with computer equipment, data center costs, salaries and related expenses of network operations, implementation, account management and technical support personnel, amortization of intangible assets and allocated overhead.
We enter into contracts with third-parties for the use of their data center facilities and our data center costs largely consist of the amounts we pay to these third parties for rack space, power and similar items.
Cost of subscription revenue increased due to the following:
||% Change2014-2013|% Change2013-2012|
|Data center cost|10%|11%|
|Compensation cost and related benefits associated with headcount|4|5|
|Depreciation expense|3|3|
|Royalty cost|3|4|
|Amortization of purchased intangibles|—|4|
|Various individually insignificant items|1|—|
|Total change|21%|27%|

Cost of subscription revenue increased during fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013 primarily due to data center costs, compensation cost and related benefits, deprecation expense, and royalty cost.
Data center costs increased as compared with the year-ago period primarily due to higher transaction volumes in our Adobe Marketing Cloud and Creative Cloud services.
Compensation cost and related benefits increased as compared to the year-ago period primarily due to additional headcount in fiscal 2014, including from our acquisition of Neolane in the third quarter of fiscal 2013.
Depreciation expense increased as compared to the year-ago period primarily due to higher capital expenditures in recent periods as we continue to invest in our network and data center infrastructure to support the growth of our business.
Royalty cost increased primarily due to increases in subscriptions and downloads of our SaaS offerings.
Cost of subscription revenue increased during fiscal 2013 as compared to fiscal 2012 primarily due to increased hosted server costs and amortization of purchased intangibles.
Hosted server costs increased primarily due to increases in data center costs related to higher transaction volumes in our Adobe Marketing Cloud and Creative Cloud services, depreciation expense from higher capital expenditures in prior years and compensation and related benefits driven by additional headcount.
Amortization of purchased intangibles increased primarily due to increased amortization of intangible assets purchased associated with our acquisitions of Behance and Neolane in fiscal 2013.
Services and Support Cost of services and support revenue is primarily comprised of employee-related costs and associated costs incurred to provide consulting services, training and product support.
Cost of services and support revenue increased during fiscal 2014 as compared to fiscal 2013 primarily due to increases in compensation and related benefits driven by additional headcount and third-party fees related to training and consulting services provided to our customers.
Cost of services and support revenue increased during fiscal 2013 as compared to fiscal 2012 primarily due to increases in third-party fees related to training and consulting services provided to our customers and compensation and related benefits driven by additional headcount, including headcount from our acquisition of Neolane in fiscal 2013.
with the disposition of real estate property and other investment transactions.
The Company’s recorded liabilities were $6 million at both December 31, 2008 and 2007 for indemnities, guarantees and commitments.
In connection with synthetically created investment transactions, the Company writes credit default swap obligations that generally require payment of principal outstanding due in exchange for the referenced credit obligation.
If a credit event, as defined by the contract, occurs the Company’s maximum amount at risk, assuming the value of all referenced credit obligations is zero, was $1.9 billion at December 31, 2008.
However, the Company believes that any actual future losses will be significantly lower than this amount.
Additionally, the Company can terminate these contracts at any time through cash settlement with the counterparty at an amount equal to the then current estimated fair value of the credit default swaps.
As of December 31, 2008, the Company would have paid $37 million to terminate all of these contracts.
Other Commitments MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the “FHLB of Boston”) and holds $70 million of common stock of the FHLB of Boston at both December 31, 2008 and 2007, which is included in equity securities.
MICC has also entered into funding agreements with the FHLB of Boston whereby MICC has issued such funding agreements in exchange for cash and for which the FHLB of Boston has been granted a blanket lien on certain MICC assets, including residential mortgage-backed securities, to collateralize MICC’s obligations under the funding agreements.
MICC maintains control over these pledged assets, and may use, commingle, encumber or dispose of any portion of the collateral as long as there is no event of default and the remaining qualified collateral is sufficient to satisfy the collateral maintenance level.
Upon any event of default by MICC, the FHLB of Boston’s recovery on the collateral is limited to the amount of MICC’s liability to the FHLB of Boston.
The amount of the Company’s liability for funding agreements with the FHLB of Boston was $526 million and $726 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in policyholder account balances.
In addition, at December 31, 2008, MICC had advances of $300 million from the FHLB of Boston with original maturities of less than one year and therefore, such advances are included in short-term debt.
These advances and the advances on these funding agreements are collateralized by mortgage-backed securities with estimated fair values of $1.3 billion and $901 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a member of the FHLB of NY and holds $830 million and $339 million of common stock of the FHLB of NY at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in equity securities.
MLIC has also entered into funding agreements with the FHLB of NY whereby MLIC has issued such funding agreements in exchange for cash and for which the FHLB of NY has been granted a lien on certain MLIC assets, including residential mortgage-backed securities to collateralize MLIC’s obligations under the funding agreements.
MLIC maintains control over these pledged assets, and may use, commingle, encumber or dispose of any portion of the collateral as long as there is no event of default and the remaining qualified collateral is sufficient to satisfy the collateral maintenance level.
Upon any event of default by MLIC, the FHLB of NY’s recovery on the collateral is limited to the amount of MLIC’s liability to the FHLB of NY.
The amount of the Company’s liability for funding agreements with the FHLB of NY was $15.2 billion and $4.6 billion at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in policyholder account balances.
The advances on these agreements are collateralized by mortgage-backed securities with estimated fair values of $17.8 billion and $4.8 billion at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
MetLife Bank is a member of the FHLB of NY and holds $89 million and $64 million of common stock of the FHLB of NY at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in equity securities.
MetLife Bank has also entered into repurchase agreements with the FHLB of NY whereby MetLife Bank has issued repurchase agreements in exchange for cash and for which the FHLB of NY has been granted a blanket lien on MetLife Bank’s residential mortgages and mortgage-backed securities to collateralize MetLife Bank’s obligations under the repurchase agreements.
MetLife Bank maintains control over these pledged assets, and may use, commingle, encumber or dispose of any portion of the collateral as long as there is no event of default and the remaining qualified collateral is sufficient to satisfy the collateral maintenance level.
The repurchase agreements and the related security agreement represented by this blanket lien provide that upon any event of default by MetLife Bank, the FHLB of NY’s recovery is limited to the amount of MetLife Bank’s liability under the outstanding repurchase agreements.
The amount of the Company’s liability for repurchase agreements with the FHLB of NY was $1.8 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in long-term debt and short-term debt depending on the original tenor of the advance.
The advances on these repurchase agreements are collateralized by residential mortgagebacked securities and residential mortgage loans with estimated fair values of $3.1 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Collateral for Securities Lending The Company has non-cash collateral for securities lending on deposit from customers, which cannot be sold or repledged, and which has not been recorded on its consolidated balance sheets.
The amount of this collateral was $279 million and $40 million at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Goodwill Goodwill is the excess of cost over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired.
Goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate that there may be justification for conducting an interim test.
Impairment testing is performed using the fair value approach, which requires the use of estimates and judgment, at the “reporting unit” level.
A reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level.
Information regarding changes in goodwill is as follows:
|| December 31,|
||2008| 2007| 2006|
|| (In millions)|
|Balance at beginning of the period,|$4,814|$4,801|$4,701|
|Acquisitions -1|256|2|93|
|Other, net -2|-62|11|7|
|Balance at the end of the period|$5,008|$4,814|$4,801|

The Subsidiaries recognized no other postretirement benefit expense in 2008 as compared to $8 million in 2007 and $58 million in 2006.
The major components of net periodic other postretirement benefit plan cost described above were as follows:
||Years Ended December 31,|
||2008|2007|2006|
||(In millions)|
|Service cost|$21|$27|$35|
|Interest cost|103|103|116|
|Expected return on plan assets|-86|-86|-79|
|Amortization of net actuarial (gains) losses|-1|—|22|
|Amortization of prior service cost (credit)|-37|-36|-36|
|Net periodic benefit cost|$—|$8|$58|

The decrease in benefit cost from 2006 to 2007 primarily resulted from a change in the Medicare integration methodology for certain retirees.
The decrease in benefit cost from 2007 to 2008 was due to primarily to increases in the discount rate and better than expected medical trend experience.
For 2009 postretirement benefit expense, we anticipate an increase of approximately $25 million due to poor plan asset performance as a result of the economic downturn of the financial markets.
The expected increase in expense can be attributed to lower expected return on assets and increased amortization of net actuarial losses.
The estimated net actuarial losses and prior service credit for the other postretirement benefit plans that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into net periodic benefit cost over the next year are less than $10 million and ($36) million, respectively.
The weighted average discount rate used to calculate the net periodic postretirement cost was 6.65%, 6.00% and 5.82% for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The weighted average expected rate of return on plan assets used to calculate the net other postretirement benefit plan cost for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 was 7.33%, 7.47% and 7.42%, respectively.
The expected rate of return on plan assets is based on anticipated performance of the various asset sectors in which the plan invests, weighted by target allocation percentages.
Anticipated future performance is based on long-term historical returns of the plan assets by sector, adjusted for the Subsidiaries’ longterm expectations on the performance of the markets.
While the precise expected return derived using this approach will fluctuate from year to year, the Subsidiaries’ policy is to hold this long-term assumption constant as long as it remains within reasonable tolerance from the derived rate.
Based on the December 31, 2008 asset balances, a 25 basis point increase (decrease) in the expected rate of return on plan assets would result in a decrease (increase) in net periodic benefit cost of $3 million for the other postretirement benefit plans.
Funding and Cash Flows of Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plan Obligations Pension Plan Obligations It is the Subsidiaries’ practice to make contributions to the qualified pension plans to comply with minimum funding requirements of ERISA, as amended.
In accordance with such practice, no contributions were required for the years ended December 31, 2008 or 2007.
No contributions will be required for 2009.
The Subsidiaries made a discretionary contribution of $300 million to the qualified pension plans during the year ended December 31, 2008.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Subsidiaries did not make any discretionary contributions to the qualified pension plans.
The Subsidiaries expect to make additional discretionary contributions of $150 million in 2009.
Benefit payments due under the non-qualified pension plans are funded from the Subsidiaries’ general assets as they become due under the provision of the plans.
These payments totaled $43 million and $48 million for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
These benefit payments are expected to be at approximately the same level in 2009.
Gross pension benefit payments for the next ten years, which reflect expected future service as appropriate, are expected to be as follows:
|| Pension   Benefits  (In millions)|
|2009|$384|
|2010|$398|
|2011|$408|
|2012|$424|
|2013|$437|
|2014-2018|$2,416|

Other Postretirement Benefit Plan Obligations Other postretirement benefits represent a non-vested, non-guaranteed obligation of the Subsidiaries and current regulations do not require specific funding levels for these benefits.
While the Subsidiaries have partially funded such plans in advance, it has been the Subsidiaries’ practice to primarily use their general assets, net of participants’ contributions, to pay postretirement medical claims as they come due in lieu of utilizing plan assets.
Total payments equaled $149 million and $173 million for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The Subsidiaries’ expect to make contributions of $120 million, net of participants’ contributions, towards the other postretirement plan obligations in 2009.
As noted previously, the Subsidiaries expect to receive subsidies under the Prescription Drug Act to partially offset such payments.
Corporate Fixed Maturity Securities.
The table below shows the major industry types that comprise the corporate fixed maturity holdings at:
|| December 31,|
||2008| 2007|
|| Estimated |% of| Estimated | % of |
|| Fair Value|Total| Fair Value| Total|
|| (In millions)|
|Foreign -1|$29,679|32.0%|$37,166|33.4%|
|Finance|14,996|16.1|20,639|18.6|
|Industrial|13,324|14.3|15,838|14.3|
|Consumer|13,122|14.1|15,793|14.2|
|Utility|12,434|13.4|13,206|11.9|
|Communications|5,714|6.1|7,679|6.9|
|Other|3,713|4.0|764|0.7|
|Total|$92,982|100.0%|$111,085|100.0%|

(1) Includes U. S.  dollar-denominated debt obligations of foreign obligors, and other fixed maturity foreign investments.
The Company maintains a diversified corporate fixed maturity portfolio across industries and issuers.
The portfolio does not have exposure to any single issuer in excess of 1% of the total invested assets of the portfolio.
At December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s combined holdings in the ten issuers to which it had the greatest exposure totaled $8.4 billion and $7.8 billion, respectively, the total of these ten issuers being less than 3% of the Company’s total invested assets at such dates.
The exposure to the largest single issuer of corporate fixed maturity securities held at December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.
The Company has hedged all of its material exposure to foreign currency risk in its corporate fixed maturity portfolio.
In the Company’s international insurance operations, both its assets and liabilities are generally denominated in local currencies.
Structured Securities.
The following table shows the types of structured securities the Company held at:
|| December 31,|
||2008| 2007|
|| Estimated |% of| Estimated | % of |
|| Fair Value|Total| Fair Value| Total|
||| (In millions)||
|Residential mortgage-backed securities:|||||
|Collateralized mortgage obligations|$26,025|44.0%|$36,303|44.0%|
|Pass-through securities|10,003|16.8|18,692|22.6|
|Total residential mortgage-backed securities|36,028|60.8|54,995|66.6|
|Commercial mortgage-backed securities|12,644|21.4|16,993|20.6|
|Asset-backed securities|10,523|17.8|10,572|12.8|
|Total|$59,195|100.0%|$82,560|100.0%|

Collateralized mortgage obligations are a type of mortgage-backed security that creates separate pools or tranches of pass-through cash flows for different classes of bondholders with varying maturities.
Pass-through mortgage-backed securities are a type of assetbacked security that is secured by a mortgage or collection of mortgages.
The monthly mortgage payments from homeowners pass from the originating bank through an intermediary, such as a government agency or investment bank, which collects the payments, and for fee, remits or passes these payments through to the holders of the pass-through securities.
Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities.
At December 31, 2008, the exposures in the Company’s residential mortgage-backed securities portfolio consist of agency, prime, and alternative residential mortgage loans (“Alt-A”) securities of 68%, 23%, and 9% of the total holdings, respectively.
At December 31, 2008 and 2007, $33.3 billion and $54.7 billion, respectively, or 92% and 99% respectively, of the residential mortgage-backed securities were rated Aaa/AAA by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch.
The majority of the agency residential mortgagebacked securities are guaranteed or otherwise supported by the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or the Government National Mortgage Association.
Prime residential mortgage lending includes the origination of residential mortgage loans to the most credit-worthy customers with high quality credit profiles.
Alt-A residential mortgage loans are a classification of mortgage loans where the risk profile of the borrower falls between prime and sub-prime.
At December 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company’s Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities exposure was $3.4 billion and $6.3 billion, respectively, with an unrealized loss of $1,963 million and $139 million, respectively.
At December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, $2.1 billion and $6.3 billion, respectively, or 63% and 99%, respectively, of the Company’s Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities were rated Aa/AA or better by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch; At December 31, 2008 the Company’s Alt-A holdings are distributed as follows: 23% 2007 vintage year, 25% 2006 vintage year; and 52% in the 2005 and prior vintage years.
Vintage year refers to the year of origination and not to the year of purchase.
In December 2008, certain Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities experienced ratings downgrades from investment grade to below investment grade, contributing to the decrease year over year cited above in those securities rated Aa/AA or better.
In January 2009 Moody’s revised its loss projections for Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities, and the Company anticipates that Moody’s will be downgrading virtually all 2006 and 2007 vintage year Alt-A securities to below investment grade, which will increase the percentage of our Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities portfolio that will be rated below investment grade.
Our analysis suggests that Moody’s is applying essentially

Question: What's the current increasing rate of Pass-through securities? (in %)

Python solution:
def solution():
    pass_through_securities_2008 = 10003
    pass_through_securities_2007 = 18692
    
    difference = pass_through_securities_2008 - pass_through_securities_2007
    increase_rate = (difference / pass_through_securities_2007) * 100
    
    return increase_rate

Answer: -46.4851273272