were more than offset by higher raw material and energy costs ($312 million), increased market related downtime ($187 million) and other items ($30 million).
Compared with 2003, higher 2005 earnings in the Brazilian Papers, U. S.  coated papers and U. S.  market pulp businesses were offset by lower earnings in the U. S.  uncoated papers and the European Papers businesses.
The Printing Papers segment took 995,000 tons of downtime in 2005, including 540,000 tons of lack-of-order downtime to align production with customer demand.
This compared with 525,000 tons of downtime in 2004, of which 65,000 tons related to lack-of-orders.
## Table 0 ##
Uncoated Papers sales totaled $4.8 billion in 2005 compared with $5.0 billion in 2004 and 2003.
Sales price realizations in the United States averaged 4.4% higher in 2005 than in 2004, and 4.6% higher than 2003.
Favorable pricing momentum which began in 2004 carried over into the beginning of 2005.
Demand, however, began to weaken across all grades as the year progressed, resulting in lower price realizations in the second and third quarters.
However, prices stabilized as the year ended.
Total shipments for the year were 7.2% lower than in 2004 and 4.2% lower than in 2003.
To continue matching our productive capacity with customer demand, the business announced the permanent closure of three uncoated freesheet machines and took significant lack-of-order downtime during the period.
Demand showed some improvement toward the end of the year, bolstered by the introduction our new line of vision innovation paper products (VIP TechnologiesTM), with improved brightness and whiteness.
Mill operations were favorable compared to last year, and the rebuild of the No.1 machine at the Eastover, South Carolina mill was completed as planned in the fourth quarter.
However, the favorable impacts of improved mill operations and lower overhead costs were more than offset by record high input costs for energy and wood and higher transportation costs compared to 2004.
The earnings decline in 2005 compared with 2003 was principally due to lower shipments, higher downtime and increased costs for wood, energy and transportation, partially offset by lower overhead costs and favorable mill operations.
Average sales price realizations for our European operations remained relatively stable during 2005, but averaged 1% lower than in 2004, and 6% below 2003 levels.
Sales volumes rose slightly, up 1% in 2005 compared with 2004 and 5% compared to 2003.
Earnings were lower than in 2004, reflecting higher wood and energy costs and a compression of margins due to unfavorable foreign currency exchange movements.
Earnings were also adversely affected by downtime related to the rebuild of three paper machines during the year.
Coated Papers sales in the United States were $1.6 billion in 2005, compared with $1.4 billion in 2004 and $1.3 billion in 2003.
The business reported an operating profit in 2005 versus a small operating loss in 2004.
The earnings improvement was driven by higher average sales prices and improved mill operations.
Price realizations in 2005 averaged 13% higher than 2004.
Higher input costs for raw materials and energy partially offset the benefits from improved prices and operations.
Sales volumes were about 1% lower in 2005 versus 2004.
Market Pulp sales from our U. S.  and European facilities totaled $757 million in 2005 compared with $661 million and $571 million in 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Operating profits in 2005 were up 86% from 2004.
An operating loss had been reported in 2003.
Higher average prices and sales volumes, lower overhead costs and improved mill operations in 2005 more than offset increases in raw material, energy and chemical costs.
U. S.  softwood and hardwood pulp prices improved through the 2005 first and second quarters, then declined during the third quarter, but recovered somewhat toward year end.
Softwood pulp prices ended the year about 2% lower than 2004, but were 15% higher than 2003, while hardwood pulp prices ended the year about 15% higher than 2004 and 10% higher than 2003.
U. S.  pulp sales volumes were 12% higher than in 2004 and 19% higher than in 2003, reflecting increased global demand.
European pulp volumes increased 15% and 2% compared with 2004 and 2003, respectively, while average sales prices increased 4% and 11% compared with 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Brazilian Paper sales were $684 million in 2005 compared with $592 million in 2004 and $540 million in 2003.
Sales volumes for uncoated freesheet paper, coated paper and wood chips were down from 2004, but average price realizations improved for exported uncoated freesheet and coated groundwood paper grades.
Favorable currency translation, as yearly average Real exchange rates versus the U. S.  dollar were 17% higher in 2005 than in 2004, positively impacted reported sales in U. S.  dollars.
Average sales prices for domestic uncoated paper declined 4% in local currency versus 2004, while domestic coated paper prices were down 3%.
Operating profits in 2005 were down 9% from 2004, but were up 2% from 2003.
Earnings in 2005 were negatively impacted by a weaker product and geographic sales mix for both uncoated and coated papers, reflecting increased competition and softer demand, particularly in the printing, commercial and editorial market segments.
minimum death benefit guarantees, resulting in higher expected future gross profits.
The opposite result occurs when returns are lower than the Company’s long-term expectation.
The Company’s practice to determine the impact of gross profits resulting from returns on separate accounts assumes that long-term appreciation in equity markets is not changed by short-term market fluctuations, but is only changed when sustained interim deviations are expected.
The Company monitors these changes and only changes the assumption when its long-term expectation changes.
The effect of an increase/(decrease) by 100 basis points in the assumed future rate of return is reasonably likely to result in a decrease/(increase) in the DAC and VOBA balances of approximately $70 million for this factor.
The Company also reviews periodically other long-term assumptions underlying the projections of estimated gross margins and profits.
These include investment returns, policyholder dividend scales, interest crediting rates, mortality, persistency, and expenses to administer business.
Management annually updates assumptions used in the calculation of estimated gross margins and profits which may have significantly changed.
If the update of assumptions causes expected future gross margins and profits to increase, DAC and VOBA amortization will decrease, resulting in a current period increase to earnings.
The opposite result occurs when the assumption update causes expected future gross margins and profits to decrease.
Over the past two years, the Company’s most significant assumption updates resulting in a change to expected future gross margins and profits and the amortization of DAC and VOBA have been updated due to revisions to expected future investment returns, expenses, in-force or persistency assumptions and policyholder dividends on contracts included within the Individual Business segment.
The Company expects these assumptions to be the ones most reasonably likely to cause significant changes in the future.
Changes in these assumptions can be offsetting and the Company is unable to predict their movement or offsetting impact over time.
The following chart illustrates the effect on DAC and VOBA within the Company’s Individual segment of changing each of the respective assumptions during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:
## Table 1 ##
As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, DAC and VOBA for the Individual segment were $14.0 billion and $13.5 billion, respectively, and for the total Company were $20.8 billion and $19.7 billion, respectively.
Goodwill Goodwill is the excess of cost over the fair value of net assets acquired.
The Company tests goodwill 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 that is one level below the operating segment, if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level.
For purposes of goodwill impairment testing, goodwill within Corporate & Other is allocated to reporting units within the Company’s business segments.
If the carrying value of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment and recorded as a charge against net income.
The fair values of the reporting units are determined using a market multiple, a discounted cash flow model, or a cost approach.
The critical estimates necessary in determining fair value are projected earnings, comparative market multiples and the discount rate.
Liability for Future Policy Benefits The Company establishes liabilities for amounts payable under insurance policies, including traditional life insurance, traditional annuities and non-medical health insurance.
Generally, amounts are payable over an extended period of time and related liabilities are calculated as the present value of future expected benefits to be paid, reduced by the present value of future expected premiums.
Such liabilities are established based on methods and underlying assumptions in accordance with GAAP and applicable actuarial standards.
Principal assumptions used in the establishment of liabilities for future policy benefits are mortality, morbidity, policy lapse, renewal, retirement, investment returns, inflation, expenses and other contingent events as appropriate to the respective product type.
These assumptions are established at the time the policy is issued and are intended to estimate the experience for the period the policy benefits are payable.
Utilizing these assumptions, liabilities are established on a block of business basis.
If experience is less favorable than assumptions, additional liabilities may be required, resulting in a charge to policyholder benefits and claims.
Liabilities for future policy benefits for disabled lives are estimated using the present value of benefits method and experience assumptions as to claim terminations, expenses and interest.
Liabilities for unpaid claims and claim expenses for property and casualty insurance are included in future policyholder benefits and represent the amount estimated for claims that have been reported but not settled and claims incurred but not reported.
Other policyholder funds include claims that have been reported but not settled and claims incurred but not reported on life and non-medical health insurance.
Liabilities for unpaid claims are estimated based upon the Company’s historical experience and other actuarial assumptions that consider the effects of current developments, anticipated trends and risk management programs.
With respect to property and casualty insurance, such unpaid claims are reduced for anticipated salvage and subrogation.
The effects of changes in such estimated liabilities are included in the results of operations in the period in which the changes occur.
Future policy benefit liabilities for minimum death and income benefit guarantees relating to certain annuity contracts and secondary and paid up guarantees relating to certain life policies are based on estimates of the expected value of benefits in excess of the projected account balance and recognizing the excess ratably over the accumulation period based on total expected assessments.
Liabilities for universal and variable life secondary guarantees and paid-up guarantees are determined by estimating the expected value of death benefits payable when the account balance is projected to be zero and recognizing those benefits ratably over the accumulation period
(6) Net investment income presented in the yield table varies from the most directly comparable GAAP measure due to certain reclassifications and excludes the effects of consolidating certain VIEs under GAAP that are treated as CSEs and contractholder-directed unit-linked investments.
Such reclassifications are presented in the table below.
## Table 2 ##
See “— Results of Operations — Consolidated Results — Year Ended December 31, 2014 Compared with the Year Ended December 31, 2013” and “— Results of Operations — Consolidated Results —Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared with the Year Ended December 31, 2012,” for an analysis of the year over year changes in net investment income.
Fixed Maturity and Equity Securities Available-for-Sale Fixed maturity securities AFS, which consisted principally of publicly-traded and privately-placed fixed maturity securities and redeemable preferred stock, were $365.4 billion and $350.2 billion, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or 71% of total cash and invested assets at both December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Publicly-traded fixed maturity securities represented $315.2 billion and $302.3 billion, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or 86% of total fixed maturity securities at both December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Privately-placed fixed maturity securities represented $50.2 billion and $47.9 billion, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or 14% of total fixed maturity securities at both December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Equity securities AFS, which consisted principally of publicly-traded and privately-held common and non-redeemable preferred stock, including certain perpetual hybrid securities and mutual fund interests, were $3.6 billion and $3.4 billion, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, or 0.7% of total cash and invested assets at both December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Publicly-traded equity securities represented $2.5 billion and $2.4 billion, at estimated fair value, or 69% and 71% of total equity securities, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Privately-held equity securities represented $1.1 billion and $1.0 billion, at estimated fair value, or 31% and 29% of total equity securities, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Included within fixed maturity and equity securities were $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion of perpetual securities, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Upon acquisition, we classify perpetual securities that have attributes of both debt and equity as fixed maturity securities if the securities have an interest rate step-up feature which, when combined with other qualitative factors, indicates that the securities have more debt-like characteristics; while those with more equity-like characteristics are classified as equity securities.
Many of such securities, commonly referred to as “perpetual hybrid securities” have been issued by non-U.
S.  financial institutions that are accorded the highest two capital treatment categories by their respective regulatory bodies (i. e.  core capital, or “Tier 1 capital” and perpetual deferrable securities, or “Upper Tier 2 capital”).
Included within fixed maturity securities were $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion of redeemable preferred stock with a stated maturity, at estimated fair value, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
These securities, which are commonly referred to as “capital securities,” primarily have cumulative interest deferral features and are primarily issued by U. S.  financial institutions.
Valuation of Securities.
We are responsible for the determination of estimated fair value of our investments.
We determine the estimated fair value of publicly-traded securities after considering one of three primary sources of information: quoted market prices in active markets, independent pricing services, or independent broker quotations.
We determine the estimated fair value of privately-placed securities after considering one of three primary sources of information: market standard internal matrix pricing, market standard internal discounted cash flow techniques, or independent pricing services (after we determine the independent pricing services’ use of available observable market data).
For publicly-traded securities, the number of quotations obtained varies by instrument and depends on the liquidity of the particular instrument.
Generally, we obtain prices from multiple pricing services to cover all asset classes and obtain multiple prices for certain securities, but ultimately utilize the price with the highest placement in the fair value hierarchy.
Independent pricing services that value these instruments use market standard valuation methodologies based on data about market transactions and inputs from multiple pricing sources that are market observable or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data.
See Note 10 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the types of market standard valuation methodologies utilized and key assumptions and observable inputs used in applying these standard valuation methodologies.
When a price is not available in the active market or through an independent pricing service, management values the security primarily using market standard internal matrix pricing or discounted cash flow techniques, and non-binding quotations from independent brokers who are knowledgeable about these securities.
Independent non-binding broker quotations utilize inputs that may be difficult to corroborate with observable market data.
As shown in the following section, less than 1% of our fixed maturity securities were valued using nonbinding quotations from independent brokers at December 31, 2014.
Real estate and real estate joint venture investments by property type are categorized by sector as follows at:
## Table 3 ##
We committed to acquire interests in real estate property with a gross value of $3.5 billion and $2.9 billion for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
The Company’s authorized equity investment in such properties was $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion during the same periods, respectively.
Impairments recognized on real estate and real estate joint ventures were $20 million, $10 million and $20 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Depreciation expense on real estate investments was $199 million, $179 million and $168 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Real estate investments are net of accumulated depreciation of $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Other Limited Partnership Interests The carrying value of other limited partnership interests was $8.1 billion and $7.4 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, which included $2.4 billion and $1.9 billion of hedge funds, at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Other Invested Assets The following table presents the carrying value of our other invested assets by type:
## Table 4 ##
Leveraged lease impairments were $80 million, $26 million and $203 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
See Notes 8 and 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information regarding leveraged and direct financing leases and freestanding derivatives with positive estimated fair values, respectively.
Tax credit and renewable energy partnerships are established for the purpose of investing in low-income housing, other social causes and renewable energy generation facilities, where a significant source of the return on investment is in the form of income tax credits or other tax incentives, and are accounted for under the equity method or under the effective yield method.
Funds withheld represent amounts contractually withheld by ceding companies in accordance with reinsurance agreements.
Operating joint ventures are accounted for under the equity method and represent our investment in insurance underwriting joint venture
Mitigating Actions The Company continues to be proactive in its investment and interest crediting rate strategies, as well as its product design and product mix.
To mitigate the risk of unfavorable consequences from the low interest rate environment in the U. S. , the Company applies disciplined asset/liability management (“ALM”) strategies, including the use of interest rate derivatives.
In some cases, the Company has entered into offsetting positions as part of its overall ALM strategy and to reduce volatility in net income.
Lowering interest crediting rates on some products, or adjusting the dividend scale on traditional products, can help offset decreases in investment margins on some products.
Our ability to lower interest crediting rates could be limited by competition, requirements to obtain regulatory approval, or contractual guarantees of minimum rates and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields.
As a result, our margins could decrease or potentially become negative.
We are able to limit or close certain products to new sales in order to manage exposures.
Business actions, such as shifting the sales focus to less interest rate sensitive products, can also mitigate this risk.
In addition, the Company is well diversified across product, distribution, and geography.
Certain of our non-U.
S.  businesses, reported within our Latin America, EMEA, and Asia (exclusive of our Japan business) segments, which accounted for approximately 26% of our adjusted earnings in 2017, are not significantly interest rate or market sensitive; in particular, they do not have any direct sensitivity to U. S.  interest rates.
The Company’s primary exposure within these segments is insurance risk.
We expect our non-U.
S.  businesses to grow faster than our U. S.  businesses and, over time, to become a larger percentage of our total business.
As a result of the foregoing, the Company expects to be able to substantially mitigate the negative impact of a sustained low interest rate environment in the U. S.  on the Company’s profitability.
Based on a near to intermediate term analysis of a sustained lower interest rate environment in the U. S. , the Company anticipates adjusted earnings will continue to increase, although at a slower growth rate.
Table of Contents 94 Low Interest Rate Scenario In formulating economic assumptions for its insurance contract assumptions, the Company uses projections that it makes regarding interest rates.
Included in these assumptions is the projection that the 10-year Treasury rate will rise from 2.41% at December 31, 2017 to 4.25% in 10 years, by 2027 and that 10-year yields will reach 2.61%, 2.72% and 2.80% by December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively.
Also included is the projection that the three-month LIBOR rate will move from 1.69% at December 31, 2017 to 2.19%, 2.31% and 2.35% by December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively.
The low interest rate scenario reflects an assumed constant 10-year Treasury rate of 1.50% and a constant three-month LIBOR rate of 0.65%, with the corresponding consensus of interest rate views and credit spreads (the “Low Interest Rate Scenario”).
The following summarizes the impact of the Low Interest Rate Scenario on our U. S.  dollar and non-U.
S.  dollar denominated positions.
In addition, we have included disclosure on the potential impact on 2018, 2019 and 2020 net income using the same Low Interest Rate Scenario on the mark-to-market of derivative positions that do not qualify as accounting hedges.
Below is a summary of the rates we used for the Low Interest Rate Scenario versus our business plan through 2020.
These rates represent the most relevant short-term and long-term rates for our business plan.

<table><tr><td><i>In millions</i></td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td>Sales</td><td>$7,860</td><td>$7,670</td><td>$7,280</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Profit</td><td>$552</td><td>$581</td><td>$464</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Investment return</td><td>$192</td><td>$-26</td></tr><tr><td>Expense</td><td>45</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>In-force/Persistency</td><td>-7</td><td>-33</td></tr><tr><td>Policyholder dividends and other</td><td>-39</td><td>-11</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$191</td><td>$-59</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Years Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Net investment income — in the above yield table</td><td>$20,484</td><td>$20,394</td><td>$20,286</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate discontinued operations</td><td>-1</td><td>-9</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Scheduled periodic settlement payments on derivatives not qualifying for hedge accounting</td><td>-705</td><td>-643</td><td>-448</td></tr><tr><td>Equity method operating joint ventures</td><td>-1</td><td>-2</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Contractholder-directed unit-linked investments</td><td>1,266</td><td>2,172</td><td>1,473</td></tr><tr><td>Divested Businesses</td><td>72</td><td>197</td><td>513</td></tr><tr><td>Incremental net investment income from CSEs</td><td>38</td><td>123</td><td>163</td></tr><tr><td>Net investment income — GAAP consolidated statements of operations</td><td>$21,153</td><td>$22,232</td><td>$21,984</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2014</td><td colspan="2">2013</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CarryingValue</td><td>% ofTotal</td><td>CarryingValue</td><td>% ofTotal</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(In millions)</td><td></td><td>(In millions)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Office</td><td>$5,574</td><td>53.0%</td><td>$5,440</td><td>50.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Apartment</td><td>1,684</td><td>16.0</td><td>2,176</td><td>20.3</td></tr><tr><td>Retail</td><td>782</td><td>7.4</td><td>684</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Industrial</td><td>614</td><td>5.8</td><td>696</td><td>6.5</td></tr><tr><td>Hotel</td><td>554</td><td>5.3</td><td>429</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Land</td><td>432</td><td>4.1</td><td>333</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Real estate investment funds</td><td>351</td><td>3.3</td><td>394</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>37</td><td>0.4</td><td>35</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>497</td><td>4.7</td><td>525</td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total real estate and real estate joint ventures</td><td>$10,525</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$10,712</td><td>100.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2014</td><td colspan="2">2013</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CarryingValue</td><td>% ofTotal</td><td>CarryingValue</td><td>% ofTotal</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(In millions)</td><td></td><td>(In millions)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Freestanding derivatives with positive estimated fair values</td><td>$13,452</td><td>63.2%</td><td>$8,595</td><td>53.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Tax credit and renewable energy partnerships</td><td>2,752</td><td>12.9</td><td>2,657</td><td>16.3</td></tr><tr><td>Leveraged leases, net of non-recourse debt</td><td>1,785</td><td>8.4</td><td>1,946</td><td>12.0</td></tr><tr><td>Direct financing leases</td><td>1,119</td><td>5.3</td><td>1,100</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>Funds withheld</td><td>763</td><td>3.6</td><td>649</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Operating joint ventures</td><td>513</td><td>2.4</td><td>113</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>899</td><td>4.2</td><td>1,169</td><td>7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$21,283</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$16,229</td><td>100.0%</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the growing rate of Direct financing leases in the year with the least Freestanding derivatives with positive estimated fair values?