PENSION AND POSTRETIREMENT PLANS Citigroup has several non-contributory defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all U. S.  employees and has various defined benefit pension and termination indemnity plans covering employees outside the United States.
The U. S.  defined benefit plan provides benefits under a cash balance formula.
Employees satisfying certain age and service requirements remain covered by a prior final pay formula.
Citigroup also offers postretirement health care and life insurance benefits to certain eligible U. S.  retired employees, as well as to certain eligible employees outside the United States.
The following table shows the pension (benefit) expense and contributions for Citigroup’s plans:
## Table 0 ##
(1) The 2008 expense includes a $23 million curtailment loss for the U. S.  plans and $22 million for the non-U.
S.  plans recognized in the fourth quarter of 2008 relating to Citigroup’s restructuring actions.
(2) In addition, Citigroup absorbed $11 million, $13 million and $15 million during 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, relating to certain investment management fees and administration costs for the U. S.  plans, which are excluded from this table.
The following table shows the combined postretirement expense and contributions for Citigroup’s U. S.  and foreign plans:
## Table 1 ##
Expected Rate of Return Citigroup determines its assumptions for the expected rate of return on plan assets for its U. S.  pension and postretirement plans using a “building block” approach, which focuses on ranges of anticipated rates of return for each asset class.
A weighted range of nominal rates is then determined based on target allocations to each asset class.
Citigroup considers the expected rate of return to be a long-term assessment of return expectations and does not anticipate changing this assumption annually unless there are significant changes in investment strategy or economic conditions.
This contrasts with the selection of the discount rate, future compensation increase rate, and certain other assumptions, which are reconsidered annually in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
The expected rate of return for the U. S.  pension and post-retirement plans was 7.75% at December 31, 2009, 7.75% at December 31, 2008 and 8% at December 31, 2007, reflecting the performance of the global capital markets.
Actual returns in 2009 and 2008 were less than the expected returns, while actual returns in 2007 were more than the expected returns.
This expected amount reflects the expected annual appreciation of the plan assets and reduces the annual pension expense of Citigroup.
It is deducted from the sum of service cost, interest and other components of pension expense to arrive at the net pension (benefit) expense.
Net pension (benefit) expense for the U. S.  pension plans for 2009, 2008 and 2007 reflects deductions of $912 million and $889 million of expected returns, respectively.
Non-Accrual Loans The table below summarizes Citigroup鈥檚 non-accrual loans as of the periods indicated.
Non-accrual loans may still be current on interest payments.
In situations where Citi reasonably expects that only a portion of the principal owed will ultimately be collected, all payments received are reflected as a reduction of principal and not as interest income.
For all other non-accrual loans, cash interest receipts are generally recorded as revenue.
## Table 2 ##
(1)Excludes purchased distressed loans, as they are generally accreting interest.
The carrying value of these loans was $128 million at December聽31, 2018, $167 million at December聽31, 2017, $187 million at December 31, 2016, $250 million at December聽31, 2015 and $421 million at December聽31, 2014.
(2)The 2016 increase in corporate non-accrual loans was primarily related to Citi鈥檚 North America and EMEA energy and energy-related corporate credit exposure.
(3)The 2015 decline in consumer non-accrual loans includes the impact related to the transfer of approximately $8 billion of mortgage loans to Loans HFS (included within Other assets).
(4)Asia includes balances in certain EMEA countries for all periods presented.
The changes in Citigroup鈥檚 non-accrual loans were as follows:
## Table 3 ##
Citi’s LCR decreased year-over-year, driven by a decline in average HQLA, partially offset by a decline in modeled net outflows.
Quarter-over-quarter, Citi’s LCR increased slightly, as a decline in modeled net outflows more than offset the decline in average HQLA (see “High-Quality Liquid Assets” above).
Long-Term Liquidity Measurement: Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) In 2016, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the OCC issued a proposed rule to implement the Basel III NSFR requirement.
The U. S. -proposed NSFR is largely consistent with the Basel Committee’s final NSFR rules.
In general, the NSFR assesses the availability of a bank’s stable funding against a required level.
A bank’s available stable funding would include portions of equity, deposits and long-term debt, while its required stable funding would be based on the liquidity characteristics and encumbrance period of its assets, derivatives and commitments.
Prescribed factors would be required to be applied to the various categories of asset and liabilities classes.
The ratio of available stable funding to required stable funding would be required to be greater than 100%.
While Citi believes that it is compliant with the proposed U. S.  NSFR rules as of December 31, 2018, it will need to evaluate a final version of the rules, which are expected to be released in 2019.
Citi expects that the NSFR final rules implementation period will be communicated along with the final version of the rules.
Loans As part of its funding and liquidity objectives, Citi seeks to fund its existing asset base appropriately as well as maintain sufficient liquidity to grow its GCB and ICG businesses, including its loan portfolio.
Citi maintains a diversified portfolio of loans to its consumer and institutional clients.
The table below details the average loans, by business and/or segment, and the total end-of-period loans for each of the periods indicated:
## Table 4 ##
(1) Includes loans in certain EMEA countries for all periods presented.
Loans increased 3% year-over-year and 1% quarter-over-quarter in the fourth quarter, on both an end-of-period as well as on an average basis.
Excluding the impact of FX translation, average loans increased 4% yearover-year, driven by 6% aggregate across GCB and ICG.
Within GCB, average loans grew 3%, with growth across all regions and businesses, with particular strength in North America GCB driven by Citi-branded cards and Citi retail services, including the impact of the L. L. Bean card portfolio acquisition.
Average ICG loans increased 8% year-over-year, with continued growth across businesses.
Corporate lending and private bank loan growth remained strong on a year-over-year basis, with corporate lending unchanged quarterover-quarter due to the episodic nature of repayments relative to originations.
TTS loans grew year-over-year, however growth moderated to 2%, despite continued strong origination volumes, as Citi utilized its distribution capabilities to optimize the balance sheet and drive returns.
Finally, strong year-over-year Markets and securities services loan growth was driven by Community Reinvestment Act lending activities as well as residential warehouse lending.
Average Corporate/Other loans continued to decline (down 32%), driven by the wind-down of legacy assets.
Domestic utility companies and System Energy Notes to Respective Financial Statements 323 protested the disallowance of these deductions to the Office of IRS Appeals.
Entergy expects to receive a Notice of Deficiency in 2005 for this item, and plans to vigorously contest this matter.
Entergy believes that the contingency provision established in its financial statements sufficiently covers the risk associated with this item.
Mark to Market of Certain Power Contracts In 2001, Entergy Louisiana changed its method of accounting for tax purposes related to its wholesale electric power contracts.
The most significant of these is the contract to purchase power from the Vidalia hydroelectric project.
The new tax accounting method has provided a cumulative cash flow benefit of approximately $790 million as of December 31, 2004.
The related IRS interest exposure is $93 million at December 31, 2004.
This benefit is expected to reverse in the years 2005 through 2031.
The election did not reduce book income tax expense.
The timing of the reversal of this benefit depends on several variables, including the price of power.
Due to the temporary nature of the tax benefit, the potential interest charge represents Entergy's net earnings exposure.
Entergy Louisiana's 2001 tax return is currently under examination by the IRS, though no adjustments have yet been proposed with respect to the mark to market election.
Entergy believes that the contingency provision established in its financial statements will sufficiently cover the risk associated with this issue.
CashPoint Bankruptcy (Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Mississippi, and Entergy New Orleans) In 2003 the domestic utility companies entered an agreement with CashPoint Network Services (CashPoint) under which CashPoint was to manage a network of payment agents through which Entergy's utility customers could pay their bills.
The payment agent system allows customers to pay their bills at various commercial or governmental locations, rather than sending payments by mail.
Approximately one-third of Entergy's utility customers use payment agents.
On April 19, 2004, CashPoint failed to pay funds due to the domestic utility companies that had been collected through payment agents.
The domestic utility companies then obtained a temporary restraining order from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, enjoining CashPoint from distributing funds belonging to Entergy, except by paying those funds to Entergy.
On April 22, 2004, a petition for involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy was filed against CashPoint by other creditors in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
In response to these events, the domestic utility companies expanded an existing contract with another company to manage all of their payment agents.
The domestic utility companies filed proofs of claim in the CashPoint bankruptcy proceeding in September 2004.
Although Entergy cannot precisely determine at this time the amount that CashPoint owes to the domestic utility companies that may not be repaid, it has accrued an estimate of loss based on current information.
If no cash is repaid to the domestic utility companies, an event Entergy does not believe is likely, the current estimates of maximum exposure to loss are approximately as follows:

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">U.S. and non-U.S. plans</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Postretirement expense-1</td><td>$109</td><td>$115</td><td>$69</td></tr><tr><td>Company contributions</td><td>91</td><td>103</td><td>72</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">U.S. plans 2008</td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">Non-U.S. plans</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>2009</td><td>2007</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Pension (benefit)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>expense-1</td><td>$-148</td><td>$-160</td><td>$179</td><td>$198</td><td>$205</td><td>$123</td></tr><tr><td>Company</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>contributions-2</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>382</td><td>286</td><td>223</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>2018</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate non-accrual loans<sup>-1(2)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>$483</td><td>$784</td><td>$984</td><td>$818</td><td>$321</td></tr><tr><td>EMEA</td><td>375</td><td>849</td><td>904</td><td>347</td><td>285</td></tr><tr><td>Latin America</td><td>230</td><td>280</td><td>379</td><td>303</td><td>417</td></tr><tr><td>Asia</td><td>223</td><td>29</td><td>154</td><td>128</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>Total corporate non-accrual loans</td><td>$1,311</td><td>$1,942</td><td>$2,421</td><td>$1,596</td><td>$1,202</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer non-accrual loans<sup>-1(3)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>$1,241</td><td>$1,650</td><td>$2,160</td><td>$2,515</td><td>$4,411</td></tr><tr><td>Latin America</td><td>715</td><td>756</td><td>711</td><td>874</td><td>1,188</td></tr><tr><td>Asia<sup>-4</sup></td><td>270</td><td>284</td><td>287</td><td>269</td><td>306</td></tr><tr><td>Total consumer non-accrual loans</td><td>$2,226</td><td>$2,690</td><td>$3,158</td><td>$3,658</td><td>$5,905</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-accrual loans</td><td>$3,537</td><td>$4,632</td><td>$5,579</td><td>$5,254</td><td>$7,107</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year ended December 31, 2018</td><td colspan="3">Year ended December 31, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>Corporate</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Total</td><td>Corporate</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Non-accrual loans at beginning of period</td><td>$1,942</td><td>$2,690</td><td>$4,632</td><td>$2,421</td><td>$3,158</td><td>$5,579</td></tr><tr><td>Additions</td><td>2,108</td><td>3,148</td><td>5,256</td><td>1,347</td><td>3,508</td><td>4,855</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and transfers to HFS</td><td>-119</td><td>-268</td><td>-387</td><td>-134</td><td>-379</td><td>-513</td></tr><tr><td>Returned to performing</td><td>-127</td><td>-629</td><td>-756</td><td>-47</td><td>-634</td><td>-681</td></tr><tr><td>Paydowns/settlements</td><td>-2,282</td><td>-1,052</td><td>-3,334</td><td>-1,400</td><td>-1,163</td><td>-2,563</td></tr><tr><td>Charge-offs</td><td>-196</td><td>-1,634</td><td>-1,830</td><td>-144</td><td>-1,869</td><td>-2,013</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-15</td><td>-29</td><td>-44</td><td>-101</td><td>69</td><td>-32</td></tr><tr><td>Ending balance</td><td>$1,311</td><td>$2,226</td><td>$3,537</td><td>$1,942</td><td>$2,690</td><td>$4,632</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>In billions of dollars</td><td>Dec. 31, 2018</td><td>Sept. 30, 2018</td><td>Dec. 31, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Global Consumer Banking</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>$195.7</td><td>$192.8</td><td>$189.7</td></tr><tr><td>Latin America</td><td>25.1</td><td>26.3</td><td>25.7</td></tr><tr><td>Asia<sup>-1</sup></td><td>87.6</td><td>87.7</td><td>87.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$308.4</td><td>$306.8</td><td>$303.3</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional Clients Group</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate lending</td><td>$130.0</td><td>$130.9</td><td>$124.9</td></tr><tr><td>Treasury and trade solutions (TTS)</td><td>77.0</td><td>76.9</td><td>77.0</td></tr><tr><td>Private bank</td><td>94.7</td><td>92.8</td><td>85.9</td></tr><tr><td>Markets and securities servicesand other</td><td>49.3</td><td>45.6</td><td>40.4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$351.0</td><td>$346.2</td><td>$328.2</td></tr><tr><td>TotalCorporate/Other</td><td>$16.1</td><td>$17.3</td><td>$22.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total Citigroup loans (AVG)</td><td>$675.5</td><td>$670.3</td><td>$654.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total Citigroup loans (EOP)</td><td>$684.2</td><td>$674.9</td><td>$667.0</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the ratio of Ending balance to the total in 2018 for Corporate? (in million)