THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Management’s Discussion and Analysis Liquidity Regulatory Framework As a BHC, we are subject to the U. S.  federal bank regulatory agencies’ LCR rule.
The LCR rule requires organizations to maintain an adequate ratio of eligible high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) to expected net cash outflows under an acute short-term liquidity stress scenario.
Eligible HQLA excludes HQLA held by subsidiaries that is in excess of their minimum requirement and is subject to transfer restrictions.
We are required to maintain a minimum LCR of 100%.
The table below presents information about our average daily LCR.
## Table 0 ##
We expect that fluctuations in client activity, business mix and the overall market environment will impact our average LCR in the future.
In addition, the U. S.  federal bank regulatory agencies have issued a proposed rule that calls for a net stable funding ratio (NSFR) for large U. S.  banking organizations.
The proposal would require banking organizations to ensure they have access to stable funding over a one-year time horizon.
The proposed rule includes quarterly disclosure of the ratio, as well as a description of the banking organization’s stable funding sources.
The U. S.  federal bank regulatory agencies have not released the final rule.
We expect that we will be compliant with the NSFR requirement by the effective date of the final rule.
The following is information on our subsidiary liquidity regulatory requirements: ‰ GS Bank USA.
GS Bank USA is subject to minimum liquidity standards under the LCR rule approved by the U. S.  federal bank regulatory agencies.
As of December 2017, GS Bank USA’s LCR exceeded the minimum requirement.
The U. S.  federal bank regulatory agencies’ proposed NSFR requirement described above would also apply to GS Bank USA.
‰ GSI.
The LCR rule issued by the U. K.  regulatory authorities became effective in the U. K.  on October 1, 2015, with a phase-in period whereby certain financial institutions, including GSI, were required to have an 80% minimum ratio initially, increasing to 90% on January 1, 2017 and 100% on January 1, 2018.
GSI’s average monthly LCR for the trailing twelve-month period ended December 2017 exceeded the minimum requirement.
‰ Other Subsidiaries.
We monitor the local regulatory liquidity requirements of our subsidiaries to ensure compliance.
For many of our subsidiaries, these requirements either have changed or are likely to change in the future due to the implementation of the Basel Committee’s framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring, as well as other regulatory developments.
The implementation of these rules, and any amendments adopted by the applicable regulatory authorities, could impact our liquidity and funding requirements and practices in the future.
Credit Ratings We rely on the short-term and long-term debt capital markets to fund a significant portion of our day-to-day operations and the cost and availability of debt financing is influenced by our credit ratings.
Credit ratings are also important when we are competing in certain markets, such as OTC derivatives, and when we seek to engage in longerterm transactions.
See “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Form 10-K for information about the risks associated with a reduction in our credit ratings.
The table below presents the unsecured credit ratings and outlook of Group Inc.  by DBRS, Inc.  (DBRS), Fitch, Inc.  (Fitch), Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s), Rating and Investment Information, Inc.  (R&I), and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P).
## Table 1 ##
In the table above: ‰ The ratings for trust preferred relate to the guaranteed preferred beneficial interests issued by Goldman Sachs Capital I.
‰ The DBRS, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P ratings for preferred stock include the APEX issued by Goldman Sachs Capital II and Goldman Sachs Capital III.
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements The table below presents a summary of level 3 financial assets.
## Table 2 ##
Level 3 financial assets as of December 2017 decreased compared with December 2016, primarily reflecting a decrease in level 3 cash instruments.
See Notes 6 through 8 for further information about level 3 financial assets (including information about unrealized gains and losses related to level 3 financial assets and financial liabilities, and transfers in and out of level 3).
Note 6.
Cash Instruments Cash instruments include U. S.  government and agency obligations, non-U.
S.  government and agency obligations, mortgage-backed loans and securities, corporate loans and debt securities, equity securities, investments in funds at NAV, and other non-derivative financial instruments owned and financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased.
See below for the types of cash instruments included in each level of the fair value hierarchy and the valuation techniques and significant inputs used to determine their fair values.
See Note 5 for an overview of the firm’s fair value measurement policies.
Level 1 Cash Instruments Level 1 cash instruments include certain money market instruments, U. S.  government obligations, most non-U.
S.  government obligations, certain government agency obligations, certain corporate debt securities and actively traded listed equities.
These instruments are valued using quoted prices for identical unrestricted instruments in active markets.
The firm defines active markets for equity instruments based on the average daily trading volume both in absolute terms and relative to the market capitalization for the instrument.
The firm defines active markets for debt instruments based on both the average daily trading volume and the number of days with trading activity.
Level 2 Cash Instruments Level 2 cash instruments include most money market instruments, most government agency obligations, certain non-U.
S.  government obligations, most mortgage-backed loans and securities, most corporate loans and debt securities, most state and municipal obligations, most other debt obligations, restricted or less liquid listed equities, commodities and certain lending commitments.
Valuations of level 2 cash instruments can be verified to quoted prices, recent trading activity for identical or similar instruments, broker or dealer quotations or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency.
Consideration is given to the nature of the quotations (e. g. , indicative or firm) and the relationship of recent market activity to the prices provided from alternative pricing sources.
Valuation adjustments are typically made to level 2 cash instruments (i) if the cash instrument is subject to transfer restrictions and/or (ii) for other premiums and liquidity discounts that a market participant would require to arrive at fair value.
Valuation adjustments are generally based on market evidence.
Level 3 Cash Instruments Level 3 cash instruments have one or more significant valuation inputs that are not observable.
Absent evidence to the contrary, level 3 cash instruments are initially valued at transaction price, which is considered to be the best initial estimate of fair value.
Subsequently, the firm uses other methodologies to determine fair value, which vary based on the type of instrument.
Valuation inputs and assumptions are changed when corroborated by substantive observable evidence, including values realized on sales of financial assets.
Valuation Techniques and Significant Inputs of Level 3 Cash Instruments Valuation techniques of level 3 cash instruments vary by instrument, but are generally based on discounted cash flow techniques.
The valuation techniques and the nature of significant inputs used to determine the fair values of each type of level 3 cash instrument are described below: Loans and Securities Backed by Commercial Real Estate.
Loans and securities backed by commercial real estate are directly or indirectly collateralized by a single commercial real estate property or a portfolio of properties, and may include tranches of varying levels of subordination.
Significant inputs are generally determined based on relative value analyses and include:
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Allowance for Losses on Loans and Lending Commitments The firm’s allowance for loan losses consists of specific loan-level reserves, portfolio level reserves and reserves on PCI loans as described below: ‰ Specific loan-level reserves are determined on loans (excluding PCI loans) that exhibit credit quality weakness and are therefore individually evaluated for impairment.
‰ Portfolio level reserves are determined on loans (excluding PCI loans) not evaluated for specific loan-level reserves by aggregating groups of loans with similar risk characteristics and estimating the probable loss inherent in the portfolio.
‰ Reserves on PCI loans are recorded when it is determined that the expected cash flows, which are reassessed on a quarterly basis, will be lower than those used to establish the current effective yield for such loans or pools of loans.
If the expected cash flows are determined to be significantly higher than those used to establish the current effective yield, such increases are initially recognized as a reduction to any previously recorded allowances for loan losses and any remaining increases are recognized as interest income prospectively over the life of the loan or pools of loans as an increase to the effective yield.
The allowance for loan losses is determined using various risk factors, including industry default and loss data, current macroeconomic indicators, borrower’s capacity to meet its financial obligations, borrower’s country of risk, loan seniority and collateral type.
In addition, for loans backed by real estate, risk factors include loan to value ratio, debt service ratio and home price index.
Risk factors for Marcus loans include FICO credit scores and delinquency status.
Management’s estimate of loan losses entails judgment about loan collectability at the reporting dates, and there are uncertainties inherent in those judgments.
While management uses the best information available to determine this estimate, future adjustments to the allowance may be necessary based on, among other things, changes in the economic environment or variances between actual results and the original assumptions used.
Loans are charged off against the allowance for loan losses when deemed to be uncollectible.
The firm also records an allowance for losses on lending commitments that are held for investment and accounted for on an accrual basis.
Such allowance is determined using the same methodology as the allowance for loan losses, while also taking into consideration the probability of drawdowns or funding, and is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses.
The tables below present gross loans receivable and lending commitments by impairment methodology.
## Table 3 ##
In the tables above, gross loans receivable and lending commitments, subject to specific loan-level reserves, included $492 million and $122 million of impaired loans and lending commitments as of December 2017 and December 2016, respectively, which did not require a reserve as the loan was deemed to be recoverable.
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements As of December 2017, the U. S.  federal, state and local, and foreign net operating loss carryforwards were $268 million, $1.33 billion and $1.23 billion, respectively.
If not utilized, the U. S.  federal, state and local, and foreign net operating loss carryforwards will begin to expire in 2018.
If these carryforwards expire, they will not have a material impact on the firm’s results of operations.
As of December 2017, the foreign tax credit carryforwards were $446 million, the general business credit carryforwards were $533 million and the state and local tax credit carryforwards were $27 million.
If not utilized, the foreign tax credit carryforward will begin to expire in 2027, the general business credit carryforward will begin to expire in 2037, and the state and local tax credit carryforward will begin to expire in 2020.
The firm had no capital loss carryforwards and no related net deferred income tax assets as of December 2017 and December 2016.
The valuation allowance increased by $41 million during 2017 and increased by $42 million during 2016.
The increases in 2017 and 2016 were primarily due to an increase in deferred tax assets from which the firm does not expect to realize any benefit.
The firm permanently reinvested eligible earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries.
As of December 2017, substantially all U. S.  taxes were accrued on these subsidiaries’ earnings and profits as a result of Tax Legislation repatriation tax.
As of December 2016, the firm did not accrue any U. S.  income taxes that would arise if such earnings were repatriated, resulting in an unrecognized net deferred tax liability of $6.18 billion, attributable to reinvested earnings of $31.24 billion.
Unrecognized Tax Benefits The firm recognizes tax positions in the consolidated financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on examination by the relevant taxing authority based on the technical merits of the position.
A position that meets this standard is measured at the largest amount of benefit that will more likely than not be realized on settlement.
A liability is established for differences between positions taken in a tax return and amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements.
The accrued liability for interest expense related to income tax matters and income tax penalties was $81 million and $141 million as of December 2017 and December 2016, respectively.
The firm recognized interest expense and income tax penalties of $63 million, $27 million and $17 million for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
It is reasonably possible that unrecognized tax benefits could change significantly during the twelve months subsequent to December 2017 due to potential audit settlements.
However, at this time it is not possible to estimate any potential change.
The table below presents the changes in the liability for unrecognized tax benefits.
This liability is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses.
See Note 17 for further information.
## Table 4 ##
Regulatory Tax Examinations The firm is subject to examination by the U. S.  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other taxing authorities in jurisdictions where the firm has significant business operations, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong and various states, such as New York.
The tax years under examination vary by jurisdiction.
The firm does not expect completion of these audits to have a material impact on the firm’s financial condition but it may be material to operating results for a particular period, depending, in part, on the operating results for that period.
The table below presents the earliest tax years that remain subject to examination by major jurisdiction.

<table><tr><td><i>$ in millions</i></td><td> Average for the Three Months Ended December 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Total HQLA</td><td> $219,108</td></tr><tr><td>Eligible HQLA</td><td> $162,829</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash outflows</td><td> $123,518</td></tr><tr><td> LCR</td><td> 132%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> As of December 2017</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>DBRS</td><td> Fitch</td><td> Moody’s</td><td> R&I</td><td> S&P</td></tr><tr><td>Short-term debt</td><td>R-1 (middle)</td><td> F1</td><td> P-2</td><td> a-1</td><td> A-2</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td>A (high)</td><td> A</td><td> A3</td><td> A</td><td> BBB+</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt</td><td>A</td><td> A-</td><td> Baa2</td><td> A-</td><td> BBB-</td></tr><tr><td>Trust preferred</td><td>A</td><td> BBB-</td><td> Baa3</td><td> N/A</td><td> BB</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred stock</td><td>BBB (high)</td><td> BB+</td><td> Ba1</td><td> N/A</td><td> BB</td></tr><tr><td>Ratings outlook</td><td>Stable</td><td> Stable</td><td> Stable</td><td> Stable</td><td> Stable</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>As of December</td></tr><tr><td><i>$ in millions</i></td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Cash instruments</td><td>$15,395</td><td>$18,035</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives</td><td>3,802</td><td>5,190</td></tr><tr><td>Other financial assets</td><td>4</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$19,201</td><td>$23,280</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> As of December 2017</td></tr><tr><td><i>$ in millions</i></td><td> Specific</td><td> Portfolio</td><td> PCI</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td> Loans Receivable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate loans</td><td> $377</td><td> $ 30,372</td><td> $ –</td><td> $ 30,749</td></tr><tr><td>Loans to PWM clients</td><td> 163</td><td> 16,428</td><td> –</td><td> 16,591</td></tr><tr><td>Loans backed by:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td> –</td><td> 6,871</td><td> 1,116</td><td> 7,987</td></tr><tr><td>Residential real estate</td><td> 231</td><td> 2,676</td><td> 3,327</td><td> 6,234</td></tr><tr><td>Marcus loans</td><td> –</td><td> 1,912</td><td> –</td><td> 1,912</td></tr><tr><td>Other loans</td><td> 74</td><td> 3,179</td><td> 10</td><td> 3,263</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td> $845</td><td> $ 61,438</td><td> $4,453</td><td> $ 66,736</td></tr><tr><td> Lending Commitments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate</td><td> $ 53</td><td> $118,500</td><td> $ –</td><td> $118,553</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td> –</td><td> 5,951</td><td> –</td><td> 5,951</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td> $ 53</td><td> $124,451</td><td> $ –</td><td> $124,504</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">As of December 2016</td></tr><tr><td><i>$ in millions</i></td><td>Specific</td><td>Portfolio</td><td>PCI</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td> Loans Receivable</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate loans</td><td>$327</td><td>$ 24,510</td><td>$ –</td><td>$ 24,837</td></tr><tr><td>Loans to PWM clients</td><td>77</td><td>13,751</td><td>–</td><td>13,828</td></tr><tr><td>Loans backed by:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>–</td><td>3,317</td><td>1,444</td><td>4,761</td></tr><tr><td>Residential real estate</td><td>–</td><td>1,357</td><td>2,508</td><td>3,865</td></tr><tr><td>Marcus loans</td><td>–</td><td>208</td><td>–</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>Other loans</td><td>–</td><td>2,664</td><td>18</td><td>2,682</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$404</td><td>$ 45,807</td><td>$3,970</td><td>$ 50,181</td></tr><tr><td> Lending Commitments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate</td><td>$211</td><td>$ 93,196</td><td>$ –</td><td>$ 93,407</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>–</td><td>4,638</td><td>–</td><td>4,638</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$211</td><td>$ 97,834</td><td>$ –</td><td>$ 98,045</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Jurisdiction</td><td> As of  December 2017</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Federal</td><td> 2011</td></tr><tr><td>New York State and City</td><td> 2011</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td> 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td> 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Hong Kong</td><td> 2011</td></tr></table>

Question: If Marcus loans of portfolio develops with the same growth rate in 2017, what will it reach in 2018? (in million)