$24.3 billion of borrowings under a senior loan from the NY Fed to ML III.
A portion of the net payment made by ML III to the counterparties for the purchase of the multi-sector CDOs facilitated the resolution of $8.0 billion of liquidity arrangements, which had funded certain of the multi-sector CDOs in connection with the 2a-7 Puts.
In connection with the ML III transaction, AIG Financial Products Corp.  entered into a Shortfall Agreement, dated November 25, 2008 and amended on December 18, 2008 (the Shortfall Agreement), with ML III under which ML III made a payment of $2.5 billion to AIG Financial Products Corp.  representing the amount by which collateral surrendered as part of the termination of the CDS exceeded the fair value of the CDS as of October 31, 2008.
Among the multi-sector CDOs purchased by ML III are certain CDO securities with a net notional amount of $1.7 billion for which the related 2a-7 Puts to AIG Financial Products Corp.  remained outstanding as of December 31, 2008.
For the $252 million notional amount of multi-sector CDOs held by ML III with 2a-7 Puts that may be exercised in 2009, ML III has agreed to not sell the multi-sector CDOs in 2009 and to either not exercise its put option on such multi-sector CDOs or to simultaneously exercise their par put option with a par purchase of the multi-sector CDO securities.
In exchange, AIG Financial Products Corp.  has agreed to pay to ML III the consideration that it receives for providing the put protection.
AIG Financial Products Corp.  and ML III are currently negotiating an agreement that will outline procedures to be taken by ML III and AIG Financial Products Corp.  for multi-sector CDOs with put options that may be exercised after December 31, 2009, with the objective of mitigating or eliminating the impact on AIG Financial Products Corp.  of such 2a-7 Puts and capturing the associated economics for ML III.
In connection with the termination of $62.1 billion net notional amount of CDS transactions in respect of the ML III transaction, AIG Financial Products Corp.  paid $32.5 billion, net of $2.5 billion received in connection with the shortfall agreement, through the surrender of collateral previously posted.
Included in this amount is $2.5 billion related to multi-sector CDOs underlying 2a-7 Puts previously written by AIG Financial Products Corp.  and sold to ML III.
As a result of the termination of such CDS, AIG Financial Products Corp.  is no longer subject to any further collateral calls related to such CDS transactions nor subject to the risk of having to make a payment to a counterparty to physically settle the CDS transactions following the occurrence of a credit event, thereby alleviating the demand on AIGFP’s liquidity.
Multi-Sector CDOs The gross transaction notional amount of the multi-sector CDOs on which AIGFP wrote protection on the super senior tranche, subordination below the super senior risk layer, net notional amount and fair value of derivative liability by underlying collateral type were as follows (excluding 2a-7 Puts):
## Table 0 ##
(a) Total outstanding principal amount of securities held by a CDO.
(b) Net notional size on which AIGFP wrote credit protection.
(c) “High grade” refers to transactions in which the underlying collateral credit ratings on a stand-alone basis were predominantly AA or higher at origination.
American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries
## Table 1 ##
The amount of future collateral posting requirements is a function of AIG’s credit ratings, the rating of the reference obligations and any further decline in the market value of the relevant reference obligations, with the latter being the most significant factor.
While a high level of correlation exists between the amount of collateral posted and the valuation of these contracts in respect of the arbitrage portfolio, a similar relationship does not exist with respect to the regulatory capital portfolio given the nature of how the amount of collateral for these transactions is determined.
Given the severe market disruption, lack of observable data and the uncertainty regarding the potential effects on market prices of measures recently undertaken by the federal government to address the credit market disruption, AIGFP is unable to reasonably estimate the amounts of collateral that it would be required to post.
Models and Modeling AIGFP values its credit default swaps written on the super senior risk layers of designated pools of debt securities or loans using internal valuation models, third-party price estimates and market indices.
The principal market was determined to be the market in which super senior credit default swaps of this type and size would be transacted, or have been transacted, with the greatest volume or level of activity.
AIG has determined that the principal market participants, therefore, would consist of other large financial institutions who participate in sophisticated over-the-counter derivatives markets.
The specific valuation methodologies vary based on the nature of the referenced obligations and availability of market prices.
The valuation of the super senior credit derivatives continues to be challenging given the limitation on the availability of market observable information due to the lack of trading and price transparency in the structured finance market, particularly during and since the second half of 2007.
These market conditions have increased the reliance on management estimates and judgments in arriving at an estimate of fair value for financial reporting purposes.
Further, disparities in the valuation methodologies employed by market participants and the varying judgments reached by such participants when assessing volatile markets have increased the likelihood that the various parties to these instruments may arrive at significantly different estimates as to their fair values.
AIGFP’s valuation methodologies for the super senior credit default swap portfolio have evolved in response to the deteriorating market conditions and the lack of sufficient market observable information.
AIG has sought to calibrate the model to available market information and to review the assumptions of the model on a regular basis.
Arbitrage Portfolio — Multi-Sector CDOs The underlying assumption of the valuation methodology for AIGFP’s credit default swap portfolio wrapping multi-sector CDOs is that, to be willing to assume the obligations under a credit default swap, a market participant would require payment of the full difference between the cash price of the underlying tranches of the referenced securities portfolio and the net notional amount specified in the credit default swap.
AIGFP uses a modified version of the Binomial Expansion Technique (BET) model to value its credit default swap portfolio written on super senior tranches of CDOs of ABS, including the 2a-7 Puts.
The BET model was developed in 1996 by a major rating agency to generate expected loss estimates for CDO tranches and derive a credit rating for those tranches, and has been widely used ever since.
AIG selected the BET model for the following reasons: ?
it is known and utilized by other institutions; ?
it has been studied extensively, documented and enhanced over many years;
AnalysisofConsolidatedLossesandLossExpenseReserveDevelopment Thefollowingtablepresentsforeachcalendaryearthelossesandlossexpensereservesandthedevelopment thereofincludingthosewithrespecttoasbestosandenvironmentalclaims.
SeealsoManagement’sDiscussion andAnalysisofFinancialConditionandResultsofOperations—OperatingReview—GeneralInsurance Operations—Liabilityforunpaidclaimsandclaimsadjustmentexpense.
## Table 2 ##
Net Reserves Held (Undiscounted)
## Table 3 ##
American International Group, Inc. , and Subsidiaries The amortized cost and fair value of fixed maturity securities available for sale in an unrealized loss position by contractual maturity were as follows:

<table><tr><td> At December 31, 2008</td><td> Gross   Transaction   Notional   Amount(a)</td><td> Subordination   Below the   Super Senior   Risk Layer</td><td> Net   Notional   Amount(b)</td><td> Fair Value   of Derivative   Liability</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>High grade with sub-prime collateral</td><td>$6,776</td><td>$2,808</td><td>$3,968</td><td>$1,797</td></tr><tr><td>High grade with no sub-prime collateral</td><td>10,156</td><td>5,816</td><td>4,340</td><td>1,428</td></tr><tr><td>Total high grade<i>(c)</i></td><td>16,932</td><td>8,624</td><td>8,308</td><td>3,225</td></tr><tr><td>Mezzanine with sub-prime</td><td>6,407</td><td>2,955</td><td>3,452</td><td>2,156</td></tr><tr><td>Mezzanine with no sub-prime</td><td>1,697</td><td>901</td><td>796</td><td>525</td></tr><tr><td>Total mezzanine<i>(d)</i></td><td>8,104</td><td>3,856</td><td>4,248</td><td>2,681</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$25,036</td><td>$12,480</td><td>$12,556</td><td>$5,906</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> December 31,   2007</td><td> March 31,   2008</td><td> June 30,   2008</td><td> September 30,   2008</td><td> December 31,   2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Regulatory capital</td><td>$—</td><td>$212</td><td>$319</td><td>$443</td><td>$1,287</td></tr><tr><td>Arbitrage — multi-sector CDO</td><td>2,718</td><td>7,590</td><td>13,241</td><td>31,469</td><td>5,129</td></tr><tr><td>Arbitrage — corporate</td><td>161</td><td>368</td><td>259</td><td>902</td><td>2,349</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$2,879</td><td>$8,170</td><td>$13,819</td><td>$32,814</td><td>$8,765</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td> 1998</td><td> 1999</td><td> 2000</td><td> 2001</td><td> 2002</td><td> 2003</td><td> 2004</td><td> 2005</td><td> 2006</td><td> 2007</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="11"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Net Reserves Held</td><td>$25,418</td><td>$25,636</td><td>$25,684</td><td>$26,005</td><td>$29,347</td><td>$36,228</td><td>$47,254</td><td>$57,476</td><td>$62,630</td><td>$69,288</td><td>$72,455</td></tr><tr><td>Discount (in Reserves Held)</td><td>897</td><td>1,075</td><td>1,287</td><td>1,423</td><td>1,499</td><td>1,516</td><td>1,553</td><td>2,110</td><td>2,264</td><td>2,429</td><td>2,574</td></tr><tr><td>Net Reserves Held (Undiscounted)</td><td>26,315</td><td>26,711</td><td>26,971</td><td>27,428</td><td>30,846</td><td>37,744</td><td>48,807</td><td>59,586</td><td>64,894</td><td>71,717</td><td>75,029</td></tr><tr><td>Paid (Cumulative) as of:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>One year later</td><td>7,205</td><td>8,266</td><td>9,709</td><td>11,007</td><td>10,775</td><td>12,163</td><td>14,910</td><td>15,326</td><td>14,862</td><td>16,531</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Two years later</td><td>12,382</td><td>14,640</td><td>17,149</td><td>18,091</td><td>18,589</td><td>21,773</td><td>24,377</td><td>25,152</td><td>24,388</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Three years later</td><td>16,599</td><td>19,901</td><td>21,930</td><td>23,881</td><td>25,513</td><td>28,763</td><td>31,296</td><td>32,295</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Four years later</td><td>20,263</td><td>23,074</td><td>26,090</td><td>28,717</td><td>30,757</td><td>33,825</td><td>36,804</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Five years later</td><td>22,303</td><td>25,829</td><td>29,473</td><td>32,685</td><td>34,627</td><td>38,087</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Six years later</td><td>24,114</td><td>28,165</td><td>32,421</td><td>35,656</td><td>37,778</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seven years later</td><td>25,770</td><td>30,336</td><td>34,660</td><td>38,116</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eight years later</td><td>27,309</td><td>31,956</td><td>36,497</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nine years later</td><td>28,626</td><td>33,489</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ten years later</td><td>29,799</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>1998</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2001</td><td>2002</td><td>2003</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td><td> 2006</td><td>2007</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="11"> (In millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Net Reserves Held (Undiscounted)</td><td>$26,315</td><td>$26,711</td><td>$26,971</td><td>$27,428</td><td>$30,846</td><td>$37,744</td><td>$48,807</td><td>$59,586</td><td>$64,894</td><td>$71,717</td><td>$75,029</td></tr><tr><td>Undiscounted Liability as of:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>One year later</td><td>25,897</td><td>26,358</td><td>26,979</td><td>31,112</td><td>32,913</td><td>40,931</td><td>53,486</td><td>59,533</td><td>64,238</td><td>71,873</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Two years later</td><td>25,638</td><td>27,023</td><td>30,696</td><td>33,363</td><td>37,583</td><td>49,463</td><td>55,009</td><td>60,126</td><td>64,764</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Three years later</td><td>26,169</td><td>29,994</td><td>32,732</td><td>37,964</td><td>46,179</td><td>51,497</td><td>56,047</td><td>61,242</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Four years later</td><td>28,021</td><td>31,192</td><td>36,210</td><td>45,203</td><td>48,427</td><td>52,964</td><td>57,618</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Five years later</td><td>28,607</td><td>33,910</td><td>41,699</td><td>47,078</td><td>49,855</td><td>54,870</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Six years later</td><td>30,632</td><td>38,087</td><td>43,543</td><td>48,273</td><td>51,560</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seven years later</td><td>33,861</td><td>39,597</td><td>44,475</td><td>49,803</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eight years later</td><td>34,986</td><td>40,217</td><td>45,767</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nine years later</td><td>35,556</td><td>41,168</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ten years later</td><td>36,161</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net Redundancy / (Deficiency)</td><td>-9,846</td><td>-14,457</td><td>-18,796</td><td>-22,375</td><td>-20,714</td><td>-17,126</td><td>-8,811</td><td>-1,656</td><td>130</td><td>-156</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Remaining Reserves (Undiscounted)</td><td>6,362</td><td>7,679</td><td>9,270</td><td>11,687</td><td>13,782</td><td>16,783</td><td>20,814</td><td>28,947</td><td>40,376</td><td>55,342</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Remaining Discount</td><td>453</td><td>537</td><td>644</td><td>768</td><td>903</td><td>1,040</td><td>1,190</td><td>1,398</td><td>1,691</td><td>2,113</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Remaining Reserves</td><td>5,909</td><td>7,142</td><td>8,626</td><td>10,919</td><td>12,879</td><td>15,743</td><td>19,624</td><td>27,549</td><td>38,685</td><td>53,229</td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: What will Net Reserves Held be like in 2009 if it develops with the same increasing rate as current? (in million)