LOAN MATURITIES AND FIXED/VARIABLE PRICING Corporate Loans
## Table 0 ##
(1) Based on contractual terms.
Repricing characteristics may effectively be modified from time to time using derivative contracts.
See Note 24 to the Consolidated Financial Statements on page 189.
CONSUMER CREDIT RISK Within Global Cards and Consumer Banking, credit risk management is responsible for establishing the Global Cards and Consumer Banking Credit Policy, approving business-specific policies and procedures, monitoring business risk management performance, providing ongoing assessment of portfolio credit risk, ensuring the appropriate level of loan loss reserves, and approving new products and new risks.
Approval policies for a product or business are tailored to internal profitability and credit risk portfolio performance.
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO REVIEW Citigroup’s consumer loan portfolio is comparatively diversified by both product and location.
In the Consumer portfolio, credit loss experience is often expressed in terms of annualized net credit losses as a percentage of average loans.
Consumer loans are generally written off no later than a predetermined number of days past due on a contractual basis, or earlier in the event of bankruptcy.
U. S.  Consumer First and Second Residential Mortgage Loans
## Table 1 ##
The following table summarizes delinquency and net credit loss experience in both the managed and on-balance-sheet consumer loan portfolios.
The managed loan portfolio includes held-for-sale and securitized credit card receivables.
Only North America Cards from a product view, and North America from a regional view, are impacted.
Although a managed basis presentation is not in conformity with GAAP, the Company believes managed credit statistics provide a representation of performance and key indicators of the credit card business that are consistent with the way management reviews operating performance and allocates resources.
For example, the North America Cards business considers both on-balancesheet and securitized balances (together, its managed portfolio) when determining capital allocation and general management decisions and compensation.
Furthermore, investors use information about the credit quality of the entire managed portfolio, as the results of both the on-balance-sheet and securitized portfolios impact the overall performance of the North America Cards business.
For a further discussion of managedbasis reporting, see Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements on page 175.
Consumer Loan Modification Programs Citigroup has instituted a variety of long-term and short-term modification programs to assist borrowers with financial difficulties.
These programs, as described below, include modifying the original loan terms, reducing interest rates, extending the remaining loan duration and/or waiving a portion of the remaining principal balance.
At December 31, 2010, Citi’s significant modification programs consisted of the U. S.  Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), as well as short-term and long-term modification programs in the U. S. , each as summarized below.
The policy for re-aging modified U. S.  consumer loans to current status varies by product.
Generally, one of the conditions to qualify for these modifications is that a minimum number of payments (typically ranging from one to three) be made.
Upon modification, the loan is re-aged to current status.
However, re-aging practices for certain open-ended consumer loans, such as credit cards, are governed by Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) guidelines.
For open-ended consumer loans subject to FFIEC guidelines, one of the conditions for the loan to be re-aged to current status is that at least three consecutive minimum monthly payments, or the equivalent amount, must be received.
In addition, under FFIEC guidelines, the number of times that such a loan can be re-aged is subject to limitations (generally once in 12 months and twice in five years).
Furthermore, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans are modified under those respective agencies’ guidelines, and payments are not always required in order to re-age a modified loan to current.
HAMP and Other Long-Term Programs.
Long-term modification programs or TDRs occur when the terms of a loan have been modified due to the borrower’s financial difficulties and a long-term concession has been granted to the borrower.
Substantially all long-term programs in place provide interest rate reductions.
See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the allowance for loan losses for such modified loans.
The following table presents Citigroup’s Consumer loan TDRs as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.
As discussed below under “HAMP,” HAMP loans whose terms are contractually modified after successful completion of the trial period are included in the balances below: These TDRs are predominately concentrated in the U. S.  Citi’s significant longterm U. S.  modification programs include: U. S.  Mortgages HAMP.
The HAMP is designed to reduce monthly first mortgage payments to a 31% housing debt ratio (monthly mortgage payment, including property taxes, insurance and homeowner dues, divided by monthly gross income) by lowering the interest rate, extending the term of the loan and deferring or forgiving principal of certain eligible borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgages or who are at risk of imminent default due to economic hardship.
The interest rate reduction for first mortgages under HAMP is in effect for five years and the rate then increases up to 1% per year until the interest rate cap (the lower of the original rate or the Freddie Mac Weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey rate for a 30-year fixed rate conforming loan as of the date of the modification) is reached.
In order to be entitled to a HAMP loan modification, borrowers must complete a three-month trial period, make the agreed payments and provide the required documentation.
Beginning March 1, 2010, documentation was required to be provided prior to the beginning of the trial period, whereas prior to that date, documentation was required before the end of the trial period.
This change generally means that Citi is able to verify income for potential HAMP participants before they begin making lower monthly payments.
Because customers entering the trial period are qualified prior to trial entry, more are successfully completing the trial period.
During the trial period, Citi requires that the original terms of the loans remain in effect pending completion of the modification.
From inception through December 31, 2010, approximately $9.5billion of first mortgages were enrolled in the HAMP trial period, while $3.8billion have successfully completed the trial period.
Upon completion of the trial period, the terms of the loan are contractually modified, and it is accounted for as a TDR.
Citi also began participating in the U. S.  Treasury’s HAMP second mortgage program (2MP) in the fourth quarter of 2010.2MP requires Citi to either: (1) modify the borrower’s second mortgage according to a defined protocol; or (2) accept a lump sum payment from the U. S.  Treasury in exchange for full extinguishment of the second mortgage.
For a borrower to qualify, the borrower must have successfully modified his/her first mortgage under the HAMP and met other criteria.
Under the 2MP program, if the first mortgage is modified under HAMP through principal forgiveness, the same percentage of principal forgiveness is required on the second mortgage.
## Table 2 ##
(1) 2010 balances reflect the adoption of SFAS 166/167.
DERIVATIVES See Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion and disclosures related to Citigroup’s derivative activities.
The following discussions relate to the Derivative Obligor Information, the Fair Valuation for Derivatives and Credit Derivatives activities.
Fair Valuation Adjustments for Derivatives The fair value adjustments applied by Citigroup to its derivative carrying values consist of the following items: ?
Liquidity adjustments are applied to items in Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair-value hierarchy (see Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more details) to ensure that the fair value reflects the price at which the entire position could be liquidated.
The liquidity reserve is based on the bid/offer spread for an instrument, adjusted to take into account the size of the position.  ?
Credit valuation adjustments (CVA) are applied to over-the-counter derivative instruments, in which the base valuation generally discounts expected cash flows using LIBOR interest rate curves.
Because not all counterparties have the same credit risk as that implied by the relevant LIBOR curve, a CVA is necessary to incorporate the market view of both counterparty credit risk and Citi’s own credit risk in the valuation.
Citigroup CVA methodology comprises two steps.
First, the exposure profile for each counterparty is determined using the terms of all individual derivative positions and a Monte Carlo simulation or other quantitative analysis to generate a series of expected cash flows at future points in time.
The calculation of this exposure profile considers the effect of credit risk mitigants, including pledged cash or other collateral and any legal right of offset that exists with a counterparty through arrangements such as netting agreements.
Individual derivative contracts that are subject to an enforceable master netting agreement with a counterparty are aggregated for this purpose, since it is those aggregate net cash flows that are subject to nonperformance risk.
This process identifies specific, point-in-time future cash flows that are subject to nonperformance risk, rather than using the current recognized net asset or liability as a basis to measure the CVA.
Second, market-based views of default probabilities derived from observed credit spreads in the credit default swap market are applied to the expected future cash flows determined in step one.
Own-credit CVA is determined using Citi-specific credit default swap (CDS) spreads for the relevant tenor.
Generally, counterparty CVA is determined using CDS spread indices for each credit rating and tenor.
For certain identified facilities where individual analysis is practicable (for example, exposures to monoline counterparties) counterparty-specific CDS spreads are used.
The CVA adjustment is designed to incorporate a market view of the credit risk inherent in the derivative portfolio.
However, most derivative instruments are negotiated bilateral contracts and are not commonly transferred to third parties.
Derivative instruments are normally settled contractually or, if terminated early, are terminated at a value negotiated bilaterally between the counterparties.
Therefore, the CVA (both counterparty and own-credit) may not be realized upon a settlement or termination in the normal course of business.
In addition, all or a portion of the credit valuation adjustments may be reversed or otherwise adjusted in future periods in the event of changes in the credit risk of Citi or its counterparties, or changes in the credit mitigants (collateral and netting agreements) associated with the derivative instruments.
The table below summarizes the CVA applied to the fair value of derivative instruments as of December31, 2010 and 2009.
## Table 3 ##
(1) The reduction in CVA on derivative instruments with monoline counterparties includes $3.5 billion of utilizations/releases in 2010.
The table below summarizes pretax gains (losses) related to changes in credit valuation adjustments on derivative instruments, net of hedges:
## Table 4 ##
(1) Reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation
Credit Ratings Citigroup’s funding and liquidity, funding capacity, ability to access capital markets and other sources of funds, the cost of these funds, and its ability to maintain certain deposits are partially dependent on its credit ratings.
The table below sets forth the ratings for Citigroup and Citibank as of December 31, 2016.
While not included in the table below, the long-term and short-term ratings of Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  (CGMI) were “A2/P-1” at Moody’s, “A+/ A-1” at Standard & Poor’s and “A+/F1” at Fitch as of December 31, 2016.
The long-term and short-term ratings of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.  (CGMHI) were “BBB +/A-2” at Standard & Poor’s and “A/F1” at Fitch as of December 31, 2016.
## Table 5 ##
Recent Credit Rating Developments On December 13, 2016, Fitch affirmed Citigroup Inc. ’s Viability Rating (VR) and Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at “a/A”, respectively.
At the same time, Fitch affirmed Citibank’s VR and IDR at “a/A+”, respectively.
The outlooks for the Long-Term IDRs are Stable.
On December 16, 2016, S&P amended its Additional Loss-Absorbing Capacity (ALAC) criteria to include existing senior unsecured debt and concluded their credit watch on four of the U. S.  GSIBs, including Citigroup, resulting in a onenotch upgrade on their core and highly strategic operating subsidiaries.
Consequently, S&P upgraded Citibank’s longterm rating from “A” to “A+” with its short-term rating remaining at “A-1”.
Citibank’s ratings outlook was changed to “Stable” from “Credit Watch Positive”.
As of December 31, 2016, Citigroup Inc.  is in excess of the 8.5% threshold deemed necessary to receive the maximum two notches of ALAC support.
Potential Impacts of Ratings Downgrades Ratings downgrades by Moody’s, Fitch or S&P could negatively impact Citigroup’s and/or Citibank’s funding and liquidity due to reduced funding capacity, including derivatives triggers, which could take the form of cash obligations and collateral requirements.
The following information is provided for the purpose of analyzing the potential funding and liquidity impact to Citigroup and Citibank of a hypothetical, simultaneous ratings downgrade across all three major rating agencies.
This analysis is subject to certain estimates, estimation methodologies, judgments and uncertainties.
Uncertainties include potential ratings limitations that certain entities may have with respect to permissible counterparties, as well as general subjective counterparty behavior.
For example, certain corporate customers and markets counterparties could reevaluate their business relationships with Citi and limit transactions in certain contracts or market instruments with Citi.
Changes in counterparty behavior could impact Citi’s funding and liquidity, as well as the results of operations of certain of its businesses.
The actual impact to Citigroup or Citibank is unpredictable and may differ materially from the potential funding and liquidity impacts described below.
For additional information on the impact of credit rating changes on Citi and its applicable subsidiaries, see “Risk Factors— Liquidity Risks” above.
Citigroup Inc.  and Citibank—Potential Derivative Triggers As of December 31, 2016, Citi estimates that a hypothetical one-notch downgrade of the senior debt/long-term rating of Citigroup Inc.  across all three major rating agencies could impact Citigroup’s funding and liquidity due to derivative triggers by approximately $0.4 billion, compared to $0.5 billion as of September 30, 2016.
Other funding sources, such as securities financing transactions and other margin requirements, for which there are no explicit triggers, could also be adversely affected.
As of December 31, 2016, Citi estimates that a hypothetical one-notch downgrade of the senior debt/longterm rating of Citibank across all three major rating agencies could impact Citibank’s funding and liquidity by approximately $1.2 billion, compared to $1.3 billion as of September 30, 2016, due to derivative triggers.
fixed-price purchase options available in the leases could potentially provide benefits to us; however, these benefits are not expected to be significant.
We maintain and operate the assets based on contractual obligations within the lease arrangements, which set specific guidelines consistent within the railroad industry.
As such, we have no control over activities that could materially impact the fair value of the leased assets.
We do not hold the power to direct the activities of the VIEs and, therefore, do not control the ongoing activities that have a significant impact on the economic performance of the VIEs.
Additionally, we do not have the obligation to absorb losses of the VIEs or the right to receive benefits of the VIEs that could potentially be significant to the VIEs.
We are not considered to be the primary beneficiary and do not consolidate these VIEs because our actions and decisions do not have the most significant effect on the VIE’s performance and our fixed-price purchase price options are not considered to be potentially significant to the VIE’s.
The future minimum lease payments associated with the VIE leases totaled $3.6 billion as of December 31, 2012.16.
Leases We lease certain locomotives, freight cars, and other property.
The Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 included $2,467 million, net of $966 million of accumulated depreciation, and $2,458 million, net of $915 million of accumulated depreciation, respectively, for properties held under capital leases.
A charge to income resulting from the depreciation for assets held under capital leases is included within depreciation expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income.
Future minimum lease payments for operating and capital leases with initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2012, were as follows:
## Table 6 ##
Approximately 94% of capital lease payments relate to locomotives.
Rent expense for operating leases with terms exceeding one month was $631 million in 2012, $637 million in 2011, and $624 million in 2010.
When cash rental payments are not made on a straight-line basis, we recognize variable rental expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term.
Contingent rentals and sub-rentals are not significant.17.
Commitments and Contingencies Asserted and Unasserted Claims – Various claims and lawsuits are pending against us and certain of our subsidiaries.
We cannot fully determine the effect of all asserted and unasserted claims on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity; however, to the extent possible, where asserted and unasserted claims are considered probable and where such claims can be reasonably estimated, we have recorded a liability.
We do not expect that any known lawsuits, claims, environmental costs, commitments, contingent liabilities, or guarantees will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity after taking into account liabilities and insurance recoveries previously recorded for these matters.
Personal Injury – The cost of personal injuries to employees and others related to our activities is charged to expense based on estimates of the ultimate cost and number of incidents each year.
We use an actuarial analysis to measure the expense and liability, including unasserted claims.
The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) governs compensation for work-related accidents.
Under FELA, damages

<table><tr><td><i>In millions of dollars at year end</i></td><td> Due within 1 year</td><td> Over 1 year but within 5 years</td><td> Over 5 years</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td> Corporate loan portfolio maturities In U.S. offices:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial and industrial loans</td><td>$25,913</td><td>$3,827</td><td>$3,710</td><td>$33,450</td></tr><tr><td>Financial institutions</td><td>8,110</td><td>1,061</td><td>1,029</td><td>10,200</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and real estate</td><td>3,690</td><td>1,609</td><td>1,261</td><td>6,560</td></tr><tr><td>Lease financing</td><td>1,173</td><td>154</td><td>149</td><td>1,476</td></tr><tr><td> In offices outside the U.S.</td><td>63,249</td><td>42,760</td><td>21,508</td><td>127,517</td></tr><tr><td> Total corporate loans</td><td>$102,135</td><td>$49,411</td><td>$27,657</td><td>$179,203</td></tr><tr><td> Fixed/variable pricing of corporate loans with maturities due after one year<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans at fixed interest rates</td><td></td><td>$6,904</td><td>$7,764</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans at floating or adjustable interest rates</td><td></td><td>42,507</td><td>19,893</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td></td><td>$49,411</td><td>$27,657</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>In millions of dollars at year end</i></td><td> Due within 1 year</td><td> Over 1 year but within 5 years</td><td> Over 5 years</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td> U.S. Consumer mortgage loan portfolio type</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>First mortgages</td><td>$17,423</td><td>$51,495</td><td>$92,167</td><td>$161,085</td></tr><tr><td>Second mortgages</td><td>30,073</td><td>1,752</td><td>36,654</td><td>68,479</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$47,496</td><td>$53,247</td><td>$128,821</td><td>$229,564</td></tr><tr><td> Fixed/variable pricing of U.S. Consumer mortgage loans with maturities due after one year</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans at fixed interest rates</td><td></td><td>$6,984</td><td>$107,078</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans at floating or adjustable interest rates</td><td></td><td>46,263</td><td>21,743</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td></td><td>$53,247</td><td>$128,821</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Accrual</td><td colspan="2">Non-accrual</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>Dec. 31, 2010</td><td>Dec. 31, 2009</td><td>Dec. 31, 2010</td><td>Dec. 31, 2009</td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage and real estate</td><td>$15,140</td><td>$8,654</td><td>$2,290</td><td>$1,413</td></tr><tr><td>Cards-1</td><td>5,869</td><td>2,303</td><td>38</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>Installment and other</td><td>3,015</td><td>3,128</td><td>271</td><td>250</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Credit valuation adjustment contra-liability (contra-asset)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>December 31,</td><td>December 31,</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Non-monoline counterparties</td><td>$-3,015</td><td>$-3,010</td></tr><tr><td>Citigroup (own)</td><td>1,285</td><td>1,401</td></tr><tr><td>Net non-monoline CVA</td><td>$-1,730</td><td>$-1,609</td></tr><tr><td>Monoline counterparties-1</td><td>-1,548</td><td>-5,580</td></tr><tr><td>Total CVA—derivative instruments</td><td>$-3,278</td><td>$-7,189</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Credit valuation adjustment gain (loss)</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>2010</td><td>2009-1</td></tr><tr><td>CVA on derivatives, excluding monolines</td><td>$119</td><td>$2,189</td></tr><tr><td>CVA related to monoline counterparties</td><td>522</td><td>-1,301</td></tr><tr><td>Total CVA—derivative instruments</td><td>$641</td><td>$888</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Citigroup Inc.</td><td colspan="3">Citibank, N.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Seniordebt</td><td>Commercialpaper</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term</td><td>Short-term</td><td>Outlook</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch Ratings (Fitch)</td><td>A</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s)</td><td>Baa1</td><td>P-2</td><td>Stable</td><td>A1</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Standard & Poor’s (S&P)</td><td>BBB+</td><td>A-2</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>Millions</i></td><td><i>Operating</i><i>Leases</i></td><td><i>Capital</i><i>Leases</i></td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>$525</td><td>$282</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>466</td><td>265</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>410</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>375</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>339</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>Later years</td><td>2,126</td><td>1,166</td></tr><tr><td>Total minimum leasepayments</td><td>$4,241</td><td>$2,441</td></tr><tr><td>Amount representing interest</td><td>N/A</td><td>-593</td></tr><tr><td>Present value of minimum leasepayments</td><td>N/A</td><td>$1,848</td></tr></table>

Question: what percentage of total total minimum lease payments are capital leases?