Management’s discussion and analysis JPMorgan Chase & Co The following table summarizes the aggregate notional amounts and the reported derivative receivables (i. e. , the MTM or fair value of the derivative contracts after taking into account the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements) at each of the dates indicated: Notional amounts and derivative receivables marked to market (“MTM”)
## Table 0 ##
(a) The notional amounts represent the gross sum of long and short third-party notional derivative contracts, excluding written options and foreign exchange spot contracts, which significantly exceed the possible credit losses that could arise from such transactions.
For most derivative transactions, the notional principal amount does not change hands; it is used simply as a reference to calculate payments.
(b) The Firm held $33 billion of collateral against derivative receivables as of December 31, 2005, consisting of $27 billion in net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements, and $6 billion of other liquid securities collateral.
The benefit of the $27 billion is reflected within the $50 billion of derivative receivables MTM.
Excluded from the $33 billion of collateral is $10 billion of collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions; this collateral secures exposure that could arise in the derivatives portfolio should the MTM of the client’s transactions move in the Firm’s favor.
Also excluded are credit enhancements in the form of letters of credit and surety receivables.
(c) The Firm held $41 billion of collateral against derivative receivables as of December 31, 2004, consisting of $32 billion in net cash received under credit support annexes to legally enforceable master netting agreements, and $9 billion of other liquid securities collateral.
The benefit of the $32 billion is reflected within the $66 billion of derivative receivables MTM.
Excluded from the $41 billion of collateral is $10 billion of collateral delivered by clients at the initiation of transactions; this collateral secures exposure that could arise in the derivatives portfolio should the MTM of the client’s transactions move in the Firm’s favor.
Also excluded are credit enhancements in the form of letters of credit and surety receivables.
The MTM of derivative receivables contracts represents the cost to replace the contracts at current market rates should the counterparty default.
When JPMorgan Chase has more than one transaction outstanding with a counterparty, and a legally enforceable master netting agreement exists with that counterparty, the netted MTM exposure, less collateral held, represents, in the Firm’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk.
While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net MTM value of the derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure.
To capture the potential future variability of credit exposure, the Firm calculates, on a client-by-client basis, three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss: Peak, Derivative Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) and Average exposure (“AVG”).
These measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits, where applicable.
Peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of exposure calculated at a 97.5% confidence level.
However, the total potential future credit risk embedded in the Firm’s derivatives portfolio is not the simple sum of all Peak client credit risks.
This is because, at the portfolio level, credit risk is reduced by the fact that when offsetting transactions are done with separate counterparties, only one of the two trades can generate a credit loss, even if both counterparties were to default simultaneously.
The Firm refers to this effect as market diversification, and the Market-Diversified Peak (“MDP”) measure is a portfolio aggregation of counterparty Peak measures, representing the maximum losses at the 97.5% confidence level that would occur if all counterparties defaulted under any one given market scenario and time frame.
Derivative Risk Equivalent (“DRE”) exposure is a measure that expresses the riskiness of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the riskiness of loan exposures.
The measurement is done by equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty exposure (which takes into consideration both the loss volatility and the credit rating of the counterparty) with the unexpected loss in a loan exposure (which takes into consideration only the credit rating of the counterparty).
DRE is a less extreme measure of potential credit loss than Peak and is the primary measure used by the Firm for credit approval of derivative transactions.
Finally, Average exposure (“AVG”) is a measure of the expected MTM value of the Firm’s derivative receivables at future time periods, including the benefit of collateral.
AVG exposure over the total life of the derivative contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes and is used to calculate credit capital and the Credit Valuation Adjustment (“CVA”), as further described below.
Average exposure was $36 billion and $38 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, compared with derivative receivables MTM net of other highly liquid collateral of $44 billion and $57 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
The graph below shows exposure profiles to derivatives over the next 10 years as calculated by the MDP, DRE and AVG metrics.
All three measures generally show declining exposure after the first year, if no new trades were added to the portfolio.
Notes to consolidated financial statements
## Table 1 ##
(a) Exchange-traded derivative balances that relate to futures contracts are settled daily.
(b) Net derivatives receivable included cash collateral netted of $71.9 billion and $73.7 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Net derivatives payable included cash collateral netted of $57.3 billion and $61.6 billion related to OTC and OTC-cleared derivatives at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
(c) Excludes all collateral related to derivative instruments where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained.
(d) Represents liquid security collateral as well as cash collateral held at third-party custodians related to derivative instruments where an appropriate legal opinion has been obtained.
For some counterparties, the collateral amounts of financial instruments may exceed the derivative receivables and derivative payables balances.
Where this is the case, the total amount reported is limited to the net derivative receivables and net derivative payables balances with that counterparty.
(e) Derivative payables collateral relates only to OTC and OTC-cleared derivative instruments.
Amounts exclude collateral transferred related to exchangetraded derivative instruments.
The following table presents the minimum ratios to which the Firm and its national bank subsidiaries are subject as of December 31, 2016.
## Table 2 ##
Note: The ratios presented in the table above are as defined by the regulations issued by the Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC and to which the Firm and its national bank subsidiaries are subject.
(a) Represents the transitional minimum capital ratios applicable to the Firm under Basel III at December 31, 2016.
Commencing in the first quarter of 2016, the CET1 minimum capital ratio includes 0.625% resulting from the phase in of the Firm’s 2.5% capital conservation buffer, and 1.125% resulting from the phase in of the Firm’s 4.5% GSIB surcharge.
(b) Represents requirements for JPMorgan Chase’s banking subsidiaries.
The CET1 minimum capital ratio includes 0.625% resulting from the phase in of the 2.5% capital conservation buffer that is applicable to the banking subsidiaries.
The banking subsidiaries are not subject to the GSIB surcharge.
(c) Represents requirements for bank holding companies pursuant to regulations issued by the Federal Reserve.
(d) Represents requirements for bank subsidiaries pursuant to regulations issued under the FDIC Improvement Act.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, JPMorgan Chase and all of its banking subsidiaries were well-capitalized and met all capital requirements to which each was subject.
Note 29 – Off–balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees, and other commitments JPMorgan Chase provides lending-related financial instruments (e. g. , commitments and guarantees) to meet the financing needs of its customers.
The contractual amount of these financial instruments represents the maximum possible credit risk to the Firm should the counterparty draw upon the commitment or the Firm be required to fulfill its obligation under the guarantee, and should the counterparty subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of the contract.
Most of these commitments and guarantees are refinanced, extended, cancelled, or expire without being drawn or a default occurring.
As a result, the total contractual amount of these instruments is not, in the Firm’s view, representative of its actual future credit exposure or funding requirements.
To provide for probable credit losses inherent in wholesale and certain consumer lending-commitments, an allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments is maintained.
See Note 15 for further information regarding the allowance for credit losses on lending-related commitments.
The following table summarizes the contractual amounts and carrying values of off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, guarantees and other commitments at December 31, 2016 and 2015.
The amounts in the table below for credit card and home equity lending-related commitments represent the total available credit for these products.
The Firm has not experienced, and does not anticipate, that all available lines of credit for these products will be utilized at the same time.
The Firm can reduce or cancel credit card lines of credit by providing the borrower notice or, in some cases as permitted by law, without notice.
In addition, the Firm typically closes credit card lines when the borrower is 60 days or more past due.
The Firm may reduce or close HELOCs when there are significant decreases in the value of the underlying property, or when there has been a demonstrable decline in the creditworthiness of the borrower.

<table><tr><td>As of December 31,</td><td>Notional amounts<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>Derivative receivables MTM</td></tr><tr><td>(in billions)</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate</td><td>$38,493</td><td>$37,022</td><td>$30</td><td>$46</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange</td><td>2,136</td><td>1,886</td><td>3</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>458</td><td>434</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Credit derivatives</td><td>2,241</td><td>1,071</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>265</td><td>101</td><td>7</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$43,593</td><td>$40,514</td><td>50</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral held againstderivative receivables</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td>-6</td><td>-9</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure net of collateral</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td>$44(b)</td><td>$57(c)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2016</td><td colspan="4">2015</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>Gross derivative payables</td><td colspan="2">Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>Net derivative payables</td><td>Gross derivative payables</td><td colspan="2">Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>Net derivative payables</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. GAAP nettable derivative payables</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>$338,502</td><td>$-329,325</td><td></td><td>$9,177</td><td>$393,709</td><td>$-384,576</td><td></td><td>$9,133</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>230,464</td><td>-230,463</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>240,398</td><td>-240,369</td><td></td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>196</td><td>-175</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total interest rate contracts</td><td>569,162</td><td>-559,963</td><td></td><td>9,199</td><td>634,107</td><td>-624,945</td><td></td><td>9,162</td></tr><tr><td>Credit contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>22,366</td><td>-21,614</td><td></td><td>752</td><td>44,379</td><td>-43,019</td><td></td><td>1,360</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>5,641</td><td>-5,641</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>5,969</td><td>-5,969</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total credit contracts</td><td>28,007</td><td>-27,255</td><td></td><td>752</td><td>50,348</td><td>-48,988</td><td></td><td>1,360</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>228,300</td><td>-213,296</td><td></td><td>15,004</td><td>185,178</td><td>-170,830</td><td></td><td>14,348</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>1,158</td><td>-1,158</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>301</td><td>-301</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>328</td><td>-9</td><td></td><td>319</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total foreign exchange contracts</td><td>229,786</td><td>-214,463</td><td></td><td>15,323</td><td>185,479</td><td>-171,131</td><td></td><td>14,348</td></tr><tr><td>Equity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>24,688</td><td>-20,808</td><td></td><td>3,880</td><td>23,458</td><td>-19,589</td><td></td><td>3,869</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>10,004</td><td>-9,414</td><td></td><td>590</td><td>10,998</td><td>-9,891</td><td></td><td>1,107</td></tr><tr><td>Total equity contracts</td><td>34,692</td><td>-30,222</td><td></td><td>4,470</td><td>34,456</td><td>-29,480</td><td></td><td>4,976</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>12,885</td><td>-5,252</td><td></td><td>7,633</td><td>16,953</td><td>-6,256</td><td></td><td>10,697</td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td></td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>7,099</td><td>-6,853</td><td></td><td>246</td><td>9,374</td><td>-9,322</td><td></td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Total commodity contracts</td><td>19,984</td><td>-12,105</td><td></td><td>7,879</td><td>26,327</td><td>-15,578</td><td></td><td>10,749</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative payables with appropriate legal opinions</td><td>881,631</td><td>-844,008</td><td><sup>(b)</sup></td><td>37,623</td><td>930,717</td><td>-890,122</td><td><sup>(b)</sup></td><td>40,595</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative payables where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained</td><td>11,608</td><td></td><td></td><td>11,608</td><td>12,195</td><td></td><td></td><td>12,195</td></tr><tr><td>Total derivative payables recognized on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>$893,239</td><td></td><td></td><td>$49,231</td><td>$942,912</td><td></td><td></td><td>$52,790</td></tr><tr><td>Collateral not nettable on the Consolidated balance sheets<sup>(c)(d)(e)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-8,925</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-7,957</td></tr><tr><td>Net amounts</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$40,306</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$44,833</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Minimum capital ratios</td><td colspan="2">Well-capitalized ratios</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>BHC<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>IDI<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>BHC<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>IDI<sup>(d)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Capital ratios</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CET1</td><td>6.25%</td><td>5.125%</td><td>—%</td><td>6.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1</td><td>7.75</td><td>6.625</td><td>6.0</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>9.75</td><td>8.625</td><td>10.0</td><td>10.0</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>—</td><td>5.0</td></tr></table>

Question: What will OTC of Interest rate contracts for Gross derivative payables reach in 2017 if it continues to grow at its current rate? (in million)