AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS recognizing customer revenue, the Company must assess the collectability of both the amounts billed and the portion recognized on a straight-line basis.
This assessment takes customer credit risk and business and industry conditions into consideration to ultimately determine the collectability of the amounts billed.
To the extent the amounts, based on management’s estimates, may not be collectible, recognition is deferred until such point as the uncertainty is resolved.
Any amounts which were previously recognized as revenue and subsequently determined to be uncollectible are charged to bad debt expense.
Accounts receivable are reported net of allowances for doubtful accounts related to estimated losses resulting from a customer’s inability to make required payments and reserves for amounts invoiced whose collectability is not reasonably assured.
These allowances are generally estimated based on payment patterns, days past due and collection history, and incorporate changes in economic conditions that may not be reflected in historical trends, such as customers in bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization.
Receivables are written-off against the allowances when they are determined uncollectible.
Such determination includes analysis and consideration of the particular conditions of the account.
Changes in the allowances were as follows for the years ended December 31, (in thousands):
## Table 0 ##
The Company’s largest international customer is Iusacell, which is the brand name under which a group of companies controlled by Grupo Iusacell, S. A.  de C. V.  (“Grupo Iusacell”) operates.
Iusacell represented approximately 4% of the Company’s total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Grupo Iusacell has been engaged in a refinancing of a majority of its U. S.  Dollar denominated debt, and in connection with this process, two of the legal entities of the group, including Grupo Iusacell, voluntarily filed for a pre-packaged Concurso Mercantil (a process substantially equivalent to Chapter 11 of U. S.  Bankruptcy Law) with the backing of a majority of their financial creditors in December 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, Iusacell notes receivable, net, and related assets (which include financing lease commitments and a deferred rent asset that are primarily long-term in nature) were $19.7 million and $51.2 million, respectively.
Functional Currency—As a result of changes to the organizational structure of the Company’s subsidiaries in Latin America in 2010, the Company determined that effective January 1, 2010, the functional currency of its foreign subsidiary in Brazil is the Brazilian Real.
From that point forward, all assets and liabilities held by the subsidiary in Brazil are translated into U. S.  Dollars at the exchange rate in effect at the end of the applicable reporting period.
Revenues and expenses are translated at the average monthly exchange rates and the cumulative translation effect is included in stockholders’ equity.
The change in functional currency from U. S.  Dollars to Brazilian Real gave rise to an increase in the net value of certain non-monetary assets and liabilities.
The aggregate impact on such assets and liabilities was $39.8 million with an offsetting increase in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).
As a result of the renegotiation of the Company’s agreements with its largest international customer, Iusacell, which included, among other changes, converting all of Iusacell’s contractual obligations to the Company from U. S.  Dollars to Mexican Pesos, the Company has determined that effective April 1, 2010, the functional currency of certain of its foreign subsidiaries in Mexico is the Mexican Peso.
From that point forward, all assets and liabilities held by those subsidiaries in Mexico are translated into U. S.  Dollars at the exchange rate in effect at the end of the applicable reporting period.
Revenues and expenses are translated at the average monthly exchange rates and the cumulative translation effect is included in stockholders’ equity.
The change in functional
The following table presents commercial relationship OCR metrics: Table 39 — Commercial Relationship OCR Cross-sell Report
## Table 1 ##
By focusing on targeted relationships we are able to achieve higher product service distribution among our commercial relationships.
Our expanded product offerings allow us to focus not only on the credit driven relationship, but leverage these relationships to generate a deeper share of wallet.
The percent of commercial relationships utilizing over four products at the end of the 2011 fourth quarter was 31.4%, up from 24.2% at the end of 2010.
In 2011, commercial relationships grew at 8%.
Total commercial relationship revenue in the 2011 fourth quarter was $175.4 million, down $0.1 million, or less than 1%, from the 2011 third quarter, and was up $14.6 million, or 9%, higher than the year-ago quarter.
This was primarily driven by capital markets activities.
Revenue Sharing Revenue is recorded in the business segment responsible for the related product or service.
Fee sharing is recorded to allocate portions of such revenue to other business segments involved in selling to, or providing service to, customers.
Results of operations for the business segments reflect these fee sharing allocations.
Expense Allocation The management accounting process that develops the business segment reporting utilizes various estimates and allocation methodologies to measure the performance of the business segments.
Expenses are allocated to business segments using a two-phase approach.
The first phase consists of measuring and assigning unit costs (activity-based costs) to activities related to product origination and servicing.
These activity-based costs are then extended, based on volumes, with the resulting amount allocated to business segments that own the related products.
The second phase consists of the allocation of overhead costs to all four business segments from Treasury / Other.
We utilize a full-allocation methodology, where all Treasury / Other expenses, except those related to our insurance business, reported Significant Items (except for the goodwill impairment), and a small amount of other residual unallocated expenses, are allocated to the four business segments.
Funds Transfer Pricing (FTP) We use an active and centralized FTP methodology to attribute appropriate net interest income to the business segments.
The intent of the FTP methodology is to eliminate all interest rate risk from the business segments by providing matched duration funding of assets and liabilities.
The result is to centralize the financial impact, management, and reporting of interest rate and liquidity risk in the Treasury / Other function where it can be centrally monitored and managed.
The Treasury / Other function charges (credits) an internal cost of funds for assets held in (or pays for funding provided by) each business segment.
The FTP rate is based on prevailing market interest rates for comparable duration assets (or liabilities), and includes an estimate for the cost of liquidity (liquidity premium).
Deposits of an indeterminate maturity receive an FTP credit based on a combination of vintage-based average lives and replicating portfolio pool rates.
Other assets, liabilities, and capital are charged (credited) with a four-year moving average FTP rate.
The denominator in the net interest margin calculation has been modified to add the amount of net funds provided by each business segment for all periods presented.
Table 52 — Selected Quarterly Income Statement, Capital, and Other Data—Continued(1)
## Table 2 ##
(1) Comparisons for presented periods are impacted by a number of factors.
Refer to the Significant Items section for additional discussion regarding these items.
(2) For all quarterly periods presented above, the impact of the convertible preferred stock issued in April of 2008 was excluded from the diluted share calculation because the result would have been higher than basic earnings per common share (anti-dilutive) for the periods.
(3) Deferred tax liability related to other intangible assets is calculated assuming a 35% tax rate.
(4) High and low stock prices are intra-day quotes obtained from NASDAQ.
(5) Net income excluding expense for amortization of intangibles for the period divided by average tangible shareholders’ equity.
Average tangible shareholders’ equity equals average total stockholders’ equity less average intangible assets and goodwill.
Expense for amortization of intangibles and average intangible assets are net of deferred tax liability, and calculated assuming a 35% tax rate.
(6) Noninterest expense less amortization of intangibles divided by the sum of FTE net interest income and noninterest income excluding securities (losses) gains.
(7) Presented on a FTE basis assuming a 35% tax rate.
(8) Tangible common equity (total common equity less goodwill and other intangible assets) divided by tangible assets (total assets less goodwill and other intangible assets).
Other intangible assets are net of deferred tax, and calculated assuming a 35% tax rate.
(9) Tangible equity (total equity less goodwill and other intangible assets) divided by tangible assets (total assets less goodwill and other intangible assets).
Other intangible assets are net of deferred tax, and calculated assuming a 35% tax rate.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES Forward-Looking Statements This report, including MD&A, contains certain forward-looking statements, including certain plans, expectations, goals, projections, and statements, which are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties.
Statements that do not describe historical or current facts, including statements about beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements.
The forward-looking statements are intended to be subject to the safe harbor provided by Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
While there is no assurance that any list of risks and uncertainties or risk factors is complete, below are certain factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained or implied in the forward-looking statements: (1) worsening of credit quality performance due to a number of factors such as the underlying value of the collateral could prove less valuable than otherwise assumed and assumed cash flows may be worse than expected; (2) changes in economic conditions; (3) movements in interest rates; (4) competitive pressures on product pricing and services; (5) success, impact, and timing of our business strategies, including
The table below reflects the allocation of our ACL among our various loan categories during each of the past five years: Table 19 — Allocation of Allowances for Credit Losses (1)
## Table 3 ##
(1) Percentages represent the percentage of each loan and lease category to total loans and leases.
The reduction in the ACL compared with December 31, 2010, reflected declines in the ALLL in both the commercial and consumer portfolios.
The decline in the commercial portfolio ALLL reflected NCOs on loans with specific reserves, and an overall reduction in the level of commercial Criticized loans.
Commercial Criticized loans are commercial loans rated as OLEM, Substandard, Doubtful, or Loss (see Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding loan risk ratings).
As shown in the table below, commercial Criticized loans declined $927.9 million, or 30%, from December 31, 2010, reflecting upgrade and payment activity.
Table 20 — Criticized Commercial Loan Activity
## Table 4 ##
The decline in the consumer-related ALLL reflected the impact of the 2011 automobile securitization (see Automobile Portfolio discussion), as well as decreases in both the home equity-related and residential mortgagerelated ALLL resulting from improved borrower quality as measured by updated FICO scores.
impacted, and the impact of changes in intermediate-term and long-term rates takes a longer amount of time to be reflected in financial results.
The impact to EVE at Risk was meaningful because the impact of lower long-term rates is reflected in higher mortgage asset prepayments.
Higher mortgage asset prepayments has the effect of lowering EVE at Risk because the duration of assets declines while the duration of liabilities is not impacted.
The baseline scenario for ISE analysis, with which all other scenarios are compared, is based on market interest rates implied by the prevailing yield curve as of the period-end.
Alternative interest rate scenarios are then compared with the baseline scenario.
These alternative interest rate scenarios include parallel rate shifts on both a gradual and an immediate basis, movements in interest rates that alter the shape of the yield curve (e. g. , flatter or steeper yield curve), and no changes in current interest rates for the entire measurement period.
Scenarios are also developed to measure short-term repricing risks, such as the impact of LIBOR-based interest rates rising or falling faster than the prime rate.
The simulations for evaluating short-term interest rate risk exposure are scenarios that model gradual +/-100 and +/-200 basis points parallel shifts in market interest rates over the next one-year period beyond the interest rate change implied by the current yield curve.
We assumed market interest rates would not fall below 0% over the next one-year period for the scenarios that used the -100 and -200 basis points parallel shift in market interest rates.
The table below shows the results of the scenarios as of December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010.
All of the positions were within the board of directors’ policy limits as of December 31, 2011, except for the gradual -100 basis point scenario.
ISE at risk for the -100 basis point scenario was -2.3% compared to the policy limit of -2.0%.
The board of directors approved an exception to the policy limit given that the likelihood of rates declining 100, or even 200, basis points has a low probability of occurrence as a mitigating factor for being outside the policy limit.
Table 22 — Net Interest Income at Risk

<table><tr><td></td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Balance as of January 1,</td><td>$28,520</td><td>$11,482</td><td>$8,850</td></tr><tr><td>Current year increases</td><td>16,219</td><td>26,771</td><td>12,059</td></tr><tr><td>Recoveries and other</td><td>-22,234</td><td>-9,733</td><td>-9,427</td></tr><tr><td>Balance as of December 31,</td><td>$22,505</td><td>$28,520</td><td>$11,482</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2011</td><td rowspan="2"> 2010  Fourth</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Fourth</td><td>Third</td><td>Second</td><td>First</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Relationships</td><td>138,357</td><td>135,826</td><td>133,165</td><td>130,240</td><td>127,596</td></tr><tr><td>Product Penetration by Number of Services</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1 Service</td><td>28.4%</td><td>29.7%</td><td>30.7%</td><td>32.1%</td><td>32.9%</td></tr><tr><td>2-3 Services</td><td>40.2</td><td>41.1</td><td>42.6</td><td>42.5</td><td>42.9</td></tr><tr><td>4+ Services</td><td>31.4</td><td>29.2</td><td>26.7</td><td>25.4</td><td>24.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenue<i>(in millions)</i></td><td>$175.4</td><td>$175.5</td><td>$166.6</td><td>$157.7</td><td>$160.8</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> 2010</td></tr><tr><td> Capital adequacy</td><td>December 31,</td><td>September 30,</td><td>June 30,</td><td> March 31,</td></tr><tr><td>Total risk-weighted assets (in millions)</td><td>$43,471</td><td>$42,759</td><td>$42,486</td><td>$42,418</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 leverage ratio</td><td>9.41%</td><td>10.54%</td><td>10.45%</td><td>10.05%</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio</td><td>11.55</td><td>12.82</td><td>12.51</td><td>12.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total risk-based capital ratio</td><td>14.46</td><td>15.08</td><td>14.79</td><td>14.31</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1 common risk-based capital ratio</td><td>9.29</td><td>7.39</td><td>7.06</td><td>6.53</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible common equity / tangible asset ratio-8</td><td>7.56</td><td>6.20</td><td>6.12</td><td>5.96</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible equity / tangible asset ratio-9</td><td>8.24</td><td>9.43</td><td>9.43</td><td>9.26</td></tr><tr><td>Tangible common equity / risk-weighted assets ratio</td><td>9.26</td><td>7.63</td><td>7.37</td><td>7.20</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="10"> At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2011</td><td colspan="2">2010</td><td colspan="2">2009</td><td colspan="2">2008</td><td colspan="2"> 2007</td></tr><tr><td> (dollar amounts in thousands)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial and industrial</td><td>$275,367</td><td>38%</td><td>$340,614</td><td>34%</td><td>$492,205</td><td>35%</td><td>$412,201</td><td>33%</td><td>$295,555</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate</td><td>388,706</td><td>14</td><td>588,251</td><td>18</td><td>751,875</td><td>21</td><td>322,681</td><td>25</td><td>172,998</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial</td><td>664,073</td><td>52</td><td>928,865</td><td>52</td><td>1,244,080</td><td>56</td><td>734,882</td><td>58</td><td>468,553</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Automobile</td><td>38,282</td><td>11</td><td>49,488</td><td>15</td><td>57,951</td><td>9</td><td>44,712</td><td>11</td><td>28,635</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Home equity</td><td>143,873</td><td>21</td><td>150,630</td><td>20</td><td>102,039</td><td>21</td><td>63,538</td><td>18</td><td>45,957</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Residential mortgage</td><td>87,194</td><td>13</td><td>93,289</td><td>12</td><td>55,903</td><td>12</td><td>44,463</td><td>12</td><td>20,746</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Other loans</td><td>31,406</td><td>3</td><td>26,736</td><td>1</td><td>22,506</td><td>2</td><td>12,632</td><td>1</td><td>14,551</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total consumer</td><td>300,755</td><td>48</td><td>320,143</td><td>48</td><td>238,399</td><td>44</td><td>165,345</td><td>42</td><td>109,889</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Total allowance for loan and lease losses</td><td>964,828</td><td>100%</td><td>1,249,008</td><td>100%</td><td>1,482,479</td><td>100%</td><td>900,227</td><td>100%</td><td>578,442</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for unfunded loan commitments</td><td>48,456</td><td></td><td>42,127</td><td></td><td>48,879</td><td></td><td>44,139</td><td></td><td>66,528</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total allowance for credit losses</td><td>$1,013,284</td><td></td><td>$1,291,135</td><td></td><td>$1,531,358</td><td></td><td>$944,366</td><td></td><td>$644,970</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">At December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td> (dollar amounts in thousands)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Criticized commercial loans, beginning of period</td><td>$3,074,481</td><td>$4,971,637</td><td>$3,311,280</td><td>$2,736,166</td><td>$662,425</td></tr><tr><td>New additions / increases</td><td>1,068,299</td><td>1,284,216</td><td>4,707,518</td><td>1,688,022</td><td>2,670,616</td></tr><tr><td>Advances</td><td>193,679</td><td>298,511</td><td>390,872</td><td>292,295</td><td>282,614</td></tr><tr><td>Upgrades to Pass</td><td>-901,633</td><td>-1,456,132</td><td>-522,150</td><td>-378,027</td><td>-271,394</td></tr><tr><td>Payments</td><td>-986,919</td><td>-1,465,374</td><td>-1,843,535</td><td>-858,996</td><td>-531,255</td></tr><tr><td>Loan losses</td><td>-301,300</td><td>-558,377</td><td>-1,072,348</td><td>-168,180</td><td>-76,840</td></tr><tr><td>Criticized commercial loans, end of period</td><td>$2,146,607</td><td>$3,074,481</td><td>$4,971,637</td><td>$3,311,280</td><td>$2,736,166</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between the greatest Commercial in 2011 and 2010？ (in thousand)