Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments The fair value measurements accounting guidance also requires the disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments not otherwise disclosed above.
Different market assumptions and estimation methodologies could significantly affect fair value amounts.
The fair value of financial instruments, not otherwise disclosed above, whose fair value approximates carrying value is summarized as follows: ?
Cash and equivalents, cash and investments required to be segregated, margin receivables and customer payables—Fair value is estimated to be carrying value.  ?
Investment in FHLB stock—FHLB stock is carried at cost, which is considered to be a reasonable estimate of fair value.
Financial instruments whose fair values were different from their carrying values are summarized below (dollars in thousands):
## Table 0 ##
(1) The carrying value of loans receivable, net includes the allowance for loan losses of $822.8 million and $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Held-to-maturity securities—Fair value is determined using market and income approaches with quoted market prices, recent market transactions and spread data for similar instruments for agency mortgage-backed securities.
The fair value of agency CMOs and other agency debt securities is determined using market and income approaches with the Company’s own trading activities for identical or similar instruments.
The fair value of agency debentures is based on quoted market prices that were derived from assumptions observable in the marketplace.
Loans receivable, net—Fair value is estimated using a discounted cash flow model.
Loans are differentiated based on their individual portfolio characteristics, such as product classification, loan category, pricing features and remaining maturity.
Assumptions for expected losses, prepayments and discount rates are adjusted to reflect the individual characteristics of the loans, such as credit risk, coupon, term, and payment characteristics, as well as the secondary market conditions for these types of loans.
There was limited or no observable market data for the home equity and one- to four-family loan portfolios, which indicates that the market for these types of loans is considered to be inactive.
Given the limited market data, these fair value measurements cannot be determined with precision and changes in the underlying assumptions used, including discount rates, could significantly affect the results of current or future fair value estimates.
In addition, the amount that would be realized in a forced liquidation, an actual sale or immediate settlement could be significantly lower than both the carrying value and the estimated fair value of the portfolio.
Deposits—Fair value is the amount payable on demand at the reporting date for sweep deposits, complete savings deposits, other money market and savings deposits and checking deposits.
For certificates of deposit and brokered certificates of deposit, fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows at the rates currently offered for deposits of similar remaining maturities.
ITEM 2.
PROPERTIES A summary of our significant locations at December 31, 2011 is shown in the following table.
All facilities are leased, except for 165,000 square feet of our office in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Square footage amounts are net of space that has been sublet or part of a facility restructuring.
## Table 1 ##
All of our facilities are used by either our trading and investing or balance sheet management segments, in addition to the corporate/other category.
All other leased facilities with space of less than 25,000 square feet are not listed by location.
In addition to the significant facilities above, we also lease all 28 E*TRADE branches, ranging in space from approximately 2,500 to 7,000 square feet.
We believe our facilities space is adequate to meet our needs in 2012.
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On October 27, 2000, Ajaxo, Inc.  (“Ajaxo”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
Ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the Company’s alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with Ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that Ajaxo offered the Company as well as damages and other relief against the Company for their alleged misappropriation of Ajaxo’s trade secrets.
Following a jury trial, a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of Ajaxo against the Company for $1.3 million for breach of the Ajaxo non-disclosure agreement.
Although the jury found in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets, the trial court subsequently denied Ajaxo’s requests for additional damages and relief.
On December 21, 2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the above-described award against the Company for breach of the nondisclosure agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what, if any, additional damages Ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury’s previous finding in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets.
Although the Company paid Ajaxo the full amount due on the above-described judgment, the case was remanded back to the trial court, and on May 30, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company denying all claims raised and demands for damages against the Company.
Following the trial court’s filing of entry of judgment in favor of the Company on September 5, 2008, Ajaxo filed post-trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment and requesting a new trial.
By order dated November 4, 2008, the trial court denied these motions.
On December 2, 2008, Ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Sixth District.
Oral argument on the appeal was heard on July 15, 2010.
On August 30, 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s verdict in part and reversed the verdict in part, remanding the case.
E*TRADE petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the Court of Appeal decision.
On December 16, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings to the trial court.
On September 20, 2011, the trial court granted limited discovery at a conference on November 4, 2011, and set a motion schedule and trial date.
The trial will continue on May 14, 2012.
The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously.
On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then
Legal Settlements for the Auction Rate Securities and Freudenberg Matters ?
We reached a settlement with the Colorado Division of Securities and the NASAA whereby E*TRADE Securities LLC offered to purchase auction rate securities from eligible investors who purchased those securities through E*TRADE Securities LLC.
We recorded a reserve of $48 million in connection with this settlement.
We also entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Freudenberg Action, which resulted in the recording of a net reserve of $10.8 million as of December 31, 2011.
EARNINGS OVERVIEW 2011 Compared to 2010 We generated net income of $156.7 million, or $0.54 per diluted share, on total net revenue of $2.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Commissions, fees and service charges, principal transactions and other revenue decreased 2% to $711.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010, which was driven primarily by the elimination of all account activity fees, which took effect in the second quarter of 2010.
In addition, gains on loans and securities, net and net impairment decreased 18% to $105.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010.
Provision for loan losses declined 43% to $440.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010, driven by improving credit trends and loan portfolio run-off.
Total operating expenses increased 8% to $1.2 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010.
This increase was driven primarily by increases in advertising and market development expense, FDIC insurance premiums and other operating expenses during the year ended December 31, 2011.
The following sections describe in detail the changes in key operating factors and other changes and events that affected net revenue, provision for loan losses, operating expense, other income (expense) and income tax expense (benefit).
Revenue The components of revenue and the resulting variances are as follows (dollars in millions)
## Table 2 ##
Net Operating Interest Income Net operating interest income decreased 1% to $1.2 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to 2010.
Net operating interest income is earned primarily through investing customer cash and deposits in interest-earning assets, which include: margin receivables, real estate loans, available-for-sale securities and held-to-maturity securities.
The following table presents enterprise average balance sheet data and enterprise income and expense data for our operations, as well as the related net interest spread, yields and rates and has been prepared on the basis required by the SEC’s Industry Guide 3, “Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies” (dollars in millions):

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31, 2011</td><td colspan="2"> December 31, 2010</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Carrying Value</td><td> Fair Value</td><td> Carrying Value</td><td> Fair Value</td></tr><tr><td> Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Held-to-maturity securities</td><td>$6,079,512</td><td>$6,282,989</td><td>$2,462,710</td><td>$2,422,335</td></tr><tr><td>Loans receivable, net<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$12,332,807</td><td>$11,142,297</td><td>$15,121,919</td><td>$13,425,922</td></tr><tr><td> Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$26,459,985</td><td>$26,473,902</td><td>$25,240,297</td><td>$25,259,496</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>$5,015,499</td><td>$5,075,415</td><td>$5,888,249</td><td>$5,955,283</td></tr><tr><td>FHLB advances and other borrowings</td><td>$2,736,935</td><td>$2,671,877</td><td>$2,731,714</td><td>$2,658,311</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt</td><td>$1,493,552</td><td>$1,760,564</td><td>$2,145,881</td><td>$2,855,318</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Location</td><td>Approximate Square Footage</td></tr><tr><td>Alpharetta, Georgia</td><td>260,000</td></tr><tr><td>Arlington, Virginia</td><td>119,000</td></tr><tr><td>Jersey City, New Jersey</td><td>107,000</td></tr><tr><td>Menlo Park, California</td><td>91,000</td></tr><tr><td>Sandy, Utah</td><td>66,000</td></tr><tr><td>New York, New York</td><td>39,000</td></tr><tr><td>Chicago, Illinois</td><td>25,000</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Year Ended December 31,</td><td colspan="2">Variance 2011 vs. 2010</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>Amount</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>Net operating interest income</td><td>$1,220.0</td><td>$1,226.3</td><td>$-6.3</td><td>-1%</td></tr><tr><td>Commissions</td><td>436.2</td><td>431.0</td><td>5.2</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Fees and service charges</td><td>130.4</td><td>142.4</td><td>-12.0</td><td>-8%</td></tr><tr><td>Principal transactions</td><td>105.4</td><td>103.4</td><td>2.0</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Gains on loans and securities, net</td><td>120.2</td><td>166.2</td><td>-46.0</td><td>-28%</td></tr><tr><td>Net impairment</td><td>-14.9</td><td>-37.7</td><td>22.8</td><td>-60%</td></tr><tr><td>Other revenues</td><td>39.3</td><td>46.3</td><td>-7.0</td><td>-15%</td></tr><tr><td>Total non-interest income</td><td>816.6</td><td>851.6</td><td>-35.0</td><td>-4%</td></tr><tr><td>Total net revenue</td><td>$2,036.6</td><td>$2,077.9</td><td>$-41.3</td><td>-2%</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the average amount of Loans receivable, net of December 31, 2011 Carrying Value, and Arlington, Virginia of Approximate Square Footage ?
Answer: 6225903.5