Management’s discussion and analysis Credit ratings The cost and availability of financing are influenced by credit ratings.
Reductions in these ratings could have an adverse effect on the Firm’s access to liquidity sources, increase the cost of funds, trigger additional collateral or funding requirements and decrease the number of investors and counterparties willing to lend to the Firm.
Additionally, the Firm’s funding requirements for VIEs and other thirdparty commitments may be adversely affected by a decline in credit ratings.
For additional information on the impact of a credit ratings downgrade on the funding requirements for VIEs, and on derivatives and collateral agreements, refer to SPEs on page 55, and liquidity risk and credit-related contingent features in Note 5.
The credit ratings of the Parent Company and the Firm’s principal bank and non-bank subsidiaries as of December 31, 2018, were as follows.
## Table 0 ##
On October 25, 2018, Moody’s upgraded the Parent Company’s long-term issuer rating to A2 (previously A3) and short-term issuer rating to P-1 (previously P-2).
The long-term issuer ratings were also upgraded for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.  and Chase Bank USA, N. A.  to Aa2 (previously Aa3), and for J. P.  Morgan Securities LLC and J. P.  Morgan Securities plc to Aa3 (previously A1).
On June 21, 2018, Fitch upgraded the Parent Company’s long-term issuer rating to AA- (previously A+) and shortterm issuer rating to F1+ (previously F1).
The long-term issuer ratings were also upgraded to AA for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A, Chase Bank USA, N. A. , J. P.  Morgan Securities LLC and J. P.  Morgan Securities plc (all previously AA-).
Downgrades of the Firm’s long-term ratings by one or two notches could result in an increase in its cost of funds, and access to certain funding markets could be reduced.
The nature and magnitude of the impact of ratings downgrades depends on numerous contractual and behavioral factors which the Firm believes are incorporated in its liquidity risk and stress testing metrics.
The Firm believes that it maintains sufficient liquidity to withstand a potential decrease in funding capacity due to ratings downgrades.
JPMorgan Chase’s unsecured debt does not contain requirements that would call for an acceleration of payments, maturities or changes in the structure of the existing debt, provide any limitations on future borrowings or require additional collateral, based on unfavorable changes in the Firm’s credit ratings, financial ratios, earnings, or stock price.
Critical factors in maintaining high credit ratings include a stable and diverse earnings stream, strong capital and liquidity ratios, strong credit quality and risk management controls, and diverse funding sources.
Rating agencies continue to evaluate economic and geopolitical trends, regulatory developments, future profitability, risk management practices, and litigation matters, as well as their broader ratings methodologies.
Changes in any of these factors could lead to changes in the Firm’s credit ratings.
Derivatives netting The following tables present, as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, gross and net derivative receivables and payables by contract and settlement type.
Derivative receivables and payables, as well as the related cash collateral from the same counterparty, have been netted on the Consolidated balance sheets where the Firm has obtained an appropriate legal opinion with respect to the master netting agreement.
Where such a legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained, amounts are not eligible for netting on the Consolidated balance sheets, and those derivative receivables and payables are shown separately in the tables below.
In addition to the cash collateral received and transferred that is presented on a net basis with derivative receivables and payables, the Firm receives and transfers additional collateral (financial instruments and cash).
These amounts mitigate counterparty credit risk associated with the Firm’s derivative instruments, but are not eligible for net presentation: ?
collateral that consists of non-cash financial instruments (generally U. S.  government and agency securities and other G7 government securities) and cash collateral held at third party custodians, which are shown separately as “Collateral not nettable on the Consolidated balance sheets” in the tables below, up to the fair value exposure amount.  ?
the amount of collateral held or transferred that exceeds the fair value exposure at the individual counterparty level, as of the date presented, which is excluded from the tables below; and ?
collateral held or transferred that relates to derivative receivables or payables where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained with respect to the master netting agreement, which is excluded from the tables below.
## Table 1 ##
FIVE-YEAR STOCK PERFORMANCE The following table and graph compare the five-year cumulative total return for JPMorgan Chase & Co.  (“JPMorgan Chase” or the “Firm”) common stock with the cumulative return of the S&P 500 Index, the KBW Bank Index and the S&P Financial Index.
The S&P 500 Index is a commonly referenced equity benchmark in the United States of America (“U.
S. ”), consisting of leading companies from different economic sectors.
The KBW Bank Index seeks to reflect the performance of banks and thrifts that are publicly traded in the U. S.  and is composed of leading national money center and regional banks and thrifts.
The S&P Financial Index is an index of financial companies, all of which are components of the S&P 500.
The Firm is a component of all three industry indices.
The following table and graph assume simultaneous investments of $100 on December 31, 2013, in JPMorgan Chase common stock and in each of the above indices.
The comparison assumes that all dividends are reinvested.
## Table 2 ##
Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management Credit risk management for the commercial portfolio begins with an assessment of the credit risk profile of the borrower or counterparty based on an analysis of its financial position.
As part of the overall credit risk assessment, our commercial credit exposures are assigned a risk rating and are subject to approval based on defined credit approval standards.
Subsequent to loan origination, risk ratings are monitored on an ongoing basis, and if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes in the financial condition, cash flow, risk profile, or outlook of a borrower or counterparty.
In making credit decisions, we consider risk rating, collateral, country, industry and single name concentration limits while also balancing the total borrower or counterparty relationship.
Our lines of business and risk management personnel use a variety of tools to continuously monitor the ability of a borrower or counterparty to per form under its obligations.
We use risk rating aggregations to measure and evaluate concentrations within portfolios.
In addition, risk ratings are a factor in determining the level of assigned economic capital and the allowance for credit losses.
For information on our accounting policies regarding delinquencies, nonper forming status and net charge-offs for the commercial portfolio, refer to Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Management of Commercial Credit Risk Concentrations Commercial credit risk is evaluated and managed with the goal that concentrations of credit exposure do not result in undesirable levels of risk.
We review, measure and manage concentrations of credit exposure by industry, product, geography, customer relationship and loan size.
We also review, measure and manage commercial real estate loans by geographic location and property type.
In addition, within our international portfolio, we evaluate exposures by region and by country.
Tables 38, 42, 48 and 49 summarize our concentrations.
We also utilize syndication of exposure to third parties, loan sales, hedging and other risk mitigation techniques to manage the size and risk profile of the commercial credit portfolio.
As part of our ongoing risk mitigation initiatives, we attempt to work with clients to modify their loans to terms that better align with their current ability to pay.
In situations where an economic concession has been granted to a borrower experiencing financial difficulty, we identify these loans as TDRs.
We account for certain large corporate loans and loan commitments, including issued but unfunded letters of credit which are considered utilized for credit risk management purposes, that exceed our single name credit risk concentration guidelines under the fair value option.
Lending commitments, both funded and unfunded, are actively managed and monitored, and as appropriate, credit risk for these lending relationships may be mitigated through the use of credit derivatives, with the Corporation’s credit view and market perspectives determining the size and timing of the hedging activity.
In addition, we purchase credit protection to cover the funded portion as well as the unfunded portion of certain other credit exposures.
To lessen the cost of obtaining our desired credit protection levels, credit exposure may be added within an industry, borrower or counterparty group by selling protection.
These credit derivatives do not meet the requirements for treatment as accounting hedges.
They are carried at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in other income (loss).
Commercial Credit Portfolio U. S. -based loan balances continued to decline on weak loan demand as businesses aggressively managed their working capital and production capacity by maintaining lean inventories, staff levels, physical locations and capital expenditures.
Additionally, many borrowers continued to access the capital markets for financing while reducing their use of bank credit facilities.
Risk mitigation strategies and net charge-offs further contributed to the decline in loan balances.
Fourth-quarter balances showed stabilization relative to prior quarters.
Non-U.
S.  commercial loans showed strong growth from client demand, driven by regional economic conditions and the positive impact of our initiatives in Asia and other emerging markets.
Reservable criticized balances, net charge-offs and nonper forming loans, leases and foreclosed property balances in the commercial credit portfolio declined in 2010.
These reductions were driven primarily by the U. S.  commercial and commercial real estate portfolios.
U. S.  commercial was driven by broad-based improvements in terms of clients, industries and lines of business.
Commercial real estate also continued to show signs of stabilization during 2010; however, levels of stressed commercial real estate loans remained elevated.
Most other credit indicators across the remaining commercial portfolio have also improved.
Table 34 presents our commercial loans and leases, and related credit quality information at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Loans that were acquired from Merrill Lynch that were considered purchased credit-impaired were written down to fair value upon acquisition and amounted to $204 million and $692 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
These loans are excluded from the nonper forming loans and accruing balances 90 days or more past due even though the customer may be contractually past due.
## Table 3 ##
(1) Balance reflects impact of new consolidation guidance.
(2) Excludes U. S.  small business commercial loans.
(3) Includes U. S.  commercial real estate loans of $46.9 billion and $66.5 billion and non-U.
S.  commercial real estate loans of $2.5 billion and $3.0 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
(4) Includes card-related products.
(5) Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option include U. S.  commercial loans of $1.6 billion and $3.0 billion, non-U.
S.  commercial loans of $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion and commercial real estate loans of $79 million and $90 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
See Note 23 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">JPMorgan Chase & Co.</td><td colspan="3">JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Chase Bank USA, N.A.</td><td colspan="3">J.P. Morgan Securities LLCJ.P. Morgan Securities plc</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, 2018</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term issuer</td><td>Short-term issuer</td><td>Outlook</td></tr><tr><td>Moody’s Investors Service</td><td>A2</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td><td>Aa2</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td><td>Aa3</td><td>P-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Standard & Poor’s</td><td>A-</td><td>A-2</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch Ratings</td><td>AA-</td><td>F1+</td><td>Stable</td><td>AA</td><td>F1+</td><td>Stable</td><td>AA</td><td>F1+</td><td>Stable</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">2018</td><td></td><td colspan="5">2017</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>Gross derivative receivables</td><td>Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>Net derivative receivables</td><td></td><td>Gross derivative receivables</td><td></td><td>Amounts netted on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td colspan="2">Netderivative receivables</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. GAAP nettable derivative receivables</td><td></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><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>$258,227</td><td>$- 239,498</td><td>$18,729</td><td></td><td>$305,569</td><td></td><td>$- 284,917</td><td>$20,652</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>6,404</td><td>- 5,856</td><td>548</td><td></td><td>6,531</td><td></td><td>- 6,318</td><td>213</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>322</td><td>- 136</td><td>186</td><td></td><td>185</td><td></td><td>- 84</td><td>101</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total interest rate contracts</td><td>264,953</td><td>- 245,490</td><td>19,463</td><td></td><td>312,285</td><td></td><td>- 291,319</td><td>20,966</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>12,648</td><td>- 12,261</td><td>387</td><td></td><td>15,390</td><td></td><td>- 15,165</td><td>225</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>7,267</td><td>- 7,222</td><td>45</td><td></td><td>7,225</td><td></td><td>- 7,170</td><td>55</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total credit contracts</td><td>19,915</td><td>- 19,483</td><td>432</td><td></td><td>22,615</td><td></td><td>- 22,335</td><td>280</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>163,862</td><td>- 153,988</td><td>9,874</td><td></td><td>155,289</td><td></td><td>- 142,420</td><td>12,869</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC–cleared</td><td>235</td><td>- 226</td><td>9</td><td></td><td>1,696</td><td></td><td>- 1,654</td><td>42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>32</td><td>- 21</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>141</td><td></td><td>- 7</td><td>134</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total foreign exchange contracts</td><td>164,129</td><td>- 154,235</td><td>9,894</td><td></td><td>157,126</td><td></td><td>- 144,081</td><td>13,045</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Equity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>26,178</td><td>- 23,879</td><td>2,299</td><td></td><td>22,024</td><td></td><td>- 19,917</td><td>2,107</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>18,876</td><td>- 15,460</td><td>3,416</td><td></td><td>14,188</td><td></td><td>- 12,241</td><td>1,947</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total equity contracts</td><td>45,054</td><td>- 39,339</td><td>5,715</td><td></td><td>36,212</td><td></td><td>- 32,158</td><td>4,054</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodity contracts:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OTC</td><td>7,448</td><td>- 5,261</td><td>2,187</td><td></td><td>7,204</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td><td>- 4,436</td><td>2,768</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Exchange-traded<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>8,815</td><td>- 8,218</td><td>597</td><td></td><td>8,854</td><td></td><td>- 8,701</td><td>153</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total commodity contracts</td><td>16,263</td><td>- 13,479</td><td>2,784</td><td></td><td>16,058</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td><td>- 13,137</td><td>2,921</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables with appropriate legal opinion</td><td>510,314</td><td>- 472,026</td><td>38,288</td><td><sup>(d)</sup></td><td>544,296</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td><td>- 503,030</td><td>41,266</td><td><sup>(d)(e)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables where an appropriate legal opinion has not been either sought or obtained</td><td>15,925</td><td></td><td>15,925</td><td></td><td>15,257</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td><td></td><td>15,257</td><td><sup>(e)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total derivative receivables recognized on the Consolidated balance sheets</td><td>$526,239</td><td></td><td>$54,213</td><td></td><td>$559,553</td><td></td><td></td><td>$56,523</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Collateral not nettable on the Consolidated balance sheets<sup>(b)(c)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>- 13,046</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>- 13,363</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Net amounts</td><td></td><td></td><td>$41,167</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>$43,160</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31,(in dollars)</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td></tr><tr><td>JPMorgan Chase</td><td>$100.00</td><td>$109.88</td><td>$119.07</td><td>$160.23</td><td>$203.07</td><td>$189.57</td></tr><tr><td>KBW Bank Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>109.36</td><td>109.90</td><td>141.23</td><td>167.49</td><td>137.82</td></tr><tr><td>S&P Financial Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>115.18</td><td>113.38</td><td>139.17</td><td>169.98</td><td>147.82</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500 Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>113.68</td><td>115.24</td><td>129.02</td><td>157.17</td><td>150.27</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Outstandings</td><td colspan="2"> Nonperforming</td><td colspan="2"> Accruing Past Due   90 Days or More</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> December 31 </td><td>January 1 </td><td>December 31 </td><td> December 31 </td><td>December 31 </td><td> December 31 </td><td>December 31 </td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> 2010<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2010<sup>-1</sup></td><td>2009</td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. commercial<sup>-2</sup></td><td>$175,586</td><td>$186,675</td><td>$181,377</td><td>$3,453</td><td>$4,925</td><td>$236</td><td>$213</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial real estate<sup>-3</sup></td><td>49,393</td><td>69,377</td><td>69,447</td><td>5,829</td><td>7,286</td><td>47</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial lease financing</td><td>21,942</td><td>22,199</td><td>22,199</td><td>117</td><td>115</td><td>18</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Non-U.S.commercial</td><td>32,029</td><td>27,079</td><td>27,079</td><td>233</td><td>177</td><td>6</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>278,950</td><td>305,330</td><td>300,102</td><td>9,632</td><td>12,503</td><td>307</td><td>392</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. small business commercial<sup>-4</sup></td><td>14,719</td><td>17,526</td><td>17,526</td><td>204</td><td>200</td><td>325</td><td>624</td></tr><tr><td>Total commercial loans excluding loans measured at fair value</td><td>293,669</td><td>322,856</td><td>317,628</td><td>9,836</td><td>12,703</td><td>632</td><td>1,016</td></tr><tr><td>Total measured at fair value<sup>-5</sup></td><td>3,321</td><td>4,936</td><td>4,936</td><td>30</td><td>138</td><td>–</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td> Total commercial loans and leases</td><td>$296,990</td><td>$327,792</td><td>$322,564</td><td>$9,866</td><td>$12,841</td><td>$632</td><td>$1,103</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the difference of Commercial lease financing between 2009 and 2010? (in million)
Answer: -257.0