he following table presents the carrying value and fair value of debt securities held-to-maturity by contractual maturity dates as of December 31, 2008:
## Table 0 ##
(1) Investments with no stated maturities are included as contractual maturities of greater than 10 years.
Actual maturities may differ due to call or prepayment rights.
(2) Includes asset-backed securities and all other debt securities.
Evaluating Investments for Other-than-Temporary Impairments The Company conducts periodic reviews to identify and evaluate each investment that has an unrealized loss, in accordance with FASB Staff Position No.115-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments (FSP FAS 115-1).
An unrealized loss exists when the current fair value of an individual security is less than its amortized cost basis.
Unrealized losses that are determined to be temporary in nature are recorded, net of tax, in Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) for available-for-sale securities, while such losses related to held-to-maturity securities are not recorded, as these investments are carried at their amortized cost (less any permanent impairment).
For securities transferred to held-to-maturity from Trading account assets, amortized cost is defined as the fair value amount of the securities at the date of transfer.
For securities transferred to held-to-maturity from available-for-sale, amortized cost is defined as the original purchase cost, plus or minus any accretion or amortization of interest, less any impairment recognized in earnings.
Regardless of the classification of the securities as available-for-sale or held-to-maturity, the Company has assessed each position for credit impairment.
Factors considered in determining whether a loss is temporary include: ?
the length of time and the extent to which fair value has been below cost; ?
the severity of the impairment; ?
the cause of the impairment and the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer; ?
activity in the market of the issuer which may indicate adverse credit conditions; and ?
the Company’s ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery.
The Company’s review for impairment generally entails: ?
identification and evaluation of investments that have indications of possible impairment; ?
analysis of individual investments that have fair values less than amortized cost, including consideration of the length of time the investment has been in an unrealized loss position and the expected recovery period; ?
discussion of evidential matter, including an evaluation of factors or triggers that could cause individual investments to qualify as having other-than-temporary impairment and those that would not support other-than-temporary impairment; and ?
documentation of the results of these analyses, as required under business policies.
The extent of the Company’s analysis regarding credit quality and the stress on assumptions used in the analysis have been refined for securities where the current fair value or other characteristics of the security warrant.
For example, given the declines in fair values of mortgage-backed securities, general concerns regarding housing prices and the delinquency and default rates on the mortgage loans underlying these securities, the Company’s analysis for identifying securities for which it is not probable that all principal and interest contractually due will be recovered have been refined.
More specifically, for U. S.  mortgage-backed securities (and in particular for Alt-A and other mortgage-backed securities that have significant unrealized losses as a percentage of amortized cost), credit impairment is assessed using a cash flow model that estimates the cash flows on the underlying mortgages, using the security-specific collateral and transaction structure.
The model estimates cash flows from the underlying mortgage loans and distributes those cash flows to various tranches of securities, considering the transaction structure and any subordination and credit enhancements that exist in that structure.
The cash flow model incorporates actual cash flows on the mortgage-backed securities through the current period and then projects the remaining cash flows using a number of assumptions, including default rates, prepayment rates, and recovery rates (on foreclosed properties).
billion at December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively.
Securities and other marketable assets held as collateral amounted to $27 billion and $54 billion, the majority of which collateral is held to reimburse losses realized under securities lending indemnifications.
The decrease from the prior year is in line with the decrease in the notional amount of these indemnifications, which are collateralized.
Additionally, letters of credit in favor of the Company held as collateral amounted to $503 million and $370 million at December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively.
Other property may also be available to the Company to cover losses under certain guarantees and indemnifications; however, the value of such property has not been determined.
Performance Risk Citigroup evaluates the performance risk of its guarantees based on the assigned referenced counterparty internal or external ratings.
Where external ratings are used, investment-grade ratings are considered to be Baa/BBB and above, while anything below is considered non-investment grade.
The Citigroup internal ratings are in line with the related external rating system.
On certain underlying referenced credits or entities, ratings are not available.
Such referenced credits are included in the “Not-rated” category.
The maximum potential amount of the future payments related to guarantees and credit derivatives sold is determined to be the notional amount of these contracts, which is the par amount of the assets guaranteed.
Presented in the table below is the maximum potential amount of future payments classified based upon internal and external credit ratings as of December 31, 2008.
As previously mentioned, the determination of the maximum potential future payments is based on the notional amount of the guarantees without consideration of possible recoveries under recourse provisions or from collateral held or pledged.
Such amounts bear no relationship to the anticipated losses, if any, on these guarantees.
## Table 1 ##
Credit Derivatives A credit derivative is a bilateral contract between a buyer and a seller under which the seller sells protection against the credit risk of a particular entity (“reference entity” or “reference credit”).
Credit derivatives generally require that the seller of credit protection make payments to the buyer upon the occurrence of predefined credit events (commonly referred to as “settlement triggers”).
These settlement triggers are defined by the form of the derivative and the reference credit and are generally limited to the market standard of failure to pay on indebtedness and bankruptcy of the reference credit and, in a more limited range of transactions, debt restructuring.
Credit derivative transactions referring to emerging market reference credits will also typically include additional settlement triggers to cover the acceleration of indebtedness and the risk of repudiation or a payment moratorium.
In certain transactions, protection may be provided on a portfolio of referenced credits or asset-backed securities.
The seller of such protection may not be required to make payment until a specified amount of losses has occurred with respect to the portfolio and/or may only be required to pay for losses up to a specified amount.
The Company makes markets in and trades a range of credit derivatives, both on behalf of clients as well as for its own account.
Through these contracts, the Company either purchases or writes protection on either a single name or a portfolio of reference credits.
The Company uses credit derivatives to help mitigate credit risk in its corporate loan portfolio and other cash positions, to take proprietary trading positions, and to facilitate client transactions.
The range of credit derivatives sold includes credit default swaps, total return swaps and credit options.
A credit default swap is a contract in which, for a fee, a protection seller (guarantor) agrees to reimburse a protection buyer (beneficiary) for any losses that occur due to a credit event on a reference entity.
If there is no credit default event or settlement trigger, as defined by the specific derivative contract, then the guarantor makes no payments to the beneficiary and receives only the contractually specified fee.
However, if a credit event occurs and in accordance with the specific derivative contract sold, the guarantor will be required to make a payment to the beneficiary.
A total return swap transfers the total economic performance of a reference asset, which includes all associated cash flows, as well as capital appreciation or depreciation.
The protection buyer (beneficiary) receives a floating rate of interest and any depreciation on the reference asset from the protection seller (guarantor), and in return the protection seller receives the cash flows associated with the reference asset, plus any appreciation.
Thus, the beneficiary will be obligated to make a payment any time the floating interest rate payment according to the total return swap agreement and any depreciation of the reference asset exceed the cash flows associated with the underlying asset.
A total return swap may terminate upon a default of the reference asset subject to the provisions in the related total return swap agreement between the protection seller (guarantor) and the protection buyer (beneficiary)
Citi has historically used its credit spreads observed in the credit default swap (CDS) market to estimate the market value of these liabilities.
Beginning in September 2008, Citi’s CDS spread and credit spreads observed in the bond market (cash spreads) diverged from each other and from their historical relationship.
For example, the three-year CDS spread narrowed from 315 basis points (bps) on September 30, 2008, to 202 bps on December 31, 2008, while the three-year cash spread widened from 430 bps to 490 bps over the same time period.
Due to the persistence and significance of this divergence during the fourth quarter, management determined that such a pattern may not be temporary and that using cash spreads would be more relevant to the valuation of debt instruments (whether issued as liabilities or purchased as assets).
Therefore, Citi changed its method of estimating the market value of liabilities for which the fair-value option was elected to incorporate Citi’s cash spreads.
(CDS spreads continue to be used to calculate the CVA for derivative positions, as described on page 92. )
This change in estimation methodology resulted in a $2.5 billion pretax gain recognized in earnings in the fourth quarter of 2008.
The CVA recognized on fair-value option debt instruments was $5,446 million and $888 million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The pretax gain recognized due to changes in the CVA balance was $4,558 million and $888 million for 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The table below summarizes the CVA for fair-value option debt instruments, determined under each methodology as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the pretax gain that would have been recognized in the year then ended had each methodology been used consistently during 2008 and 2007 (in millions of dollars).
## Table 2 ##
(1) In changing the methodology for calculating the CVA reserve, the Company recorded the 2008 cumulative difference of $2.493 billion in December 2008, resulting in a year-to-date pretax gain of $4.558 billion recorded in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income.
ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES Management provides reserves for an estimate of probable losses inherent in the funded loan portfolio on the balance sheet in the form of an allowance for loan losses.
In addition, management has established and maintains reserves for the potential credit losses related to the Company’s off-balancesheet exposures of unfunded lending commitments, including standby letters of credit and guarantees.
These reserves are established in accordance with Citigroup’s Loan Loss Reserve Policies, as approved by the Audit and Risk Management Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.
The Company’s Chief Risk Officer and Chief Financial Officer review the adequacy of the credit loss reserves each quarter with representatives from the Risk and Finance staffs for each applicable business area.
During these reviews, the above-mentioned representatives covering the business area having classifiably managed portfolios (that is, portfolios where internal credit-risk ratings are assigned, which are primarily ICG, the commercial lending businesses of Consumer Banking and Global Wealth Management) and modified consumer loans where a concession was granted due to the borrowers’ financial difficulties, and present recommended reserve balances for their funded and unfunded lending portfolios along with supporting quantitative and qualitative data.
The quantitative data include: ?
Estimated probable losses for non-performing, non-homogeneous exposures within a business line’s classifiably managed portfolio and impaired smaller-balance homogenous loans whose terms have been modified due to the borrowers’ financial difficulties, and it was determined that a concession was granted to the borrower.
Consideration is given to all available evidence when determining this estimate including, as appropriate: (i) the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s contractual effective rate; (ii) the borrower’s overall financial condition, resources and payment record; and (iii) the prospects for support from financially responsible guarantors or the realizable value of any collateral.  ?
Statistically calculated losses inherent in the classifiably managed portfolio for performing and de minimis non-performing exposures.
The calculation is based upon: (i) Citigroup’s internal system of creditrisk ratings, which are analogous to the risk ratings of the major rating agencies; (ii) the Corporate portfolio database; and (iii) historical default and loss data, including rating-agency information regarding default rates from 1983 to 2007, and internal data dating to the early 1970s on severity of losses in the event of default.  ?
Additional adjustments include: (i) statistically calculated estimates to cover the historical fluctuation of the default rates over the credit cycle, the historical variability of loss severity among defaulted loans, and the degree to which there are large obligor concentrations in the global portfolio; and (ii) adjustments made for specifically known items, such as current environmental factors and credit trends.
In addition, representatives from both the Risk Management and Finance staffs that cover business areas that have delinquency-managed portfolios containing smaller homogeneous loans (primarily the non-commercial lending areas of Consumer Banking) present their recommended reserve balances based upon leading credit indicators including delinquencies on first and second mortgages and deterioration in the housing market, a downturn in other economic trends including unemployment and GDP, changes in the portfolio size, and a change in the estimated loan losses inherent in the portfolio but not yet visible in the delinquencies (change in estimate of loan losses).
This methodology is applied separately for each individual product within each different geographic region in which these portfolios exist.
This evaluation process is subject to numerous estimates and judgments.
The frequency of default, risk ratings, loss recovery rates, the size and diversity of individual large credits, and the ability of borrowers with foreign currency obligations to obtain the foreign currency necessary for orderly debt servicing, among other things, are all taken into account during this review.
Changes in these estimates could have a direct impact on the credit costs in any quarter and could result in a change in the allowance.
Changes to the reserve flow through the Consolidated Statement of Income on the lines Provision for loan losses and Provision for unfunded lending
Consumer Loan Balances, Net of Unearned Income
## Table 3 ##
(1) Total loans and total average loans exclude certain interest and fees on credit cards of approximately $3 billion and $2 billion, respectively, for 2008, $3 billion and $2 billion, respectively, for 2007, and $2 billion and $3 billion, respectively, for 2006, which are included in Consumer loans on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(2) Included in Other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
(3) This table presents loan information on a held basis and shows the impact of securitization to reconcile to a managed basis.
Managed-basis reporting is a non-GAAP measure.
Held-basis reporting is the related GAAP measure.
See a discussion of managed-basis reporting on page 57.
Citigroup’s total allowance for loans, leases and unfunded lending commitments of $30.503 billion is available to absorb probable credit losses inherent in the entire portfolio.
For analytical purposes only, the portion of Citigroup’s allowance for loan losses attributed to the Consumer portfolio was $22.366 billion at December 31, 2008, $12.393 billion at December 31, 2007 and $6.006 billion at December 31, 2006.
The increase in the allowance for loan losses from December 31, 2007 of $9.973 billion included net builds of $11.034 billion.
The builds consisted of $10.785 billion in Global Cards and Consumer Banking ($8.216 billion in North America and $2.569 billion in regions outside North America), and $249 million in Global Wealth Management.
The build of $8.216 billion in North America primarily reflected an increase in the estimate of losses across all portfolios based on weakening leading credit indicators, including increased delinquencies on first and second mortgages, unsecured personal loans, credit cards and auto loans.
The build also reflected trends in the U. S.  macroeconomic environment, including the housing market downturn, rising unemployment and portfolio growth.
The build of $2.569 billion in regions outside North America primarily reflected portfolio growth the impact of recent acquisitions, and credit deterioration in Mexico, Brazil, the U. K. , Spain, Greece, India and Colombia.
On-balance-sheet consumer loans of $515.7 billion decreased $42.1 billion, or 8%, from December 31, 2007, primarily driven by a decrease in residential real estate lending in North America Consumer Banking as well as the impact of foreign currency translation across Global Cards, Consumer Banking and GWM.
Citigroup Mortgage Foreclosure Moratoriums On February 13, 2009, Citigroup announced the initiation of a foreclosure moratorium on all Citigroup-owned first mortgage loans that are the principal residence of the owner as well as all loans serviced by the Company where the Company has reached an understanding with the owner.
The moratorium was effective February 12, 2009, and will extend until the earlier of the U. S.  government’s loan modification program (described below) or March 12, 2009.
The Company will not initiate or complete any new foreclosures on eligible owners during this time.
The above foreclosure moratorium expands on the Company’s current foreclosure moratorium pursuant to which Citigroup will not initiate or complete a foreclosure sale on any eligible owner where Citigroup owns the mortgage and the owner is seeking to stay in the home (which is the owner’s primary residence), is working in good faith with the Company and has sufficient income for affordable mortgage payments.
Since the start of he housing crisis in 2007, Citigroup has worked successfully with approximately 440,000 homeowners to avoid potential foreclosure on combined mortgages totaling approximately $43 billion.
Proposed U. S.  Mortgage Modification Legislation In January 2009, both the U. S.  Senate and House of Representatives introduced legislation (the Legislation) that would give bankruptcy courts the authority to modify mortgage loans originated on borrowers’ principal residences in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Support for some version of this Legislation has been endorsed by the Obama Administration.
The modification provisions of the Legislation require that the mortgage loan to be modified be originated prior to the effective date of the Legislation, and that the debtor receive a notice of foreclosure and attempt to contact the mortgage lender/servicer regarding modification of the loan.
It is difficult to project the impact the Legislation may have on the Company’s consumer secured and unsecured lending portfolio and capital market positions.
Any impact will be dependent on numerous factors, including the final form of the Legislation, the implementation guidelines for the Administration’s housing plan, the number of borrowers who file for bankruptcy after enactment of the Legislation and the response of the markets and credit rating agencies.
Consumer Credit Outlook Consumer credit losses in 2009 are expected to increase from prior-year levels due to the following: ?
Continued deterioration in the U. S.  housing and labor markets and higher levels of bankruptcy filings are expected to drive higher losses in both the secured and unsecured portfolios.  ?
Negative economic outlook around the globe, most notably in EMEA, will continue to lead to higher credit costs in Global Cards and Consumer Banking.

<table><tr><td><i>In millions of dollars</i></td><td> Carrying value</td><td> Fair value</td></tr><tr><td> Mortgage-backed securities</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Due within 1 year</td><td>$73</td><td>$50</td></tr><tr><td>After 1 but within 5 years</td><td>102</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>After 5 but within 10 years</td><td>32</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>After 10 years<sup>(1</sup><sup>)</sup></td><td>30,531</td><td>27,568</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$30,738</td><td>$27,751</td></tr><tr><td> State and municipal</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Due within 1 year</td><td>$138</td><td>$138</td></tr><tr><td>After 1 but within 5 years</td><td>137</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>After 5 but within 10 years</td><td>105</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>After 10 years<sup>(1</sup><sup>)</sup></td><td>5,321</td><td>4,992</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$5,701</td><td>$5,367</td></tr><tr><td> All other<sup>(</sup><sup>2</sup><sup>)</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Due within 1 year</td><td>$4,448</td><td>$4,471</td></tr><tr><td>After 1 but within 5 years</td><td>11,142</td><td>10,862</td></tr><tr><td>After 5 but within 10 years</td><td>6,821</td><td>6,604</td></tr><tr><td>After 10 years<sup>(1</sup><sup>)</sup></td><td>5,609</td><td>5,322</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$28,020</td><td>$27,259</td></tr><tr><td> Total debt securities held-to-maturity</td><td>$64,459</td><td>$60,377</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Maximum potential amount of future payments</td></tr><tr><td><i>In billions of dollars</i></td><td>Investment grade</td><td>Non-investment grade</td><td>Not rated</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Financial standby letters of credit</td><td>$49.2</td><td>$28.6</td><td>$16.4</td><td>$94.2</td></tr><tr><td>Performance guarantees</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.0</td><td>5.6</td><td>16.3</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative instruments deemed to be guarantees</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>67.9</td><td>67.9</td></tr><tr><td>Guarantees of collection of contractual cash flows</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Loans sold with recourse</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Securities lending indemnifications<sup></sup></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>47.6</td><td>47.6</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card merchant processing<sup></sup></td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>56.7</td><td>56.7</td></tr><tr><td>Custody indemnifications and other</td><td>18.5</td><td>3.1</td><td>—</td><td>21.6</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$73.4</td><td>$36.7</td><td>$194.8</td><td>$304.9</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><i>In millions of dollars</i></td><td> 2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Year-end CVA reserve balance as calculated using:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CDS spreads</td><td>$2,953</td><td>$888</td></tr><tr><td>Cash spreads</td><td>5,446</td><td>1,359</td></tr><tr><td>Difference<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$2,493</td><td>$471</td></tr><tr><td>Year-to-date pretax gain from the change in CVA reserve that would have been recorded in the income statement as calculated using:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CDS spreads</td><td>$2,065</td><td>$888</td></tr><tr><td>Cash spreads</td><td>4,087</td><td>1,359</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>End of period</td><td>Average</td></tr><tr><td><i>In billions of dollars</i></td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>On-balance-sheet<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$515.7</td><td>$557.8</td><td>$478.2</td><td>$548.8</td><td>$516.4</td><td>$446.2</td></tr><tr><td>Securitized receivables (all in<i>NA Cards)</i></td><td>105.9</td><td>108.1</td><td>99.6</td><td>106.9</td><td>98.9</td><td>96.4</td></tr><tr><td>Credit card receivables held-for-sale<sup>-2</sup></td><td>—</td><td>1.0</td><td>—</td><td>0.5</td><td>3.0</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total managed<sup>-3</sup></td><td>$621.6</td><td>$666.9</td><td>$577.8</td><td>$656.2</td><td>$618.3</td><td>$542.9</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the percentage increase in citigroup 2019s allowance for loan losses attributable to the consumer portfolio from 2007 to 2008
Answer: 0.80473