Management’s discussion and analysis 126 JPMorgan Chase & Co. /2014 Annual Report While useful as a current view of credit exposure, the net fair 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.
DRE exposure is a measure that expresses the risk of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the risk 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, AVG is a measure of the expected fair 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 CVA, as further described below.
The three year AVG exposure was $37.5 billion and $35.4 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, compared with derivative receivables, net of all collateral, of $59.4 billion and $51.3 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
The fair value of the Firm’s derivative receivables incorporates an adjustment, the CVA, to reflect the credit quality of counterparties.
The CVA is based on the Firm’s AVG to a counterparty and the counterparty’s credit spread in the credit derivatives market.
The primary components of changes in CVA are credit spreads, new deal activity or unwinds, and changes in the underlying market environment.
The Firm believes that active risk management is essential to controlling the dynamic credit risk in the derivatives portfolio.
In addition, the Firm’s risk management process takes into consideration the potential impact of wrong-way risk, which is broadly defined as the potential for increased correlation between the Firm’s exposure to a counterparty (AVG) and the counterparty’s credit quality.
Many factors may influence the nature and magnitude of these correlations over time.
To the extent that these correlations are identified, the Firm may adjust the CVA associated with that counterparty’s AVG.
The Firm risk manages exposure to changes in CVA by entering into credit derivative transactions, as well as interest rate, foreign exchange, equity and commodity derivative transactions.
The accompanying graph shows exposure profiles to the Firm’s current derivatives portfolio over the next 10 years as calculated by the DRE and AVG metrics.
The two measures generally show that exposure will decline after the first year, if no new trades are added to the portfolio.
## Table 0 ##
The following table summarizes the ratings profile by derivative counterparty of the Firm’s derivative receivables, including credit derivatives, net of other liquid securities collateral, for the dates indicated.
The ratings scale is based on the Firm’s internal ratings, which generally correspond to the ratings as defined by S&P and Moody’s.
Ratings profile of derivative receivables Rating equivalent
(a)The prior period amounts have been revised to conform with the current period presentation.
Notes to consolidated financial statements Credit and funding adjustments When determining the fair value of an instrument, it may be necessary to record adjustments to the Firm’s estimates of fair value in order to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Firm’s own creditworthiness, and the impact of funding: ?
Credit valuation adjustments (“CVA”) are taken to reflect the credit quality of a counterparty in the valuation of derivatives.
CVA are necessary when the market price (or parameter) is not indicative of the credit quality of the counterparty.
As few classes of derivative contracts are listed on an exchange, derivative positions are predominantly valued using models that use as their basis observable market parameters.
An adjustment therefore may be necessary to reflect the credit quality of each derivative counterparty to arrive at fair value.
The Firm estimates derivatives CVA using a scenario analysis to estimate the expected credit exposure across all of the Firm’s positions with each counterparty, and then estimates losses as a result of a counterparty credit event.
The key inputs to this methodology are (i) the expected positive exposure to each counterparty based on a simulation that assumes the current population of existing derivatives with each counterparty remains unchanged and considers contractual factors designed to mitigate the Firm’s credit exposure, such as collateral and legal rights of offset; (ii) the probability of a default event occurring for each counterparty, as derived from observed or estimated CDS spreads; and (iii) estimated recovery rates implied by CDS, adjusted to consider the differences in recovery rates as a derivative creditor relative to those reflected in CDS spreads, which generally reflect senior unsecured creditor risk.
As such, the Firm estimates derivatives CVA relative to the relevant benchmark interest rate.  ?
DVA is taken to reflect the credit quality of the Firm in the valuation of liabilities measured at fair value.
The DVA calculation methodology is generally consistent with the CVA methodology described above and incorporates JPMorgan Chase’s credit spread as observed through the CDS market to estimate the probability of default and loss given default as a result of a systemic event affecting the Firm.
Structured notes DVA is estimated using the current fair value of the structured note as the exposure amount, and is otherwise consistent with the derivative DVA methodology.  ?
The Firm incorporates the impact of funding in its valuation estimates where there is evidence that a market participant in the principal market would incorporate it in a transfer of the instrument.
As a result, the fair value of collateralized derivatives is estimated by discounting expected future cash flows at the relevant overnight indexed swap (“OIS”) rate given the underlying collateral agreement with the counterparty.
Effective in 2013, the Firm implemented a FVA framework to incorporate the impact of funding into its valuation estimates for uncollateralized (including partially collateralized) over the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives and structured notes.
The Firm’s FVA framework leverages its existing CVA and DVA calculation methodologies, and considers the fact that the Firm’s own credit risk is a significant component of funding costs.
The key inputs are: (i) the expected funding requirements arising from the Firm’s positions with each counterparty and collateral arrangements; (ii) for assets, the estimated market funding cost in the principal market; and (iii) for liabilities, the hypothetical market funding cost for a transfer to a market participant with a similar credit standing as the Firm.
Upon the implementation of the FVA framework in 2013, the Firm recorded a one time $1.5 billion loss in principal transactions revenue that was recorded in the CIB.
While the FVA framework applies to both assets and liabilities, the loss on implementation largely related to uncollateralized derivative receivables given that the impact of the Firm’s own credit risk, which is a significant component of funding costs, was already incorporated in the valuation of liabilities through the application of DVA.
The following table provides the credit and funding adjustments, excluding the effect of any associated hedging activities, reflected within the Consolidated balance sheets as of the dates indicated.
## Table 1 ##
(a) Balances are presented net of applicable CVA and DVA/FVA.
(b) Positive CVA and DVA/FVA represent amounts that increased receivable balances or decreased payable balances; negative CVA and DVA/FVA represent amounts that decreased receivable balances or increased payable balances.
(c) At December 31, 2014 and 2013, included derivatives DVA of $714 million and $715 million, respectively.
(d) Structured notes are predominantly financial instruments containing embedded derivatives that are measured at fair value based on the Firm’s election under the fair value option.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, included $943 million and $1.1 billion, respectively, of financial instruments with no embedded derivative for which the fair value option has also been elected.
For further information on these elections, see Note 4.
(e) At December 31, 2014 and 2013, included structured notes DVA of $1.4 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively.
Notes to consolidated financial statements 198 JPMorgan Chase & Co. /2014 Annual Report The following table presents by fair value hierarchy classification the carrying values and estimated fair values at December 31, 2014 and 2013, of financial assets and liabilities, excluding financial instruments which are carried at fair value on a recurring basis.
For additional information regarding the financial instruments within the scope of this disclosure, and the methods and significant assumptions used to estimate their fair value, see pages 181–184 of this Note.
## Table 2 ##
(a) Carrying value includes unamortized discount or premium.
(b) Fair value is typically estimated using a discounted cash flow model that incorporates the characteristics of the underlying loans (including principal, contractual interest rate and contractual fees) and other key inputs, including expected lifetime credit losses, interest rates, prepayment rates, and primary origination or secondary market spreads.
For certain loans, the fair value is measured based on the value of the underlying collateral.
The difference between the estimated fair value and carrying value of a financial asset or liability is the result of the different methodologies used to determine fair value as compared with carrying value.
For example, credit losses are estimated for a financial asset’s remaining life in a fair value calculation but are estimated for a loss emergence period in the allowance for loan loss calculation; future loan income (interest and fees) is incorporated in a fair value calculation but is generally not considered in the allowance for loan losses.
For a further discussion of the Firm’s methodologies for estimating the fair value of loans and lending-related commitments, see Valuation hierarchy on pages 181–184.
(c) Current period amounts have been updated to include certain nonmarketable equity securities.
Prior period amounts have been revised to conform to the current presentation.
(d) Carrying value includes unamortized original issue discount and other valuation adjustments.
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 U. S.  equity benchmark 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 24 leading national money center and regional banks and thrifts.
The S&P Financial Index is an index of 85 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, 2009, in JPMorgan Chase common stock and in each of the above indices.
The comparison assumes that all dividends are reinvested.
## Table 3 ##
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW This executive overview of the MD&A highlights selected information and may not contain all of the information that is important to readers of this Annual Report.
For a complete description of events, trends and uncertainties, as well as the enterprise risks and critical accounting estimates affecting the Firm and its various lines of business, this Annual Report should be read in its entirety.
Financial performance of JPMorgan Chase

<table><tr><td>Rating equivalent</td><td>2014</td><td>2013<sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>December 31,(in millions, except ratios)</td><td>Exposure net of all collateral</td><td>% of exposure net of all collateral</td><td>Exposure net of all collateral</td><td>% of exposure net of all collateral</td></tr><tr><td>AAA/Aaa to AA-/Aa3</td><td>$19,202</td><td>32%</td><td>$12,953</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>A+/A1 to A-/A3</td><td>13,940</td><td>24</td><td>12,930</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>BBB+/Baa1 to BBB-/Baa3</td><td>19,008</td><td>32</td><td>15,220</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>BB+/Ba1 to B-/B3</td><td>6,384</td><td>11</td><td>6,806</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>CCC+/Caa1 and below</td><td>837</td><td>1</td><td>3,415</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$59,371</td><td>100%</td><td>$51,324</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables balance<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>$78,975</td><td>$65,759</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative payables balance<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>71,116</td><td>57,314</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives CVA<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>-2,674</td><td>-2,352</td></tr><tr><td>Derivatives DVA and FVA<sup>(b)(c)</sup></td><td>-380</td><td>-322</td></tr><tr><td>Structured notes balance<sup>(a)(d)</sup></td><td>53,772</td><td>48,808</td></tr><tr><td>Structured notes DVA and FVA<sup>(b)(e)</sup></td><td>1,152</td><td>952</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">December 31, 2014</td><td colspan="5">December 31, 2013</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="3">Estimated fair value hierarchy</td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="3">Estimated fair value hierarchy</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(in billions)</td><td>Carryingvalue</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total estimatedfair value</td><td>Carryingvalue</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>Total estimatedfair value</td></tr><tr><td>Financial assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cash and due from banks</td><td>$27.8</td><td>$27.8</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$27.8</td><td>$39.8</td><td>$39.8</td><td>$—</td><td>$—</td><td>$39.8</td></tr><tr><td>Deposits with banks</td><td>484.5</td><td>480.4</td><td>4.1</td><td>—</td><td>484.5</td><td>316.1</td><td>309.7</td><td>6.4</td><td>—</td><td>316.1</td></tr><tr><td>Accrued interest and accounts receivable</td><td>70.1</td><td>—</td><td>70.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>70.1</td><td>65.2</td><td>—</td><td>64.9</td><td>0.3</td><td>65.2</td></tr><tr><td>Federal funds sold and securities purchased under resale agreements</td><td>187.2</td><td>—</td><td>187.2</td><td>—</td><td>187.2</td><td>223.0</td><td>—</td><td>223.0</td><td>—</td><td>223.0</td></tr><tr><td>Securities borrowed</td><td>109.4</td><td>—</td><td>109.4</td><td>—</td><td>109.4</td><td>107.7</td><td>—</td><td>107.7</td><td>—</td><td>107.7</td></tr><tr><td>Securities, held-to-maturity<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>49.3</td><td>—</td><td>51.2</td><td>—</td><td>51.2</td><td>24.0</td><td>—</td><td>23.7</td><td>—</td><td>23.7</td></tr><tr><td>Loans, net of allowance for loan losses<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>740.5</td><td>—</td><td>21.8</td><td>723.1</td><td>744.9</td><td>720.1</td><td>—</td><td>23.0</td><td>697.2</td><td>720.2</td></tr><tr><td>Other<sup>(c)</sup></td><td>58.1</td><td>—</td><td>55.7</td><td>7.1</td><td>62.8</td><td>58.2</td><td>—</td><td>54.5</td><td>7.4</td><td>61.9</td></tr><tr><td>Financial liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$1,354.6</td><td>$—</td><td>$1,353.6</td><td>$1.2</td><td>$1,354.8</td><td>$1,281.1</td><td>$—</td><td>$1,280.3</td><td>$1.2</td><td>$1,281.5</td></tr><tr><td>Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements</td><td>189.1</td><td>—</td><td>189.1</td><td>—</td><td>189.1</td><td>175.7</td><td>—</td><td>175.7</td><td>—</td><td>175.7</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper</td><td>66.3</td><td>—</td><td>66.3</td><td>—</td><td>66.3</td><td>57.8</td><td>—</td><td>57.8</td><td>—</td><td>57.8</td></tr><tr><td>Other borrowed funds</td><td>15.5</td><td></td><td>15.5</td><td>—</td><td>15.5</td><td>14.7</td><td>—</td><td>14.7</td><td>—</td><td>14.7</td></tr><tr><td>Accounts payable and other liabilities</td><td>176.7</td><td>—</td><td>173.7</td><td>2.8</td><td>176.5</td><td>160.2</td><td>—</td><td>158.2</td><td>1.8</td><td>160.0</td></tr><tr><td>Beneficial interests issued by consolidated VIEs</td><td>50.2</td><td>—</td><td>48.2</td><td>2.0</td><td>50.2</td><td>47.6</td><td>—</td><td>44.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>47.5</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt and junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures<sup>(d)</sup></td><td>246.6</td><td>—</td><td>251.6</td><td>3.8</td><td>255.4</td><td>239.0</td><td>—</td><td>240.8</td><td>6.0</td><td>246.8</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31,(in dollars)</td><td>2009</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>JPMorgan Chase</td><td>$100.00</td><td>$102.30</td><td>$81.87</td><td>$111.49</td><td>$152.42</td><td>$167.48</td></tr><tr><td>KBW Bank Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>123.36</td><td>94.75</td><td>125.91</td><td>173.45</td><td>189.69</td></tr><tr><td>S&P Financial Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>112.13</td><td>93.00</td><td>119.73</td><td>162.34</td><td>186.98</td></tr><tr><td>S&P 500 Index</td><td>100.00</td><td>115.06</td><td>117.48</td><td>136.27</td><td>180.39</td><td>205.07</td></tr></table>

Question: by what total amount , from 2013 to 2014 , did total derivative receivable balances decrease or payable balances increase?
Answer: 5728.0