Receivables from customers Receivables from customers primarily represent margin loans to prime and retail brokerage clients that are collateralized through a pledge of assets maintained in clients’ brokerage accounts which are subject to daily minimum collateral requirements.
In the event that the collateral value decreases, a maintenance margin call is made to the client to provide additional collateral into the account.
If additional collateral is not provided by the client, the client’s position may be liquidated by the Firm to meet the minimum collateral requirements.
Lending-related commitments The Firm uses lending-related financial instruments, such as commitments (including revolving credit facilities) and guarantees, to meet the financing needs of its customers.
The contractual amounts of these financial instruments represent the maximum possible credit risk should the counterparties draw down on these commitments or the Firm fulfills its obligations under these guarantees, and the counterparties subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of these contracts.
In the Firm’s view, the total contractual amount of these wholesale lending-related commitments is not representative of the Firm’s likely actual future credit exposure or funding requirements.
In determining the amount of credit risk exposure the Firm has to wholesale lending-related commitments, which is used as the basis for allocating credit risk capital to these commitments, the Firm has established a “loan-equivalent” amount for each commitment; this amount represents the portion of the unused commitment or other contingent exposure that is expected, based on average portfolio historical experience, to become drawn upon in an event of a default by an obligor.
The loan-equivalent amount of the Firm’s lendingrelated commitments was $212.4 billion and $216.5 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Clearing services The Firm provides clearing services for clients entering into securities and derivative transactions.
Through the provision of these services the Firm is exposed to the risk of non-performance by its clients and may be required to share in losses incurred by central counterparties (“CCPs”).
Where possible, the Firm seeks to mitigate its credit risk to its clients through the collection of adequate margin at inception and throughout the life of the transactions and can also cease provision of clearing services if clients do not adhere to their obligations under the clearing agreement.
For further discussion of Clearing services, see Note 29.
Derivative contracts In the normal course of business, the Firm uses derivative instruments predominantly for market-making activities.
Derivatives enable customers to manage exposures to fluctuations in interest rates, currencies and other markets.
The Firm also uses derivative instruments to manage its own credit and other market risk exposure.
The nature of the counterparty and the settlement mechanism of the derivative affect the credit risk to which the Firm is exposed.
For OTC derivatives the Firm is exposed to the credit risk of the derivative counterparty.
For exchangetraded derivatives (“ETD”), such as futures and options and “cleared” over-the-counter (“OTC-cleared”) derivatives, the Firm is generally exposed to the credit risk of the relevant CCP.
Where possible, the Firm seeks to mitigate its credit risk exposures arising from derivative transactions through the use of legally enforceable master netting arrangements and collateral agreements.
For further discussion of derivative contracts, counterparties and settlement types, see Note 6.
The following table summarizes the net derivative receivables for the periods presented.
## Table 0 ##
Derivative receivables reported on the Consolidated balance sheets were $59.7 billion and $79.0 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
These amounts represent the fair value of the derivative contracts, after giving effect to legally enforceable master netting agreements and cash collateral held by the Firm.
However, in management’s view, the appropriate measure of current credit risk should also take into consideration additional liquid securities (primarily U. S.  government and agency securities and other group of seven nations (“G7”) government bonds) and other cash collateral held by the Firm aggregating $16.6 billion and $19.6 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, that may be used as security when the fair value of the client’s exposure is in the Firm’s favor.
The decrease in derivative receivables was predominantly driven by declines in interest rate derivatives, commodity derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives and equity derivatives due to market movements, maturities and settlements related to clientdriven market-making activities in CIB.
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, at 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
## Table 1 ##
(a) Prior period amounts have been revised to conform with current period presentation.
As previously noted, the Firm uses collateral agreements to mitigate counterparty credit risk.
The percentage of the Firm’s derivatives transactions subject to collateral agreements — excluding foreign exchange spot trades, which are not typically covered by collateral agreements due to their short maturity — was 87% as of December 31, 2015, largely unchanged compared with 88% as of December 31, 2014.  Credit derivatives The Firm uses credit derivatives for two primary purposes: first, in its capacity as a market-maker, and second, as an end-user to manage the Firm’s own credit risk associated with various exposures.
For a detailed description of credit derivatives, see Credit derivatives in Note 6.  Credit portfolio management activities Included in the Firm’s end-user activities are credit derivatives used to mitigate the credit risk associated with traditional lending activities (loans and unfunded commitments) and derivatives counterparty exposure in the Firm’s wholesale businesses (collectively, “credit portfolio management” activities).
Information on credit portfolio management activities is provided in the table below.
For further information on derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, see Credit derivatives in Note 6.
The Firm also uses credit derivatives as an end-user to manage other exposures, including credit risk arising from certain securities held in the Firm’s market-making businesses.
These credit derivatives are not included in credit portfolio management activities; for further information on these credit derivatives as well as credit derivatives used in the Firm’s capacity as a market-maker in credit derivatives, see Credit derivatives in Note 6.  Credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities
## Table 2 ##
(a) Amounts are presented net, considering the Firm’s net protection purchased or sold with respect to each underlying reference entity or index.
The credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under U. S.  GAAP; these derivatives are reported at fair value, with gains and losses recognized in principal transactions revenue.
In contrast, the loans and lending-related commitments being risk-managed are accounted for on an accrual basis.
This asymmetry in accounting treatment, between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, causes earnings volatility that is not representative, in the Firm’s view, of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure.
The effectiveness of the Firm’s credit default swap (“CDS”) protection as a hedge of the Firm’s exposures may vary depending on a number of factors, including the named reference entity (i. e. , the Firm may experience losses on specific exposures that are different than the named reference entities in the purchased CDS); the contractual terms of the CDS (which may have a defined credit event that does not align with an actual loss realized by the Firm); and the maturity of the Firm’s CDS protection (which in some cases may be shorter than the Firm’s exposures).
However, the Firm generally seeks to purchase credit protection with a maturity date that is the same or similar to the maturity date of the exposure for which the protection was purchased, and remaining differences in maturity are actively monitored and managed by the Firm.
on consumer delinquency, or the calibration between the Firm’s wholesale loan risk ratings and external credit ratings) or data sources (for example, external PD and LGD factors that incorporate industry-wide information, versus Firm-specific history) would result in a different estimated allowance for credit losses.
To illustrate the potential magnitude of certain alternate judgments, the Firm estimates that changes in the following inputs would have the following effects on the Firm’s modeled loss estimates as of December 31, 2015, without consideration of any offsetting or correlated effects of other inputs in the Firm’s allowance for loan losses: ?
For PCI loans, a combined 5% decline in housing prices and a 1% increase in unemployment rates from current levels could imply an increase to modeled credit loss estimates of approximately $700 million.  ?
For the residential real estate portfolio, excluding PCI loans, a combined 5% decline in housing prices and a 1% increase in unemployment rates from current levels could imply an increase to modeled annual loss estimates of approximately $125 million.  ?
A 50 basis point deterioration in forecasted credit card loss rates could imply an increase to modeled annualized credit card loan loss estimates of approximately $600 million.  ?
An increase in PD factors consistent with a one-notch downgrade in the Firm’s internal risk ratings for its entire wholesale loan portfolio could imply an increase in the Firm’s modeled loss estimates of approximately $2.1 billion.  ?
A 100 basis point increase in estimated LGD for the Firm’s entire wholesale loan portfolio could imply an increase in the Firm’s modeled loss estimates of approximately $175 million.
The purpose of these sensitivity analyses is to provide an indication of the isolated impacts of hypothetical alternative assumptions on modeled loss estimates.
The changes in the inputs presented above are not intended to imply management’s expectation of future deterioration of those risk factors.
In addition, these analyses are not intended to estimate changes in the overall allowance for loan losses, which would also be influenced by the judgment management applies to the modeled loss estimates to reflect the uncertainty and imprecision of these modeled loss estimates based on then-current circumstances and conditions.
It is difficult to estimate how potential changes in specific factors might affect the overall allowance for credit losses because management considers a variety of factors and inputs in estimating the allowance for credit losses.
Changes in these factors and inputs may not occur at the same rate and may not be consistent across all geographies or product types, and changes in factors may be directionally inconsistent, such that improvement in one factor may offset deterioration in other factors.
In addition, it is difficult to predict how changes in specific economic conditions or assumptions could affect borrower behavior or other factors considered by management in estimating the allowance for credit losses.
Given the process the Firm follows and the judgments made in evaluating the risk factors related to its loss estimates, management believes that its current estimate of the allowance for credit losses is appropriate.
Fair value of financial instruments, MSRs and commodities inventory JPMorgan Chase carries a portion of its assets and liabilities at fair value.
The majority of such assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis.
Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, including certain mortgage, home equity and other loans, where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral.
Assets measured at fair value The following table includes the Firm’s assets measured at fair value and the portion of such assets that are classified within level 3 of the valuation hierarchy.
For further information, see Note 3.
## Table 3 ##
Note: Effective April 1, 2015, the Firm adopted new accounting guidance for certain investments where the Firm measures fair value using the net asset value per share (or its equivalent) as a practical expedient and has excluded these investments from the fair value hierarchy.
For further information, see Note 3.
(a) For purposes of table above, the derivative receivables total reflects the impact of netting adjustments; however, the $7.9 billion of derivative receivables classified as level 3 does not reflect the netting adjustment as such netting is not relevant to a presentation based on the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset.
However, if the Firm were to net such balances within level 3, the reduction in the level 3 derivative receivables balance would be $546 million at December 31, 2015; this is exclusive of the netting benefit associated with cash collateral, which would further reduce the level 3 balances.
(b) Private equity instruments represent investments within the Corporate line of business.
Determination of instrument-specific credit risk for items for which a fair value election was made The following describes how the gains and losses included in earnings that are attributable to changes in instrumentspecific credit risk, were determined.  ?
Loans and lending-related commitments: For floatingrate instruments, all changes in value are attributed to instrument-specific credit risk.
For fixed-rate instruments, an allocation of the changes in value for the period is made between those changes in value that are interest rate-related and changes in value that are credit-related.
Allocations are generally based on an analysis of borrower-specific credit spread and recovery information, where available, or benchmarking to similar entities or industries.
Long-term debt: Changes in value attributable to instrument-specific credit risk were derived principally from observable changes in the Firm’s credit spread.  ?
Resale and repurchase agreements, securities borrowed agreements and securities lending agreements: Generally, for these types of agreements, there is a requirement that collateral be maintained with a market value equal to or in excess of the principal amount loaned; as a result, there would be no adjustment or an immaterial adjustment for instrument-specific credit risk related to these agreements.
Difference between aggregate fair value and aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, for loans, long-term debt and long-term beneficial interests for which the fair value option has been elected.
## Table 4 ##
(a) There were no performing loans that were ninety days or more past due as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
(b) Remaining contractual principal is not applicable to nonprincipal-protected notes.
Unlike principal-protected structured notes, for which the Firm is obligated to return a stated amount of principal at the maturity of the note, nonprincipal-protected structured notes do not obligate the Firm to return a stated amount of principal at maturity, but to return an amount based on the performance of an underlying variable or derivative feature embedded in the note.
However, investors are exposed to the credit risk of the Firm as issuer for both nonprincipal-protected and principal protected notes.
(c) Where the Firm issues principal-protected zero-coupon or discount notes, the balance reflects the contractual principal payment at maturity or, if applicable, the contractual principal payment at the Firm’s next call date.
At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the contractual amount of letters of credit for which the fair value option was elected was $4.6 billion and $4.5 billion, respectively, with a corresponding fair value of $(94) million and $(147) million, respectively.
For further information regarding off-balance sheet lending-related financial instruments, see Note 29.

<table><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate</td><td>$26,363</td><td>$33,725</td></tr><tr><td>Credit derivatives</td><td>1,423</td><td>1,838</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign exchange</td><td>17,177</td><td>21,253</td></tr><tr><td>Equity</td><td>5,529</td><td>8,177</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity</td><td>9,185</td><td>13,982</td></tr><tr><td>Total, net of cash collateral</td><td>59,677</td><td>78,975</td></tr><tr><td>Liquid securities and other cash collateral held against derivative receivables</td><td>-16,580</td><td>-19,604</td></tr><tr><td>Total, net of all collateral</td><td>$43,097</td><td>$59,371</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Rating equivalent</td><td colspan="2">2015</td><td colspan="2">2014<sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>December 31,(in millions, except ratios)</td><td>Exposure net of all collateral</td><td>% of exposure netof all collateral</td><td>Exposure net of all collateral</td><td>% of exposure netof all collateral</td></tr><tr><td>AAA/Aaa to AA-/Aa3</td><td>$10,371</td><td>24%</td><td>$18,713</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>A+/A1 to A-/A3</td><td>10,595</td><td>25</td><td>13,508</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>BBB+/Baa1 to BBB-/Baa3</td><td>13,807</td><td>32</td><td>18,594</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>BB+/Ba1 to B-/B3</td><td>7,500</td><td>17</td><td>7,735</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>CCC+/Caa1 and below</td><td>824</td><td>2</td><td>821</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$43,097</td><td>100%</td><td>$59,371</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Notional amount of protectionpurchased<sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Credit derivatives used to manage:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans and lending-related commitments</td><td>$2,289</td><td>$2,047</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables</td><td>18,392</td><td>24,656</td></tr><tr><td>Credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities</td><td>$20,681</td><td>$26,703</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31, 2015(in billions, except ratio data)</td><td>Total assets at fair value</td><td>Total level 3 assets</td></tr><tr><td>Trading debt and equity instruments</td><td>$284.1</td><td>$11.9</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative receivables<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>59.7</td><td>7.9</td></tr><tr><td>Trading assets</td><td>343.8</td><td>19.8</td></tr><tr><td>AFS securities</td><td>241.8</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>2.9</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>MSRs</td><td>6.6</td><td>6.6</td></tr><tr><td>Private equity investments<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>1.9</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>28.0</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets measuredat fair value on a recurring basis</td><td>625.0</td><td>31.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets measuredat fair value</td><td>$626.7</td><td>$32.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total Firm assets</td><td>$2,351.7</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 assets as a percentage of total Firm assets<sup>(a)</sup></td><td></td><td>1.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3 assets as a percentage of total Firm assets at fair value<sup>(a)</sup></td><td></td><td>5.1%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">2015</td><td colspan="4">2014</td></tr><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>Contractual principal outstanding</td><td></td><td>Fair value</td><td>Fair value over/(under) contractual principal outstanding</td><td>Contractual principal outstanding</td><td></td><td>Fair value</td><td>Fair value over/(under) contractual principal outstanding</td></tr><tr><td>Loans<sup>(a)</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonaccrual loans</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans reported as trading assets</td><td>$3,484</td><td></td><td>$631</td><td>$-2,853</td><td>$3,847</td><td></td><td>$905</td><td>$-2,942</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>—</td><td>7</td><td></td><td>7</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Subtotal</td><td>3,491</td><td></td><td>638</td><td>-2,853</td><td>3,854</td><td></td><td>912</td><td>-2,942</td></tr><tr><td>All other performing loans</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans reported as trading assets</td><td>30,780</td><td></td><td>28,184</td><td>-2,596</td><td>37,608</td><td></td><td>35,462</td><td>-2,146</td></tr><tr><td>Loans</td><td>2,771</td><td></td><td>2,752</td><td>-19</td><td>2,397</td><td></td><td>2,389</td><td>-8</td></tr><tr><td>Total loans</td><td>$37,042</td><td></td><td>$31,574</td><td>$-5,468</td><td>$43,859</td><td></td><td>$38,763</td><td>$-5,096</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Principal-protected debt</td><td>$17,910</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$16,611</td><td>$-1,299</td><td>$14,660</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>$15,484</td><td>$824</td></tr><tr><td>Nonprincipal-protected debt<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>16,454</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>14,742</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Total long-term debt</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$33,065</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$30,226</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term beneficial interests</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nonprincipal-protected debt</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$787</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$2,162</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td>Total long-term beneficial interests</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$787</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td></td><td>$2,162</td><td>NA</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the change in the derivative receivables reported on the consolidated balance sheets from 2014 to 2015
Answer: -19.3