Table of Contents primarily to certain undistributed foreign earnings for which no U. S.  taxes are provided because such earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U. S.  The lower effective tax rate in 2010 as compared to 2009 is due primarily to an increase in foreign earnings on which U. S.  income taxes have not been provided as such earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the U. S.  As of September 25, 2010, the Company had deferred tax assets arising from deductible temporary differences, tax losses, and tax credits of $2.4 billion, and deferred tax liabilities of $5.0 billion.
Management believes it is more likely than not that forecasted income, including income that may be generated as a result of certain tax planning strategies, together with future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, will be sufficient to fully recover the deferred tax assets.
The Company will continue to evaluate the realizability of deferred tax assets quarterly by assessing the need for and amount of a valuation allowance.
The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has completed its field audit of the Company’s federal income tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006 and proposed certain adjustments.
The Company has contested certain of these adjustments through the IRS Appeals Office.
The IRS is currently examining the years 2007 through 2009.
All IRS audit issues for years prior to 2004 have been resolved.
During the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tax settlement with the IRS for the years 2002 through 2003.
In addition, the Company is subject to audits by state, local, and foreign tax authorities.
Management believes that adequate provision has been made for any adjustments that may result from tax examinations.
However, the outcome of tax audits cannot be predicted with certainty.
If any issues addressed in the Company’s tax audits are resolved in a manner not consistent with management’s expectations, the Company could be required to adjust its provision for income taxes in the period such resolution occurs.
Liquidity and Capital Resources The following table presents selected financial information and statistics as of and for the three years ended September 25, 2010 (in millions):
## Table 0 ##
As of September 25, 2010, the Company had $51 billion in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, an increase of $17 billion from September 26, 2009.
The principal component of this net increase was the cash generated by operating activities of $18.6 billion, which was partially offset by payments for acquisition of property, plant and equipment of $2 billion and payments made in connection with business acquisitions, net of cash acquired, of $638 million.
The Company’s marketable securities investment portfolio is invested primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.
As of September 25, 2010 and September 26, 2009, $30.8 billion and $17.4 billion, respectively, of the Company’s cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were held by foreign subsidiaries and are generally based in U. S.  dollar-denominated holdings.
The Company believes its existing balances of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to satisfy its working capital needs, capital asset purchases, outstanding commitments and other liquidity requirements associated with its existing operations over the next 12 months.
Capital allocation Each business segment is allocated capital by taking into consideration stand- alone peer comparisons, economic risk measures and regulatory capital requirements.
The amount of capital assigned to each business is referred to as equity.
Effective January 1, 2006, the Firm refined its methodology for allo- cating capital to the business segments.
As prior periods have not been revised to reflect the new capital allocations, certain business metrics, such as ROE, are not comparable to the current presentations.
For a further discussion of this change, see Capital management–Line of business equity on page 57 of this Annual Report.
Expense allocation Where business segments use services provided by support units within the Firm, the costs of those support units are allocated to the business segments.
Those expenses are allocated based upon their actual cost or the lower of actual cost or market, as well as upon usage of the services provided.
In con- trast, certain other expenses related to certain corporate functions, or to c tain technology and operations, are not allocated to the business segments and are retained in Corporate.
These retained expenses include: parent com- pany costs that would not be incurred if the segments were stand-alone busi- nesses; adjustments to align certain corporate staff, technology and opera- tions allocations with market prices; and other one-time items not aligned with the business segments.
During 2005, the Firm refined cost allocation methodologies related to certain corporate, technology and operations expenses in order to improve transparen- cy, consistency and accountability with regard to costs allocated across business segments.
Prior periods were not revised to reflect this methodology change.
Credit reimbursement TSS reimburses the IB for credit portfolio exposures managed by the IB on behalf of clients that the segments share.
At the time of the Merger, the reim- bursement methodology was revised to be based upon pretax earnings, net of the cost of capital related to those exposure
## Table 1 ##
Net income (loss)
## Table 2 ##
(a) Represents reported results on a tax-equivalent basis and excludes the impact of credit card securitizations.
(b) Net income includes Income from discontinued operations (after-tax) of $795 million, $229 million and $206 million for 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
(c) 2004 results include six months of the combined Firm’s results and six months of heritage JPMorgan Chase result
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JPMorgan Chase & Co.  84 JPMorgan Chase & Co.  / 2006 Annual Report factors such as liquidity and concentration concerns and, for the derivatives portfolio, counterparty credit risk (For a discussion of CVA, see Derivative contracts on pages 69–72 of this Annual Report).
For example, there is often limited market data to rely on when estimating the fair value of a large or aged position.
Similarly, judgment must be applied in estimating prices for less readily observable external parameters.
Finally, other factors such as model assumptions, market dislocations and unexpected correlations can affect estimates of fair value.
Imprecision in estimating these factors can impact the amount of revenue or loss recorded for a particular position.
Trading and available-for-sale portfolios The majority of the Firm’s securities held for trading and investment purposes (“long” positions) and securities that the Firm has sold to other parties but does not own (“short” positions) are valued based upon quoted market prices.
However, certain securities are traded less actively and, therefore, are not always able to be valued based upon quoted market prices.
The determination of their fair value requires management judgment, as this determination may require benchmarking to similar instruments or analyzing default and recovery rates.
Examples include certain collateralized mortgage and debt obligations and high-yield debt securities.
As few derivative contracts are listed on an exchange, the majority of the Firm’s derivative positions are valued using internally developed models that use as their basis readily observable market parameters – that is, parameters that are actively quoted and can be validated to external sources, including industry-pricing services.
Certain derivatives, however, are valued based upon models with significant unobservable market parameters – that is, parameters that must be estimated and are, therefore, subject to management judgment to substantiate the model valuation.
These instruments are normally either traded less actively or trade activity is one way.
Examples include long-dated interest rate or currency swaps, where swap rates may be unobservable for longer maturities, and certain credit products, where correlation and recovery rates are unobservable.
Due to the lack of observable market data, the Firm defers the initial trading profit for these financial instruments.
The deferred profit is recognized in Principal transactions revenue on a systematic basis (typically straight-line amortization over the life of the instruments) when observable market data becomes available.
Management’s judgment includes recording fair value adjustments (i. e. , reductions) to model valuations to account for parameter uncertainty when valuing complex or less actively traded derivative transactions.
The following table summarizes the Firm’s trading and available-forsale portfolios by valuation methodology at December 31, 2006:

<table><tr><td></td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities</td><td>$51,011</td><td>$33,992</td><td>$24,490</td></tr><tr><td>Accounts receivable, net</td><td>$5,510</td><td>$3,361</td><td>$2,422</td></tr><tr><td>Inventories</td><td>$1,051</td><td>$455</td><td>$509</td></tr><tr><td>Working capital</td><td>$20,956</td><td>$20,049</td><td>$18,645</td></tr><tr><td>Annual operating cash flow</td><td>$18,595</td><td>$10,159</td><td>$9,596</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,</td><td colspan="3">Total net revenue</td><td></td><td colspan="3">Noninterest expense</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(in millions, except ratios)</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Investment Bank</td><td>$18,277</td><td>$14,613</td><td>$12,633</td><td></td><td>$12,304</td><td>$9,749</td><td>$8,709</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retail Financial Services</td><td>14,825</td><td>14,830</td><td>10,791</td><td></td><td>8,927</td><td>8,585</td><td>6,825</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Card Services</td><td>14,745</td><td>15,366</td><td>10,745</td><td></td><td>5,086</td><td>4,999</td><td>3,883</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Banking</td><td>3,800</td><td>3,488</td><td>2,278</td><td></td><td>1,979</td><td>1,856</td><td>1,326</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Treasury & SecuritiesServices</td><td>6,109</td><td>5,539</td><td>4,198</td><td></td><td>4,266</td><td>4,050</td><td>3,726</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asset Management</td><td>6,787</td><td>5,664</td><td>4,179</td><td></td><td>4,578</td><td>3,860</td><td>3,133</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>8</td><td>-1,136</td><td>769</td><td></td><td>1,141</td><td>5,327</td><td>6,370</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$64,551</td><td>$58,364</td><td>$45,593</td><td></td><td>$38,281</td><td>$38,426</td><td>$33,972</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,</td><td colspan="3">Net income (loss)</td><td colspan="3">Return on equity</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(in millions, except ratios)</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td><td>2004(c)</td><td>2006</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td><sup>(c)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Investment Bank</td><td>$3,674</td><td>$3,673</td><td>$2,956</td><td>18%</td><td>18%</td><td>17%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retail Financial Services</td><td>3,213</td><td>3,427</td><td>2,199</td><td>22</td><td>26</td><td>24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Card Services</td><td>3,206</td><td>1,907</td><td>1,274</td><td>23</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Banking</td><td>1,010</td><td>951</td><td>561</td><td>18</td><td>28</td><td>27</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Treasury & SecuritiesServices</td><td>1,090</td><td>863</td><td>277</td><td>48</td><td>57</td><td>14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asset Management</td><td>1,409</td><td>1,216</td><td>681</td><td>40</td><td>51</td><td>17</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Corporate<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>842</td><td>-3,554</td><td>-3,482</td><td>NM</td><td>NM</td><td>NM</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$14,444</td><td>$8,483</td><td>$4,466</td><td>13%</td><td>8%</td><td>6%</td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: What was the average value of the Retail Financial Services in the years where Investment Bank is positive for Net income (loss)? (in million)
Answer: 2946.33333