beginning on page 73, address in more detail the specific procedures, measures and analyses of the major categories of risk that we manage.
Strategic Risk Management The Board provides oversight for strategic risk through the CEO and the Finance Committee.
We use an integrated business planning process to help manage strategic risk.
A key component of the planning process aligns strategies, goals, tactics and resources.
The process begins with an assessment that creates a plan for the Corporation, setting the corporate strategic direction.
The planning process then cascades through the business units, creating business unit plans that are aligned with the Corporation’s direction.
Tactics and metrics are monitored to ensure adherence to the plans.
As part of this monitoring, business units perform a quarterly self-assessment further described in the Operational Risk Management section beginning on page 73.
This assessment looks at changing market and business conditions, and the overall risk in meeting objectives.
Corporate Audit in turn monitors, and independently reviews and evaluates, the plans and self-assessments.
One of the key tools for managing strategic risk is capital allocation.
Through allocating capital, we effectively manage each business segment’s ability to take on risk.
Review and approval of business plans incorporates approval of capital allocation, and economic capital usage is monitored through financial and risk reporting.
Liquidity Risk and Capital Management Liquidity Risk Liquidity is the ongoing ability to accommodate liability maturities and deposit withdrawals, fund asset growth and business operations, and meet contractual obligations through unconstrained access to funding at reasonable market rates.
Liquidity management involves forecasting funding requirements and maintaining sufficient capacity to meet the needs and accommodate fluctuations in asset and liability levels due to changes in our business operations or unanticipated events.
Sources of liquidity include deposits and other customer-based funding, wholesale market-based funding, and liquidity provided by the sale or securitization of assets.
We manage liquidity at two levels.
The first is the liquidity of the parent company, which is the holding company that owns the banking and nonbanking subsidiaries.
The second is the liquidity of the banking subsidiaries.
The management of liquidity at both levels is essential because the parent company and banking subsidiaries each have different funding needs and sources, and each are subject to certain regulatory guidelines and requirements.
Through ALCO, the Finance Committee is responsible for establishing our liquidity policy as well as approving operating and contingency procedures, and monitoring liquidity on an ongoing basis.
Corporate Treasury is responsible for planning and executing our funding activities and strategy.
In order to ensure adequate liquidity through the full range of potential operating environments and market conditions, we conduct our liquidity management and business activities in a manner that will preserve and enhance funding stability, flexibility, and diversity.
Key components of this operating strategy include a strong focus on customer-based funding, maintaining direct relationships with wholesale market funding providers, and maintaining the ability to liquefy certain assets when, and if, requirements warrant.
We develop and maintain contingency funding plans for both the parent company and bank liquidity positions.
These plans evaluate our liquidity position under various operating circumstances and allow us to ensure that we would be able to operate though a period of stress when access to normal sources of funding is constrained.
The plans project funding requirements during a potential period of stress, specify and quantify sources of liquidity, outline actions and procedures for effectively managing through the problem period, and define roles and responsibilities.
They are reviewed and approved annually by ALCO.
Our borrowing costs and ability to raise funds are directly impacted by our credit ratings.
The credit ratings of Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, National Association (Bank of America, N. A. )
are reflected in the table below.
Table 7 Credit Ratings
## Table 0 ##
Credit Card Securitizations The Corporation securitizes originated and purchased credit card loans.
The Corporation’s continuing involvement with the securitization trusts includes servicing the receivables, retaining an undivided interest (seller’s interest) in the receivables, and holding certain retained interests including senior and subordinate securities, discount receivables, subordinate interests in accrued interest and fees on the securitized receivables, and cash reserve accounts.
The Corporation consolidated all credit card securitization trusts on January 1, 2010 in accordance with new consolidation guidance.
Certain retained interests, including senior and subordinate securities, were eliminated in consolidation.
The seller’s interest in the trusts, which is pari passu to the investors’ interest, and the discount receivables continue to be classified in loans and leases.
The table below summarizes select information related to credit card securitization trusts in which the Corporation held a variable interest at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
## Table 1 ##
(1) At December 31, 2009, maximum loss exposure represents the total retained interests held by the Corporation and also includes $2.3 billion related to a liquidity support commitment the Corporation provided to one of the U. S.  Credit Card Securitization Trust’s commercial paper program.
This commercial paper program was terminated in 2010.
(2) As a holder of these securities, the Corporation receives scheduled principal and interest payments.
During 2009, there were no OTTI losses recorded on those securities classified as AFS or HTM debt securities.
(3) At December 31, 2010 and 2009, loans and leases includes $20.4 billion and $10.8 billion of seller’s interest and $3.8 billion and $4.1 billion of discount receivables.
(4) At December 31, 2010, all other assets includes restricted cash accounts and unbilled accrued interest and fees.
At December 31, 2009, all other assets includes discount subordinate interests in accrued interest and fees on the securitized receivables, cash reserve accounts and interest-only strips which are carried at fair value.
During 2010, $2.9 billion of new senior debt securities were issued to external investors from the credit card securitization trusts.
There were no new debt securities issued to external investors from the credit card securitization trusts during 2009.
Collections reinvested in revolving period securitizations were $133.8 billion and cash flows received on residual interests were $5.5 billion during 2009.
At December 31, 2009, there were no recognized servicing assets or liabilities associated with any of the credit card securitization transactions.
The Corporation recorded $2.0 billion in servicing fees related to credit card securitizations during 2009.
During 2010 and 2009, subordinate securities with a notional principal amount of $11.5 billion and $7.8 billion and a stated interest rate of zero percent were issued by certain credit card securitization trusts to the Corporation.
In addition, the Corporation has elected to designate a specified percentage of new receivables transferred to the trusts as “discount receivables” such that principal collections thereon are added to finance charges which increases the yield in the trust.
Through the designation of newly transferred receivables as discount receivables, the Corporation has subordinated a portion of its seller’s interest to the investors’ interest.
These actions, which were specifically permitted by the terms of the trust documents, were taken in an effort to address the decline in the excess spread of the U. S.  and U. K.  Credit Card Securitization Trusts.
As these trusts were consolidated on January 1, 2010, the issuance of subordinate securities and the discount receivables election had no impact on the Corporation’s consolidated results during 2010 or 2009.
At December 31, 2009, the carrying amount and fair value of the retained subordinate securities were $6.6 billion and $6.4 billion.
These balances were eliminated on January 1, 2010 with the consolidation of the trusts.
The outstanding principal balance of discount receivables, which are classified in loans and leases, was $3.8 billion and $4.1 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
The notional amounts presented in Table 45 represent the total contract/ notional amount of credit derivatives outstanding and include both purchased and written credit derivatives.
The credit risk amounts are measured as the net replacement cost, in the event the counterparties with contracts in a gain position to us fail to per form under the terms of those contracts.
For information on the per formance risk of our written credit derivatives, see Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The credit risk amounts discussed on page 96 and noted in the table below take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements while amounts disclosed in Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements are shown on a gross basis.
Credit risk reflects the potential benefit from offsetting exposure to non-credit derivative products with the same counterparties that may be netted upon the occurrence of certain events, thereby reducing the Corporation’s overall exposure.
## Table 2 ##
Counterparty Credit Risk Valuation Adjustments We record a counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment on certain derivative assets, including our credit default protection purchased, in order to properly reflect the credit quality of the counterparty.
These adjustments are necessary as the market quotes on derivatives do not fully reflect the credit risk of the counterparties to the derivative assets.
We consider collateral and legally enforceable master netting agreements that mitigate our credit exposure to each counterparty in determining the counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment.
All or a portion of these counterparty credit risk valuation adjustments are reversed or otherwise adjusted in future periods due to changes in the value of the derivative contract, collateral and creditworthiness of the counterparty During 2010 and 2009, credit valuation gains (losses) of $731 million and $3.1 billion ($(8) million and $1.7 billion, net of hedges) were recognized in trading account profits (losses) for counterparty credit risk related to derivative assets.
For additional information on gains or losses related to the counterparty credit risk on derivative assets, refer to Note 4 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
For information on our monoline counterparty credit risk, see the discussions beginning on pages 51 and 90, and for information on our CDO-related counterparty credit risk, see GBAM beginning on page 49.
The use of the two wholly-owned special purpose entities discussed below preserved the tax deferral that resulted from the 2007 Temple-Inland timberlands sales.
The Company recognized an $840 million deferred tax liability in connection with the 2007 sales, which will be settled with the maturity of the notes in 2027.
In October 2007, Temple-Inland sold 1.55 million acres of timberlands for $2.38 billion.
The total consideration consisted almost entirely of notes due in 2027 issued by the buyer of the timberlands, which Temple-Inland contributed to two wholly-owned, bankruptcy-remote special purpose entities.
The notes are shown in Financial assets of special purpose entities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet and are supported by $2.38 billion of irrevocable letters of credit issued by three banks, which are required to maintain minimum credit ratings on their long-term debt.
In the third quarter of 2012, International Paper completed its preliminary analysis of the acquisition date fair value of the notes and determined it to be $2.09 billion.
As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the fair value of the notes was $2.27 billion and $2.62 billion, respectively.
These notes are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy, which is further defined in Note 14.
In December 2007, Temple-Inland's two wholly-owned special purpose entities borrowed $2.14 billion shown in Nonrecourse financial liabilities of special purpose entities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.
The loans are repayable in 2027 and are secured only by the $2.38 billion of notes and the irrevocable letters of credit securing the notes and are nonrecourse to the Company.
The loan agreements provide that if a credit rating of any of the banks issuing the letters of credit is downgraded below the specified threshold, the letters of credit issued by that bank must be replaced within 30 days with letters of credit from another qualifying financial institution.
In the third quarter of 2012, International Paper completed its preliminary analysis of the acquisition date fair value of the borrowings and determined it to be $2.03 billion.
As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the fair value of this debt was $2.16 billion and $2.49 billion, respectively.
This debt is classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy, which is further defined in Note 14.
During 2012, the credit ratings for two letter of credit banks that support $1.0 billion of the 2007 Monetized Notes were downgraded below the specified threshold.
These letters of credit were successfully replaced by other qualifying institutions.
Fees of $8 million were incurred in connection with these replacements.
Activity between the Company and the 2007 financing entities was as follows:

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5"> December 31, 2005 </td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Bank of America Corporation </td><td colspan="2">  Bank of America, N.A. </td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Senior Debt </td><td> Subordinated Debt </td><td> Commercial Paper </td><td> Short-term Borrowings </td><td> Long-term Debt </td></tr><tr><td>Moody’s</td><td>Aa2</td><td>Aa3</td><td>P-1</td><td>P-1</td><td>Aa1</td></tr><tr><td>Standard & Poor’s</td><td>AA-</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1+</td><td>A-1+</td><td>AA</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch, Inc.</td><td>AA-</td><td>A+</td><td>F1+</td><td>F1+</td><td>AA-</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2010 Consolidated VIEs</td><td>2009 Retained Interests in Unconsolidated VIEs</td></tr><tr><td> Maximum loss exposure<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$36,596</td><td>$32,167</td></tr><tr><td>On-balance sheet assets</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trading account assets</td><td>$–</td><td>$80</td></tr><tr><td>Available-for-saledebt securities<sup>-2</sup></td><td>–</td><td>8,501</td></tr><tr><td>Held-to-maturitysecurities<sup>-2</sup></td><td>–</td><td>6,573</td></tr><tr><td>Loans and leases<sup>-3</sup></td><td>92,104</td><td>14,905</td></tr><tr><td>Allowance for loan and lease losses</td><td>-8,505</td><td>-1,727</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative assets</td><td>1,778</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>All other assets<sup>-4</sup></td><td>4,259</td><td>1,547</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$89,636</td><td>$29,879</td></tr><tr><td>On-balance sheet liabilities</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt</td><td>$52,781</td><td>$–</td></tr><tr><td>All other liabilities</td><td>259</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td>$53,040</td><td>$–</td></tr><tr><td>Trust loans</td><td>$92,104</td><td>$103,309</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> December 31</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> 2010</td><td colspan="2">2009</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Contract/ </td><td></td><td>Contract/ </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> Notional</td><td> Credit Risk</td><td>Notional</td><td>Credit Risk</td></tr><tr><td> Purchased credit derivatives:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit default swaps</td><td>$2,184,703</td><td>$18,150</td><td>$2,800,539</td><td>$25,964</td></tr><tr><td>Total return swaps/other</td><td>26,038</td><td>1,013</td><td>21,685</td><td>1,740</td></tr><tr><td> Total purchased credit derivatives</td><td>2,210,741</td><td>19,163</td><td>2,822,224</td><td>27,704</td></tr><tr><td> Written credit derivatives:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit default swaps</td><td>2,133,488</td><td>n/a</td><td>2,788,760</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Total return swaps/other</td><td>22,474</td><td>n/a</td><td>33,109</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td> Total written credit derivatives</td><td>2,155,962</td><td>n/a</td><td>2,821,869</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td> Total credit derivatives</td><td>$4,366,703</td><td>$19,163</td><td>$5,644,093</td><td>$27,704</td></tr></table>

Question: what was the ratio of the fair value of the preliminary debt analysis of the acquisition date fair value of the borrowings for 2014 to 2013
Answer: 0.86747