AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued) The following table illustrates the effect on net loss and net loss per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No.123 to stock-based compensation.
The estimated fair value of each option is calculated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model (in thousands, except per share amounts):
## Table 0 ##
Fair Value of Financial Instruments—As of December 31, 2002, the carrying amounts of the Company’s 5.0% convertible notes, the 2.25% convertible notes, the 6.25% convertible notes and the senior notes were approximately $450.0 million, $210.9 million, $212.7 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, and the fair values of such notes were $291.4 million, $187.2 million, $144.4 million and $780.0 million, respectively.
As of December 31, 2001, the carrying amount of the Company’s 5.0% convertible notes, the 2.25% convertible notes, the 6.25% convertible notes and the senior notes were approximately $450.0 million, $204.1 million, $212.8 million and $1.0 billion, respectively, and the fair values of such notes were $268.3 million, $173.1 million, $158.2 million and $805.0 million, respectively.
Fair values were determined based on quoted market prices.
The carrying values of all other financial instruments reasonably approximate the related fair values as of December 31, 2002 and 2001.
Retirement Plan—The Company has a 401(k) plan covering substantially all employees who meet certain age and employment requirements.
Under the plan, the Company matches 35% of participants’ contributions up to a maximum 5% of a participant’s compensation.
The Company contributed approximately $979,000, $1,540,000 and $1,593,000 to the plan for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements—In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No.143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.
” This statement establishes accounting standards for the recognition and measurement of liabilities associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets and the related asset retirement costs.
The requirements of SFAS No.143 are effective for the Company as of January 1, 2003.
The Company will adopt this statement in the first quarter of 2003 and does not expect the impact of adopting this statement to have a material impact on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In August 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No.144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.
” SFAS No.144 supersedes SFAS No.121, “Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to Be Disposed Of,” but retains many of its fundamental provisions.
SFAS No.144 also clarifies certain measurement and classification issues from SFAS No.121.
In addition, SFAS No.144 supersedes the accounting and reporting provisions for the disposal of a business segment as found in APB No.30, “Reporting the Results of Operations—Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of a Business and Extraordinary, Unusual and Infrequently Occurring Events and Transactions”.
However, SFAS No.144 retains the requirement in APB No.30 to separately report discontinued operations, and broadens the scope of such requirement to include more types of disposal transactions.
The scope of SFAS No.144 excludes goodwill and other intangible assets that are not to be amortized, as the accounting for such items is prescribed by SFAS No.142.
The Company implemented SFAS No.144 on January 1, 2002.
Accordingly, all relevant impairment assessments and decisions concerning discontinued operations have been made under this standard in 2002.
Credit Ratings Citigroup’s funding and liquidity, funding capacity, ability to access capital markets and other sources of funds, the cost of these funds and its ability to maintain certain deposits are partially dependent on its credit ratings.
The table below sets forth the ratings for Citigroup and Citibank as of December 31, 2017.
While not included in the table below, the long-term and short-term ratings of Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  (CGMI) were “A2/P-1” at Moody’s, “A+/ A-1” at Standard & Poor’s and “A+/F1” at Fitch as of December 31, 2017.
The long-term and short-term ratings of CGMHI were “BBB+/A-2” at Standard & Poor’s and “A/F1” at Fitch as of December 31, 2017.
## Table 1 ##
Recent Credit Rating Developments As of November 14, 2017, Moody's Investors Service has placed Citi on "Positive" outlook, citing Citi’s durable business model with a narrower geographic footprint and refined customer base targets, and the ability to demonstrate a strengthened risk asset profile as well as improved earnings stability.
Potential Impacts of Ratings Downgrades Ratings downgrades by Moody’s, Fitch or S&P could negatively impact Citigroup’s and/or Citibank’s funding and liquidity due to reduced funding capacity, including derivatives triggers, which could take the form of cash obligations and collateral requirements.
The following information is provided for the purpose of analyzing the potential funding and liquidity impact to Citigroup and Citibank of a hypothetical, simultaneous ratings downgrade across all three major rating agencies.
This analysis is subject to certain estimates, estimation methodologies, judgments and uncertainties.
Uncertainties include potential ratings limitations that certain entities may have with respect to permissible counterparties, as well as general subjective counterparty behavior.
For example, certain corporate customers and markets counterparties could reevaluate their business relationships with Citi and limit transactions in certain contracts or market instruments with Citi.
Changes in counterparty behavior could impact Citi’s funding and liquidity, as well as the results of operations of certain of its businesses.
The actual impact to Citigroup or Citibank is unpredictable and may differ materially from the potential funding and liquidity impacts described below.
For additional information on the impact of credit rating changes on Citi and its applicable subsidiaries, see “Risk Factors— Liquidity Risks” above.
Citigroup Inc.  and Citibank—Potential Derivative Triggers As of December 31, 2017, Citi estimates that a hypothetical one-notch downgrade of the senior debt/long-term rating of Citigroup Inc.  across all three major rating agencies could impact Citigroup’s funding and liquidity due to derivative triggers by approximately $0.8 billion, compared to $1.0 billion as of September 30, 2017.
Other funding sources, such as securities financing transactions and other margin requirements, for which there are no explicit triggers, could also be adversely affected.
As of December 31, 2017, Citi estimates that a hypothetical one-notch downgrade of the senior debt/longterm rating of Citibank across all three major rating agencies could impact Citibank’s funding and liquidity by approximately $0.4 billion, compared to $0.5 billion as of September 30, 2017, due to derivative triggers.
In total, Citi estimates that a one-notch downgrade of Citigroup and Citibank, across all three major rating agencies, could result in increased aggregate cash obligations and collateral requirements of approximately $1.2 billion, compared to $1.5 billion as of September 30, 2017 (see also Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).
As set forth under “High-Quality Liquid Assets” above, the liquidity resources of Citibank were approximately $369 billion and the liquidity resources of Citi’s non-bank and other entities were approximately $77 billion, for a total of approximately $446 billion as of December 31, 2017.
These liquidity resources are available in part as a contingency for the potential events described above.
In addition, a broad range of mitigating actions are currently included in Citigroup’s and Citibank’s contingency funding plans.
For Citigroup, these mitigating factors include, but are not limited to, accessing surplus funding capacity from existing clients, tailoring levels of secured lending and adjusting the size of select trading books and collateralized borrowings from certain Citibank subsidiaries.
Mitigating
17.
DEBT Short-Term Borrowings
## Table 2 ##
(1) Includes borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Banks and other market participants.
At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, collateralized short-term advances from the Federal Home Loan Banks were $23.8 billion and $12.0 billion, respectively.
Borrowings under bank lines of credit may be at interest rates based on LIBOR, CD rates, the prime rate or bids submitted by the banks.
Citigroup pays commitment fees for its lines of credit.
Some of Citigroup鈥檚 non-bank subsidiaries have credit facilities with Citigroup鈥檚 subsidiary depository institutions, including Citibank.
Borrowings under these facilities are secured in accordance with Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act.
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.  (CGMHI) has borrowing agreements consisting of facilities that CGMHI has been advised are available, but where no contractual lending obligation exists.
These arrangements are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure flexibility in meeting CGMHI鈥檚 short-term requirements.
Long-Term Debt
## Table 3 ##
(1) Represents the parent holding company.
(2) Includes notes that are subordinated within certain countries, regions or subsidiaries.
(3) Represents Citibank entities as well as other bank entities.
At December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, collateralized long-term advances from the Federal Home Loan Banks were $19.3 billion and $21.6 billion, respectively.
(4) Represents broker-dealer and other non-bank subsidiaries that are consolidated into Citigroup Inc. , the parent holding company.
The Company issues both fixed- and variable-rate debt in a range of currencies.
It uses derivative contracts, primarily interest rate swaps, to effectively convert a portion of its fixed-rate debt to variable-rate debt.
The maturity structure of the derivatives generally corresponds to the maturity structure of the debt being hedged.
In addition, the Company uses other derivative contracts to manage the foreign exchange impact of certain debt issuances.
At December 31, 2017, the Company鈥檚 overall weighted average interest rate for long-term debt was 3.57% on a contractual basis and 2.70% including the effects of derivative contracts.
North America Consumer Mortgage Portfolio Citi’s North America consumer mortgage portfolio consists of both residential first mortgages and home equity loans.
The following table shows the outstanding quarterly end-of-period loans for Citi’s North America residential first mortgage and home equity loan portfolios:

<table><tr><td></td><td>2002</td><td>2001</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Net loss as reported</td><td>$-1,141,879</td><td>$-450,094</td><td>$-194,628</td></tr><tr><td>Less: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined under fair value basedmethod for all awards, net of related tax effect</td><td>-38,126</td><td>-50,540</td><td>-51,186</td></tr><tr><td>Pro-forma net loss</td><td>$-1,180,005</td><td>$-500,634</td><td>$-245,814</td></tr><tr><td>Basic and diluted net loss per share—as reported</td><td>$-5.84</td><td>$-2.35</td><td>$-1.15</td></tr><tr><td>Basic and diluted net loss per share—pro-forma</td><td>$-6.04</td><td>$-2.61</td><td>$-1.46</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Citigroup Inc.</td><td colspan="3">Citibank, N.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Seniordebt</td><td>Commercialpaper</td><td>Outlook</td><td>Long-term</td><td>Short-term</td><td>Outlook</td></tr><tr><td>Fitch Ratings (Fitch)</td><td>A</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>F1</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s)</td><td>Baa1</td><td>P-2</td><td>Positive</td><td>A1</td><td>P-1</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Standard & Poor’s (S&P)</td><td>BBB+</td><td>A-2</td><td>Stable</td><td>A+</td><td>A-1</td><td>Stable</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">2017</td><td colspan="2">2016</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>Balance</td><td>Weighted average coupon</td><td>Balance</td><td>Weighted average coupon</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial paper</td><td>$9,940</td><td>1.28%</td><td>$9,989</td><td>0.79%</td></tr><tr><td>Other borrowings<sup>-1</sup></td><td>34,512</td><td>1.62</td><td>20,712</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$44,452</td><td></td><td>$30,701</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="2">Balances atDecember 31,</td></tr><tr><td>In millions of dollars</td><td>Weightedaveragecoupon</td><td>Maturities</td><td>2017</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>Citigroup Inc.<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Senior debt</td><td>4.15%</td><td>2018-2098</td><td>$123,488</td><td>$118,881</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt<sup>-2</sup></td><td>4.48</td><td>2018-2046</td><td>26,963</td><td>26,758</td></tr><tr><td>Trust preferredsecurities</td><td>6.90</td><td>2036-2067</td><td>1,712</td><td>1,694</td></tr><tr><td>Bank<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Senior debt</td><td>2.06</td><td>2018-2049</td><td>65,856</td><td>49,454</td></tr><tr><td>Broker-dealer<sup>-4</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Senior debt</td><td>3.44</td><td>2018-2057</td><td>18,666</td><td>9,387</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt<sup>-2</sup></td><td>5.37</td><td>2021-2037</td><td>24</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.57%</td><td></td><td>$236,709</td><td>$206,178</td></tr><tr><td>Senior debt</td><td></td><td></td><td>$208,010</td><td>$177,722</td></tr><tr><td>Subordinated debt<sup>-2</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>26,987</td><td>26,762</td></tr><tr><td>Trust preferredsecurities</td><td></td><td></td><td>1,712</td><td>1,694</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>$236,709</td><td>$206,178</td></tr></table>

Question: Does the value of Senior debt for Citigroup Inc in 2016 greater than that in 2017?
Answer: No