The fair value of financial instruments whose estimated fair values were different from their carrying values is summarized below (dollars in thousands)
## Table 0 ##
?
Loans, net—For loans held-for sale, fair value is estimated using quoted market prices for securities backed by similar types of loans, dealer rate sheets and dealer commitments to purchase loans.
The carrying value of closed loans held-for-sale designated in fair value hedge relationships approximates fair value.
For the held-for-investment portfolio, including one- to four-family, home equity, recreational vehicle, marine and auto loans, fair value is estimated by differentiating loans based on their individual characteristics, such as product classification, loan category, pricing features and remaining maturity.
Management adjusts assumptions for expected losses, prepayments and discount rates to reflect the individual characteristics of the loans, such as credit risk, coupon, term, and payment characteristics, as well as the secondary market conditions for these types of loans.
For commercial and credit card loans, fair value is estimated based on both individual and portfolio characteristics and recent market transactions.  ?
Deposits—For sweep deposit accounts, money market and savings accounts and checking accounts, fair value is the amount payable on demand at the reporting date.
For certificates of deposit and brokered certificates of deposits, fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows at the currently offered rates for deposits of similar remaining maturities.  ?
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase—Fair value is determined by discounting future cash flows at the rate implied for other similar instruments with similar remaining maturities.  ?
Other borrowings—For FHLB advances, fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows at the currently offered rates for borrowings of similar remaining maturities.
For trust preferred stock, fair value is estimated by discounting future cash flows at the rate implied by dealer pricing quotes for other similar instruments, adjusting the price to reflect differences between the securities, such as credit risk, liquidity, term coupon, payment characteristics and other information.
For margin collateral, overnight and other short-term borrowings and collateralized borrowings, fair value is estimated to be carrying value.  ?
Corporate debt—Fair value is estimated using quoted market prices or dealer pricing quotes.
In the normal course of business, the Company makes various commitments to extend credit and incur contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the consolidated balance sheet.
Significant changes in the economy or interest rates influence the impact that these commitments and contingencies have on the Company in the future.
Information related to such commitments and contingent liabilities is detailed in Note 23—Commitments, Contingencies and Other Regulatory Matter
ITEM 2.
PROPERTIES A summary of our significant locations at December 31, 2007 is shown in the following table.
All facilities are leased, except for 166,000 square feet of our office in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Square footage amounts are net of space that has been sublet or part of a facility restructuring.
## Table 1 ##
All of our facilities are used by both our retail and institutional segments.
In addition to the significant facilities above, we also lease all of our 27 E*TRADE Financial Branches, ranging in space from 2,500 to 13,000 square feet.
All other leased facilities with space of less than 25,000 square feet are not listed by location.
We believe our facilities space is adequate to meet our needs in 2008.
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In June 2002, the Company acquired from MarketXT Holdings, Inc.  (formerly known as “Tradescape Corporation”) the following entities: Tradescape Securities, LLC; Tradescape Technologies, LLC; and Momentum Securities, LLC.
Disputes subsequently arose between the parties regarding the responsibility for liabilities that first became known to the Company after the sale.
On April 8, 2004, MarketXT filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and other third parties, including Softbank Investment Corporation (“SBI”) and Softbank Corporation, alleging that defendants were preventing plaintiffs from obtaining certain contingent payments allegedly due, and as a result, claiming damages of $1.5 billion.
On April 9, 2004, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain directors and officers of MarketXT seeking declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages for defendants’ fraud in connection with the 2002 sale, including, but not limited to, having presented the Company with fraudulent financial statements regarding the condition of Momentum Securities, LLC during the due diligence process.
Subsequently, MarketXT was placed into bankruptcy, and the Company filed an adversary proceeding against MarketXT and others in January 2005, seeking declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in those Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entitled, “In re MarketXT Holdings Corp. , Debtor.
” In that same court, the Company filed a separate adversary proceeding against Omar Amanat in those Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings entitled, “In re Amanat, Omar Shariff.
” In October 2005, MarketXT answered the Company’s adversary proceeding and asserted its counterclaims, subsequently amending its claims in 2006 to add a $326.0 million claim for “promissory estoppel” in which Market XT alleged, for the first time, that the Company breached a prior promise to purchase the acquired entities in 1999-2000.
In April 2006, Omar Amanat answered the Company’s separate adversary proceeding against him and asserted his counterclaims.
In separate motions before the Bankruptcy Court, the Company has moved to dismiss certain counterclaims brought by MarketXT including those described above, as well as certain counterclaims brought by Mr.  Amanat.
In a ruling dated September 29, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court in the MarketXT case granted the Company’s motion to dismiss four of the six bases upon which MarketXT asserts its fraud claims against the Company; its conversion claim; and its demand for punitive damages.
In the same ruling, the Bankruptcy Court denied in its entirety MarketXT’s competing motion to dismiss the Company’s claims against it.
On October 26, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court subsequently dismissed MarketXT’s “promissory estoppel” claim.
By order dated December 18, 2007, the United States Bankruptcy
Balance Sheet Highlights (dollars in billions)
## Table 2 ##
(1) Loans, net and margin receivables as a percentage of enterprise interest-earning assets and retail deposits and customer payables as a percentage of enterprise interest-bearing liabilities include balances not recorded on the balance sheet, such as margin and customer cash and deposits held by third parties.
The increase in total assets was attributable primarily to an increase of $3.7 billion in loans receivable, net.
The increase in loans receivable, net was due principally to growth in our one- to four-family loan portfolio during the first and second quarters of 2007.
Beginning in the second half of 2007, we altered our strategy and halted our previous focus on growing our balance sheet.
For the foreseeable future, we plan to allow our interest earning assets, particularly our mortgage-backed securities and home equity loans, to pay down, resulting in an overall decline in balance.
During this period, we plan to increase our excess regulatory capital levels at E*TRADE Bank as we focus on mitigating the credit risk inherent in our home equity loan portfolio.
In connection with this strategy and the Citadel Investment, we have updated our secondary market purchase policies to prohibit the acquisition of asset-backed securities, CDOs and certain other instruments with a high level of credit risk through January 1, 2010.
EARNINGS OVERVIEW 2007 Compared to 2006 Net income (loss) decreased 329% to a loss of $1.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 2006.
The decrease in net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 was due principally to the $2.2 billion loss on the sale of our asset-backed securities portfolio and an increase in our provision for loan losses of $595.1 million to $640.1 million.
These losses in our institutional segment more than offset the increase in our retail segment income, which increased $94.0 million to $789.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 2006.
We report corporate interest income and corporate interest expense separately from operating interest income and operating interest expense.
We believe reporting these two items separately provides a clearer picture of the financial performance of our operations than would a presentation that combined these two items.
Our operating interest income and operating interest expense is generated from the operations of the Company and is a broad indicator of our success in our banking, lending and balance sheet management businesses.
Our corporate debt, which is the primary source of our corporate interest expense, has been issued primarily in connection with the Citadel Investment and acquisitions, such as Harrisdirect and BrownCo.
Similarly, we report gain (loss) on sales of investments, net separately from gain (loss) on loans and securities, net.
We believe reporting these two items separately provides a clearer picture of the financial performance of our operations than would a presentation that combined these two items.
Gain (loss) on loans and securities, net are the result of activities in our operations, namely our lending and balance sheet management businesses, including impairment on our available-for sale mortgage-backed and investment securities portfolio.
Gain (loss) on sales of investments, net relates to historical equity investments of the Company at the corporate level and are not related to the ongoing business of our operating subsidiaries.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES We have established liquidity and capital policies to support the successful execution of our business strategies, while ensuring ongoing and sufficient liquidity through the business cycle.
These policies are especially important during periods of stress in the financial markets, which have been ongoing since the fourth quarter of 2007.
We believe liquidity is of critical importance to the Company and especially important within E*TRADE Bank.
The objective of our policies is to ensure that we can meet our corporate and banking liquidity needs under both normal operating conditions and under periods of stress in the financial markets.
Our corporate liquidity needs are primarily driven by the amount of principal and interest due on our corporate debt as well as any capital needs at E*TRADE Bank.
Our banking liquidity needs are driven primarily by the level and volatility of our customer deposits.
Management maintains an extensive set of liquidity sources and monitors certain business trends and market metrics closely in an effort to ensure we have sufficient liquidity and to avoid dependence on other more expensive sources of funding.
Management believes the following sources of liquidity are of critical importance in maintaining ample funding for liquidity needs: Corporate cash, Bank cash, deposits and unused FHLB borrowing capacity.
Management believes that within deposits, sweep deposits are of particular importance as they are the most stable source of liquidity for E*TRADE Bank when compared to non-sweep deposits.
Overall, management believes that these liquidity sources, which can fluctuate in any given period, are more than sufficient to meet our needs for the foreseeable future.
Capital is generated primarily through the business operations of the trading and investing and balance sheet management segments, which are primarily contained within E*TRADE Bank; therefore, we believe a key indicator of the capital generated or used in our business operations is the level of regulatory capital in E*TRADE Bank.
As of December 31, 2012, E*TRADE Bank’s Tier 1 leverage ratio was 8.7%, an increase from 7.8% at December 31, 2011.
We are focused on improving the Tier 1 leverage ratio at E*TRADE Bank through deleveraging the balance sheet by a reduction in wholesale borrowings, retail deposits and customer payables.
We submitted an initial long-term strategic and capital plan to the OCC and Federal Reserve during the second quarter of 2012.
The plan included: our five-year business strategy; forecasts of our business results and capital ratios; capital distribution plans in current and adverse operating conditions; and internally developed stress tests.
During the third quarter of 2012, we received initial feedback from our regulators on this plan and we believe that key elements of this plan, specifically reducing risk, deleveraging the balance sheet and the development of an enterprise risk management function, are critical.
We submitted an updated long-term strategic and capital plan to the OCC and Federal Reserve in February 2013, which included the key elements outlined in the initial plan as well as the progress made during 2012 on those key elements.
We believe that our targets for capital levels at E*TRADE Bank and corresponding distributions of capital from E*TRADE Bank and its subsidiaries to the parent company will be achievable over time.
We plan to continue an active and ongoing dialogue with our regulators to ensure our execution of the plan is consistent with their expectations.
Consolidated Cash and Equivalents The consolidated cash and equivalents balance increased by $661.7 million to $2.8 billion at December 31, 2012 when compared to 2011.
The majority of this balance is cash held in regulated subsidiaries, primarily the Bank, outlined as follows (dollars in millions):

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31, 2007</td><td colspan="2"> December 31, 2006</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Carrying Value</td><td> Fair Value</td><td> Carrying Value</td><td> Fair Value</td></tr><tr><td>Assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Loans, net</td><td>$30,139,382</td><td>$29,415,679</td><td>$26,656,193</td><td>$26,416,079</td></tr><tr><td>Liabilities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deposits</td><td>$25,884,755</td><td>$25,864,725</td><td>$24,071,012</td><td>$23,320,015</td></tr><tr><td>Securities sold under agreements to repurchase</td><td>$8,932,693</td><td>$8,937,647</td><td>$9,792,422</td><td>$9,809,313</td></tr><tr><td>Other borrowings</td><td>$7,446,504</td><td>$7,495,949</td><td>$5,323,962</td><td>$5,345,326</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate debt</td><td>$3,002,698</td><td>$2,800,758</td><td>$1,842,169</td><td>$1,996,560</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Location</td><td>Approximate Square Footage</td></tr><tr><td>Alpharetta, Georgia</td><td>219,000</td></tr><tr><td>Arlington, Virginia</td><td>196,000</td></tr><tr><td>Jersey City, New Jersey</td><td>107,000</td></tr><tr><td>Charlotte, North Carolina</td><td>83,000</td></tr><tr><td>Menlo Park, California</td><td>79,000</td></tr><tr><td>Sandy, Utah</td><td>77,000</td></tr><tr><td>Toronto, Canada</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><td>New York, New York</td><td>60,000</td></tr><tr><td>Chicago, Illinois</td><td>29,000</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31,</td><td rowspan="2">Variance 2007 vs. 2006</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2007</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$56.8</td><td>$53.7</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Total enterprise interest-earning assets</td><td>$52.3</td><td>$49.5</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Loans, net and margin receivables as a percentage of enterprise interest-earning assets<sup>-1</sup></td><td>71%</td><td>68%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Retail deposits and customer payables as a percentage of enterprise interest-bearing liabilities<sup>-1</sup></td><td>61%</td><td>64%</td><td>-3%</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with largest amount of Other borrowings in terms of Carrying Value, what's the value of Deposits in terms of Carrying Value?
Answer: 25884755