management 2019s discussion and analysis 126 jpmorgan chase & co./2014 annual report while useful as a current view of credit exposure , the net fair value of the derivative receivables does not capture the potential future variability of that credit exposure .to capture the potential future variability of credit exposure , the firm calculates , on a client-by-client basis , three measures of potential derivatives-related credit loss : peak , derivative risk equivalent ( 201cdre 201d ) , and average exposure ( 201cavg 201d ) .these measures all incorporate netting and collateral benefits , where applicable .peak exposure to a counterparty is an extreme measure of exposure calculated at a 97.5% ( 97.5 % ) confidence level .dre exposure is a measure that expresses the risk of derivative exposure on a basis intended to be equivalent to the risk of loan exposures .the measurement is done by equating the unexpected loss in a derivative counterparty exposure ( which takes into consideration both the loss volatility and the credit rating of the counterparty ) with the unexpected loss in a loan exposure ( which takes into consideration only the credit rating of the counterparty ) .dre is a less extreme measure of potential credit loss than peak and is the primary measure used by the firm for credit approval of derivative transactions .finally , avg is a measure of the expected fair value of the firm 2019s derivative receivables at future time periods , including the benefit of collateral .avg exposure over the total life of the derivative contract is used as the primary metric for pricing purposes and is used to calculate credit capital and the cva , as further described below .the three year avg exposure was $ 37.5 billion and $ 35.4 billion at december 31 , 2014 and 2013 , respectively , compared with derivative receivables , net of all collateral , of $ 59.4 billion and $ 51.3 billion at december 31 , 2014 and 2013 , respectively .the fair value of the firm 2019s derivative receivables incorporates an adjustment , the cva , to reflect the credit quality of counterparties .the cva is based on the firm 2019s avg to a counterparty and the counterparty 2019s credit spread in the credit derivatives market .the primary components of changes in cva are credit spreads , new deal activity or unwinds , and changes in the underlying market environment .the firm believes that active risk management is essential to controlling the dynamic credit risk in the derivatives portfolio .in addition , the firm 2019s risk management process takes into consideration the potential impact of wrong-way risk , which is broadly defined as the potential for increased correlation between the firm 2019s exposure to a counterparty ( avg ) and the counterparty 2019s credit quality .many factors may influence the nature and magnitude of these correlations over time .to the extent that these correlations are identified , the firm may adjust the cva associated with that counterparty 2019s avg .the firm risk manages exposure to changes in cva by entering into credit derivative transactions , as well as interest rate , foreign exchange , equity and commodity derivative transactions .the accompanying graph shows exposure profiles to the firm 2019s current derivatives portfolio over the next 10 years as calculated by the dre and avg metrics .the two measures generally show that exposure will decline after the first year , if no new trades are added to the portfolio .the following table summarizes the ratings profile by derivative counterparty of the firm 2019s derivative receivables , including credit derivatives , net of other liquid securities collateral , for the dates indicated .the ratings scale is based on the firm 2019s internal ratings , which generally correspond to the ratings as defined by s&p and moody 2019s .ratings profile of derivative receivables rating equivalent 2014 2013 ( a ) december 31 , ( in millions , except ratios ) exposure net of all collateral % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral exposure net of all collateral % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral .
[['rating equivalent december 31 ( in millions except ratios )', 'rating equivalent exposure net of all collateral', 'rating equivalent % (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral', 'exposure net of all collateral', '% (  % ) of exposure net of all collateral'], ['aaa/aaa to aa-/aa3', '$ 19202', '32% ( 32 % )', '$ 12953', '25% ( 25 % )'], ['a+/a1 to a-/a3', '13940', '24', '12930', '25'], ['bbb+/baa1 to bbb-/baa3', '19008', '32', '15220', '30'], ['bb+/ba1 to b-/b3', '6384', '11', '6806', '13'], ['ccc+/caa1 and below', '837', '1', '3415', '7'], ['total', '$ 59371', '100% ( 100 % )', '$ 51324', '100% ( 100 % )']]
( a ) the prior period amounts have been revised to conform with the current period presentation. .

Question: what percent of the ratings profile of derivative receivables were junk rated in 2013?
Answer: 20