the following table shows reporting units with goodwill balances as of december 31 , 2010 , and the excess of fair value as a percentage over allocated book value as of the annual impairment test .in millions of dollars reporting unit ( 1 ) fair value as a % (  % ) of allocated book value goodwill .
[['reporting unit ( 1 )', 'fair value as a % (  % ) of allocated book value', 'goodwill'], ['north america regional consumer banking', '170% ( 170 % )', '$ 2518'], ['emea regional consumer banking', '168', '338'], ['asia regional consumer banking', '344', '6045'], ['latin america regional consumer banking', '230', '1800'], ['securities and banking', '223', '9259'], ['transaction services', '1716', '1567'], ['brokerage and asset management', '151', '65'], ['local consumer lending 2014cards', '121', '4560']]
( 1 ) local consumer lending 2014other is excluded from the table as there is no goodwill allocated to it .while no impairment was noted in step one of citigroup 2019s local consumer lending 2014cards reporting unit impairment test at july 1 , 2010 , goodwill present in the reporting unit may be sensitive to further deterioration as the valuation of the reporting unit is particularly dependent upon economic conditions that affect consumer credit risk and behavior .citigroup engaged the services of an independent valuation specialist to assist in the valuation of the reporting unit at july 1 , 2010 , using a combination of the market approach and income approach consistent with the valuation model used in past practice , which considered the impact of the penalty fee provisions associated with the credit card accountability responsibility and disclosure act of 2009 ( card act ) that were implemented during 2010 .under the market approach for valuing this reporting unit , the key assumption is the selected price multiple .the selection of the multiple considers the operating performance and financial condition of the local consumer lending 2014cards operations as compared with those of a group of selected publicly traded guideline companies and a group of selected acquired companies .among other factors , the level and expected growth in return on tangible equity relative to those of the guideline companies and guideline transactions is considered .since the guideline company prices used are on a minority interest basis , the selection of the multiple considers the guideline acquisition prices , which reflect control rights and privileges , in arriving at a multiple that reflects an appropriate control premium .for the local consumer lending 2014cards valuation under the income approach , the assumptions used as the basis for the model include cash flows for the forecasted period , the assumptions embedded in arriving at an estimation of the terminal value and the discount rate .the cash flows for the forecasted period are estimated based on management 2019s most recent projections available as of the testing date , giving consideration to targeted equity capital requirements based on selected public guideline companies for the reporting unit .in arriving at the terminal value for local consumer lending 2014cards , using 2013 as the terminal year , the assumptions used include a long-term growth rate and a price-to-tangible book multiple based on selected public guideline companies for the reporting unit .the discount rate is based on the reporting unit 2019s estimated cost of equity capital computed under the capital asset pricing model .embedded in the key assumptions underlying the valuation model , described above , is the inherent uncertainty regarding the possibility that economic conditions may deteriorate or other events will occur that will impact the business model for local consumer lending 2014cards .while there is inherent uncertainty embedded in the assumptions used in developing management 2019s forecasts , the company utilized a discount rate at july 1 , 2010 that it believes reflects the risk characteristics and uncertainty specific to management 2019s forecasts and assumptions for the local consumer lending 2014cards reporting unit .two primary categories of events exist 2014economic conditions in the u.s .and regulatory actions 2014which , if they were to occur , could negatively affect key assumptions used in the valuation of local consumer lending 2014cards .small deterioration in the assumptions used in the valuations , in particular the discount-rate and growth-rate assumptions used in the net income projections , could significantly affect citigroup 2019s impairment evaluation and , hence , results .if the future were to differ adversely from management 2019s best estimate of key economic assumptions , and associated cash flows were to decrease by a small margin , citi could potentially experience future material impairment charges with respect to $ 4560 million of goodwill remaining in the local consumer lending 2014 cards reporting unit .any such charges , by themselves , would not negatively affect citi 2019s tier 1 and total capital regulatory ratios , tier 1 common ratio , its tangible common equity or citi 2019s liquidity position. .

Question: what is the ratio of the goodwill for north america regional consumer banking to emea regional consumer banking
Answer: 7.5
Explanation: the goodwill for north america regional consumer banking was 7.5 times that of emea regional consumer banking