notes to consolidated financial statements jpmorgan chase & co .150 jpmorgan chase & co ./ 2007 annual report expected loss modeling in 2006 , the firm restructured four multi-seller conduits that it administers .the restructurings included enhancing the firm 2019s expected loss model .in determining the primary beneficiary of the conduits it administers , the firm uses a monte carlo 2013based model to estimate the expected losses of each of the conduits and considers the rela- tive rights and obligations of each of the variable interest holders .the variability to be considered in the modeling of expected losses is based on the design of the entity .the firm 2019s traditional multi-seller conduits are designed to pass credit risk , not liquidity risk , to its vari- able interest holders , as the assets are intended to be held in the conduit for the longer term .under fin 46r , the firm is required to run the monte carlo-based expected loss model each time a reconsideration event occurs .in applying this guidance to the conduits , the following events are considered to be reconsideration events as they could affect the determination of the primary beneficiary of the conduits : 2022 new deals , including the issuance of new or additional variable interests ( credit support , liquidity facilities , etc ) ; 2022 changes in usage , including the change in the level of outstand- ing variable interests ( credit support , liquidity facilities , etc ) ; 2022 modifications of asset purchase agreements ; and 2022 sales of interests held by the primary beneficiary .from an operational perspective , the firm does not run its monte carlo-based expected loss model every time there is a reconsidera- tion event due to the frequency of their occurrence .instead , the firm runs its expected loss model each quarter and includes a growth assumption for each conduit to ensure that a sufficient amount of elns exists for each conduit at any point during the quarter .as part of its normal quarterly model review , the firm reassesses the underlying assumptions and inputs of the expected loss model .during the second half of 2007 , certain assumptions used in the model were adjusted to reflect the then current market conditions .specifically , risk ratings and loss given default assumptions relating to residential subprime mortgage exposures were modified .for other nonmortgage-related asset classes , the firm determined that the assumptions in the model required little adjustment .as a result of the updates to the model , during the fourth quarter of 2007 the terms of the elns were renegotiated to increase the level of commit- ment and funded amounts to be provided by the eln holders .the total amount of expected loss notes outstanding at december 31 , 2007 and 2006 , were $ 130 million and $ 54 million , respectively .management concluded that the model assumptions used were reflective of market participant 2019s assumptions and appropriately considered the probability of a recurrence of recent market events .qualitative considerations the multi-seller conduits are primarily designed to provide an efficient means for clients to access the commercial paper market .the firm believes the conduits effectively disperse risk among all parties and that the preponderance of economic risk in the firm 2019s multi-seller conduits is not held by jpmorgan chase .the percentage of assets in the multi-seller conduits that the firm views as client-related represent 99% ( 99 % ) and 98% ( 98 % ) of the total conduits 2019 holdings at december 31 , 2007 and 2006 , respectively .consolidated sensitivity analysis on capital it is possible that the firm could be required to consolidate a vie if it were determined that the firm became the primary beneficiary of the vie under the provisions of fin 46r .the factors involved in making the determination of whether or not a vie should be consolidated are dis- cussed above and in note 1 on page 108 of this annual report .the table below shows the impact on the firm 2019s reported assets , liabilities , net income , tier 1 capital ratio and tier 1 leverage ratio if the firm were required to consolidate all of the multi-seller conduits that it administers .as of or for the year ending december 31 , 2007 .
[['( in billions except ratios )', 'reported', 'pro forma'], ['assets', '$ 1562.1', '$ 1623.9'], ['liabilities', '1438.9', '1500.9'], ['net income', '15.4', '15.2'], ['tier 1 capital ratio', '8.4% ( 8.4 % )', '8.4% ( 8.4 % )'], ['tier 1 leverage ratio', '6.0', '5.8']]
the firm could fund purchases of assets from vies should it become necessary .investor intermediation as a financial intermediary , the firm creates certain types of vies and also structures transactions , typically derivative structures , with these vies to meet investor needs .the firm may also provide liquidity and other support .the risks inherent in the derivative instruments or liq- uidity commitments are managed similarly to other credit , market or liquidity risks to which the firm is exposed .the principal types of vies for which the firm is engaged in these structuring activities are municipal bond vehicles , credit-linked note vehicles and collateralized debt obligation vehicles .municipal bond vehicles the firm has created a series of secondary market trusts that provide short-term investors with qualifying tax-exempt investments , and that allow investors in tax-exempt securities to finance their investments at short-term tax-exempt rates .in a typical transaction , the vehicle pur- chases fixed-rate longer-term highly rated municipal bonds and funds the purchase by issuing two types of securities : ( 1 ) putable floating- rate certificates and ( 2 ) inverse floating-rate residual interests ( 201cresid- ual interests 201d ) .the maturity of each of the putable floating-rate certifi- cates and the residual interests is equal to the life of the vehicle , while the maturity of the underlying municipal bonds is longer .holders of the putable floating-rate certificates may 201cput 201d , or tender , the certifi- cates if the remarketing agent cannot successfully remarket the float- ing-rate certificates to another investor .a liquidity facility conditionally obligates the liquidity provider to fund the purchase of the tendered floating-rate certificates .upon termination of the vehicle , if the pro- ceeds from the sale of the underlying municipal bonds are not suffi- cient to repay the liquidity facility , the liquidity provider has recourse either to excess collateralization in the vehicle or the residual interest holders for reimbursement .the third-party holders of the residual interests in these vehicles could experience losses if the face amount of the putable floating-rate cer- tificates exceeds the market value of the municipal bonds upon termi- nation of the vehicle .certain vehicles require a smaller initial invest- ment by the residual interest holders and thus do not result in excess collateralization .for these vehicles there exists a reimbursement obli- .

Question: what is the average assets ( in billions ) for each of the firm's self sponsored conduits?
Answer: 390.5