Please answer the given financial question based on the context.
Context: 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: The answer is:20.0