Credit Portfolio Management activities Credit Portfolio Management derivatives
## Table 0 ##
(a) Amounts are presented net, considering the Firm’s net protection purchased or sold with respect to each underlying reference entity or index.
The credit derivatives used in Credit Portfolio Management activities do not qualify for hedge accounting under U. S.  GAAP; these derivatives are reported at fair value, with gains and losses recognized in principal transactions revenue.
In contrast, the loans and lending-related commitments being risk-managed are accounted for on an accrual basis.
This asymmetry in accounting treatment, between loans and lending-related commitments and the credit derivatives used in credit portfolio management activities, causes earnings volatility that is not representative, in the Firm’s view, of the true changes in value of the Firm’s overall credit exposure.
In addition, the effectiveness of the Firm’s credit default swap (“CDS”) protection as a hedge of the Firm’s exposures may vary depending on a number of factors, including the maturity of the Firm’s CDS protection (which in some cases may be shorter than the Firm’s exposures), the named reference entity (i. e. , the Firm may experience losses on specific exposures that are different than the named reference entities in the purchased CDS), and the contractual terms of the CDS (which may have a defined credit event that does not align with an actual loss realized by the Firm).
The fair value related to the Firm’s credit derivatives used for managing credit exposure, as well as the fair value related to the CVA (which reflects the credit quality of derivatives counterparty exposure), are included in the gains and losses realized on credit derivatives disclosed in the table below.
These results can vary from period to period due to market conditions that affect specific positions in the portfolio.
Net gains and losses on credit portfolio hedges
## Table 1 ##
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT EXPOSURE The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes.
The Firm is a national leader in community development by providing loans, investments and community development services in communities across the United States.
At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Firm’s CRA loan portfolio was approximately $16 billion and $15 billion, respectively.
At December 31, 2012 and 2011, 62% and 63%, respectively, of the CRA portfolio were residential mortgage loans; 18% and 17%, respectively, were business banking loans; 13% and 14%, respectively, were commercial real estate loans; and 7% and 6%, respectively, were other loans.
CRA nonaccrual loans were 4% and 6%, respectively, of the Firm’s total nonaccrual loans.
For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, net charge-offs in the CRA portfolio were 3% of the Firm’s net charge-offs in both years.
ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES JPMorgan Chase’s allowance for loan losses covers the consumer, including credit card, portfolio segments (primarily scored); and wholesale (risk-rated) portfolio.
The allowance represents management’s estimate of probable credit losses inherent in the Firm’s loan portfolio.
Management also determines an allowance for wholesale and certain consumer, excluding credit card, lending-related commitments.
The allowance for loan losses includes an asset-specific component, a formula-based component, and a component related to PCI loans.
The asset-specific component and the PCI loan component are generally based on an estimate of cash flows expected to be collected from specifically identified impaired or PCI loans.
The formula-based component is based on a statistical calculation to provide for probable principal losses inherent in the remaining loan portfolios.
Within the formula-based component, management applies judgment within an established framework to adjust the results of applying its statistical loss calculation.
The determination of the appropriate adjustment is based on management’s view of uncertainties that have occurred but are not yet reflected in the statistical calculation and that relate to current macroeconomic and political conditions, the quality of underwriting standards, and other relevant internal and external factors affecting
Notes to consolidated financial statements
## Table 2 ##
(a) At December 31, 2012 and 2011, common/collective trust funds primarily included a mix of short-term investment funds, domestic and international equity investments (including index) and real estate funds.
(b) Unfunded commitments to purchase limited partnership investments for the plans were $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion for 2012 and 2011, respectively.
(c) Real assets include investments in productive assets such as agriculture, energy rights, mining and timber properties and exclude raw land to be developed for real estate purposes.
(d) Corporate debt securities include debt securities of U. S.  and non-U.
S.  corporations.
(e) Other consists of exchange-traded funds and participating and non-participating annuity contracts.
Exchange-traded funds are primarily classified within level 1 of the fair value hierarchy given they are valued using market observable prices.
Participating and non-participating annuity contracts are classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy due to lack of market mechanisms for transferring each policy and surrender restrictions.
(f) At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the fair value of investments valued at NAV were $4.4 billion and $3.9 billion, respectively, which were classified within the valuation hierarchy as follows: $0.4 billion and $0.4 billion in level 1, $2.5 billion and $2.1 billion in level 2 and $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion in level 3.
(g) At December 31, 2012 and 2011, excluded U. S.  defined benefit pension plan receivables for investments sold and dividends and interest receivables of $137 million and $50 million, respectively; and excluded non-U.
S.  defined benefit pension plan receivables for investments sold and dividends and interest receivables of $47 million and $56 million, respectively.
(h) At December 31, 2012 and 2011, excluded $306 million and $241 million, respectively, of U. S.  defined benefit pension plan payables for investments purchased; and $4 million and $4 million, respectively, of other liabilities; and excluded non-U.
S.  defined benefit pension plan payables for investments purchased of $46 million and $69 million, respectively.
The Firm’s OPEB plan was partially funded with COLI policies of $1.6 billion and $1.4 billion, at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which were classified in level 3 of the valuation hierarchy
Lending-related commitments The Firm uses lending-related financial instruments, such as commitments (including revolving credit facilities) and guarantees, to meet the financing needs of its customers.
The contractual amounts of these financial instruments represent the maximum possible credit risk should the counterparties draw down on these commitments or the Firm fulfills its obligations under these guarantees, and the counterparties subsequently fail to perform according to the terms of these contracts.
In the Firm’s view, the total contractual amount of these wholesale lending-related commitments is not representative of the Firm’s actual future credit exposure or funding requirements.
In determining the amount of credit risk exposure the Firm has to wholesale lending-related commitments, which is used as the basis for allocating credit risk capital to these commitments, the Firm has established a “loan-equivalent” amount for each commitment; this amount represents the portion of the unused commitment or other contingent exposure that is expected, based on average portfolio historical experience, to become drawn upon in an event of a default by an obligor.
The loan-equivalent amount of the Firm’s lending- related commitments was $229.6 billion and $218.9 billion as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Clearing services The Firm provides clearing services for clients entering into securities and derivative transactions.
Through the provision of these services the Firm is exposed to the risk of non-performance by its clients and may be required to share in losses incurred by central counterparties (“CCPs”).
Where possible, the Firm seeks to mitigate its credit risk to its clients through the collection of adequate margin at inception and throughout the life of the transactions and can also cease provision of clearing services if clients do not adhere to their obligations under the clearing agreement.
For further discussion of Clearing services, see Note 29.
Derivative contracts In the normal course of business, the Firm uses derivative instruments predominantly for market-making activities.
Derivatives enable customers to manage exposures to fluctuations in interest rates, currencies and other markets.
The Firm also uses derivative instruments to manage its own credit exposure.
The nature of the counterparty and the settlement mechanism of the derivative affect the credit risk to which the Firm is exposed.
For OTC derivatives the Firm is exposed to the credit risk of the derivative counterparty.
For exchange-traded derivatives (“ETD”) such as futures and options, and “cleared” over-the-counter (“OTC-cleared”) derivatives, the Firm is generally exposed to the credit risk of the relevant CCP.
Where possible, the Firm seeks to mitigate its credit risk exposures arising from derivative transactions through the use of legally enforceable master netting arrangements and collateral agreements.
For further discussion of derivative contracts, counterparties and settlement types, see Note 6.
The following table summarizes the net derivative receivables for the periods presented.

['

Notional amount of protectionpurchased and sold(a)
December 31, (in millions)	2012	2011
Credit derivatives used to manage:
Loans and lending-related commitments	$2,166	$3,488
Derivative receivables	25,347	22,883
Total net protection purchased	27,513	26,371
Total net protection sold	66	131
Credit Portfolio Management derivatives net notional	$27,447	$26,240

', '

Year ended December 31,(in millions)	2012	2011	2010
Hedges of loans and lending-related commitments	$-163	$-32	$-279
CVA and hedges of CVA	127	-769	-403
Net gains/(losses)	$-36	$-801	$-682

', '

U.S. defined benefit pension plans	Non-U.S. defined benefit pension plans
December 31, 2011(in millions)	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total fair value	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Total fair value
Cash and cash equivalents	$117	$—	$—	$117	$72	$—	$—	$72
Equity securities:
Capital equipment	607	7	—	614	69	12	—	81
Consumer goods	657	—	—	657	64	30	—	94
Banks and finance companies	301	2	—	303	83	13	—	96
Business services	332	—	—	332	48	10	—	58
Energy	173	—	—	173	52	10	—	62
Materials	161	—	1	162	35	6	—	41
Real estate	11	—	—	11	1	—	—	1
Other	766	274	—	1,040	160	5	—	165
Total equity securities	3,008	283	1	3,292	512	86	—	598
Common/collective trust funds(a)	401	1,125	202	1,728	138	170	—	308
Limited partnerships:(b)
Hedge funds	—	933	1,039	1,972	—	—	—	—
Private equity	—	—	1,367	1,367	—	—	—	—
Real estate	—	—	306	306	—	—	—	—
Real assets(c)	—	—	264	264	—	—	—	—
Total limited partnerships	—	933	2,976	3,909	—	—	—	—
Corporate debt securities(d)	—	544	2	546	—	958	—	958
U.S. federal, state, local and non-U.S. government debt securities	—	328	—	328	—	904	—	904
Mortgage-backed securities	122	36	—	158	17	—	—	17
Derivative receivables	1	2	—	3	—	7	—	7
Other(e)	102	60	427	589	74	65	—	139
Total assets measured at fair value(f)(g)	$3,751	$3,311	$3,608	$10,670	$813	$2,190	$—	$3,003
Derivative payables	$—	$-3	$—	$-3	$—	$-1	$—	$-1
Total liabilities measured at fair value(h)	$—	$-3	$—	$-3	$—	$-1	$—	$-1

']

Question: Which element makes up more than 20% of the total equity securities for Level 1 of U.S. defined benefit pension plans in 2011?
Answer: Capital equipment, Consumer goods, Other